The reason that Rufo et al don't take your approach is that they are Americans who believe in racial equality. They are not racialists like today's so-called progressives, yet nor they are racists like you.
They believe in the radical notion that people should be judged on the content of their character and the color of their skin - and a…
The reason that Rufo et al don't take your approach is that they are Americans who believe in racial equality. They are not racialists like today's so-called progressives, yet nor they are racists like you.
They believe in the radical notion that people should be judged on the content of their character and the color of their skin - and as so-called progressives now consider themselves to have moved "past" such naive notions, genuine racial equality has fallen to conservatives to defend and uphold.
ironically I insist on the term "racialist" since "racist" denotes more of an idiot, knee-jerk reaction, narrow in its focus, and more or less self-centered in its aims, something much more typical of left-wing "racialists" as you term them.
I believe that apples should be judged as a class of foods, but I also understand we need to look at individual apples as a type of food too -individual apples could be spoiled despite the quality of the group -we should balance our perception with group averages and vice versa.
"Color-blindness" is like ignoring that apples even exist or that they might be different from oranges; a great way to ruin an apple orchard and a great way to get indigestion. I don't believe that color-blindness is genuinely anti-racist or egalitarian, quite the contrary, it's a disingenuous anti-racism, as the left's is, which leads to more inequality and competition, (actually it biases said competition in favor of one or another group) always aggravating the inborn differences between peoples.
So-called progressives have criticized mere "color blindness" as "not far enough" since, well, forever - at least since the 60s - so I'm really not sure why you think that's an attack on them. Rather, it is in fact my *issue* with them that they are hyperfocused on color & ethnicity, which I believe prevents such primitive associations from fading into the night of history.
Neither apples nor oranges give me indigestion - if one or the other is particularly unpleasant to your stomach I suggest that you see a doctor.
That aside, I certainly agree that the left's focus on race-based allocations according to "group need" - aka 'racialism' - is stupid and perpetuates racism. We may look at affirmative action for a simple example - it should be quite obvious, to any thinking person, that it's not good to create a situation where, at any given school, all the Asian students *really are* smarter & more qualified on average than the white students, and the white students likewise to the Hispanic students, and the Hispanic students likewise to the African-American students.
At NYU in particular they have reached a state where the Asian students & white students can't even take the same classes because the disparity in skill is too great - if you make the class easy enough for the white people to mostly pass, the Asians all get 100s and snooze through, while if you make the class hard enough to challenge the Asians, most of the whites fail.
In the face of such obvious inequality, it may seem foolish to assert color-blindness as a virtue, but I do so nonetheless - as an example of why, I do not think it would be good for white people to admit categorical inequality with Asian people in math skills, even if the tilt of the evidence is clear, and its weight strong. This, I assert, would cause many white people to give up on math entirely, believing it an ethnic weakness, resulting in a widening & self-perpetuating gap.
So I assert that color-blindness is in fact the only viable way to organize a democratic society - and if you are against a democratic society, get thee behind me - and I assert this for the same reasons that we tell even rather average children that they might be President someday, which is that nothing is more precious nor more powerful than hope-against-hope for a better future.
(We intellectuals, capable of discussing weakness without condemning it as evil, may have our beliefs about the strengths & weaknesses of the various races, but it is not for us to share such terrible knowledge with the proles, for they have not the leisure or wisdom for sufferance - they, as ever, will duly proceed to beating each other with sticks and other objects-to-hand, should their primitive animosities be fed rather than stifled - and you know what the guy in the hat said about a house divided, don't you?)
if you tried to make apple pie out of oranges it'd be pretty gross I think we can both agree? i.e. we shouldn't be neutral to basic differences between people, just as we wouldn't be neutral to differences between things; that doesn't mean we should discard individual differences either however.
You fear that people will go haywire if they knew about racial differences, that they'll bash each other's heads in and whatnot, but such is the world, that the right, should want to bring about: the return to "master morality", and the will-to-power of the individual, which is a nullity, a pure "slave morality" if there's no possibility for anyone to gain mastery. History shows that most people would reject prosperity, if it is boring, offering no advancement; if there's no "master-morality" in this prosperity, exchanging it for risk and danger, which at least brings possibilities with them. Competition: such brings about the only real equity between men.
