Beautiful

[BT]

So bigotry is acceptable as long as you can point to a wrong committed by the race of the wrongdoer?

[Plane]

<<White people have group intrests, what is the proper term for a white person who places some other value above this group intrest?>>

Well, that's a very good question.  Since whites are the group holding the most power in the society already, we have to define what are white interests?  I think it's in the interests of whites to establish a genuinely egalitarian society.  To dominate other groups is NOT in the whites' interest, since the domination leads to resentment, and the resentment can be acted out.  So I guess it's in whites' interests to liberate others in their community from domination or white power, to (a) eliminate injustice for its own sake and (b) to remove a source of resentment and possible retaliation.

<<Do you really think any white person who doesn't fall into step with the KKK is a whore and shill for antiwhite intrests?>>

No, I think the KKK's interests are illegitimate and in fact counter-productive to the legitimate interests of white people.  Same as the Jewish settlers on the West Bank are counter-productive to the interests of the Jewish people generally.  Any group which thinks that its interests lie in dominating and oppressing another group are actually doing a disservice to the group, because they are creating enemies and raising bad karma which can come back and bite them  in the ass.

<<You may have prooven to your own satisfaction that you are anti racist, but you make no logical case for this, it seems you assume this for yourself that you just cannot be racist so you don't bother to make a real case for it>>

I've always been anti-racist, my mum and dad were always anti-racist and so were all my aunts and uncles.  My teachers were anti-racist even in elementary school.  My grade 4 teacher taught us about lynchings in the South and they were some of the most sickening things I ever heard.  I actually used to wish I'd never heard them.  I don't give a shit if you believe me or not.  I am the most anti-racist guy you will ever know.  Believe it or not.  I can't prove it because all I can do is put words on a keyboard, but I don't have to prove it.  I know what I am, and you can think whatever you like, it won't change who I am by one atom in my whole body..

Sorry for the delay, this is a very good post and I apologise for waiting before replying.

  It is in the intrest of White people to promote an egalitarian society.
Yes!
WE are in perfect agreement.

  It is in the intrest of Black people and other minoritys to work against an egalitarian society and any who favor meritocracy or egalitarianism must be shunned and berated as Unkle Toms or Quislings.

No , I can't see that as smart, reasonable or even doable.

  Any solution that includes promoteing the color of skin as a factor of power, above any consideration of content of caricter, is a racist betrayal of the dream.

 You seem to  think it to be the reverse of racism,(?) a tractor in reverse is still a tractor, reverse racism is just as racist as any other racism.

[Michael Tee]

<<Sorry for the delay, this is a very good post and I apologise for waiting before replying.>>

No apologies necessary, plane, we all (hopefully) have lives away from our keyboards and we can only give what time to this that we are able to give.

  <<It is in the intrest of White people to promote an egalitarian society.
<<Yes!
<<WE are in perfect agreement.>>

Uh-oh!

<<  It is in the intrest of Black people and other minoritys to work against an egalitarian society . . . >>

I don't think so.

<< . . . and any [blacks] who favor meritocracy or egalitarianism must be shunned and berated as Unkle Toms or Quislings.>>

You just confused meritocracy with egalitarianism.  Egalitarianism means everyone gets the same regardless of merit; meritocracy means the best minds get the best desk jobs and the best bodies get the best coolie or peon jobs.

<<No , I can't see that as smart, reasonable or even doable.>>

You lost me here.  Blacks and whites want an egalitarian society. 

At this point in America's long and miserable history of racism and oppression, a meritocracy would obviously disadvantage the blacks to the benefit of the whites, because centuries of racism, persecution and Jim Crow have rendered large segments of the black population handicapped for meritocratic competition.

<<Any solution that includes promoteing the color of skin as a factor of power, above any consideration of content of caricter, is a racist betrayal of the dream.>>

In your ludicrous dream world of an ideal and beautiful America, that would undoubtedly be true.  But in today's real world of an ugly, fascist and racist America, it is a sheer absurdity.  Any domestic system striving for colour-neutral opportunity is just one more occasion for white racist America to preserve and seal in the benefits that centuries of racism and oppression have given whites over blacks.

