• Sean II

    Page search results:

    Erdogan = 1
    Duterte = 1
    Trump = 0

    Hmmm. It seems there are two possibilities.

    1) This article is concerned with the state of democracy in its traditional bastions of Turkey and the Philippines.

    2) It’s already become fashionable not to mention Trump in obviously Trump-inspired think pieces.


    • Think pieces, too, are an emergent phenomenon. Realizing this is the second step toward navigating the waters of…

      • Sean II

        Q: What do you call it when someone says something they’d angrily denounce if an opponent said it first?

        A: The Full Niskannen.

        Take this piece for example. Levy is saying we shouldn’t fret too much about people feeling disempowered because real control has long resided in, you guessed it, the the shadowy forces of international finance!

        Man, can you imagine the panic if, um…Duterte had said that first, in one of his legendary midnight Tweets?

        • A. Alexander Minsky

          I would never want to write an essay for this site, if only because said essay would be subjected to your withering and cut to the chase analysis. Have you by any chance ever taught in a scholastic or university setting? I would pity the poor student who tried to BS you with a quickly written, shoddy paper full of improperly used polysyllabic verbiage.

          Although who knows, you may be far less exacting in person.

          • Sean II

            I am, far less exacting. I don’t teach college kids, but if I did I’d treat them with kid gloves and hand out inflated grades like I was part of the problem. Poor bastards, stuck in a debt-funded signaling race presided over by insufferable fanatics. The last thing they need is some jerk giving their papers tough love behind high-minded nonsense about the mission of a university.

            I treat people differently here because I figure this is a volunteer activity and one of the main reasons to participate is to test arguments against the best opposition you can find.

            Now one might object that I sometimes go beyond the requirements of such testing, even up to the point of humiliating people.

            My defense is: “Yeah, but they were all bad.”

            You may have noticed I respond most sharply to pretension, affectation, sanctimony, etc. Not sure why those strike me as the big unforgivable sins in this game, but they do. It’s like: I don’t mind people who miss the truth for lack of insight or even lack of looking, but I can’t stand people who seem to miss it on purpose, for the sake of some ulterior motive. And I especially don’t like it when that motive is: to impress and curry favor with fools. Something about that behavior makes me want to punish the people who perpetuate it, in whatever small way I can.

          • A. Alexander Minsky

            I largely agree with your sentiments, but I suppose a certain degree of “virtue signaling” is inevitable on a site called “Bleeding Heart Libertarians”. The name implies that this is where the “nice” libertarians gather- you know, the ones who don’t hate the poor or cast dissenters into the nether regions a la Ayn Rand. It’s not surprising that such a site would attract a few individuals ready to exhibit “pretension, affectation, sanctimony, etc.”

          • Sean II

            Yes, but I should point out: the biggest diss of all is not paying attention. I take swipes at bullshit here only because I believe the local citizenry is talented enough to know better. There are plenty of forums where one finds nothing but nonsense and sanctimony. Those I ignore completely. To use a grading analogy…

            The rest of the libertarian blogosphere are like those illiterate kids whose papers are so painful to read, there’s no point in giving them feedback. This place is like that one promising but misguided student who could still get his shit together……with the help of regularly scheduled ass-kickings.

          • Rob Gressis

            I was very surprised to learn that Peter van Inwagen, who thinks most philosophers have no idea what they’re talking about, and can usually prove it to them, grades college students leniently. His defense was, “if the professionals don’t know what they’re talking about, why should I expect anything from the amateurs?”

          • Peter from Oz

            I get them when they have finished university and the equivalent of the bar exam. They are often sharp, but mostly poor at constructing an argument worth the client’s money. Their heads are still filled with admiration for their teachers who have mostly filled their heads with the silliest notions of what the law is all about. Like you, I cannot blame these tyros for their lack of prescience. It is not their fault they are being taught left-wing pap instead of really useful knowledge and skills. The ones I do castigate are those who seem purposely to go wrong because they can’t see the point of engaging in the rigorous thought and ratiocination that legal practice at the top level requires, when there is social justice to fight for and whining to be done.
            Fortunately, most of the junior lawyers I have trained have overcome the strange ideas they learnt at university.

