Definition of racism sf. gun control

[Rincewind]

Originally Posted by Ian Murray

Or perhaps the exception encompasses only those academics /intellectuals who are themselves black (or of colour/mulatto) who are thus solely qualified to comment on racial issues

Well in that case, I can see how the existence of Sowell and Williams can erode one's respect for the reasoning powers of intellectuals, particularly academics, on matters of race.

[Jono]

Originally Posted by Rincewind

Given that Sowell is the Rose and Milton Friedman Senior Fellow on Public Policy at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, I would have to agree.

Indeed, being a student then a colleague of the late Nobel laureate in economics, Dr Sowell is well placed to identify the absurd logical flaws in much leftist economic and racial policy.

[Jono]

Originally Posted by Ian Murray

Of course Williams (himself black) is is the John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics at George Mason University, Virginia - another academic of dubious reasoning power.

That means that Dr Williams is highly qualified in economics, unlike leftard politicians and their hero-worshippers like RW and IM. He is also a black man born in the 1930s who has seen first-hand how leftism has wrecked the black family and lowered standards that he and his generation grew up with. He often says that he is fortunate to have been educated before it was fashionable to patronize blacks, because his qualifications are real. He also says that slavery is utterly reprehensible, but thanks to the slavery of his ancestors, he is far better off because he was born in America not Africa.

[Lonesome Earl]

Originally Posted by Jono

That means that Dr Williams is ...

...an academic, and as Williams (himself black) himself says: "one cannot emerge with much respect for the reasoning powers of intellectuals, particularly academics, on matters of race. There's so much faulty logic and downright dishonesty."

[Rincewind]

Originally Posted by Jono

Indeed, being a student then a colleague of the late Nobel laureate in economics, Dr Sowell is well placed to identify the absurd logical flaws in much leftist economic and racial policy.

That isn't want Walter Williams said. He said after reading the book Intellectuals and Race, which by the title is on the the topic of race and is written by an academic (Sowell), that one could not "emerge with much respect for the reasoning powers of intellectuals, particularly academics, on matters of race."

The implication is perfectly clear.

[Rincewind]

Originally Posted by Ian Murray

Or perhaps the exception encompasses only those academics /intellectuals who are themselves black (or of colour/mulatto) who are thus solely qualified to comment on racial issues

I have Williams logic worked out. Since both Williams and Sowell gave up any pretence of serious scholarship decades ago and are now just churning out batshit crazy conservative diatribes that preach to the choir, the comments regarding intellectual dishonesty don't apply to them. It's not that they aren't being dishonest. They are. It's just that there is no presumption of intellect.

[Jono]

Originally Posted by Rincewind

I have Williams logic worked out. Since both Williams and Sowell gave up any pretence of serious scholarship decades ago and are now just churning out batshit crazy conservative diatribes that preach to the choir, the comments regarding intellectual dishonesty don't apply to them. It's not that they aren't being dishonest. They are. It's just that there is no presumption of intellect.

Like most leftards, RW is a racist who resents black people who have left the leftist plantation. But Williams is currently the John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va. He has published a number of books as well as columns in popular papers, but also papers in scholarly journals like Economic Inquiry, American Economic Review and Social Science Quarterly.

Sowell has taught in major American unis like Cornell, Rutgers, Amherst College, Brandeis, and the University of California at Los Angeles. He has written many popular and scholarly books. His Knowledge and Decisions was highly praised by three Nobel laureates in economics: James Buchanan, Milton Friedman, and Friedrich Hayek.

IM and RW prefer a Narcissistic Marxist antisemitic community organizer who has published no papers and just two books, both on his favourite subject: himself.

[antichrist]

I would declare that Zionism is a definition of racism - any argument?

[Rincewind]

Originally Posted by Jono

Williams is currently the John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va. He has published a number of books as well as columns in popular papers, but also papers in scholarly journals like Economic Inquiry, American Economic Review and Social Science Quarterly.

Someone as well qualified as that should not write book reviews which have such an obvious ambiguity in the opening paragraph. Perhaps he is just so used to special pleading that he doesn't even consider the alternative interpretation.

[Jono]

Originally Posted by antichrist

I would declare that Zionism is a definition of racism - any argument?

