Seems your other disagreements are based on your difference over #3. It’s well established that: a) IQ, whatever its merits as a proxy for general intelligence, correlates with success in a modern economy, b) IQ ranges are largely hereditary, c) the median IQ of some ethnic/racial groups is significantly lower than the average. Those three points, taken together, would mean that certain groups are, in the aggregate, more likely to fail and will, all else equal, stratify at a lower level than other groups. Since no underperforming group is ever going to admit that their inequality is due to their comparatively limited natural ability, and since, in a democracy there will always be demagogues telling them that their group failure is the result of oppression by the more successful groups, your vision of laissez-faire, let-the-chips-fall multiculturalism guarantees racial resentment and permanent unrest.
You can’t endorse a system that predictably enshrines racial/ethnic inequality, refuses to be honest about the reasons for it, and then complain about the emergence of racial/ethnic politics of grievance. It’s the world you asked for.
Hi Dave, I enjoyed the conversation and you’ve always been nice to me on here, so I apologize if I misrepresented you. I wasn’t trying to snipe you, but I guess I kinda did. Don’t want to poison the discourse.
One thing that became clear to me in the conversation is that we really are speaking different languages here. Different views of humanity, religion, reality. That’s ok, but we’re definitely on different pages.
In the subject of race, I take it you disagree with the claims and conclusions of people like Thomas Sowell on this subject? If you’ve read his book “Discrimination and Disparity” I’d be interested to hear your take on it.
Regarding your 3 points:
1) American government does not have a responsibility to ensure all communities thrive equally. A government’s job is to establish justice without partiality or favoritism. It is the individual’s job in Christian love to help others who are falling behind.
2) I’m a bit confused by this—it seems like you’re proposing some sort of DEI, but one that doesn’t punish whites? Not sure how that would work, but maybe I’m misreading you.
3) I fundamentally disagree with you on this point. I believe that if we make everyone within our nation compete fairly without coddling one group or another, the groups that are struggling will improve and rise to that standard.
Another difference between us is our approach to arguing this. I tend to avoid citing a bunch of sources and statistics and stick to universal principles, Biblical ideas, and common sense as much as possible. I have a firm conviction that these give us everything we need to think clearly and morally in today’s world. I have a natural distaste for constantly simmering in theory. That might come across to some watching as naivety but it’s an intentional calculation on my part—maybe a wrong one, idk. It’s possible that to convince people that maybe I should cite more sources in these discussions.
Another critique I hear is that my views are “outdated,” “old fashioned,” “so, 2010.” That critique is lost on me. I’m not interested in trendy ideas. Never have been.
Anyway, I hope you take this in the spirit in which I intended it. If I come across as defensive sometimes it’s because I feel a bit alone here. There are 3 people on my side who care about this debate and 1000 on your side who live and breathe this online and are ready to swoop in and call me a “moron” at every turn.
Thanks again for the chat, I wish you a Happy Lord’s Day, maybe we can do a “part 2” sometime.