          • Sean II

            It’s interesting, when you step back a bit, to see just how little goes into the currently fashionable idea of being a good person.

            Being “anti-racist” seems to get you about 3/4 of the way there. And all you have to do to be anti-racist is talk about how un-racist you are…and the way you do that is mostly by denouncing people who don’t talk as well as you.

            No actual contact with – or action on behalf of – minorities is required. You just say how much you like them, and how much you hate everyone who doesn’t, and you’ve done your good works for the week.

            Not sure if you caught this, but a few months back a couple dudes here were actually bragging about their IAT scores. The gag being, obviously, that they wouldn’t have found themselves reduced to that if they had any actual black friends to brag about. But of course they didn’t, because once you get past 30 the righteous whites and the wicked ones behave identically.

            Though again, it’s stupid to blame millenials themselves for miming this behavior when we could instead blame those who modeled it for them.

            (I’m convinced this is one of the reasons why trans caught on so quick. They make such perfect political clients. First, because there aren’t enough of them that anyone should ever need to explain why he doesn’t actually have trans friends. Can’t fault someone for cheap talk when most people never even get an opportunity to pass or fail the test of tolerance in a real-life encounter. Second, because there aren’t enough of them that you should ever have to worry they’ll embarrass you by bombing concerts, robbing stores, beating up women, etc. Third, because there aren’t enough of them to organize and talk back, so the trans cause (in contrast to, say, those allegedly serving black or Muslims) will always be safely controlled by non-trans people. It’s just about flawless.)

          • Peter from Oz

            Yes the trans thing is so fortuitous for our modern puritans.
            But I have never understood why trans people have to be included in the homosexual victim group. Why do shirtlifters have any more affination with those who are mentally one sex but physically another? I suppose that the new religion of progressivism isn’t really that interested in intellectual consistency, and justifies itself on shared victimhood.

          • A. Alexander Minsky

            It does seem as if though transgenders and homosexuals have a shared interest in that both groups benefit from greater social tolerance vis a vis matters sexual. I suppose it is theoretically possible that a society could, say, treat transvestites with great tolerance or even affection while casting a cold eye on same sex relations. Such a situation does, however, strike me as highly unlikely.

          • Peter from Oz

            I think you are probably right. But I still find it odd. Being transgender has nothing to do with the sexuality of the trans person. I ssuppose in the trans hasn’t had the operation, there may be some issues with his or her partner being classed as gay or lesbian.

            This is getting quite Shakepspearian: where boys dressed up to play girls as part of the plot then dress up as boys.

            Or as Blur would have it:
            Girls who are boys
            Who like boys to be girls
            Who do boys like they’re girls
            Who do girls like they’re boys
            Always should be someone you really love

          • The Hijra in India seem to fit this description, for what it’s worth.

          • Sean II

            I’m not informed enough to have a strong opinion, but I’ve heard from at least one seemingly credible person that the Hijra “enjoy” a social status similar to that of punks in a prison system.

            It says a lot about the whole epistemic closure debate that, short of going to India, I can’t think of a way to become better informed.

            Everyone has an axe to grind. Lefties are sworn to find non-pathologic examples of third gender, whether they exist or not. While on the other side human trafficking cause-heads are known to lie and exaggerate, while Righties can be counted on to pick their battles very poorly.

            What do you do if you’re just curious?

          • The Hijra could indeed be the exception that proves the rule, but they seem to be a pretty good example of what I think Minsky was getting at. While they don’t enjoy a position of equality, they are much more accepted than genuine homosexuals.

            But I think it’s also an interesting example for another reason: In a place like India, where sexual repression is so bad that any outward expression of it is verboten, we seem to end up with a situation where Hijra — masters of innuendo — enjoy higher status than homosexuals minding their own business.