 <<You seem to  think it to be the reverse of racism,(?) a tractor in reverse is still a tractor, reverse racism is just as racist as any other racism.>>

Again you seem to be confused, perhaps because the real subject of our discussion is not tractors but racism and the despicable Uncle Toms whose principal function is to enable white racists and make them less onjectionable to blacks and anti-racist whited.  An attack on racism is NOT racism or reverse racism.  An attack on racism's enablers and helpers, i.e. the Uncle Toms, is simple anti-racism, not racism or reverse racism. 

The attempts of conservatives to twist anti-racists fighting against white racists and their Uncle Toms into "racism" or "reverse racism" is just another example of the twisted kind of Bizzarro World upside down craziness that they live in in the mistaken belief that it is Reality.

[Plane]

<< . . . and any [blacks] who favor meritocracy or egalitarianism must be shunned and berated as Unkle Toms or Quislings.>>

You just confused meritocracy with egalitarianism.  Egalitarianism means everyone gets the same regardless of merit; meritocracy means the best minds get the best desk jobs and the best bodies get the best coolie or peon jobs.

  No, let me aquaint you with the word "or" which is a conjunction distinctive from the word "and".

[Plane]

The attempts of conservatives to twist anti-racists fighting against white racists and their Uncle Toms into "racism" or "reverse racism" is just another example of the twisted kind of Bizzarro World upside down craziness that they live in in the mistaken belief that it is Reality.

  I have never seen you attempt to attack racism.

  I have seen you take sides in a racist way.

  Just because one isde IS racist does not prove the other side is not ,and so far that is all you have tried to point to.


  Meritocracy is a great idea because it is the most productive of all arrangements, no such ideal should be attempted to be established with zero tolerance for exception ,because the necessacery exceptions would cause misery as they were not served. But the better we can approach meritocracy the better we can support human life without the waste of resorces that is responsible for many miserys itself.

   Egalitarianism is great if it is ment to give everyone a good and somewhat equal chance at success,to wit , equal rights. If egalitarianiam is interpreted as an equality of all results then it requires handicapping the strong and smart while gifting the lazy untill by dint of perfect hobbling all runners cross the finish line together, but imagine tieing the whole croud of a marathon together , the finish time would be days later. In reality ensuring an equality of result causes enourmous waste, this waste is miserable.A better egalitarianism puts all the runners at the same starting line instead, that is an egalitarianism that isn't rediculous.

     Of course attempting to put all runners at exactly the same starting line with a zero tolerance policy is just as foolish as trying to enforce a perfect meritocracy.

     A finely balanced system is probly best acheived by an evoloutionary process in which unfairness and bad results get smoothed out one by one over time as each small change casts its effect across the whole system often acheiveing reverse of the desired effects.

     And here we find one of Stalins stupiditys , Stalin was wont to smash the old system hoping that the shards of the old would be less impediment to the new than the whole and healthy old system. Contrasting with the greater wisdom of Dr. Martin Luther King who really never advocated destroying anything and didn't insist on perfect egalitarianism or perfect anything elese. By appealing to the Christian virtues and to the common sense of fairness he asked for the seat at the table that was already earned and a seat in the classroom and workplace that would lead to even better earning. Thus the old system supported the evolution of the new system. Consider also the English who have come from violence and serfdom to a civil society with pretty good respect for individual rights over the course of merely one milinium while handily preseerving all the usefull parts of the nobility as the serfs wind up in real controll.

    Since the real desired result is fairness and a good standard of life, what is the profit in attempting to get there by holding anyone back?  Meritricious style everyone produces to the limit of his best ability , while in egalitarian style everyone gets his turn but where the seam between these two philosophys is ragged the mis-match needs mending over and over, probly forever.

       LBJ enunciated the idea of affirmative action  by saying that you can't expect anyone to run a good race the day after he got out of shackles, whatever truth this might have ever had is lost in the passage of generations. Why shoud some runners be carrying others when none of them should have rights above the others?

      Republicans have the reputation as the party of well cared for money , without getting into details there, you ought to expect that as Black people become more wealthy that they will act more like Republicans , this is a swing in the direction of meritocracy and is normal. If Democrats are the party of Egalitarianism (strictly?) they have to expect that any who succeed will gradually drift away from them perhaps not into a strict version of Meritocracy but certainly into the melded version that America struggles constantly to form.

     Your Unkle Toms are Egalitarians who cannot stomach special treatment for certain groups over others or else Meritricians who can't stand the idea of limiting the full acheievement of talent. Either way your hatred of them is present because of race which from an Egalitarians point of view or a Meritricians POV is equally odius.