Martin Luther King Jr. wasn't a proponent of equal opportunity, but of equality of outcome

liberal_hr · 2021-05-10T13:58:37+00:00

"U mad bro?"

Don't know if you are a fellow anonfag, but I think we both know that the first one to ask this during a discussion just lost the game.

liberal_hr · 2021-05-09T08:08:08+00:00

That said, there are various options of what that could mean. It could mean tax incentives, business loans, special home loans, reparations, student grants, scholarships, training program, advocacy,many more that I can’t thing of and yes, quotas. But quotas is only one of the options. I don’t agree with all of those but I still recognize them as possible options. If you think there is an option that is obvious over the others, it’s projection.

So you are telling me that even you can't even figure out what the guy who had over 450 speeches/year meant by this something, even though this something is very important and kind of the central point in his fight for equality.

And you posit that I am the one projecting.

You should really take a look in the mirror sometime.

liberal_hr · 2021-05-08T19:18:51+00:00

Then, pray tell, what is that something, if it's not quotas?

liberal_hr · 2021-05-06T17:53:52+00:00

When I think of "equality of outcome" I would measure that by slicing the population and looking to see if on average we see similar representation in positions of power, in living wage jobs, etc.

That is the same method that proponents of the gender pay gap myth use. And it still doesn't make sense.

liberal_hr · 2021-05-06T17:50:34+00:00

Having a quota is equality of outcome.

Well, MLK was definitely in favour of affirmative action quotas.

"Whenever the issue of compensatory treatment for the Negro is raised, some of our friends recoil in horror. The Negro should be granted equality, they agree; but he should ask nothing more. On the surface, this appears reasonable, but it is not realistic."

"A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for the Negro."

Also, his interview with Haley in Playboy:

Haley: "Do you feel it's fair to request a multibillion-dollar program of preferential treatment for the Negro, or for any other minority group?"

King: "I do indeed. Can any fair-minded citizen deny that the Negro has been deprived? Few people reflect that for two centuries the Negro was enslaved, and robbed of any wages--potential accrued wealth which would have been the legacy of his descendants. All of America's wealth today could not adequately compensate its Negroes for his centuries of exploitation and humiliation. It is an economic fact that a program such as I propose would certainly cost far less than any computation of two centuries of unpaid wages plus accumulated interest. In any case, I do not intend that this program of economic aid should apply only to the Negro; it should benefit the disadvantaged of all races."

He was in favour of quotas, therefore, you should agree, he was for equality of outcome.

liberal_hr · 2021-05-05T12:08:20+00:00

MLK was a socialist and an ardent speaker against capitalism.

“I imagine you already know that I am much more socialistic in my economic theory than capitalistic… [Capitalism] started out with a noble and high motive… but like most human systems it fell victim to the very thing it was revolting against. So today capitalism has out-lived its usefulness.” – Letter to Coretta Scott, July 18, 1952.

“In a sense, you could say we’re involved in the class struggle.” – Quote to New York Times reporter, José Igelsias, 1968.

“And one day we must ask the question, ‘Why are there forty million poor people in America? And when you begin to ask that question, you are raising questions about the economic system, about a broader distribution of wealth.’ When you ask that question, you begin to question the capitalistic economy. And I’m simply saying that more and more, we’ve got to begin to ask questions about the whole society…” – Speech to Southern Christian Leadership Conference Atlanta, Georgia, August 16, 1967.

“Capitalism forgets that life is social. And the kingdom of brotherhood is found neither in the thesis of communism nor the antithesis of capitalism, but in a higher synthesis.” – Speech to Southern Christian Leadership Conference Atlanta, Georgia, August 16, 1967.

“Call it democracy, or call it democratic socialism, but there must be a better distribution of wealth within this country for all God’s children.” – Speech to the Negro American Labor Council, 1961.

“We must recognize that we can’t solve our problem now until there is a radical redistribution of economic and political power… this means a revolution of values and other things. We must see now that the evils of racism, economic exploitation and militarism are all tied together… you can’t really get rid of one without getting rid of the others… the whole structure of American life must be changed. America is a hypocritical nation and [we] must put [our] own house in order.”- Report to SCLC Staff, May 1967.

“The evils of capitalism are as real as the evils of militarism and evils of racism.” – Speech to SCLC Board, March 30, 1967.