            Stateside, sexual repression is still rampant, but it takes an odd form. We’re constantly encouraged to express our sexuality but bury the emotions attached to it. Our media wants sex “de-stigmatized” and crams every imaginable kink into every television drama, but it leaves the emotional side of the equation grossly stultified and underdeveloped in most people. I think this ties into a lot of what’s wrong with modern feminism, too.

            So we’re all outward expression and we’ve lost all sense of subtlety and innuendo because we can’t deal with our sexual emotions. And, unsurprisingly, openly gay people command higher status in our society than transsexuals, whose identity is more ambiguous and perhaps forces us to confront emotions we’re hell-bent on ignoring.

            And who is a more terrible whipping boy than a closeted homosexual in modern America? He’s the new self-hating Jew. So sad.

            But that’s just a two-penny theory I have.

          • Sean II

            1) “Our media wants sex “de-stigmatized” and crams every imaginable kink into every television drama, but it leaves the emotional side of the equation grossly stultified and underdeveloped in most people…”

            I was thinking about this the other day, as my wife and I were entertaining a group of new hires.

            Man, you can really tell how much the millennial commitment to irony uber alles gets in the way of romantic love.

          • Peter from Oz

            There’s some really good stuff in your post.
            The great Dr Theodore Dalrymple (aka Dr Anthony Daniels) has written a very good essay on this topic:

            If you haven’t come across Dalrymple in your travels, he is a retired psychiatrist turned essayist and author. His observations are based on the many years he spent practising his profession in the prisons and underclass areas, as well as in some of the world’s worst trouble spots. Unlike left-wing commentators, Dalrymple has first hand experience of the true results of ”progressive” polices.

          • Peter, thanks for that link. No, I’ve never heard of Dalrymple before. I don’t agree with everything in his thought-provoking essay, but this paragraph comes closer to my own feelings on this issue than anything I’ve yet encountered in print:

            What is left but personal whim in the determination of sexual conduct? It is precisely the envelopment of sex (and all other natural functions) with an aura of deeper meaning that makes man human and distinguishes him from the rest of animate nature. To remove that meaning, to reduce sex to biology, as all the sexual revolutionaries did in practice, is to return man to a level of primitive behavior of which we have no record in human history. All animals have sex, but only man makes love. When sex is deprived of the meaning with which only the social conventions, religious taboos, and personal restraints so despised by sexual revolutionaries such as Ellis and Comfort can infuse it, all that is left is the ceaseless—and ultimately boring and meaningless—search for the transcendent orgasm. Having been issued the false prospectus of happiness through unlimited sex, modern man concludes, when he is not happy with his life, that his sex has not been unlimited enough. If welfare does not eliminate squalor, we need more welfare; if sex does not bring happiness, we need more sex.

          • Peter from Oz

            Dr Dalymple is a wonderful and prescient essayist. Of course one can’t agree with everything he says, but he always makes one think. I think it’s the effortlesslt erudite manner he has of expressing complex ideas.
            I can thouroughly recommend his famous essay on why the prohibition of drugs should not be reversed.

          • Sean II

            I’ve come across Dalyrmple before. Something he wrote on the behavior of the underclass, and how much worse it is than most literate people can imagine. Dead on, as I remember it.

          • Peter from Oz

            Yes Dalyrymple has worked amongst the underclass for many years. Unlike most liberals, he know of what he speaks.

          • Peter from Oz

            I remember from visiting the Society Islands that in Tahitian society the Mahu are similar to the Hirja in India. In fact I think the recognition of transgender women has a long history in many of the Pacific cultures.

          • A. Alexander Minsky

            Joe Sobran was, to put it mildly, a controversial figure. He did, however, have two great about liberals and race:

            A college education provides people with all the correct ideas about minorities- and the means to live as far away from them as possible.

            In their mating and migratory habits, liberals are indistinguishable from the Klu Klux Klan.

          • Sean II

            2017 update:

            “Graduate school gives people all the right ideas about minorities, and the means to encounter them only as food truck chefs and Uber drivers.”