Even under your antisemitic perspective, this is not correct. You should say, “Zionism is an example of racism”; it is hardly a “definition” since Jim Crow laws, Hitler's Judenrein policies (followed by your heroes in Hamas), South African Apartheid (and the current anti-white ANC government) are examples of racism with nothing to do with Zionism.

The UN kakistocracy has no credibility, since many of its representatives are mass murderers and repressers of their own people.

[antichrist]

Originally Posted by Jono

Even under your antisemitic perspective, this is not correct. You should say, “Zionism is an example of racism”; it is hardly a “definition” since Jim Crow laws, Hitler's Judenrein policies (followed by your heroes in Hamas), South African Apartheid (and the current anti-white ANC government) are examples of racism with nothing to do with Zionism.

The UN kakistocracy has no credibility, since many of its representatives are mass murderers and repressers of their own people.

Concerning the UN, it's reps are not murderers etc but some delegates represent some such countries. But I have noticed that some such countries will often send their best as they want to present a good image and maybe realise the need for a good UN. Therefore their reps can be very good people, as their ambassadors to other countries can also be. And they can vote according to their good conscious. We have seen many cases of ambassadors of brutal regimes claiming refugee status in Australia when they see the extremity of their countries recent actions.

I will get back to first part of your post bit later as have visitors.

[Jono]

Dr. Ben Carson: White liberals are the most racist people out there

[Jono]

Rand Paul goes where few Republicans have gone: Howard University
In a gutsy move, Rand Paul challenged young blacks to give the conservative party, once a civil rights leader, another chance

Guardian, UK, 10 April 2013

...
Paul tackled some 30 minutes of tough questioning ranging from Malcolm X to the Environmental Protection Agency. When asked by a former Obama intern how he felt about voter ID laws, Paul said he didn't think it was a burden for people to show a driver's license to maintain the integrity of the polls, but didn't approve of 100-page literacy tests Democrats forced blacks to take during reconstruction to suppress their vote.

To put this in context: many white Republicans would have given their speech, refused questions and run for the hills. George W Bush famously rejected an invite to speak at Howard in 2000. But Paul faced this tough crowd. A student told asked him to clarify his comments about the 1964 Civil Rights Act during his 2010 campaign in which he seemed to imply he wasn't supportive of the act. "I have never questioned the Civil Rights Act," he said, but he questioned if the law's application now requiring restaurants to ban smoking and provide standardized menus with food calorie counts.

Most striking was Paul's response to a question from a young man who said he "wanted a government that helps him and pays for his school". Paul used this opportunity to emphasize his belief of the hazard of government over-reach. Paul warned the student that when government spends money it doesn't have and sells our debt to China, this limits school loans and creates an economy
Going backwards in time, Paul reminded the crowd the GOP has always been the party of civil rights and voting rights, but also the party of limited government. "When some people hear that, they tune us out and say: he's just using code words for the state's right to discriminate, for the state's right to segregate and abuse. But that's simply not true." Paul used the 14th amendment guaranteeing all Americans citizenship and equal rights regardless of race as an example of such egregious injustice that requires federal involvement.

Paul asked a hushed audience:

"How did the party that elected the first black US Senator, the party that elected the first 20 African-American congressmen become a party that now loses 95% of the black vote?"

He said after the Great Depression and Civil Rights Act, blacks wanted "economic emancipation" and began voting Democrat because Democrats promised "unlimited federal assistance". He added: Republicans offered something that seemed less tangible-the promise of equalizing opportunity through free markets. After nearly 50 years of Democrat policies, Paul argued the evidence shows that big government is not a friend to African Americans. He pointed to persistent high unemployment among blacks, presently 13.3%, nearly twice the national average, blacks trapped in failing schools and their declining wealth.

Before the speech, I asked a young man, who was a sophomore, why he was there. He said to listen but he didn't feel Paul "was in his best interests". He never articulated what those interests were, but when I asked him when was the last time President Obama had spoken on campus since he became a student, he replied: never. Obama hasn't spoken to Howard students since 2007, when he was campaigning for the Democrat nomination and Hillary was leading in the polls among black Americans. Howard students should ask themselves who's showing up and asking for their vote, and who's assuming they have it.

"Maybe it's about time we all reassess blind allegiance to ideas that are failing our children," said Paul. While the senator was referencing America's education system and the benefits of school choice, I think that was the theme of his speech. "As Toni Morrison said, 'write your own story. Challenge mainstream thought,'" concluded Paul.
...