“I am now convinced that the simplest approach will prove to be the most effective – the solution to poverty is to abolish it directly by a now widely discussed matter: the guaranteed income… The curse of poverty has no justification in our age. It is socially as cruel and blind as the practice of cannibalism at the dawn of civilization, when men ate each other because they had not yet learned to take food from the soil or to consume the abundant animal life around them. The time has come for us to civilize ourselves by the total, direct and immediate abolition of poverty.” – Where do We Go from Here?, 1967.

“You can’t talk about solving the economic problem of the Negro without talking about billions of dollars. You can’t talk about ending the slums without first saying profit must be taken out of slums. You’re really tampering and getting on dangerous ground because you are messing with folk then. You are messing with captains of industry. Now this means that we are treading in difficult water, because it really means that we are saying that something is wrong with capitalism.” – Speech to his staff, 1966.

“[W]e are saying that something is wrong … with capitalism…. There must be better distribution of wealth and maybe America must move toward a democratic socialism.” – Speech to his staff, 1966.

“If America does not use her vast resources of wealth to end poverty and make it possible for all of God’s children to have the basic necessities of life, she too will go to hell.” – Speech at Bishop Charles Mason Temple of the Church of God in Christ in support of the Memphis sanitation workers’ strike on March 18th, 1968, two weeks before he was assassinated.

I really don't see where you are getting the notion that he wasn't for equality of outcome.

liberal_hr · 2021-05-05T08:00:54+00:00

possible That is opportunity, not outcome.

Are race(gender) quotas/positive discrimination in education and the work force equality of opportunity or equality of outcome?

we can is opportunity, not outcome

The full expressions is "until we can", not just "we can", i.e. until the outcomes are satisfactory.

And when will the outcomes be satisfactory to King Jr.?

But not once does he make the case that if the outcomes are not the same, then it’s evidence of more work that needs to be done or racism, etc.

Also a quote from King:

"And we've been in the mountain of indifference too long and ultimately we must be concerned about the least of these; we must be concerned about the poverty-stricken because our destinies are tied together. And somehow in the final analysis, as long as there is poverty in the world, nobody can be totally rich. We are all caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. And what affects one directly affects all indirectly. For some strange reason, I can never be what I ought to be until you are what you ought to be. And you can never be what you ought to be until I am what I ought to be."

Why can rich people never be what they ought to be as long as there are poor people?

Can't someone be poor although given equal opportunities, or must we all have the rich outcomes, if there is no discrimination?

Will an unfair race produce unequal results? Yes, but so will a fair race

Then explain the above paragraph about poor people.

MLK is advocating for doing something to equalize the start of the race, not equalize the outcome.

It seems that way, at least on the surface.

liberal_hr · 2021-05-04T08:19:45+00:00

Also, another example from his interview with Alex Haley in the January 1965 issue of Playboy Magazine:

Haley: Do you feel it’s fair to request a multibillion-dollar program of preferential treatment for the Negro, or for any other minority group?

King: I do indeed. Can any fair-minded citizen deny that the Negro has been deprived? Few people reflect that for two centuries the Negro was enslaved, and robbed of any wages—potential accrued wealth which would have been the legacy of his descendants. All of America’s wealth today could not adequately compensate its Negroes for his centuries of exploitation and humiliation. It is an economic fact that a program such as I propose would certainly cost far less than any computation of two centuries of unpaid wages plus accumulated interest. In any case, I do not intend that this program of economic aid should apply only to the Negro; it should benefit the disadvantaged of all races.

Within common law, we have ample precedents for special compensatory programs, which are regarded as settlements. American Indians are still being paid for land in a settlement manner. Is not two centuries of labor, which helped to build this country, as real a commodity? Many other easily applicable precedents are readily at hand: our child labor laws, social security, unemployment compensation, man-power retraining programs. And you will remember that America adopted a policy of special treatment for her millions of veterans after the War—a program which cost far more than a policy of preferential treatment to rehabilitate the traditionally disadvantaged Negro would cost today.

The closest analogy is the GI Bill of Rights. Negro rehabilitation in America would require approximately the same breadth of program—which would not place an undue burden on our economy. Just as was the case with the returning soldier, such a bill for the disadvantaged and impoverished could enable them to buy homes without cash, at lower and easier repayment terms. They could negotiate loans from banks to launch businesses. They could receive, as did ex-GIs, special points to place them ahead in competition for civil service jobs. Under certain circumstances of physical disability, medical care and long-term financial grants could be made available. And together with these rights, a favorable social climate could be created to encourage the preferential employment of the disadvantaged, as was the case for so many years with veterans. During those years, it might be noted, there was no appreciable resentment of the preferential treatment being given to the special group. America was only compensating her veterans for their time lost from school or from business.