          • A. Alexander Minsky

            Well played as usual.

          • CJColucci

            The former may be true, but the latter is demonstrably false — as anyone who spends any time walking on big-city streets or — gasp — actually hanging out with liberals can attest.

          • Sean II

            Wrong. Interracial mating is still amazingly rare. And even then it’s more common among hillbillies than hipsters.

            You’re also wrong on the migratory part. Just look at the racial dot maps. Even in allegedly diverse (and undeniably liberal) places like Manhattan the segregation is glaring.

          • CJColucci

            One of us has to get out more.

          • Sean II


          • CJColucci

            Beats not dating at all. Quite by coincidence, I just received a group photo of my law school reunion this past weekend. Of the 60-odd (some very odd) people in the picture, there are six interracial marriages that I know about. For about a third of the rest, I simply do not know their domestic arrangements.

          • Sean II

            6 out of 60, in a law school class? So you mean 5 instances of Jewish guy + Asian girl, then 1 case of anything else?

          • CJColucci

            If you wanted to know what I meant — or even if you had any doubt about what I meant — you could have asked instead of making up your own facts. There were two black/white couples, three white/hispanic couples, and one Jewish guy with Asian woman — he’s not into girls. As I said before, one of us needs to get out more.

          • Sean II

            It was a joke, dude.

            No one cares about your tiny biased sample. Not when we have so much legit data on the question.

          • CJColucci

            Data? What data?
            And, incidentally, jokes tend to be, you know, funny.

          • Sean II

            Data is this thing you get when, instead of counting the people in just one law school class, you count whole bunches of them. Enough so that it becomes just as good as if you counted them all.

            There’s a bit more to it than that, but I’m easing you in here.

            Anyway, when you count up all the lawyers and non-lawyers in this way, you discover that only ~6% of whites are married out. Which is low because on unbiased selection, you’d expect that number to be 28%.

          • CJColucci

            I’ve seen some of the same data you have. Why you think its helps you or Joe Sobran is beyond me. You might want to check the Pew survey for the way things are trending. I realize you and Joe might not like those trends, but, well, there they are.

          • Sean II

            So that, what you just did there with the guilt-by-association, motive impugning, fallback position thing, would be an example of not data.

            That other thing, the one where you grudgingly admit the numbers aren’t what you thought but you hope they someday might be, that’s a prediction (generally considered less reliable than data, but still a pip above not).

            But hey, I’m game. Let’s see how it all looks in the big nationwide class reunion of 2020. Maybe you’ll get a 150% increase from last time, which would take the rate of interracial marriage among whites up to a towering 4.5%. Man, what slap in the face of doubters that would be.

          • CJColucci

            “Admit?” I’ve never denied the numbers. What I deny is the late Mr. Sobran’s suggestion that the educated elite, by virtue of their being educated elites, have mating practices much like KKK-ers. The overall percentage of interracial marriages, which is growing, doesn’t support that assertion and is inconsistent with my observations, and those of others,of the class about which the late Mr. Sobran seemed so concerned.
            By the way, what is it you “doubters” doubt, and why?

          • Sean II

            Read the thread. What I doubt is the sincerity of anti-racism among whites. Especially vis-a-via blacks. Looks like mostly talk to me, and the numbers bear that out.

            We’ve considered two sobering sources – racial dot maps and interracial marriage stats. But there’s plenty more where that came from. I might also have mentioned the notorious hypocrisy of those progressive corporations who decorate their image with Black Lives Matter while keeping their cubicles and especially their c-suites empty of living blacks. Or I might’ve brought up education, and the odd bit of historical reenactment which leads each new generation of white parents to repeat the postwar pattern of “fly or buy”, that is, go suburban or go private…just at the moment when their kids might have started attending school with significant numbers of native born blacks.

            None of these things are hard to see.

