[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page

Re:Scott Elliott's guilt

On Tue, 6 May 1997, mgremillion@selu.edu wrote:


>I'm glad I offended some people. 

Hey-notice it's not ME or Stannard or Massey trying to make this too personal.  
Scott's GLAD he's offending.  Guess some of the Anti-CR folks are ready to throw 
too.  That's okay.  

>Second, bad arguments often win rounds. I can just see a judge explaining to 
>Cal Fullerton "Yeah, you win the nuke war impact on the bottom but you are 
>dropping the d-rules on the bottom saying I should never vote for an immoral 
>policy regardless of the outcome. Racism is immoral therefore you lose. It may 
>be stupid but my teams win with it all the time.

I don't think that's "stupid".  The "stupid" thing to do is conceed that, "you 
should never vote for an immoral policy regardless of the outcome" and then go 
for a utilitarian disad impact.  I wonder how your teams win with it all the 
time. I'll be the first to say that I am looking forward to debating SE La. next 
year after reading Scott's last 2 posts.  Should be a predictable and easy case 
debate.  


>Third, How more real world can our argumentation be? Just pull up a transcript 
>on a Federal or State legislative debate on Affirmative Action or Schools,
>or taxation (Hell, in Louisiana mandatory car insurance has been branded as
>a form of racism). Believe me working on Collective guilt works wonders in the 
>real world. The majority of programs for set asides are premised upon 
>collective guilt. 

"set asides"?  Hmmm....good one.  So where do you get this evidence that says 
these programs are BASED upon collective guilt?  I am assuming you beleive this 
guilt is a negative thing?  That seems to be a pretty dangerous attitude.  You 
mention affirmative action...I won't go into it again as I have made my position 
clear in responses to the Vanderbilt crew but I think there is plenty of 
evidence to suggest that "these programs" are not neccessarily a reflection of 
guilt.  Put down your Manning Marable and break out, bro.
Anyway, should white America not feel obligated to equal the scales of justice?
Justice has traditionally been the product and property of the dominant class.  
Should we abandon efforts to unfreeze the racialized present?  I really don't 
know what this guilt rant has to do with your point that teams will utilize 
moral claims to avoid the substantive consequences of action.  I think it is 
important to note that a lot of times policy considerations get masked behind 
moral claims to create a strawperson...but that's negative ground.


>The whole idea of "my people were oppressed, give me a buck" is a plea for help 
>based upon guilt. So, it may be stupid, but it is how the "real world" argues 
>all of the time. 

"my people were oppresed, give me a buck"??  I'm glad you don't mind offending 
people, Scott.  The thrust of anti-discrimination law may be redemptive in 
nature but I hardly think your attitude is appropriate or accurate.  Creating a 
world with more equal access to the means of financial reward for work, or 
ensuring rights protection can't be characterized as the hand out you describe.
What exactly are you talking about?  I think you'll find that if anything you 
are describing possible negative answers to race advantages.


>So many people want the civil rights topic becuase of its "real world" impacts, 
>well why not look to how the real advocates present their arguments. 

Okay...did that.  Honestly, didn't find much of what you're talking about.  
There are lots of critiques of how anti-discrimination law gets done and how it 
operates and who's involved, etc.  I think the most important thing is how our 
language operates to construct perception...and you're biting it hard, Scott.  
You would agree that race is apparant to the eye and thus plays a role in our 
day to day worldview...the problem is you seem so bent on denying your white 
guilt that you attempt to mischaracterize race policy and shift the blame to the 
white community who is caving in and offering "set asides" and hand outs in 
direct oppposition to a definate white dominance and position of power.  This is 
how anti-discrimination law gets dismantled...witness Prop. 209.  The issue it 
seems isn't white guilt but protection of a position.  You'll probably cry foul, 
that I am leveling racism charges at you...but I'm not.  I'm only asking you to 
be more aware of what you're saying and how you characterize race policy.  If 
you choose to coach your teams to handle race discussion in the way you seem to 
want to that is your own business.  Aside from the fact that I think you will 
lose a lot of debates I also think it's important to understand that masking 
anti-discrimination law behind moral claims is not neccessarily the simple 
smokescreen you make it out to be.  Your construction of reality has 
implications and you may find that the reason the "real world" works that way is 
because of the attitude white America is taking to expansion of race policy.  
This is an important truth to uncover....why does opposition exist to civil 
rights expansion in the "real world"?  Ahh, how the truth shall set you free.


>And, finally, if you don't think the cards exist to support such a "stupid" 
>position, I suggest you look into your Eco-Racism backfiles and camp cases. 
>They are filled with such arguments like "all economic objections are 
>smokescreens for a racist policy," etc. etc.

Makes sense.  This is an issue which deserves examination.  How does one view 
issues like race against economic considerations?  I think if you get out and 
look at some work of those "real world" advocates you may find more answers than 
you thought existed.  I hardly think the argument is stupid, but I realize you 
are interpreting Debbie's post.

>Still Cynical,
>Scott Elliott

Yeah, definately cynical....just remember, you were the one who was happy to 
offend.  I have never seen anti-discrimination law characterized as set asides 
or "give me a buck" therefore I associate these rhetorical claims to you and not 
the mainstream media.  Also, I got the impression that the whole guilt thing was 
not something that you were admitting to, therefore I think my response was 
fair.  I don't think I could take this differently and I think my interpretation 
is understandable. I am sure you will disagree.  Glad to hear my good pal, Scott 
Elliott isn't feeling too guilty. :)

More negative ground keeps popping up, doesn't it?

slusher
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page