Meh. Biggest criticism is where he frames blacks as a hate group. That's inappropriate, but I think he knows that as a "what would the ADL classify as a hate group", and then applying it. And yeah, they would absolutely say that about whites, and certainly plenty of Academicians have specified that whites are an explicitly morally inferior race, and that whites in general are guilty of the crimes of their race, which involve being the inventors of violence, theft, genocide, racism, and colonialism.
Arch and I have had many long winded arguments about White Flight, and I've never seen anything wrong with it. If you don't want to live with people, then you are more than welcome to leave those communities. White Flight scares the living shit out of a lot of Democratically controlled cities, because it means that their party-boss system for their cities is failing, and one of the groups with the largest income earners, is leaving.
The Democrats Party Boss System for cities revolves around balkanizing the cities into ethnic enclaves that can't integrate with each-other, can't communicate with each other, and are utterly dependent upon an ethnic party boss to represent them to the larger government. This means that entire swathes of people are giant political blocs that can be manipulated by working with only one person: the party boss. No on can challenge the party boss, no one can compete against the party boss, and no one go around them because he personally brings in the votes, and the political bloc votes for him religiously. Demographic Replacement is useful to Democrats when different groups start to lose their loyalty to their party boss, or lose their loyalty to the party boss's master, or if there is a pre-existing ethnic group that is hostile to the larger party. It's actually important not to let any one ethnic group dominate the system, because internal dissent will be inevitable, and the party boss system breaks down. So demographic control needs to be strictly managed.
But White Flight is a huge problem of uncontrolled population movement. White tax payers are typically income earners for Democratic governments in the US, and also use the least services. If whites start to leave in an uncontrolled manner, you'll see income sources dry up. That also means that the government's welfare system, that exists only to ensure political loyalty, will become totally unaffordable, which will cause an economic (and likely demographic) collapse for the entire city. As a result, they need to stigmatize white flight, and promote white paternalist/savior attitudes among the remaining whites; and they need to combat and prevent the development of more Republican leaning suburbs. Especially if those suburbs aren't paying into the city's tax revenues.
I see no problem with this. Democratic cities don't deserve to be funded or supported anyway. Just like I suggest pulling your money out of the banks and into assets, I say you should feel free to leave shithole communities in these hive cities.
Scott has a knack for deadpan delivery, but unfortunately literal-minded normies and autists are reinforced when they take effective sarcasm at face value. The world would be a much better place if karma was persistent.
On a second listening, what Scott said has a very different context when quote-mined down to "get the hell away from black people". The full clip is Sowell type 1B discrimination while the legacy media headlines look like the racist racist uncle spouting type 2 discrimination. If I listened to The Lotus Eaters correctly, Scott was saying get the hell away from black people because affirmative action gives PoC an unfair advantage in the workplace, not to have a clinical phobia of them.
Looking past normies; leftists and other aggressively conventional-minded types do not care for statements-of-fact or even how statements will be interpreted, but how statements should be interpreted. The literal minded, outside that detestable quadrant, lap up their bullshit and society conflates their naivety with innocence. Hence the 'sarcasm', which is Scott twisting establishment rhetoric against itself, isn't having the corrective effect on society it should.
I listened to the same lotus eaters segment, and I think Carl sums it up accurately as: "He's in favor of white flight" and "You shouldn't have to live near racists".
I don't disagree with either statement, and frankly, neither did Malcolm X. I'll add his quote in a separate reply later.
Meh. Biggest criticism is where he frames blacks as a hate group. That's inappropriate, but I think he knows that as a "what would the ADL classify as a hate group", and then applying it. And yeah, they would absolutely say that about whites, and certainly plenty of Academicians have specified that whites are an explicitly morally inferior race, and that whites in general are guilty of the crimes of their race, which involve being the inventors of violence, theft, genocide, racism, and colonialism.
Fundamentally, what he's saying is that he doesn't want to be around racists. I don't blame him for that. I think that at a base point, he's espousing White Flight, which scares the shit out of the Left.
Arch and I have had many long winded arguments about White Flight, and I've never seen anything wrong with it. If you don't want to live with people, then you are more than welcome to leave those communities. White Flight scares the living shit out of a lot of Democratically controlled cities, because it means that their party-boss system for their cities is failing, and one of the groups with the largest income earners, is leaving.
The Democrats Party Boss System for cities revolves around balkanizing the cities into ethnic enclaves that can't integrate with each-other, can't communicate with each other, and are utterly dependent upon an ethnic party boss to represent them to the larger government. This means that entire swathes of people are giant political blocs that can be manipulated by working with only one person: the party boss. No on can challenge the party boss, no one can compete against the party boss, and no one go around them because he personally brings in the votes, and the political bloc votes for him religiously. Demographic Replacement is useful to Democrats when different groups start to lose their loyalty to their party boss, or lose their loyalty to the party boss's master, or if there is a pre-existing ethnic group that is hostile to the larger party. It's actually important not to let any one ethnic group dominate the system, because internal dissent will be inevitable, and the party boss system breaks down. So demographic control needs to be strictly managed.
But White Flight is a huge problem of uncontrolled population movement. White tax payers are typically income earners for Democratic governments in the US, and also use the least services. If whites start to leave in an uncontrolled manner, you'll see income sources dry up. That also means that the government's welfare system, that exists only to ensure political loyalty, will become totally unaffordable, which will cause an economic (and likely demographic) collapse for the entire city. As a result, they need to stigmatize white flight, and promote white paternalist/savior attitudes among the remaining whites; and they need to combat and prevent the development of more Republican leaning suburbs. Especially if those suburbs aren't paying into the city's tax revenues.
I see no problem with this. Democratic cities don't deserve to be funded or supported anyway. Just like I suggest pulling your money out of the banks and into assets, I say you should feel free to leave shithole communities in these hive cities.
Scott has a knack for deadpan delivery, but unfortunately literal-minded normies and autists are reinforced when they take effective sarcasm at face value. The world would be a much better place if karma was persistent.
What's the "joke" here?
Saying, something like, "well, if 25% of a group were racists, you'd call them a hate group" isn't exactly satirical, it's simply a statement of fact.
On a second listening, what Scott said has a very different context when quote-mined down to "get the hell away from black people". The full clip is Sowell type 1B discrimination while the legacy media headlines look like the racist racist uncle spouting type 2 discrimination. If I listened to The Lotus Eaters correctly, Scott was saying get the hell away from black people because affirmative action gives PoC an unfair advantage in the workplace, not to have a clinical phobia of them.
Looking past normies; leftists and other aggressively conventional-minded types do not care for statements-of-fact or even how statements will be interpreted, but how statements should be interpreted. The literal minded, outside that detestable quadrant, lap up their bullshit and society conflates their naivety with innocence. Hence the 'sarcasm', which is Scott twisting establishment rhetoric against itself, isn't having the corrective effect on society it should.
I listened to the same lotus eaters segment, and I think Carl sums it up accurately as: "He's in favor of white flight" and "You shouldn't have to live near racists".
I don't disagree with either statement, and frankly, neither did Malcolm X. I'll add his quote in a separate reply later.