          • CJColucci

            I have no interest in convincing you one way or the other about the sincerity of anti-racism among whites, but citing the current rate of inter-racial marriage (while ignoring the rising rate of interracial marriage among younger folk),is barely even relevant, let alone “sobering.” Marriage is not randomly distributed, either on racial or class or religious, or geographical grounds. Unless you have some defensible notion of what the “right” percentage of interracial marriage is, there is simply nothing with which to compare the actual percentage. What is reasonably clear, both from the statistics and evidence in the broader culture, is that it is sufficiently common and accepted that just about anyone who lives in an area with reasonable ethnic diversity knows and probably socializes with interracial couples. They largely, though, sadly, not entirely, go through life without getting grief for it. They are all over popular culture even when the interracial character of the couple is not a plot point — the director just liked the way the actor read for the part and the casting just fell out that way. No one would re-make Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner as anything but a comedy now.
            Sobran’s joke — it probably struck people as funny in those days — suggested that the educated elite were unusually prone to avoiding interracial relationships, presumably for the same reasons as the KKK. It would take some pretty sophisticated number-crunching to compare the rate of interracial marriages among the educated elites against the pool of otherwise plausible marriage prospects — budding lawyers are likely to marry someone they met in law school or college, a disproportionately white group — but based on fairly extensive anecdotal experience (my law school class reunion being only a recent dataset), my guess would be that, properly measured, interracial marriages are more common than the racial makeup of the marriage pool would predict. Maybe you have better numbers, and, if so, I’d be eager to see them.

          • Rob Gressis

            Hi CJColucci,

            You say to Sean II “Maybe you have better numbers, and, if so, I’d be eager to see them.”

            I thought he gave you numbers. Is your claim that the numbers he gave you didn’t count because numbers can’t tell us what percentage of interracial marriages there would be if people didn’t care about skin color?

            Also, is your theory to explain the data he did give the following: most white people aren’t racist, but rather that they just marry people on the basis of shared values, social class, education, and location? If so, that seems plausible to me; I don’t think many white people are racist, and I don’t think racist motives play much of a role in most white people’s behavior (though I admit I’m using an idiosyncratic definition of “racist” according to which you count as a racist if you harbor hostility, contempt, or dislike to a racial group).

          • Sean II

            I read it that way too, but such a claim turn his predicament into an escape proof prison. Here’s why…

            1) The observed rate among whites is ~3%. So, in order to tout THAT as any kind of happy news, he must to come up with a prior probability lower than 3%. He must say “based on factors X,Y, and Z, the base rate for interracial marriage between, say, whites and blacks should be just 1%. But in fact that pairing is triumphantly beating the odds at slightly less than 2%! Hooray!”

            That’s laughable on its face, but it gets worse…

            2) Because the only values you can plug into X,Y, and Z to get that result are other measures of segregation. Meaning, he must show that whites and blacks live so far apart that no one would reasonably expect them to meet and marry at a rate higher than 1%.

            Which sounds an awful lot like my original point, or Sobran’s for that matter.

            And that’s not all…

            3) Because even if X,Y, or Z turns out to be social class, and even if social class turns out to be upstream of race (it isn’t), that would still be closer to my point than his.

            Like I said: “interracial mating is more common among hillbillies than hipsters.”

            4) Meanwhile, the method I used – census base to derive null expectation, then comparison with observed rates – is absolutely the standard starting point for social science inquiries of this kind.

            The method he used – looking only at what is salient to him, in a sampling of his own narrow experience, which no one else can review or verify, and then defiantly insisting that experience is more descriptive of reality than a massive store of data gleaned from the national census – is something any responsible scholar would tell you not to do.

            5) There are admittedly other ways to study and examine this issue, refine the numbers, deepen our understanding, etc. (although in no sane world is the Colucci Relationship Anecdote Processor one of those ways).

            A good one is: look at dating/mating behavior within specific locales. We can hardly regard a black guy in Baltimore as eligible to a white girl in Seattle, so maybe we should zoom in a bit and find out what happens within cities.

            As it happens, we have exactly this kind of data from matchmaking apps. And the results are so discomforting I marvel at the fact they were ever made public. They basically confirm every tired old cliche in the book.

