Democrats took control of the Wisconsin Supreme Court for the first time in 15 years, and the election was not even close. Once again, we see the enormous political impact of the Supreme Court's overturning of Roe V Wade. That Supreme Court decision negatively affected half of all the people in the United States as well as those in the other half who actually care about their wives, daughters, mothers, and sisters. We may well be witnessing the death of a modern Republican Party.
Meanwhile, I am delighted that the case brought by Dist. Atty. Bragg will not have its next court date until December. Long before that time, Trump will be indicted in Georgia and at least once by the Atty. Gen. of the United States and maybe twice. Trump's out-of-control reaction to the events yesterday raise at least the possibility that he will eventually be sanctioned by the judge.
But in my mind, all this fades into insignificance when compared with my preparations for my next lecture on Game Theory. I am teaching by zoom seven or eight UNC philosophy students and although the sessions are being recorded, I do not know whether there is any way to make them available to a wider audience. No matter. The pleasure I derive from clarifying these complex logical and mathematical issues in my mind and explaining them to the students is very great.
Meanwhile, a few moments ago, I replied to a philosopher in Mumbai, India who has written a futuristic novel called 2084, parts of which are inspired by my writings. When I was a boy, I read with great pleasure a book by Charles Erskine Scott Wood called Heavenly Discourses. Wood, a late 19th century early 20th centuryAmerican radical, imagines a heaven in which Plato and Rousseau and Hobbes and Mill and Aquinas and others meet and debate the great issues. The Internet has provided an earthly analog for lesser lights like myself.
98 comments:
I too am gladdened by Trump's woes and the left's wins; but a standoff might come to pass from Trump's sanctioning.
I fear it would turn violent, though not to the point of Civil War.
On a lighter note related to the demise of the GOP Trump's party now: he is losing his charisma- he is just an angry white man at this stage of the game
Glad to see that Trump was finally arraigned.
However, it seems a bit weird to me to claim that those males (and I suppose females) who are pro-life don't care about their wives, daughters, mothers and sisters.
Almost all Catholics are pro-life and there is even at least one Catholic who participates actively in this blog and I imagine that they care about the women in their lives as much as I do (I'm pro-choice), just with slightly different parameters.
s.w., they may "care" but they are ignorant about the ways pregnancies can go south - at least until it hits home. Also, there is a strain of Xianity that has internalized letting God sort them out. There are RCs that consider women who choose to die in childbirth as "heroic."
"Pro-life" isn't a thing. Accepting the propaganda of those who would oppress you is too often the first step to a cattle car. Creating laws that turn a routine miscarriage into sepsis and a stay in an ICU or force a ten year old to carry a pregnancy to term isn't being "pro-life."
BTW, I see we have segued from Peruvian to Chilean grapes up here. Quite tasty.
aaall,
You don't have to convince me. I once lost a job tutoring a group of women academics in English when, assuming that they would be all pro-choice, I insisted on the pro-choice option and I was accused of being a Nazi before being fired.
Stressing that folks who are pro-life don't care about the women in their lives may even lose Democrats some votes among latinos who may be very Catholic and pro-life, but vote Democratic until now because the Repugs are racist.
Enjoy your grapes.
Quick emendation to s.w.'s comment...
It isn't quite correct that nearly all Catholics are "pro-life" (if that means completely anti-abortion) - it's more of a qualified opposition in the large majority of cases, with politics and Mass-attendance being predictors. At least in the US.
Pew Research Center (2022): Overall, about three-quarters of U.S. Catholics (76%) say abortion should be illegal in some cases but legal in others. Just one-in-ten say abortion should be illegal in all cases, with no exceptions, while a similar share (13%) take the position that abortion should be legal in all cases, without exceptions.
[...] Mass-attending Catholics are about as conservative as White evangelical Protestants, who stand out among U.S. religious groups for their strong opposition to abortion. In stark contrast, most Catholics who do not attend Mass weekly (65%) say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, including three-quarters who say it should be legal in cases of rape or threats to the well-being of the pregnant woman.
Link: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/05/23/like-americans-overall-catholics-vary-in-their-abortion-views-with-regular-mass-attenders-most-opposed/
Michael,
That makes sense.
Abortion in Chile, a predominately Catholic society, is legal in the case of rape, serious threat to the health of the pregnant woman and serious fetal malformation.
Abortion in Chile:
Is a police report required? Can a prosecutor second guess a diagnosis?
The U.S. Catholic Church believes in separation of Church & State, but this is how they show it. Every time election season is about to hit the clergy talks to the parishioners about how abortion is wrong according to scripture. Then they say we should practice our right to vote. Then they say everyone should be an antiabortionist to the point were you think you are at a low key abolitionist meeting of the 19th century. Of course, they know that talk is cheap so the clergy talks about how we should join them on buses to travel down to the state capitol to march to protest against abortion. It's almost political genius. It's almost Machiavellian. If it's good or bad, I don't know since I don't know anything concrete about the afterlife.
To defend my fellow Catholics against the idea that we invented antiabortionist philosophy, I will say this though. The first recorded stance against abortion begins with Hippocrates and his Oath 500 years before Catholicism came on the scene.
If it's good or bad, I don't know since I don't know anything concrete about the afterlife.
Non sequitur.
I would be interested in hearing more about how your work inspired the novelist, Professor.