The reason that Rufo et al don't take your approach is that they are Americans who believe in racial equality. They are not racialists like today's so-called progressives, yet nor they are racists like you.
They believe in the radical notion that people should be judged on the content of their character and the color of their skin - and as so-called progressives now consider themselves to have moved "past" such naive notions, genuine racial equality has fallen to conservatives to defend and uphold.
ironically I insist on the term "racialist" since "racist" denotes more of an idiot, knee-jerk reaction, narrow in its focus, and more or less self-centered in its aims, something much more typical of left-wing "racialists" as you term them.
I believe that apples should be judged as a class of foods, but I also understand we need to look at individual apples as a type of food too -individual apples could be spoiled despite the quality of the group -we should balance our perception with group averages and vice versa.
"Color-blindness" is like ignoring that apples even exist or that they might be different from oranges; a great way to ruin an apple orchard and a great way to get indigestion. I don't believe that color-blindness is genuinely anti-racist or egalitarian, quite the contrary, it's a disingenuous anti-racism, as the left's is, which leads to more inequality and competition, (actually it biases said competition in favor of one or another group) always aggravating the inborn differences between peoples.
So-called progressives have criticized mere "color blindness" as "not far enough" since, well, forever - at least since the 60s - so I'm really not sure why you think that's an attack on them. Rather, it is in fact my *issue* with them that they are hyperfocused on color & ethnicity, which I believe prevents such primitive associations from fading into the night of history.
Neither apples nor oranges give me indigestion - if one or the other is particularly unpleasant to your stomach I suggest that you see a doctor.
That aside, I certainly agree that the left's focus on race-based allocations according to "group need" - aka 'racialism' - is stupid and perpetuates racism. We may look at affirmative action for a simple example - it should be quite obvious, to any thinking person, that it's not good to create a situation where, at any given school, all the Asian students *really are* smarter & more qualified on average than the white students, and the white students likewise to the Hispanic students, and the Hispanic students likewise to the African-American students.
At NYU in particular they have reached a state where the Asian students & white students can't even take the same classes because the disparity in skill is too great - if you make the class easy enough for the white people to mostly pass, the Asians all get 100s and snooze through, while if you make the class hard enough to challenge the Asians, most of the whites fail.
In the face of such obvious inequality, it may seem foolish to assert color-blindness as a virtue, but I do so nonetheless - as an example of why, I do not think it would be good for white people to admit categorical inequality with Asian people in math skills, even if the tilt of the evidence is clear, and its weight strong. This, I assert, would cause many white people to give up on math entirely, believing it an ethnic weakness, resulting in a widening & self-perpetuating gap.
So I assert that color-blindness is in fact the only viable way to organize a democratic society - and if you are against a democratic society, get thee behind me - and I assert this for the same reasons that we tell even rather average children that they might be President someday, which is that nothing is more precious nor more powerful than hope-against-hope for a better future.
(We intellectuals, capable of discussing weakness without condemning it as evil, may have our beliefs about the strengths & weaknesses of the various races, but it is not for us to share such terrible knowledge with the proles, for they have not the leisure or wisdom for sufferance - they, as ever, will duly proceed to beating each other with sticks and other objects-to-hand, should their primitive animosities be fed rather than stifled - and you know what the guy in the hat said about a house divided, don't you?)
if you tried to make apple pie out of oranges it'd be pretty gross I think we can both agree? i.e. we shouldn't be neutral to basic differences between people, just as we wouldn't be neutral to differences between things; that doesn't mean we should discard individual differences either however.
You fear that people will go haywire if they knew about racial differences, that they'll bash each other's heads in and whatnot, but such is the world, that the right, should want to bring about: the return to "master morality", and the will-to-power of the individual, which is a nullity, a pure "slave morality" if there's no possibility for anyone to gain mastery. History shows that most people would reject prosperity, if it is boring, offering no advancement; if there's no "master-morality" in this prosperity, exchanging it for risk and danger, which at least brings possibilities with them. Competition: such brings about the only real equity between men.
That would have been a great point if humans were fruit.