Another thread about that Jenner person getting awarded for being transgender made me think. Our society, which created the concept of "coming out" and the like was born as a result of the desire to progress morally as a society. This is okay as a short term step towards progression but has taken hold as something more permanent over the last few decades.
Point is, the end result is supposed to be equality. A society that has become accustomed and doesn't hold expectations; within the family circle, this means parents that don't expect children to be of any orientation. A world where being gay, bisexual etc is treated as normally as being no straight - no special outings or pedastools.
speaking of Bruce....er Caitlyn Jenner. Did you know there was a petition to have her Olympic metals returned? Your thread rings so much truth man. And I completely agree. U_U
Another thread about that Jenner person getting awarded for being transgender made me think. Our society, which created the concept of "coming out" and the like was born as a result of the desire to progress morally as a society. This is okay as a short term step towards progression but has taken hold as something more permanent over the last few decades.
Point is, the end result is supposed to be equality. A society that has become accustomed and doesn't hold expectations; within the family circle, this means parents that don't expect children to be of any orientation. A world where being gay, bisexual etc is treated as normally as being no straight - no special outings or pedastools.
Life can't move on without disagreement, if everyone accepted everything about everyone else then they aren't human. Because it's inhumane to have total acceptance of everything it means we will have preferences and those preferences will distinguish us and create something which we do not prefer, and because everyones preferences are different, you will inevitably find things you don't like in other people and things they don't like about you even if you happen to like that certain thing. For that reason judgement will exist aslong as humanity does and it is what we resonate with that define our lives. Inevitably that judgement will turn into conflict and it's through that conflict that we grow and learn as human beings. That decision to stand behind something you believe in is what makes your life worth it in the infinite time of existance. You will have made your mark by having polarity in your character. A world where everyone accepts each other can therefore never exist unless we're not alive.
That's the point I'm trying to get across. But we're still stuck on this temporary stepping stone and not moving very far in the last few decades. Nobody should need to come out of anywhere, it should just be normal and not specialed out.
Life can't move on without disagreement, if everyone accepted everything about everyone else then they aren't human. Because it's inhumane to have total acceptance of everything it means we will have preferences and those preferences will distinguish us and create something which we do not prefer, and because everyones preferences are different, you will inevitably find things you don't like in other people and things they don't like about you even if you happen to like that certain thing. For that reason judgement will exist aslong as humanity does and it is what we resonate with that define our lives. Inevitably that judgement will turn into conflict and it's through that conflict that we grow and learn as human beings. That decision to stand behind something you believe in is what makes your life worth it in the infinite time of existance. You will have made your mark by having polarity in your character. A world where everyone accepts each other can therefore never exist unless we're not alive.
You our basically just presumed that I said everyone, when I clearly didn't. Of course, there's going to be natural contenders, that's natural but most of the negative side of this issue is based around inherited beliefs.
The next step to be took is the biggest and boldest, yet society is too scared to take it. Why? Because it's the one that's going to stir up the biggest sea of adversity and inhibitions... but to advance, we have to endure a long, hard fight until the inherited beliefs are majorly fizzled out.
You our basically just presumed that I said everyone, when I clearly didn't. Of course, there's going to be natural contenders, that's natural but most of the negative side of this issue is based around inherited beliefs.
The next step to be took is the biggest and boldest, yet society is too scared to take it. Why? Because it's the one that's going to stir up the biggest sea of adversity and inhibitions... but to advance, we have to endure a long, hard fight until the inherited beliefs are majorly fizzled out.
Only in America, that shit is inhumane you know he still has his d!ck right that's crazy. This is not a way to peace but an escape route for cowards or people who are attention hungry
The problem is how engrained certain values are in different people's heads. No matter what, society will always be made up of people from different generations that grew up with different sets of values and opinions on subjects. That's why you do have some people growing up racist even in this young age, because it's put into their heads by their parents whom were from a different time period. This transgender movement of sorts shouldn't be that big of a deal in this age, but it is. And I wish it wasn't. Because if we were truly progressing as a society (morally) then this would become a norm, rather than an extraordinary occurrence.
The problem is how engrained certain values are in different people's heads. No matter what, society will always be made up of people from different generations that grew up with different sets of values and opinions on subjects. That's why you do have some people growing up racist even in this young age, because it's put into their heads by their parents whom were from a different time period. This transgender movement of sorts shouldn't be that big of a deal in this age, but it is. And I wish it wasn't. Because if we were truly progressing as a society (morally) then this would become a norm, rather than an extraordinary occurrence.
You progressives never realize how backwards you are by claiming anything other than your own values as old stuff. As if the age makes some sort of difference, somethings about humans are timeless and dates back far before any civilization was started. For that reason if you look at someone elses beliefs as ancient which enables you to rationalize them as outdated regardless of their validity, then you're only looking in the mirror here. Dismissing anothers worldview as outdated is what makes your method outdated.