Eric
I can see the cleverness in the way the Catholic Church has conformed to the political mandate of separation of church & state for their own political purposes. But whether their means is justified by the end I don't know. That's because I don't know about what happens in the universe after death. Catholics believe in a Hell created by God for those he doesn't like. Buddhists believe in a Hell but no supreme God. Many Ancient Egyptians, Greeks, & Romans believed in a Hell like Hades. These stories & institutions have existed for thousands of years and you are not even a century old.
I don't believe you could convince me that there absolutely is no place of judgment, punishment, or reward after death. I don't care how smart you are or how many modern philosophers you've read..
That's why I said "absolutely". There is a 50 percent chance there exists a total black out, and there is a 50 percent chance there exists life after death. Personally I don't want to take any chances myself because I assume something.
@ Micheal Llenos and All,
I am a bit surprised that you are talking about life after death in this context. Wouldn't it make more sense to ask: What do we know about how a human being comes into being? This question also brings up the problem that Catholic theology still has today regarding abortion. Finally, philosophers from Aristotle to Augustine to Thomas Aquinas have debated the question of when do we speak of a human being? Of course, these were all discussions without having any idea of the existence of a female egg.
Be that as it may, the two theological concepts that existed in Catholicism speak either of a successive animation in the sequence of the development of the embryo, or of a simultaneous animation that takes place at the same time as fertilization. The latter is the only one that fits with the theological concepts of the immaculate conception of Mary. At the same time, in the theological conception of Catholics, this impregnation is an act of God.
Therefore, some Catholics believe that when you have an abortion, you are not only killing a soul, but also acting against the act of God.
No matter what one thinks about these theological concepts, one thing should not be forgotten when discussing abortion. Even modern biology does not explain whether there is a specific difference within the biological development of a human embryo that leads to the development of a living, self-aware and free person.
For me, the woman who is pregnant is the first and last person who has the right to decide about her body and it is the duty of our society to offer her the possibility to choose life.
aaall,
No police report is necessary. The diagnosis is done by medical personnel.
This is how bad race relations have gotten in this country:
https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/05/sport/angel-reese-white-house-jill-biden-intl-spt/index.html
The LSU women’s basketball team which won the National Championship last Sunday is almost entirely Black. The Iowa women’s team which came in second, and which also played brilliantly, is almost entirely White. The First Lady, Jill Biden, attended the championship game and stated after the game that, as is traditionally done, the winning team would be invited to the White House. She followed that statement with a comment that she thought the Iows women’s team should also be invited to the White House. What a terrible thing to say! Angel Reese, the LSU player who was named Most Outstanding Player of the championship got all huffy and has stated that her team (yeah, “her” team) will not be attending the White House because of Jill Biden’s supposedly racist comment. According to Ms. Reese, had Iowa won and been invited to the White House, LSU would not have been invited. Like, yeah, how does she know that? What bullshit.
Someone should tell this young lady that the only racist in this incident is her.
Marc:
You miss a lot of context here:
The black Ms Reese was roundly criticized for "trash talking" (actually "trash gesturing") Ms Clark in the final minutes of LSU's NCAA victory over Iowa.... while the white Ms Clark went uncriticized for earlier and much more frequent trash talking of her beaten opponents. Many observers saw application of an all-too familiar double standard here that penalizes black athletes for expressing themselves where white athletes get away with the same behaviour.
So, Ms Reese was already well primed to react negatively to Jill Biden's ill-advised invitation to the losing team to visit the White House.
Moreover, that invitation was utterly unprecedented.... Losing teams in NCAA finals. or any other finals [World Series, Super Bowl, etc.] are NEVER invited to the White House. Biden's invitation was no doubt well-meaning, but completely tone deaf in context. Ms Reese's reaction was quite understandable.... and anything but racist.
It is unwise to characterize as racist angry responses, such as Ms Reese's, to racial insensitivity, such as Jill Biden's.
Context, Marc, context.
David,
Not surprisingly, I disagree with your assessment. Yes, context matters, but it is you who have the facts wrong. It was Reese who was consistently trash talking Carter. Carter did not trash talk Reese back. See
https://www.star-telegram.com/sports/college/article273905775.html
Moreover, Carter was given a questionable technical foul, not for anything she said, but purported a delay of game when she tossed the basketball behind her, rather than handing it to the referee. See
https://www.si.com/college/indiana/basketball/angel-reese-caitlin-clark-trash-talking-controversial-end-ncaa-womens-basketball-tournament
This call changed the momentum of the game and stifled Iowa’s momentum.
Reese’s comment about not accepting the invitation to the White House was decidedly racist, no matter how you try to finesse it. She stated that she would prefer to meet with President Obama and Michelle than go to the White House. So, an invitation by a White President and his White wife were not good enough for her. This was blatant racism, and you should not be making excused for it.
Marc---
I did not say that Carter trash talked Reese back in gthe NCAA finals. I said that she (Clark) trash talked players on teams Iowa had defeated in past games.
The questionable T called on Clark is irrelevant to the current issue.
As for your continued charge that Reese's response to Jill Biden was racist, I simply stand by my previous comment: You completely miss the context of what black athletes in the US have had to put up with.
I am sorry, David, but racist remarks by anyone, regardless their race, ethnicity, or religion are unacceptable, and should be called out and not made excused for. And I don't care if you are Jewish and have ancestors who perished in the Holocaust. Past Oppression is not an excuse for engaging in racist or stereotype remarks. The same goes for African-Americans and the past enslavement of their ancestors. This should not be a license for engaging in racism, or trash-talking during an athletic competition. This constitutes a hypocritical double-standard, and it is deleterious to our society, regardless who engages in it.