            White guys like asian and white girls. In fact every group of men except asians likes asian girls. Only black women as a group prefer black men. No group prefers black women or asian men. White men and black women strongly agree in not preferring each other. And so on.

            Note of caution: the dating numbers are more optimistic than the marriage numbers, but that probably doesn’t mean much long term. Parsimony says that endogamy preference would probably increase with the level of commitment expected. So however much one sees in hook-ups, expect lots more in actual hitchings.

            6) Your definition granted, you are right about racism not being a big factor in the motives and actions of white people. It isn’t.

            That, too, is part of my original point. The racial segregation we see around us is persisting despite a massive, sustained, and at its roots sincere desire on the part of whites to reject racism. Those whites aren’t lying when they say racism is evil, nor when they wish for a world rid of it. They really seem to want that, and have built almost an entire new religion around the idea.

            But they keep running up against things which prevent them from realizing the dream of diversity in practice.

            They keep individually revealing preferences other than the ones they collectively state.

            The white-black question continues to be treated as a forgotten man problem, where A feels very strongly about what B should be doing for C (where A = bourgey whites, B = prole whites, and C = blacks).

          • Rob Gressis

            I suspect that many people just look at people and make judgments about what they’re likely to do based on their salient characteristics. Young skinny white guy with raggedy clothes and black tear tattoo? Be careful. Middle-aged black guy in suit? Smooth sailing. Lee Jussim stereotype accuracy stuff. Is that what you were hinting at? (Don’t get me wrong; I think there’s more to it than that. But I’m not sure how much more.)

          • Sean II

            I see two factors, although there may well be more.

            1) BARRIERS TO INITIAL ATTRACTION – Looks like some of this is just plain physical. The safest bet in evolutionary bio is: like usually means like. We like who we’re like. That other saying – “opposites attract” – is probably just another example of salience bias. For the most part people are drawn to those who fundamentally resemble themselves.

            That said, there are some emerging exceptions, as the dating apps show. It’s interesting what happens when universal tastes collide with phenotypic diversity.

            Women the world over seem to like assertive, stereotypically masculine men (social status being equal, or at least sufficient), but not every group produces such men at similar rates. Very few Asian or predominantly indigenous Mexican guys are gonna compete well in a society where Brad Pitt and Will Smith set the standard. Meanwhile men everywhere tend to favor submissiveness and youth, as signaled by its most reliable proxy: petiteness. So higher average weight and body size does not bode well for the vast majority of black women up against the likes of Emma Watson and Jada Pinkett.

            Note: the further we move toward diversity, the more acute problems like this become. For most of history explicitly racist endogamy rules have stopped people from chasing their preferences, and kept them grazing on the family farm (sometimes literally).

            Shiksappeal was held in check by Yentapower.

            But not anymore, and the early results are in: black women and asian men will suffer sexual isolation that grows in proportion as integration becomes a reality. And no amount of aspirational casting on Aziz Ansari’s show is likely to change that.

            2) BARRIERS TO RELATIONSHIP STABILITY – The other one is the most usual of usual suspects: divergent evolution, behaviorally significant trait variance, different people gonna differ, etc.

            Think of what a delicate thing it is to keep the peace between husband and wife. Should we buy a Lexus now, or push the old Hyundai to 200k and feed our index fund instead? It’s movie night, should we check out the new Wes Anderson or go make sure Jason Stathan hasn’t forgotten how to drive a stick? And so on.

            As likely as any two people are to differ on these matters, two people of different groups are more.

            Consider a few traits where we have good data: intelligence and future orientation. In a culture where spouses are expected to interact on equal terms, it really helps if you and yours are not more than a standard deviation apart. Then you can at least share a vocabulary, agree on what kind of culture to consume, find the same stuff interesting. Plus bad shit happens when one party can’t even understand the argument their loved one is making in a fight. Every problem is aggravated, every solution made more expensive, etc.

