[an error occurred while processing this directive]
About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Sanction: 2, No Sanction: 0
Post 0

Saturday, October 24 - 4:28pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

If you recall, that question was asked of the Democratic candidates during their debate.  Every one answered it by saying that black lives matter, except for Jim Webb, who replied, "As a president of the United States, every life in this country matters," an answer for which he was roundly criticized by other Democrats.

 

To make the logic of the question clear, suppose it were asked: "Do some people's lives matter or do all people's lives matter?" If the response were, "Some people's lives matter," the implication would be obvious -- that some people's lives matter, but not all.

 

So the implication in saying that "black lives matters" rather than that "all lives matter" is that blacks are to be considered separate from the rest of humanity -- that they are a special class of people to be treated preferentially. The racist implications of that are stunning, but apparently not to Democrats, who have long endorsed preferential treatment for African Americans.

 

A century from now, historians will look back at the political dialogue of 21st Century America and wonder how a people so obsessed with egalitarianism could become so racially polarized.



Post 1

Saturday, October 24 - 4:30pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

An economist in my Ayn Rand Meetup said he actually respects Jim Webb as "rational" compared to most other candidates.

 

Would you agree?



Post 2

Saturday, October 24 - 5:29pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

I don't know much about Jim Webb, but his comments at that debate were certainly more rational than those of the other candidates.



Post 3

Saturday, October 24 - 6:30pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

There is something peculiar about many of the Progressives. 

 

A very radical group comes onto the scene, like the BlackLivesMatter - a group which has on more than one occassion chanted as they marched, that they want cops to be killed. 

 

A Progressive is questioned about this, asked why they would support a group that calls for cops to be killed, and the progressive will say something like, "Only a few were doing that and it isn't representative of what the group really stands for."   When the reporter points out that none of the leaders have ever denounced those chants, the progressive usually doesn't make a direct reply.  Instead they say something about the problems in the black community that need to be addressed.  Or provide some statistic about the number of black men killed by cops (and almost always an invalid or misrepresentative statistic).

 

They never seem to condemn the bad acts or vile statements of far left groups that call for violence but instead always find a way to give the group a pass, and at most make a statement about there just being a few bad apples in every group.

 

It is kind of like the way some Progressives seem to believe that if it weren't for poverty and a lack of jobs, we wouldn't see any radical Islamic terrorists.



Post to this thread
[an error occurred while processing this directive]


User ID Password or create a free account.