One reason why to me Carter felt compelled to rebuke Biden and this happens to all of us, is that our private lives are so public. That is why especially talented athletes and other people take politics so personally.
And this is a misguided way to live.
Morality and politics are different and rather than championing a cause all the time, it is wiser to lead virtuously and treat other people, not as arch enemies, but as people.
Not every white woman is a racist, not every gentile who does not support Israel is racist.
This is where political correctness meets the code of the street
correction: live virtuously
To Howie: Reese, not Carter, was the one who rebuked Biden.
To Marc: How does Reese's angry reaction to Biden's unprecedented invitation to the NCAA losing team count as racist? Granted, she placed a racial interpretation on the nature of Biden's invitation. But was she wrong? The LSU team is largely black. The Iowa team is largely white. No losing team has ever been invited to the WH before. Carter surmised that if LSU had been the losing team Biden would not have invited them to the WH. That is a pretty fair surmise.
I don't follow basketball at all, but the idea of meeting Joe and Jill Biden is so tedious that anyone should be excused for thinking up an excuse not to do so.
On the other hand, Barack and Michelle Obama, especially now that they are out of office, seems like people one could enjoy spending some time with.
To SW:
It's not the Bidens that are the draw with such an invitation. It's the White House and the honour.
David,
A pretty fair surmise? It is a stereotypical racist comment about two White people who have never before been in a position to invite a championship basketball team to the White House. So they should be stigmatized by what some different White couple who had occupied the White House in the past might have done in the past? This is typical liberal hypocrisy to rationalize Black racism.
Lisa Jones, the referee who called the technical foul on Caitlin Clark, is African-American. It was an unusual, and questionable, call. Which raises the serious question of whether Ms. Jones made the call to benefit the all-Black LSU team. This tit-for-tat bullshit that you are resorting to – that Black athletes were mistreated in the past, so it was OK for Angel Reese to make her racist comment that she would not have “her” team go to the White House occupied by a White President and his White wife acceptable, but preferred meeting with Barack Obama and Michelle, is appropriate and acceptable payback is, frankly, deplorable. Racism, especially retaliatory racism, should be called out and condemned where and whenever it occurs.
We are a couple of days away from the most consequencial elections of 2023 in which a neo-liberal lost in Chicago and a fascist lost in Wisconsin. Neo-confederates in Tennessee are moving to expel inconvenient members of that state's legislature. Several states continue reducing women to chattel. Our major alliance expanded. Oh, and a traitor was indicted.
Also, I guess something happened in sportsball.
s.w., Both Michelle Obama and Jill Biden strike me as nice people. Barrack Obama and Joe Biden are both good men but JB is a far better president.
ML, while most Buddhists postulate various hell realms as part of the cycle, none are permanent residences.
aaall,
I agree with you that Joe Biden is proving to be a more effective President than Barack Obama was, but in fairness to President Obama, as the first Black President, he had a very difficult row to how – everything he did was scrutinized by conservative Whites as being biased against them, and favoring African-Americans; and African-Americans in turn examined and criticized everything he did as not being sufficiently supportive of them. Not an enviable position to be in.
Michael Llenos,
What if there is no afterlife? Would that imply, according to your logic, that it is not possible to determine whether anything is good or bad?
Marc, appointing Rahm Emanuel, Larry Summers, and Tim Geithner had nothing to do with race. It was poor judgment and an inability to see and seize an opportunity. Just be glad Nancy Pelosi was Speaker.
Going wobbly on Shirley Sherrod was racial and handed badly.
Seeking a "grand bargain" was political malpractice. Only Republican stupidity saved us here.
aaall,
The instances you cite underscore the difficulty that President Obama being the first African-American President was placed in. Part of it was, I agree, political naivete, but a good part of it was also being placed under a high intensity microscope because of his race. In the case of the firing of Shirley Sherrod, for example, Breitbart publicized a selectively edited video of a speech that she had given to make it appear that she had made a racist comment about a White farmer. The White House was not aware that the video had been manipulated, and given what it appeared she had said, could not come to her defense without appearing to support reverse racism. When Breitbart’s duplicity came to light, the White House offered her another position and rehired her. Should Obama anticipated that the video had been doctored? But then he would have been accused of bias against Whites. In many such instances, Obama was damned if he did, and damned if he didn’t. In my opinion, he made up for some of his faulty steps by giving some of the greatest, most inspiring and authentic speeches I have heard in my lifetime.
The Affordable Care Act was a major legislative achievement, despite falling short of a more sweeping overhaul along the lines of single payer. OTOH, the Afghan "surge" in retrospect was prob. a mistake. I haven't gone deeply into the details of the 2008-9 financial crisis, but the consensus seems to be that Bernanke took the necessary steps swiftly once it had occurred. Obama lacked Biden's length of experience and number of contacts in the Senate, but on the other hand Obama was a more effective, I think, mobilizer of public opinion, or at least one cd argue that. Obama prob cd have paid more attention to strengthening the DNC and the Dem Party's infrastructure. Biden is more unabashedly pro-union, which is certainly a pt in his favor. Apart from Afghanistan, where Biden opposed the surge w/in the admin's internal councils, I don't think there was (or is, for that matter) all that much difference betw the two on foreign policy. Biden cd prob be moving even more aggressively on climate change than he is. Biden has not handled the crisis at the southern border particularly well, though admittedly it's not an easy problem. So the balance sheet on both of them seems to me to be mixed.
My comment above has nothing to do with whether Biden was better president than Obama or not.
