Zone1 Stop Listening to Thomas Sowell

[Natural Citizen]

Man, GFY.

Well that's not a very nice thing to say.

Again, consider managing your triggers...

 

[Lisa558]

Man, GFY. Thomas Sowell is an idiot. People like you buy his crap because it's what you want to believe. Nothing he states is correct. But you guys will keep paying him.

Telling a poster to GFY is not appropriate for a zone 1 thread. I have been thread banned for much, much less (by a leftist mod, of course). Just because you’re black doesn’t mean you get special privileges to mouth off, with profanity, to other posters.

Now clean up your act, boy. (You’ve called other posters “boy,” so I assume you consider that a nice way to converse.)

 

[Natural Citizen]

Telling a poster to GFY is not appropriate for a zone 1 thread. I have been thread banned for much, much less (by a leftist mod, of course).

I know, right? Sheesh. I tell ya. Some people...

 

[JoeMoma]

Telling a poster to GFY is not appropriate for a zone 1 thread. I have been thread banned for much, much less (by a leftist mod, of course). Just because you’re black doesn’t mean you get special privileges to mouth off, with profanity, to other posters.

Now clean up your act, boy. (You’ve called other posters “boy,” so I assume you consider that a nice way to converse.)

IM2 may be taking advantage of the acronym loophole. While saying, (or fully spelling) profanity is often considered unacceptable/ a violation of the rules, using an acronym which means exactly the same thing is accepted. It's similar to how it's allowed to type N-word but not to actually spell out the N-word. It's kind of comical since everyone knows what N-word is referring to... so why is saying N-word better than saying N***r? Why is saying "GFY" (in acronym form) better than saying "Go F**K Yourself"?

 

[Dogmaphobe]

It's nobody elses obligation to tippy toe around you.

Although, I might add, this entire sub-forum has been rigged by management to make that necessary.

 

[IM2]

Well that's not a very nice thing to say.

Again, consider managing your triggers...

Manage yours and tell the other racists to stay on topic.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Manage yours and tell the other racists to stay on topic.

Uh uh. Sounds like somebody's got a case of the Modays.

 

[IM2]

Uh uh. Sounds like somebody's got a case of the Modays.

Nah, I'm just tired of whites here who claim not to be racists but never follow racists around telling them how to do things but always show up in my threads doing it.

No matter what racists here think, Thomas Sowell is an idiot. His assessment of life for blacks in America is inaccurate and they have been shown to be so by other leading black academics. The only people singing his praises are white racists.

Thomas Sowell is responsible for making life more dangerous for black people in America. The racist subculture uses his irresponsible rhetoric as high-level intellectual thought. When you are black and suggest to whites how blacks are starting a race war with them, you invite problems that no one black should be facing. When you know that your audience consists of white right-wing extremists and you state how they are under attack from blacks and the media hides it, you invite and should be held criminally responsible for the hate crimes you have created.

“More dangerous than these highly publicized episodes over the years are innumerable organized and unprovoked physical attacks on whites by young black gangs in shopping malls, on beaches, and in other public places all across the country today. While some of these attacks make it into the media as isolated incidents, the nationwide pattern of organized black-on-white attacks by thugs remains invisible in the mainstream media, with the notable exception of Bill O’Reilly on the Fox News Channel.” -Thomas Sowell, 2013

It is essential to show the numeric human cost of what Sowell stated. Sowell made his statement in November of 2013. These are numbers published in the 2015 FBI Uniform Crime Reports.

“According to the 2015 FBI hate crime statistics, there were 613 anti white-related crimes out of 5,850 total cases. That’s around 10.5 percent of all reported hate crimes, and within the yearly average, federal numbers show.

In contrast, of the 2,125 reported offenses committed against blacks, 58 percent of those who committed by whites.”

Based on this data, how can a black person make such irresponsible and dangerous comments like the ones Sowell made? More than eighty percent of all crimes committed against whites are by other whites. Whites are five times more likely to be attacked by another white than a person of another race, yet Sowell presents this dangerous and life-threatening opinion to right-wing whites who love him. There is a very long history of violence perpetrated against blacks by whites throughout US history. Most of it came from whites feeling threatened. Sowell is a black man stoking and validating those same fears.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Nah, I'm just tired of whites here who claim not to be racists but never follow racists around telling them how to do things but always show up in my threads doing it.

