Erica needs to read this (and a few other things) in order to have adult arguments.
Installment 1/:
By Ze'ev Jabotinsky........
ON GENERLISING AND ACCUSATIONS OF RACISM:
I would say it's very level headed to look at reality backed up with mountains of evidence and then drawing conclusions based on that. What is Newman or I saying that is so racist that has no basis in reality? You're taking both of our statements and wildly taking them out of proportion like Newman and I are saying that every black person is this way or that way. When newman talks about ghettos with majority blacks, he correctly calls them hell-holes and correctly points out that they are infested with criminals. Why is this a racist thing to say? Why is it level headed to deny reality?
When we say that blacks are a criminal society, we don't need to show that 100% of blacks are criminals, we just need to show that there is a severe criminal problem that is more pronounced among blacks than anyone else. If that is 30% of the population, 40% of the population, so be it, the exact numbers are inconsequential.
When we say that blacks are a society that produces illegitimate children, we don't need to show that 100% of blacks do this, again, we just need to show that it is a problem among blacks more than it is among anyone else, and that it is a particularly black problem, which it is. The severity of these things are unique to black communities, so it is fair game to point them out in generalized fashions.
It's just that whenever you see one of these broad and vague statements, you instantly go into black reactionary mode, immediately believing that we mean every single black person. Your common defense of how you are different than what we say is an example of this.
Whenever there is a feature of the black community that is 1) disproportionate to blacks 2) recognized as a "black problem" 3) that's pervasiveness is unique to the black community, I'm going to recognize that as a component of the black community. Of course it doesn't have to even be a problem with the majority of people.
When we point out anti-Semitism among Polish people for example, we don't need to prove that every single Polish person is an anti-Semite, we just need to point to the uniqueness of the problem to Poland, the pervasiveness of the problem, and the degree of the problem.
These are the modes that these sort of things are discussed in and indeed when speaking of general habits of cultures and religions, this sort of thinking is commonly used all the time. Why should it not be used in reference to blacks?
******************
We don't say that the action of one person constitutes the action of an entire people. This is the frame of thinking that you use in your example. THe fact that you actually believe that we think that way is sort of ridiculous, I'm actually surprised at it. Let me make our position clearer, obviously you're making an example of us that is grossly exaggerated. We think that when we find many many many many examples of something, which is backed up with empirical evidence, we can legitimately claim that as an issue which has a pervasiveness that is unique in severity and degree to that community. This is how the entire world thinks of ideas and concepts and it is not a new concept to me and newman by any means.