I intuit that after breaking through the cliches and the formulae, I could have a reasonably "real" conversation with Obama and not with Biden. So while I have no interest in conversing with Biden, I'd like to converse with Obama.
I see the Neo-confederates in the Tennessee Legislature are having their way.
Marc, that it was Breitbart, a far right racist (currently, should there be a just god or the Buddhists being right, doing laps in the lake of fire), should have been a signal to go slow not overreact. Accommodation and timidity is a sign of weakness and only breeds contempt.
I notice you don't mention the financial crisis. We needed a few more Cristy Romers; we got larry Summers who hardly has clean hands and Tim Geithner who is a neo-liberal who has been well rewarded for protecting the plutocrat class back then.
Rahm Emanuel is in a class of his own and defines rat bastard.
LFC, I mention him because had Pelosi not been there and RE had his way there would have been no ACA. Obama got played by the generals with Afghanistan.
Yes LFC, it would have been useful to see where the Republican Party was headed and have focused more on party building. IMO, handling the financial crisis better and not believing the fever would ever break (among other things) could have led to a new party system. Instead, here we are.
s.w. again, you're probably a nicer person. I've only had one brief conversation with a president and I used it to do policy (seems to have worked!). I can't imagine doing regular conversation (whatever that is). That being said, I think your sources have led to an inaccurate picture of Biden.
"What if there is no afterlife? Would that imply, according to your logic, that it is not possible to determine whether anything is good or bad?"
Good or bad can mean moral & immoral, but it could also mean advantageous & disadvantages--so I really meant the latter.
But until you can scientifically prove to me that there is no afterlife, I would rather err on the side of caution and do those things that may allow me to be blessed in an afterlife. E.g. those things mentioned in Matthew 25:31-46. Like Ben Franklin said: Giving to charity does help in this life & possibly in the next. I believe Buddhists call it karma.
As for the person who said Hell is not a permanent place, I'll say this. I don't want to go to prison or any Hell for a thousand years, nor for a hundred years, nor for ten years, nor for one year, nor for one month, nor for one day, nor for one minute, nor for even one second.
aaall,
No, I wouldn't talk to Obama about policies, but about books we've read, maybe films.
That seems like the route to getting "real" with him and with Michelle too.
I will simply add that Carter (who has been criticized (illegitimately in my view)) supported Reese. Carter has pointed out that some criticism of her (Carter) was sexist (some people like their women players to be demure); Reese has been criticized for being too ghetto. As far as I know Reese didn't criticize Clark.
To her credit, Caitlin Clark came to Angel Reese’s defense, and stated that Reese should not be criticized for the bragging gesture Reese made in front of her during play. She also expressed the view that only the winning LSU team should be invited to the White House.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaw/2023/04/04/caitlin-clark-speaks-angel-reese-criticism-white-house-invitation/11599712002/
In my opinion, Clark’s good sportsmanship does not ameliorate the racist character of Reese’s comment that she and “her” team would not go to a White House occupied by a White President and his White wife, but would prefer to meet with President Obama and former First Lady Michelle Obama.
Marc
These days, the word "Black" tends to be capitalized but the word "white" does not. Afaik, only white nationalists might capitalize it. So I would suggest that you not do so. This isn't a big deal, but then neither, imo, is the debate over a basketball player's remarks.
LFC,
This is another example of political correctness bs. Why capitalize the "B." but not the "W"?
Columbia Journalism Review on why we capitalize Black and not white.
https://www.cjr.org/analysis/capital-b-black-styleguide.php
I haven't followed the Columbia Journalism Review link yet, but the main reason to not capitalize the "w" is that you don't want people to think you're a neo-Nazi. And w that, I must bow out of the discussion for rest of the day.
LFC and s. wallerstein,
I have read the Columbia Journal Review article and it is, to be blunt, political correctness bull shit, as is your comment, LFC, “[T]he main reason to not capitalize the "w" is that you don't want people to think you're a neo-Nazi.”
I can understand that using a capital “B” when referring to Blacks is intended to recognize the suffering of the enslaved ancestors of African-Americans and accord them the dignity they deserve. I have no quarrel with that. But to offer this defense on the one hand, at the same time as insisting that, therefore, a lower-case “w” should be used when referring to “Whites,” is, in my opinion, wrong and indefensible, for a number of reasons.
First, it perpetuates the bigoted view that some people are worthy of more or less respect based on the color of their skin. This perpetuates racism, and racist views among English speakers; it does not reduce or dilute it. Second, not all Blacks have suffered the historical degradation of slavery; there are thousands upon thousands Black who have lived in Africa, and their descendants, who did not suffer the despicable anguish and degradation of slavery. Moreover, there have been thousands upon thousands of Caucasians, “Whites,” who are the descendants of Whites who suffered oppression, discrimination, and even genocide (in the case of European Jews, who were White). Is their suffering and oppression less significant, less worthy of respect and empathy, than the Africans who were forcibly enslave in the United States and elsewhere? Why?? There is no valid way to compare or measure the historical misery and degradation that was inflicted on one racial or ethnic group versus another. Blacks and Whites have both suffered unspeakable cruelty at varying times in history, and to suggest by using a capital letter to designate one racial or ethnic group, and a lower-case letter to identify another racial or ethnic group, is intellectual hypocrisy and despicable. None of us should be judged by the color of our skin. Period. And to imply that there is a legitimate difference by using different letter forms, upper case for some, lower case for others, Yes, honor and give notice to the suffering that Blacks whose ancestors were enslaved by using a capital “B” to recognize their suffering; but do not, at the same time, disregard and minimize the suffering that thousands upon thousands of Whites have also suffered throughout history, and send the signal that their suffering doesn’t count. And if ignorant people infer that I am a White supremacist because I use a capital “W,” so be it - they can all go to hell.