No matter what racists here think, Thomas Sowell is an idiot. His assessment of life for blacks in America is inaccurate and they have been shown to be so by other leading black academics. The only people singing his praises are white racists.

Thomas Sowell is responsible for making life more dangerous for black people in America. The racist subculture uses his irresponsible rhetoric as high-level intellectual thought. When you are black and suggest to whites how blacks are starting a race war with them, you invite problems that no one black should be facing. When you know that your audience consists of white right-wing extremists and you state how they are under attack from blacks and the media hides it, you invite and should be held criminally responsible for the hate crimes you have created.

“More dangerous than these highly publicized episodes over the years are innumerable organized and unprovoked physical attacks on whites by young black gangs in shopping malls, on beaches, and in other public places all across the country today. While some of these attacks make it into the media as isolated incidents, the nationwide pattern of organized black-on-white attacks by thugs remains invisible in the mainstream media, with the notable exception of Bill O’Reilly on the Fox News Channel.” -Thomas Sowell, 2013

It is essential to show the numeric human cost of what Sowell stated. Sowell made his statement in November of 2013. These are numbers published in the 2015 FBI Uniform Crime Reports.

“According to the 2015 FBI hate crime statistics, there were 613 anti white-related crimes out of 5,850 total cases. That’s around 10.5 percent of all reported hate crimes, and within the yearly average, federal numbers show.

In contrast, of the 2,125 reported offenses committed against blacks, 58 percent of those who committed by whites.”

Based on this data, how can a black person make such irresponsible and dangerous comments like the ones Sowell made? More than eighty percent of all crimes committed against whites are by other whites. Whites are five times more likely to be attacked by another white than a person of another race, yet Sowell presents this dangerous and life-threatening opinion to right-wing whites who love him. There is a very long history of violence perpetrated against blacks by whites throughout US history. Most of it came from whites feeling threatened. Sowell is a black man stoking and validating those same fears.

Well. Generally speaking, we, as a society, would do well and should strive to encourage substantive debate from all perspectives. And that's irrelevant of whether it makes you angry if people choose to listen to the contributions of those whom you don't like to hear or read their perspectives on things.

While it is understood and generally observable that this courtesy triggers some folks who prefer encouraging/enforcing one-sided dialogue, it is none the less how fruitful, functional discussion and debate works.

I personally found the op to be combative in tenor, as is often the case with your content, as well as contradictory and discouraging to the nature of fruitful, functional dialogue and blatantly disrespectful to opposing perspectives.

Anyway. I suppose that you always have Robin DiAngelo and folks like that to fall back on for confirmation of your collectivist worldview. I've noticed that you've often cited her spew around here.

If you're not interested in substantive debate/discussion from all perspectives, resolving only to routinely discourage the practice by creating topical content like this, consider occupying those collectivist echo chambers that appease your feelings rather than actively discouraging substantive debate from all perspectives, as you clearly did in the thread title. And you seem very angry all of the time. Please consider acknowledging and addressing those triggers, too. It stimulates a more civil environment for the rest of us. I mean, really. Who wants to be angry all of the time? Sheesh. There's more to life, my man. When you carry all of that anger around it kind of creates a negative energy on the board. It's bad form. And certainly no quality of a leader.

 

[buttercup]

When you are black and suggest to whites how blacks are starting a race war with them, you invite problems that no one black should be facing.

I don't know what Sowell said or didn't say... but I just wanted to address this one point. I don't believe it's blacks who are "starting a race war" with whites. To me it's clear that it's the corrupt, agenda-driven powers-that-shouldn't-be who are behind the obvious push for a race war. They are the ones who pit groups against each other, because their age-old tactic has always been Divide and Conquer. They are always manipulating different groups against each other, to keep us all divided and fighting amongst ourselves, rather than turning our attention on the true enemy.

There's much more that can be said here, but it would be getting off topic.