            Same goes for time preference. To the extent that married couples act as a firm, they need to agree on its goals. If one party is always in favor of “let’s get this taken care of today” while the other is forever responding “why, we’ve got tons of time”.

            Again, as likely as two people are to differ, so much more are two people of different groups.

          • CJColucci

            I can imagine numbers that would clarify the issue. Maybe they exist, and, if so, I’d like to see them. My main point, though, is that the base rate of interracial marriage isn’t particularly relevant to what I thought was the point under discussion. Sobran’s wisecrack really amounts to little more than that if you get an elite higher education you will have more money and live like a person with more money, which, for a variety of well-understood reasons, means you’ll be living largely among white people. Just about anyone of any political persuasion will agree that this is so. And it will be true whether or not the educated elite, or some subclasses of it, think it a bug or a feature. Some like it that way, some don’t; some would be willing to do something about it if anyone knew what to do, others would not be.That’s a question for another time.
            As far equating the mating habits of the educated elite with those of KKK members, that’s something else again, a suggestion that the white educated elite overwhelmingly date whites for the same reasons the KKKers do. Raw total numbers would be misleading because you have to look at the number and color of fish in the ponds where one can be expected to drop one’s line. I suspect that a good look at the numbers will show a far greater proportion of dark fish in the hillbilly pond, and the question is whether people are throwing back the dark fish or not hooking them in the first place, which the right kind of numbers might illuminate. Incidentally, I don’t have a view about the “right” number of interracial relationships and to the extent that the rising trend in such marriages is happy news it is so only to the extent that it shows either a decline in aversion to such relationships or a pleasant change in the population of the pond, though there are people who would be happy about neither

          • Sean II

            Interesting switch you’ve pulled:

            6/20 – Whites don’t avoid blacks. You need to get out more. Why I know several examples…

            6/23 – Okay yeah whites really do avoid blacks, but I swear it’s just for socio-economic reasons.

            Unfortunately that’s non-responsive. The argument you started doesn’t hinge on why whites avoid blacks, just whether or not they do. Neither my comments nor Sobran’s quip depends on white people having an exclusively racial motive for their segregation from blacks.

          • CJColucci

            I don’t avoid Jews, Muslims, or Libertarians, but I haven’t married any either. Still, there were damn few Muslims in my dating pool back when I was dating, so the likelihood that I might have married one was pretty slim. Doesn’t seem to me that my not marrying a Muslim — or a lot of non-Muslim people not marrying Muslims — proves much about whether I, or they, avoid them, or why..
            Sobran isn’t around anymore to explain whatever point he was making, though the KKK reference is highly suggestive. I remember him being a rhetorical loose cannon, so If he didn’t mean what that suggests, that’s something his literary executor can address.

          • A. Alexander Minsky

            FYI, Joe Sobran has been dead for roughly seven years. And the quotes I mentioned from him were, I believe, a few decades old. I thought these snippets from the late columnist might provide a bit of humor. I didn’t expect them to lead to an acrimonious data on current data trends.

          • Sean II

            Take away the acrimony and the name of Sobran at this point, you leave him with two empty hands.

          • Peter from Oz

            Is it common in the US to have law school reunions?

          • CJColucci

            Yes. They need to give us a party to extract money.

          • Peter from Oz

            How interesting. No-one here would ever think of such a reunion because the universities don’t really solicit private donations.
            I hear a lot about ”law school” in the US. Are such institutions separate from Unviversities? Do you have to do law as a post-graduate course?

          • A. Alexander Minsky

            Pardon my aspergian tendency to pick nits, but my understanding is that segregation means government laws/policies that forcibly keep racial groups apart (and often benefit one group at the expense of the other). Many White liberals may practice a voluntary form of racial, and ideological, separation from their fellow citizens. This separatist practice may be hypocritical and infuriating, but it cannot accurately be dubbed segregation.

          • Sean II

            No need for a pardon, and nothing wrong with picking nits, it’s just that in this case the thing you’ve picked isn’t actually a nit.