Post-script:
I can almost hear some of the ultra-liberals who read and comment on this blog stating: “But there is a difference between why Blacks have been historically oppressed, degraded and abused, versus, whites, who have historically been oppressed, degraded and abused because of their social class and economic status. What difference does that make? Is it more irrational to oppress and abuse a group of people based on their skin color, versus oppressing and abusing a group of people based on their lower socio-economic status? They are both irrational and reprehensible, and there is no valid metric to compare the two.
Marc,
I try not to offend people, especially people who have been historically oppressed. If some group asks me to use certain pronouns which are not the ones I learned as a child, I do it.
If Blacks ask me to capitalize the word that I use to designate them, I do.
I might except groups which are clearly oppressors such as the KKK or the Nazis, etc., but if for example WASPs tell me that it offends them to call them WASPs, I would stop doing it.
People are sensitive and I try not to mess with their sensitivities.
Well if the people whose sensitivities you do not wish to offend would be offended by your, or my, using a capital "W" to refer to Whites, then they are themselves bigots, and their sensitivities do not deserve greater consideration than the sensitivities of those whom they don't care about.
P.S. s. wallerstein,
And you are distorting the issue. I never said that the sensitivities of Blacks should be disregarded by using a lower-case "b" to refer to them I was only asserting that Whites are entitled to the same respect by using a capital "W" by referring to them.
Then use "W" to refer to whites. I'm not going to argue with you about it or report you to the Stasi. I myself will continue to use standard politically correct language.
s. wallerstein,
Then do as you please. I'm just pointing out the intellectual hypocrisy.
Why offend your political allies?
Politics isn't a graduate philosophy seminar. You have to overlook some little contradictions in the people you're working with.
Again, you are missing the point. If I use a capital "B" to refer to "Blacks," I cannot be offending them.. What would be the valid basis for them, or my political allies, to be offended if I insist on using a capital "W" to refer to Whites??
I don't know whether they would have a valid basis, but in the real world many liberals and lots of Blacks would be offended if you use a capital "W" to refer to whites.
That's the point, why offend them whether they have a valid basis or not?
For the same reason I condemn Trump and his supporters for their lies and distortions - because validity and truth matter, and they matter more than the convenience of political alliances.
There is a huge difference between Trump claiming to have won the 2020 election, which he did not win and an oppressed racial minority group claiming to have some special victim status that other groups, which have been oppressed and even partially exterminated under other circumstances, do not partake of.
On the left there is a often an Olympics of victimization (I'm more victim than you are, hence, I win), which is annoying, I admit, but hardly as serious a form of dishonesty as that of Trump.
Marc,
There is an academic literature about the meaning of "white" (and whiteness) --
maybe you shd read or glance at some of it before you go on what seems to me to be quite close to a rant. Unlike s.w., who seems to enjoy spending time endlessly bantering w you, I have better things to do.
“[A]n oppressed racial minority group claiming to have some special victim status that other groups, which have been oppressed and even partially exterminated under other circumstances, do not partake of.”
More liberal disingenuous bullshit. There is no questioning, obviously, the extreme cruelty and inhumane treatment which Africans forcibly kidnapped and enslaved in the American colonies and elsewhere suffered; there is no minimizing it; there is no ignoring it. But to state that they deserve “special victim status” greater than other races, ethnicities and religious adherents who also have been oppressed, discriminated against, tortured, expelled from their homelands and killed, e.g., the Armenians at the hands of the Turks, is fatuous, deplorable liberal nonsense. I repeat, there is no index or metric by which we can compare the degree of suffering throughout history of different races and ethnic groups, and it should not be attempted or propounded.
LFC,
The meaning of "white" and "whiteness" - I know what the words mean, LFC, and I do not need any "academic literature" to explain it to me, and efforts to elevate the cruelty which was inflicted on Blacks over the historic oppression and cruelty inflicted on various groups of White people is sophistry.
Marc, you're making a category error.
aaall,
I do not believe so. From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
“Category mistakes are sentences such as ‘The number two is blue’, ‘The theory of relativity is eating breakfast’, or ‘Green ideas sleep furiously’. Such sentences are striking in that they are highly odd or infelicitous, and moreover infelicitous in a distinctive sort of way. For example, they seem to be infelicitous in a different way to merely trivially false sentences such as ‘2+2=52+2=5’ or obviously ungrammatical strings such as ‘The ran this’.”
There is nothing semantically incongruous to say both, “The ancestors of many Blacks suffered horrible cruelty as the victims of persecution by others,” and to also say, “The ancestors of many Whites suffered horrible cruelty as the victims of persecution by others.”
An insightful read of the Jill Biden WH invitation brouhaha:
https://www.salon.com/2023/04/08/jill-biden-owes-the-lsu-women-a-full-apology/
Jill Biden should apologize to the LSU basketball team, and particularly to Ms. Reese, for suggesting that the second place Iowa State women’s basketball team should join the LSU team at the White House? Please. An “insightful read”? Not quite.
Mr. Jones writes:
“There was no sorry, no complete regret, from Jill Biden for giving an uncommon invite that completely went against the usual standard decorum when it comes to sports team champions only earning the White House visit. There hasn't been any statement from her since on the topic and it speaks to a level of white arrogance from her to not fully acknowledge how wrong she was to give a runner-up team an equal, lofty prize.”