 

[Grumblenuts]

I recall at first trying to follow the OP link and coming up dry. So I found and posted a link or two to the alleged author's works, made a few comments, and moved on. Today I looked at the OP link again and got nowhere fast. So I began Googling for the exact text and wow!

It now appears, to me anyway, that this Tristan Graham plagiarized the content from a paper written by an Ohio State sociology grad student, Dawson Richard Vosburg a month earlier.. which, if so, just strikes me as a real shame. IM2, I believe putting more of an effort into supplying solid links to your sources in the first place could only help.

 

[themirrorthief]

No, no, IM2 is right. The entire Black race is helpless against the superior forces of racism, that is, except for whites in the democrat party cuz systemic racism exists everywhere except there. It is unknown why systemic racism exists everywhere EXCPET within the DNC, very mysterious.

Systemic racism is far too powerful a force for them to overcome these 200 years plus after slavery.

In fact, with democrats in power systemic racism is still too powerful a force for IM2 and his people to overcome.

They will forever be known as helpless victims.

In fact, IM2's only hope in life is to sell out to whitey like Thomas Sowell and begin to talk about Blacks being able to overcome white systemic racism instead of vegetating on being a victim, when we all know they are 100% incapable.

Only then will he be able to make a decent wage.

and to think the democrats waged a horrible war against the union to protect their right to keep negro slaves

 

[themirrorthief]

Conservatives love him because he propagates the lies Conservatives want to believe.

speaking of lies...why do democrats keep saying Joe Biden isnt totally senile and incompetent is he really the best they got....if so they are finished

 

[IM2]

I don't know what Sowell said or didn't say... but I just wanted to address this one point. I don't believe it's blacks who are "starting a race war" with whites. To me it's clear that it's the corrupt, agenda-driven powers-that-shouldn't-be who are behind the obvious push for a race war. They are the ones who pit groups against each other, because their age-old tactic has always been Divide and Conquer. They are always manipulating different groups against each other, to keep us all divided and fighting amongst ourselves, rather than turning our attention on the true enemy.

There's much more that can be said here, but it would be getting off topic.

The tactic has come with telling whites how they are superior then creating policies that excludes or harms non white populations.

 

[IM2]

I recall at first trying to follow the OP link and coming up dry. So I found and posted a link or two to the alleged author's works, made a few comments, and moved on. Today I looked at the OP link again and got nowhere fast. So I began Googling for the exact text and wow!

It now appears, to me anyway, that this Tristan Graham plagiarized the content from a paper written by an Ohio State sociology grad student, Dawson Richard Vosburg a month earlier.. which, if so, just strikes me as a real shame. IM2, I believe putting more of an effort into supplying solid links to your sources in the first place could only help.

The fact is that Thomas Sowell is wrong. Period. And you must have missed this one.

HURTING THE DISADVANTAGED​

By William Julius Wilson
June 24, 1984

In the year of the 30th anniversary of the landmark Supreme Court decision against racial separation and of the 20th anniversary of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the economist Thomas Sowell of Stanford University's Hoover Institution reconsiders actions taken in the name of ''civil rights'' since 1954. ''Civil Rights: Rhetoric or Reality?'' is a brutally frank, perceptive and important contribution to the national debate over the means to achieve equality and social justice for minorities and women.

...alternative explanations and hypotheses are not sufficiently explored by Mr. Sowell. This is perhaps most clearly revealed in his critique of affirmative action programs.

Mr. Sowell links the deteriorating plight of the most disadvantaged segments of the minority population to the era of affirmative action pressure. He argues that such pressure increases the demand for highly qualified minority members but decreases the demand for the less qualified because of the cost, particularly at times of discharge and promotion. However, the decline in the socioeconomic status of the less qualified may have had nothing at all to do with affirmative action programs. I say this because the truly disadvantgaged minority members have been particularly burdened by changes in the economy since the late 1960's.