            The term “segregation” is not identical with “de jure segregation”. If it was, no such modifier would have been created.

            Indeed, the fact that “segregation” can equally be preceded by either “de jure” or “de facto” shows you the latter* is as much a valid usage as the former.

            * Dictionary definition – “racial, ethnic, or other segregation resulting from societal differences between groups, as socioeconomic or political disparity, without institutionalized legislation intended to segregate.”

          • Yes. “Declaring oneself an ally” as a defense mechanism against doing the hard mental work of changing one’s perspectives on race relations.

            Most white people’s relationship to foreignness is so shallow, anyway. It seems to mostly center around eating at Asian restaurants and reading books by foreign-born authors (provided, of course, that those books have already passed muster with a Western literary gatekeeper, be it the Nobel Prize or the Oprah’s Book Club, or whatever).

          • Peter from Oz

            Ryan, your casual generalisation about white people carries a distinct whiff of oikophobia. You may be right of course. If you were, then your intentions in making the statement are not really relevant.
            On balance, I think you are right about white people, but the scent of oikophbia arises because you failed to point out that just about all people have a shallow relationship to foreigness.
            But the myth of the infinitely cosmopolitan immigrant dies hard. The fact is that the vast majority of immigrants to Western countries are of a very uncultured peasant stock, just as thick as our yobs.

          • Peter, I can only assume that my comment strikes you as “oikophobic” because of the way Disqus arranges comments. Here is the specific quote from Sean II that inspired my comment:

            Being “anti-racist” seems to get you about 3/4 of the way there. And all you have to do to be anti-racist is talk about how un-racist you are…and the way you do that is mostly by denouncing people who don’t talk as well as you.

            No actual contact with – or action on behalf of – minorities is required. You just say how much you like them, and how much you hate everyone who doesn’t, and you’ve done your good works for the week.

            My comment voiced agreement with Sean II here. “Declaring oneself an ally” is the leftist political language for what Sean calls “talking about how un-racist you are.” If this strikes you as being “oikophobic” because I failed to malign people of color right alongside whites, I’d guess it’s because you’re either particularly sensitive to criticisms of white liberal racists (but why?) or because you didn’t read my comment within the context of the particular group of people Sean II was talking about when he wrote his comment.

            So, I’m guessing this was just a miscommunication.

            Your decision to call immigrants “uncultured peasant stock” was a poor one that bears no relationship to anything Sean or I wrote, at least as far as I can see.

          • Peter from Oz

            Yes, I think you are right that I read your comment out of context. When you were talking about ”most white people”, you were in fact pointing the bone at the faux sophisticates whose cosmopolitanism is skin deep.
            One of the traits of the faux sophisticates is that they assume that immigrants are somehow more cultured than native-born citizens. The fact is that the vast majority of immigrants are from the working class/peasant sections of their country of origin. They emigrate to better their lot. People who are doing well in their country of origin are less likely to want to move to another country permanently.

          • Lacunaria

            True Lies for the win! lol I say you keep the withering criticism AND the inflated grades.

          • Sean II

            1) Glad someone caught that.

            2) “I say you keep the withering criticism AND the inflated grades.”

            This is known as “The Harvey Mansfield”.

          • A. Alexander Minsky

            Harvey C. Manfield was known to many of his students as Harvey “C-” Mansfield.

          • Lacunaria

            Haha, thanks! I hadn’t read about his approach to grade inflation. I’d imagine that it is easy for him to implement and sometimes useful to magnify fine grained differences, though I much prefer your specific insightful criticisms rather than simply fitting grades to a fixed distribution.

    • Alex P

      A Barry Lyndon character avatar. Very cool. Great movie.

      • Sean II

        “When Barry saw the splendor of the Chevalier’s appearance, the nobility of his manner, he felt it impossible to keep disguise with him…”

        • HermanStone

          I once auditioned for a high school play with a monologue from Barry. It was s proud moment.

          • Sean II

            I hope you didn’t use any artificial light.

          • HermanStone

            I nearly burned down the school