There are double standards here running amok, and double standards equate to duplicity. Jill Biden “went against the usual standard decorum”?? I have condemned the ouster of the two African-American legislators by the Tennessee House of Representatives as disgraceful. But the rationale the Republicans used for justifying the ouster was that the expelled legislators violated the standard decorum at the House by going to the well of the House and using bull-horns to advocate for greater gun control legislation. Will Mr. Jones side with the Republicans and denounce this violation of decorum? Is observing the conventional decorum of a legislative body less important than observing the conventional decorum which applies to which teams get an invite to the White House? Double standards running amok. And, as usual, it depends on whose ox is getting gored.
Apples and oranges, Marc.
Yes, apples and oranges, but which is more important, the apples or the oranges> Which is more important, observing standard decorum in a legislative body, or observing standard decorum regarding which athletic team(s) are invited to the White House?
The latter.... quite obviously.... because it accords with a second, more important, matter of substantive importance, viz. respect for a racial minority, i.e. the LSU basketball team.
Whereas the "respect for decorum" invoked by the Republicans conflicts with that same matter of substantive importance, viz. respect for the minority representatives in the Tennesee legislature, as well as for the crucial issue they were drawing attention to, i.e. the slaughter of the innocents by weapons of war.
What's your real point here, Marc?
As i said, it depends on whose ox is getting gored.
There once was a man from Decorum.
Who ate more apples than oranges, per annum.
One day during a legislative session,
He bit into an apple whose sound created a distracting sensation.
Thereafter he preferred oranges over apples, per annum;
In order not to disturb the decorum.
To your point, David, the Republican legislators in Tennessee regard the decorum of how the legislative process is to be conducted is as important as, if not more important than, the subject matter of the proposed legislation that is being addressed during the legislative process, and failure to observe that decorum interferes with addressing the issues in question in an intelligent and coherent manner. And this is true regardless the race of the legislators addressing the issues in question.
From Jill Biden’s perspective, it was important to acknowledge the athletic performance of the women who competed in a basketball tournament in which both final teams, consisting entirely of women, displayed superb athletic skills and acknowledgment of this fact superseded the different racial make-ups of the two teams, and both therefore deserved to be invited to the White House, regardless of past conventions.
Again, it depends on whose ox is getting gored. That is my point.
Marc:
Your defence of the Republican legislators in Tennessee is bizarre. Their appeal to "decorum" was obviously a pretext for silencing two "uppity" black men, who were raising an issue that the Republicans simply did not want to hear or do anything about.
David,
You do not understand. In the next post, on April 6, at 4:38 P.M., I wrote that the expulsion of Justin Jones was disgraceful. My point with respect to Mr. Jones opinions that Jill Biden owes the LSU team, and Ms. Reese, an apology for failing to observe the standard decorum is the same excuse that the Republican legislators in Tennessee deemed as a sufficient basis for expelling the Black legislators. From your perspective, preserving decorum is not a sufficient basis to justify their expulsion. That is your perspective (and mine), but it is not the only perspective. There are valid, defensible reasons for wanting to preserve decorum, regardless the issue being discussed, in order to facilitate reasoned debate. That is a legitimate perspective, and it does not become invalid just because you and I do not agree with it; just as Jill Biden's decision that it is important to celebrate athletic achievements of women, regardless the racial make-up of the female teams involved, and regardless of past conventions. You do not agree with that; Nathan Jones, the author of the Salon article you cited does not agree with that. But that does not invalidate Jill Biden's perspective. When "decorum" should take precedence over a different perspective is not written in stone, and cannot be proved by some sort of syllogism.
Marc, if it was about "decorum" the white woman would have also been expelled. The worst that should have happened was a vote reprimanding all three if they had actually violated any rules which I don't believe has been formally established.
They were expelled because that was the closest those fragile white Republicans could get away with to what they would have preferred - a good old fashioned lynching. Note also that those same fragile white folks have threatened to withhold funding from the locals if they return those two men to the legislature.
Marc, I posted before your post above.
Marc:
When did you become a perspectivist when it comes to value judgments and their application?
What happened to all that absolutism you have previously espoused?
David,
Aha, you think you have found an inconsistency in my moral philosophy! But you are not able to corner this wily attorney that easily.
I have two responses to your observation:
First, I remain an absolutist on certain issue, like that bashing in the skull of a newborn baby is immoral; enslaving others, regardless their race or ethnicity, is immoral; preventing a woman to exercise control over her body while she is pregnant prior to the time that the fetus is a person, which does not occur at conception, is immoral; etc.
However, not all issues are amenable to an absolutist analysis. As to those which are not subject to such an analysis, perspectivism still applies. In the case of Jill Biden, for example, there is no absolutist moral principle which applies as between honoring the winning team in an athletic competition played between female teams of different racial compositions, there is not absolute principle that dictates honoring race over gender.
Second, not everybody is an absolutist like me. When dealing with a perspectivist on an issue, as I suspect Nathan Jones is, I am comfortable pointing out that the perspectivist is applying a double standard, as I implied that Nathan Jones is doing when he criticizes Jill Biden for failing to comply with standard decorum regarding which competing athletic teams get invited to the White House, but not, I suspect, applying the same rule to the Tennessee legislators who placed the importance of legislative decorum over the right of African-American legislators to disturb that decorum on an issue, such as gun control, which deserves legislative action.
Phew! That was a close call.
Marc:
How do we determine which is which: That is, which normative issues are determined on an absolute basis, and which are amenable to a perspectival treatment? Is that distinction a matter to be determined on an absolute basis or on a perspectival one?