Indeed, recent studies have revealed that minorities are disproportionately represented in industries that have had the largest number of job losses due to economic cutbacks, plant closings and the relocation of firms. Moreover, the harmful effects of the drastic decline in central city industries that employ a substantial proportion of young workers have been concentrated among black males. These changes were most evident during a period that just happens to coincide with ''the era of affirmative action'' - a period that was also plagued by recessions that intensified the miseries of disadvantaged workers. By mainly concentrating on cultural, demographic and geographic factors to challenge the cause and effect assumptions of the civil rights vision, Mr. Sowell ignores the problems of the American economy as it furthers the gap between the haves and have-nots. It could be that the most important criticism of the civil rights vision is that it fails to consider, as does Mr. Sowell, what is perhaps the gravest racial problem of all today - obstacles to the economic advancement of the truly disadvantaged created by the changing organization of our economy.

HURTING THE DISADVANTAGED (Published 1984)​

William Julius Wilson (born December 20, 1935) is an American sociologist. He is a professor at Harvard University and author of works on urban sociology, race and class issues. Laureate of the National Medal of Science, he served as the 80th President of the American Sociological Association, was a member of numerous national boards and commissions. He identified the importance of neighborhood effects and demonstrated how limited employment opportunities and weakened institutional resources exacerbated poverty within American inner-city neighborhoods.

Dr Wilson called Sowell on his bs almost 40 years ago and Dr. Wilson should know since he is perhaps the leading sociologis of the past 50 years. William Julius Wilson has studied far more about this matter than Sowell. Funny how right wingers don't mention his work.

 

[Hector12]

I have a better idea: let's stop listening to IM2. He keeps blaming whites for the problems blacks cause for themselves and us whites with their high crime rates and welfare expense. He thinks we should pay blacks reparations, when it would be more just for blacks to pay us for the benefits of living in a society dominated by whites. Specifically, blacks in the United States are more prosperous and in better health than blacks in black majority, black run countries in sub Saharan Africa, the Caribbean, and in Haiti.

 

[IM2]

Well. Generally speaking, we, as a society, would do well and should strive to encourage substantive debate from all perspectives. And that's irrelevant of whether it makes you angry if people choose to listen to the contributions of those whom you don't like to hear or read their perspectives on things.

While it is understood and generally observable that this courtesy triggers some folks who prefer encouraging/enforcing one-sided dialogue, it is none the less how fruitful, functional discussion and debate works.

I personally found the op to be combative in tenor, as is often the case with your content, as well as contradictory and discouraging to the nature of fruitful, functional dialogue and blatantly disrespectful to opposing perspectives.

Anyway. I suppose that you always have Robin DiAngelo and folks like that to fall back on for confirmation of your collectivist worldview. I've noticed that you've often cited her spew around here.

If you're not interested in substantive debate/discussion from all perspectives, resolving only to routinely discourage the practice by creating topical content like this, consider occupying those collectivist echo chambers that appease your feelings rather than actively discouraging substantive debate from all perspectives, as you clearly did in the thread title. And you seem very angry all of the time. Please consider acknowledging and addressing those triggers, too. It stimulates a more civil environment for the rest of us. I mean, really. Who wants to be angry all of the time? Sheesh. There's more to life, my man. When you carry all of that anger around it kind of creates a negative energy on the board. It's bad form. And certainly no quality of a leader.

Substantive debate involves facts, not opinions that are called facts. So if you want a substantive debate you recognize fact and not your opinion.

If I seem angry all the time it's in response to the garbage I read. Secondly, whites are in here mad about imaginary anti white racism and you say nothing. So I don't know what makes whites like you believe we have no right to be angry or that they think they have the right to tone police.

To be black and conscious in America is to be in a constant state of rage.
James A. Baldwin

Since you ain't James Baldwin.... It's easy for whites to talk the stuff you talk. So until you turn black and live with what blacks actually live with instead of what your white mind imagines we live with do not try telling me how I should communicate. No one should have you live facing white racism. Sheesh, go work in your white community to end it.

 

[Hector12]

Substantive debate involves facts, not opinions that are called facts. So if you want a substantive debate you recognize fact and not your opinion.

If I seem angry all the time it's in response to the garbage I read. Secondly, whites are in here mad about imaginary anti white racism and you say nothing. So I don't know what makes whites like you believe we have no right to be angry or that they think they have the right to tone police.