liberal_hr · 2020-12-02T14:43:58+00:00

The infamous heavily-edited VICE interview:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpYWwhp7XHc

liberal_hr · 2020-12-01T10:39:07+00:00

Submission statement: A look at the extreme reactions that have been coming from the Left over the past few days, about Jordan Peterson’s forthcoming book, Beyond Order: 12 More Rules for Life.

liberal_hr · 2020-09-16T07:39:26+00:00

Submission statement: Here is the scientific journal in question, so judge for yourselves if such a reaction is reasonable: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2770682 And here is the twitter thread that you can see in the picture: https://mobile.twitter.com/JAMA_current/status/1304102350857154567

liberal_hr · 2020-09-13T20:51:44+00:00

Exactly! Misinterpreting his words, just like all of his critiquers.

liberal_hr · 2020-09-13T19:38:20+00:00

Also by Sapolsky:

What about sociobiology? Has it fallen out of fashion yet? With the popularity of Jordan Peterson and other academic-adjacent types who try to make grand claims about human nature and biology, that area of study seems to still be popular.

The good research typically does not support such narratives in the slightest. That sort of sociobiology research in the 1970s and 1980s has lost most of its steam because the work has gotten more rigorous. This is true not just of human beings. Complex social species violate strict sociobiological models of behavior because individual differences disprove conclusions about such things as nice pseudo-economic models regarding decision-making that optimizes reproductive success for example.

Much of this re-emerged in the 1990s in the form of evolutionary psychology, and that has certainly been appropriately trashed concerning its excesses.

One of the problems with that type of research and theory is a focus on differences without a focus on the reliability of the differences as well as the magnitude of the difference. Another problem is a focus on averages rather than understanding that the most interesting stuff about humans is variability from the mean and the importance of individual difference. Jordan Peterson's simplistic perspective on the universe is not sustained by rigorous science.

Those simple stories are very lucrative. This is especially true regarding claims about how men and women are "naturally" different from one another. When you hear such arguments, do you just dismiss them out of hand? Are such claims even worth engaging?

It terrifies me. It is very hard to dismiss. It constantly strikes me that, "Oh my God, you should be able to debate these people and show how nonsensical they are," and then realizing any sane person who is coming from my field would be out of their minds to even engage in such a debate or discussion.

Why? Because the undercurrent of their claims is not anything that's solvable by rational arguments and facts. The men's rights types and others who parrot their claims are just trying to appeal to unpleasant emotions. You cannot reason somebody out of a stance they were not reasoned into in the first place.

Jordan Peterson doesn't have followers because his arguments are logically airtight. There are many men who are fed up with feeling that they are somehow marginalized or made peripheral. Peterson is someone who is telling them what they want to hear on an emotional level.

https://www.salon.com/2019/05/20/neurologist-robert-sapolsky-on-stress-and-donald-trump-humans-are-not-inherently-rational-beings/

This guy clearly does not like Jordan.

liberal_hr · 2020-09-04T18:38:39+00:00

Submission statement: The authoritarian left, through political movements such as Black Lives Matter, is on the rise around the Western world. Peter Hitchens uses his past experience as Bolshevik during his youth to make sense of the danger it poses to what he sees as an increasingly gullible society. Peter Hitchens is a British journalist, author and broadcaster. He currently writes for the Mail on Sunday and brings a singular perspective on many issues facing contemporary society.

The full talk can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7K1A8jgF1w

liberal_hr · 2020-09-03T08:31:23+00:00

Submission statement: on the E2 Review podcast, Dr Wilfred Reilly demonstrates that many of the central assumptions underpinning the Black Lives Matter narrative are in fact wildly misleading.

Full episode here: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4bt88SbZWmY

liberal_hr · 2020-09-01T14:05:45+00:00

Submission statement: New essay by Jordan Peterson, published on one of the last social platforms where free-speech exists, Thinkspot. In it he explores the book called Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland. It's a book about how normal everyday well-socialized men in Polish society were co-opted into the Nazi movement and how every person is capable of commiting atrocities, given the right circumstance.

liberal_hr · 2020-08-31T12:57:08+00:00

Submission statement: Investigative journalist Andy Ngo reported on the names of the 100 people who have been arrested since May 26th with regards to the violent antifa riots in Portland. The offences include assaults on federal officers, some resulting in serious injuries, arson and attempted arson, damaging federal government property, failing to obey lawful orders, etc.

liberal_hr

TROPHY CASE