Inquiring minds....
Why not do away with the whole patriarchal anachronic institution of the first lady? That way Jill can invite whoever the hell she wants without it becoming a political issue.
After six months Irina Karamanos, the partner of Chilean president Gabriel Boric, resigned her post of first lady (primera dama), saying that she is neither first nor a lady.
She's still his partner, but she has no more ceremonial functions and has gone back to her profession of anthropologist.
After resigning, she made some public comments that were contrary to what Boric had previously said about a certain issue and when questioned about that, Boric wisely remarked that he did not agree with her, but she has the right of every citizen to express her own opinions.
David,
I know you are not going to like this answer, but just as I intuit what moral principles are absolute, I intuit the difference between issues which are amenable to an absolutist analysis, vs. those which are more amenable to a perspectivist analysis. Regarding the question of whether an athletic team should be invited to the White House based on the racial difference of the two teams, versus the female composition of both teams, it seems obvious to me that this is an issue which is not amenable to a moral absolutist analysis, and is more amenable to a perspectivist analysis. And as we have discussed in previous threads (and via email), I maintain that your rejection of intuitionism runs into a dead end when you are not able to offer a non-intuitionist justification for the basic premises of your ethical analyses.
s. wallerstein,
Like Tevye did, I can give you an answer in one word - Tradition!
Uh oh, I can already hear the rebuttals – why should tradition with regard to the position of the Frist Lady matter, but not the tradition of only inviting the winning team in an athletic competition to the White House? Well, as Tevye painfully learned, some traditions have to give way to change, leaving the primary traditions unchanged.
Marc:
"Regarding the question of whether an athletic team should be invited to the White House based on the racial difference of the two teams, versus the female composition of both teams"...
No one, I mean no one, has "regarded that question." No one has claimed that a team should be invited to the WH on the basis of the race of most of its members or on the basis of the sex of all of its members.
The claim, rather, is that the winning team and only the winning team should be invited.... on the basis of a longstanding tradition of inviting winning teams in many sports to the WH.
So, if someone suggests that that tradition be broken with in a way that deprives a mainly black team of its exclusive honour (as the winning team), so that the losing mainly white team can also be invited... that is a disrespect to the mainly black team.
I do not see how you can miss this point.
By "category error" I was referring to the reality that "Black" is a thing in a way that "White" isn't and can never be hence capitalizing the "w" is just strange. Black Americans transcended the badges and incidents of slavery and Jim Crow and built a definable culture. HBCU is a meaningful term in a way HWCU, if it existed, could never be. Prince Hall Freemasonry goes back to the 18th century. Drilling down, no white motorist ever needed the equivalent of a Green Book.
s.w., is first lady an actual office in Chile? U.S. First Ladies have considerable latitude in what they do officially. Edith Wilson to a greater extent and Nancy Reagan to a lesser sort of ran things for a time. Jill Biden actually has another job.
aaall,
The first lady in Chile has certain definite functions.
Michelle Bachelet wasn't married and so in her first government, she named a close friend to do the (unpaid) job and in her second government she named her son, which was a mistake since he and his wife got mixed up in some financial scandals involving real estate transactions.
Ricardo Lagos's wife also got sick of the job and their daughter fulfilled the ceremonial functions from then on.
At present no one is fulfilling those functions.
Sorry, David, I still disagree with you. Some commentators have in fact offered the view that Jill Biden was intending to honor female athletes, and was not intending to dishonor Black female athletes. Do you really think that Jill Biden, either consciously or subconsciously, suggested both teams attend the White House because of some subconscious racism against Blacks? Moreover, you are ignoring in this discussion that Ms. Reese’s statements were blatantly racist, stating that she preferred to visit the Obamas, then go to a White House occupied by a White President and White First Lady. I am not missing anything. You are refusing to acknowledge the racisms in Ms. Reese’s remarks.
aaall,
Then you are misusing the term “category error.” That aside, yes, there is a distinct American Black culture, but it is not the same as Black African culture. So, when using the term Black culture, versus white culture, it may make sense not to capitalize the “W,” But this is not the same as referring to “Black people” vs. “White people,” where are not referring to distinct cultures – we are referring to people.
That said, we have beaten this subject to death, and I will say no more. You know where I stand, and I know where you stand.
"than go to a White House"
Have to note that there is no Black African culture in the sense that there is a Black American culture. Also N.B.:
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/map-true-size-of-africa/
Lots of cultures.
https://jech.bmj.com/content/59/12/1014
We will disagree on the category question.
The WaPo, or at least one editor there (for the 'Week in Ideas' op-ed newsletter), is capitalizing "White." So score one for Marc - much as I dislike having to do that. ;) I think it's probably the wrong editorial call, but that wouldn't be the first time for WaPo.
LFC,
Thank you for the information and the acknowledgement. The Washington Post is a pretty good newspaper. Perhaps I should check the Wall Street Journal and Christian Science Monitor.
Article from Washington Post (from 2020) in favor of capitalizing "white".
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/07/22/why-white-should-be-capitalized/
s. wallerstein,
Thank you also for this information and for your candor.
Marc,
As I indicated above, I merely seek to use the accepted politically correct word so as not to offend Black people.
I do that and have done that whenever any oppressed or discriminated-against group has asked us to change our language usage.
So if there is any doubt which version is least offensive to, in this case, Black people, I'm perfectly willing to pay attention to the debate around that issue.
