tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post4089932122574279083..comments2024-03-22T11:55:50.335+13:00Comments on Not PC: Hobson’s Pledge: Racism?Peter Cresswellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10699845031503699181noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-14693984045886019132016-10-04T09:40:32.557+13:002016-10-04T09:40:32.557+13:00This is getting way off topic (and so this is my l...This is getting way off topic (and so this is my last post) - but you've debunked nothing Rick. None of what you say is backed up by *my* experience - or the evidence I see all around me. For one small example have a look on FB at what the likes of Alex Epstein are achieving by directly confronting irrational ideas. Not only is he getting the right ideas out there, but he's making a living from it.<br /><br />I suspect your experience is different because you process primarily based on what's going on within your own head, not by what is actually happening in the world (and when you do look at the world you ignore the positives and just see the negatives). You've convinced yourself that the only options are 2 extremes, both of which are unrealistic and unachievable. Either:<br /><br />1) You can convince anyone and everyone with the perfect theoretical argument (leading to frustration when you don't), or<br /><br />2) Failing the achievement of (1) your only option is to withdraw from any engagement and retreat to an ivory tower to remain "pure".<br /><br />The real world and right approach lies somewhere between these two extremes. Number 2 is a cop out, and essentially a surrender to the worst in society, allowing yourself to be defined by the worst. It won't lead to purity, it will just lead to increasing disengagement and detachment from the world you have to live in. If you've convinced yourself the only option is to retreat in this manner and hoist the white flag, then there's nothing I can say to help you.MarkThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06199883270652041621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-47963679952384391442016-10-03T18:17:28.184+13:002016-10-03T18:17:28.184+13:00d) If so you're, already pre-supposing a posit...d) If so you're, already pre-supposing a position of being in the dishonest muck of sophists!<br /><br />Got an e?Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06315796390662297759noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-922036297399826582016-10-03T13:30:46.527+13:002016-10-03T13:30:46.527+13:00PS - And it also can achieve something else, parti...PS - And it also can achieve something else, particularly if your opponents aren't honest (which probably applies to Jackson):<br /><br />(d) It sends your opponents a message that someone can see through their sophistry and there's a limit to how much they can get away with. Often bad ideas are put up as 'trial balloons', that if not challenged will be escalated.<br /><br />MarkThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06199883270652041621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-91700900837354390272016-10-03T12:56:20.004+13:002016-10-03T12:56:20.004+13:00Yes I remember getting past the point of debunking...Yes I remember getting past the point of debunking that.<br /><br />a) We get stronger talking when our thinking is challenged by intelligent thinkers not fools<br /><br />b) You demonstrate to your ally by talking to fools what you think of your time and your ideas. Very little.<br /><br />c) This is a fantasy not backed up by your experience. Who have you ever attracted and grown the movement with by engaging idiots? If you thought that then why don't you go find homeless and crazy people in the streets to debate politics with so people passing by might watch. Do you do that?Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06315796390662297759noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-45517710654674056942016-10-03T11:12:50.070+13:002016-10-03T11:12:50.070+13:00"....you don't change the mind of a Willi..."....you don't change the mind of a Willie Jackson or a Richard Wigg. ..... What do you do then?"<br /><br />I thought my response to that was very clear. You engage with them (to a certain point) - not because you expect to change their mind necessarily, but because it might achieve something else:<br /><br />(a) It might test & strengthen your own ideas and argumentation method,<br />(b) It might help someone who's watching and on your side argue more effectively,<br />(c) It might help someone who's watching and undecided come to the right conclusion.<br /><br /> <br />MarkThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06199883270652041621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-46927115316163614532016-10-02T12:39:46.724+13:002016-10-02T12:39:46.724+13:00Easy for us to say though, we're not fronting ...Easy for us to say though, we're not fronting up to cameras or starting up a new group.<br /><br />"The focus should be turned from defending our beliefs, to examining the beliefs of Jacksons et al and the collectivist premises that lie behind them."<br /><br />Well that's what I tried to explain to you on the Facebook last month, you don't change the mind of a Willie Jackson or a Richard Wigg. They're set in concrete, suspicious of ideas seeing them only as other forms of left-brain manipulation tactics. What do you do then?<br /><br />I think the aim must be to do what Brash is doing, to put up a beacon for those who do think and do agree to be drawn together. His hope is that this group snowballs large enough to be an electoral body worthy of electoral consideration next year. Or, at least for he and his old guard to die with a clear conscience having given it one last shot.Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06315796390662297759noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-18499278209786249362016-10-02T11:14:15.334+13:002016-10-02T11:14:15.334+13:00A garden can become so infested with weeds that it...A garden can become so infested with weeds that it's near impossible for desirable plants to thrive. The focus then needs to turn to eradicating the weeds. Not just cutting back the surficial growth, but on removing or killing the weeds at their root. Only then will the more desirable plants have the chance to thrive.<br /><br />The reactions to Hobsons Pledge show that we've reached the same stage with this issue too. Promoting one rule for all is good as far it goes (analogous to the desirable plant), but it doesn't address the argument put forward by Willie Jackson et al (and increasingly accepted by the mainstream media) on their alternative view of what racism is. Their argument goes something like this:<br /><br />'Maori are over-represented in poverty, crime, etc. Therefore they are the victims of institutions that put them at a disadvantage compared to non-Maori. Pakeha enjoy the privileges of a system that has historically been set up for 'them'. Therefore Maori need special treatment to overcome this disadvantage. Therefore if you oppose this levelling of the playing field you are racist.'<br /><br />This argument is mired in collectivist assumptions that are bad, not just for Pakeha but also Maori. They need to be directly addressed and attacked if this movement is to gain any traction. It's not good enough to just attack the legal manifestations of this belief, the arguments themselves, and those like Jackson who are in favour of them need to be attacked mercilessly - and made to feel embarrassed for holding them. Only then can 'one rule for all' gain traction.<br /><br />I'm currently thinking through the best way to respond to the argument above (and may post this later). But one thing that's already very clear to me is that next time Mr Brash is in a talkshow with Willie Jackson, he needs to stop being on the defensive so much, and start to go on the offensive. The focus should be turned from defending our beliefs, to examining the beliefs of Jacksons et al and the collectivist premises that lie behind them.MarkThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06199883270652041621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-25641519417777796532016-10-02T10:37:36.987+13:002016-10-02T10:37:36.987+13:00More on that, I've got a bit of a theory about...More on that, I've got a bit of a theory about people who 'argue' this way. Just with conclusions, judgements, name-calling.<br /><br />Maybe their elders do this with a deep voice or wearing feathers or with the threat of corporal violence? And that doesn't carry over well in written form. The aim is for the left-brain of fear and love. The abandonment of thinking and making sense.Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06315796390662297759noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-82807042142614908352016-10-02T08:26:40.192+13:002016-10-02T08:26:40.192+13:00Maybe I didn't know before but I see these day...Maybe I didn't know before but I see these days that those outraged by the likes of Hobson's Pledge really do just abuse, defame, and barroom bluster. Maori TV also padded out their item with a montage of Brash in compromising situations such as having mud thrown at him. And, then, a few socialist students outside Auckland Univeristy agreeing that government propaganda should capture more young people than it already does.<br /><br />Andy Oakley, I think alternative media is where the future belongs. The mainstream media will always jam your message and edit it to bits even if you're on live.<br /><br />How do they sustain this, how do they think calling things 'racist' is a silver bullet? I think the answer is that they don't sustain it at all. They don't generate this as an attitude or method. They just fill the void we leave behind by not being assertive. They do whatever they can get away with. Modern Lefties are not an identity of themselves but the shadow cast by good men doing nothing.Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06315796390662297759noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-20923324828054262832016-10-01T08:18:29.874+13:002016-10-01T08:18:29.874+13:00Excellent work, PC. Right on the money.Excellent work, PC. Right on the money.Daddyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01922433757298738859noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-58601721990866618112016-10-01T02:02:44.651+13:002016-10-01T02:02:44.651+13:00As you can imagine Peter Mihi had cut and pasted m...As you can imagine Peter Mihi had cut and pasted many parts of the interviews she carried out with us. I can tell you she published an answer I gave to a question the listeners never heard. She made out it was in response to a different question. <br /><br />She was persistent with race based questions that the listeners never heard. To draw any conclusions from her interviews or the transcripts of them is a complete waste of time, the listeners were hoodwinked.<br /><br />This is the crap the New Zealanders are faced with, truth is very hard to find particularly when you are dealing with New Zealand media.<br /><br />Thank you for your otherwise sympathetic analysis. Andy Oakleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06872305896495047183noreply@blogger.com