To be black and conscious in America is to be in a constant state of rage.
James A. Baldwin

Since you ain't James Baldwin.... It's easy for whites to talk the stuff you talk. So until you turn black and live with what blacks actually live with instead of what your white mind imagines we live with do not try telling me how I should communicate. No one should have you live facing white racism. Sheesh, go work in your white community to end it.

White racism will end when blacks stop generating it with their high rates of crime and welfare expense, and when blacks stop supporting affirmative action and demanding reparations.

 

[Grumblenuts]

The fact is that Thomas Sowell is wrong. Period.

I've agreed with you on that. Have you stopped listening to me for some reason? Fact is your links often don't work which I find very annoying. You could put a little more effort into that.

Also, you should care that your primary source for this topic's OP stole at least some of someone else's published work verbatim. That someone wasn't "William Julius Wilson"

A Critique of Thomas Sowell​

Given the gargantuan volume of Sowell’s popular writing, I’m going to need to focus on the central cluster of claims Sowell is known for. This is essentially

Dawson Richard Vosburg
May 6, 2021 (one month earlier):

Given the gargantuan volume of Sowell’s popular writing, I’m going to need to focus on the central cluster of claims Sowell is known for. This is essentially

Verbatim.. Yes?

Next section from your OP:

Discrimination and Disparities​

Sowell is correct that intentional racial discrimination (according to Sowell’s classification, Discrimination 1 and 2) at a given juncture — say, racial

Dawson:

Discrimination and Disparities​

Sowell is correct that intentional racial discrimination (according to Sowell’s classification, Discrimination 1b and 2) at a given juncture — say, racial

Next:

Why Do People Love Thomas Sowell?

Thomas Sowell, I think it is fair to say, is first and foremost a pundit. He has made his career less on scholarly arguments accountable to the rigorous

Dawson:

Why Do People Love Thomas Sowell?​

Thomas Sowell, I think it is fair to say, is first and foremost a pundit. He has made his career less on scholarly arguments accountable to the rigorous

The only thing left in your OP is the crap link. Dawson clearly did a great job there. Throughout his critique of Sowell in fact. Don't you think he deserves the credit?

 

[Lisa558]

Well. Generally speaking, we, as a society, would do well and should strive to encourage substantive debate from all perspectives. And that's irrelevant of whether it makes you angry if people choose to listen to the contributions of those whom you don't like to hear or read their perspectives on things.

While it is understood and generally observable that this courtesy triggers some folks who prefer encouraging/enforcing one-sided dialogue, it is none the less how fruitful, functional discussion and debate works.

I personally found the op to be combative in tenor, as is often the case with your content, as well as contradictory and discouraging to the nature of fruitful, functional dialogue and blatantly disrespectful to opposing perspectives.

Anyway. I suppose that you always have Robin DiAngelo and folks like that to fall back on for confirmation of your collectivist worldview. I've noticed that you've often cited her spew around here.

If you're not interested in substantive debate/discussion from all perspectives, resolving only to routinely discourage the practice by creating topical content like this, consider occupying those collectivist echo chambers that appease your feelings rather than actively discouraging substantive debate from all perspectives, as you clearly did in the thread title. And you seem very angry all of the time. Please consider acknowledging and addressing those triggers, too. It stimulates a more civil environment for the rest of us. I mean, really. Who wants to be angry all of the time? Sheesh. There's more to life, my man. When you carry all of that anger around it kind of creates a negative energy on the board. It's bad form. And certainly no quality of a leader.

What you say is very true, my friend, but IM2 is so full of misplaced rage that he can’t hear what you’re saying. The sad thing is that people like him engender racism as he goes around calling decent people “racist” simply because they point out that blacks themselves are responsible for - and can overcome via good choices - the problems of high crime and poverty in the poor, inner-city areas.

If the 1940s children of impoverished, uneducated Jewish immigrants could overcome the horror of knowing that Hitler was in the process of killing their European grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins, and STILL study hard to go to college to become successful, contributing members of the country, then blacks can as well.

P.S. And some blacks did. There were blacks in both my mother’s and my father’s colleges - late 1940s.