What's more, in general, I try to use language which does not offend others. I exclude Trump from that usage and people who have attacked or offended me previously.
s. wallerstein,
I can understand that failing to capitalize the “B” in “Blacks” would offend African-Americans, and justifiably so. However, I am not aware of polls or other evidence which indicates that Blacks are also offended if both the “B” in “Blacks” and the “W” in “Whites” are both capitalized. I have done a search on the internet for such evidence, and got 0 hits. So, are you just assuming that capitalizing the “W” offends Blacks, or can you cite any documentary evidence to that effect?
Below is a link to a Forbes article title, “Dear Whit People: Here Are 5 Uncomfortable Truths You Need To Know”:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/danabrownlee/2020/06/16/dear-white-people-here-are-5-uncomfortable-truths-black-colleagues-need-you-to-know/?sh=4bc4188d624e
Using a capital “W” tor refer to “White” people is not listed as one of the 5 offending forms of conduct. Moreover, I think it is a bit presumptuous, and actually a form of racism, to assert that using a capital “W” offends Black people, without knowing what they actually think.
To lighten things up, here is a clip from a movie I just discovered yesterday while channel surfing. It is titled “The Bride Came COD<” and starred Bette Davis and James Cagney. I had no idea that they had starred I a voice together. It was hilarious.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6gbYMQtVBE
Sloppy typing: "in a movie together."
Marc,
Your ability to degenerate a conversation is remarkable.
Above LFC remarks that your use of "white" capitalized is that of white supremacists.
You object and I very politely suggest that to capitalize "white" may offend Black people and you call me "racist".
I've honestly never met a person, online and off, of your intelligence, but with your inability to conduct a civilized conversation. Your need to "win" arguments is pathological.
s. wallerstein,
What is uncivilized about what I wrote above?
In point of fact, this is what your stated above on the issue:
“I don't know whether they [Blacks] would have a valid basis, but in the real world many liberals and lots of Blacks would be offended if you use a capital "W" to refer to whites.
That's the point, why offend them whether they have a valid basis or not?”
This was an affirmative declaration by you that “in the real world … lots of Blacks” would be offended by my, or anyone else’s, use of a capital “W” to refer to “Whites.” What is your evidence for this assertion? Have you read any surveys of Black opinion which supports it? If not, then you are attributing to a group of people a sentiment that you are unable to confirm. Attributing a belief to Blacks which you have not confirmed, yes, does strike me as a bit racist – that you know what they are thinking without having asked them.
s. wallerstein,
And I will go even further. I asserted that Blacks would have no valid basis to be offended by my using a capital “W” to refer to Whites, at the same time that I used a capital “B” to refer to Blacks. I am willing to given Blacks credit for not subscribing to a position for which they have no valid basis.
You, on the other hand, are saying that even if they have no valid basis for being offended, I should refrain from using a capital W, because they may be offended. You are willing to attribute to Blacks a position that you concede may not be valid. By so doing, you are, in effect, denigrating their intelligence. And it is not uncivilized of me to point this out to you.
I found the WP article unpersuasive and IMO concerns about "offense" are off point with Black/white but not necessarily other colors (e.g. one would use "yellow" in an ethnic or racial sense at ones peril). "Brown" is of limited usefulness beyond U.S. foreign policy. For that matter using "race" in reference to human populations is way outdated.
Western Europeans and Norwegians/Swedes have always been "white." Jews, eastern and southern Europeans had to serve a sort of apprenticeship. Finns had to go to court. The demand for that "W" strikes me as sort of a participation trophy because that "B" stirs fragility.
BTW, advocacy groups on the Right are focused and don't waste resources on the general welfare. Note that the recent decision on mifepristone was backed by the ADF among others. That is how we know that things like the 300 case in Colorado had nothing to do with speech or actual religious freedom.
There is another 1st Amendment freedom of speech case coming down the pike which the S. Ct. is being asked to review. I was not familiar with the ADF referred to by aaall, so I Googled it and looked at its website. ADF is asking the S. Ct. to review a decision by the 9th Circuit involving a marriage and child counselor licensed in Washington who is challenging the constitutionality of a Washington statute which precludes therapists and counselors from engaging in “conversion therapy” of anyone under 18 years of age. Conversion therapy involves efforts to “rehabilitate” an individual who is homosexual. .In this case, the counselor, Brian Tingley, claims that the statute violates his freedom of speech. The Washington District Court dismissed his lawsuit, and the 9th Circuit affirmed. Several of the 9th Circuit judges then voted for rehearing, but since less than a majority voted in favor of rehearing, it was not reheard. I think there is a reasonable likelihood that the S. Ct. will grant certiorari. If it does, Prof. Tobias Wolff will surely write an amicus brief in support of the legislation, and this time I will agree with him. You can read the decisions at the following links.
https://casetext.com/case/tingley-v-ferguson-2?jxs=9cirapp&p=1&q=Tingley&sort=relevance&type=case&ssr=false&scrollTo=true
https://casetext.com/case/tingley-v-ferguson-1?jxs=9cirapp&p=1&q=Tingley&sort=relevance&type=case&ssr=false&scrollTo=true
NBD, but I did mention that ADF was behind the "300" case when that was discussed. They not only shop judges, they shop plaintiffs. I always consider Adam Smith's observations when analyzing a bill or case:
"To widen the market and to narrow the competition, is always the interest of the dealers…The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order, ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men, whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it."
"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public..."
And one from Damon Runyon,
“The race is not always to the swift nor the battle to the strong, but that's the way to bet.”
Post a Comment