Another thread about that Jenner person getting awarded for being transgender made me think. Our society, which created the concept of "coming out" and the like was born as a result of the desire to progress morally as a society. This is okay as a short term step towards progression but has taken hold as something more permanent over the last few decades.
Point is, the end result is supposed to be equality. A society that has become accustomed and doesn't hold expectations; within the family circle, this means parents that don't expect children to be of any orientation. A world where being gay, bisexual etc is treated as normally as being no straight - no special outings or pedastools.
The problem is that liberalism is a mental disorder built upon caste, segregationist logic. Just watch as the feminists begin to tear into the genetic males who have surgery to become anatomically similar to females (we have to make such distinctions because 'progress' has stated that someone born with a penis can become a female or vice-versa and should be addressed as such). This is already happening.
Similarly, the homosexuals are starting to attack the bisexuals for not being 'gay enough' to be part of 'gay rights.'
Liberalism is an obsession with conformity to labels. Only old white men can be Republicans or Conservatives. Only blacks can represent "black lives matter." It is a very tribal sense of allegiances that requires individuals of certain labels - most notably as pertaining to labels of 'virtue.'
All homosexuals must be in support of X, Y, and Z policies or they aren't 'real homosexuals' according to liberal thought. Why? Because the label of "homosexual" has been assigned a virtue by liberals. Therefor, all ideas that most liberals find to be virtuous must apply to a "real homosexual."
These societies will always result in the French Revolution - where people just butcher the living shit out of each other for not conforming to the virtue of the month.
Now, why is this?
Liberals define themselves and others according to labels. The label is the identity.
This can be seen in some of the opposition to Voter ID laws in America. Hillary Clinton went on a tirade against Voter ID, claiming that it was unfair to not use a College-issued ID as a means of proving ID prior to voting. Why does this work within liberal thinking? Because the ID one is issued by the college is symbolic of the identity of a College Student. When someone says a college ID is not sufficient to prove ID upon voting - the liberal interprets this to mean that being a college student is insufficient to vote. The individual is a consequence of the label.
The conservative, on the other hand, sees the label as a consequence of the individual. Labels can apply to an individual, but are not a sufficient description of the individual or an all-encompassing explanation. Further, the individual can invalidate a label by making his or her actions inconsistent with what a label would properly describe. Labels don't have to exist for everything in the mind of the conservative, and there's no requirement to conform to the expectations generated by the label. Labels are simply useful for conversation and business - they facilitate communication so that we can relate to what is being discussed.
In the mind of a liberal - in order for everyone to be equal, all individuals must have a label that describes them, and everyone must be equally joyous about how amazing it is for that person to wear that label. When an 8 year old discovers he is into BDSM while at a trip to Smitten Kitten in his health class, this is something to be celebrated and universally accepted.
No, I'm not completely off of my rocker, something similar happened:
You must be registered for see links
"Gaia Democratic School director Starri Hedges took about a dozen students to the Smitten Kitten last week. Hedges told the Star Tribune (
You must be registered for see links
) that she wanted to provide a safe environment for students to learn about human sexual behavior.
Besides offering adult books, videos, toys and other products, the store also has educational workshops, which the students attended.
"What I saw happening on our trip, I thought it was beautiful because kids could talk to these *** educators without any shame, without any fear," Hedges said. Some of her students bought condoms, she said."
Yes. A field trip to a store for *** toys for middle school students.
The problem with liberal ideology is that labels are fixed. You are born into things like homosexuality. Forget the science that completely disproves that assertion. But, we see this in instances where people are attacked and derided for leaving a homosexual lifestyle.
Why? Because they have attempted to change their label.
This is why these societies will always implode and always destroy themselves.
Moral equality for a liberal can't exist. It will always collapse under the weight of attempting to preserve virtue across all labels of individuals. This is why they are perpetually miserable people who are psychologically unstable and prone to the behavior of a sociopath.
The conservative mentality (which can be adopted) doesn't see things this way. Moral equality is achieved by being able to value the individual outside of the label. I can think Homosexuality is worse than murder - but I can also respect what other things a person who is a homosexual does - and the individual has the potential to invalidate the label of being a homosexual.
A conservative can, therefor, befriend people and trust people he may not necessarily believe have good or virtuous habits and doesn't expect every individual to conform to his or her ideas of what labels are good/bad to wear. There is no need to campaign for a 'bad' label to be embraced and seen as 'good.' There's no need to find new labels for each case where the existing labels aren't an exact match.
A very simple analogy is that Liberals are insistent upon setting strict dress codes while conservatives are more apt to ask why you aren't dressed appropriately.
The problem is that liberalism is a mental disorder built upon caste, segregationist logic. Just watch as the feminists begin to tear into the genetic males who have surgery to become anatomically similar to females (we have to make such distinctions because 'progress' has stated that someone born with a penis can become a female or vice-versa and should be addressed as such). This is already happening.
Similarly, the homosexuals are starting to attack the bisexuals for not being 'gay enough' to be part of 'gay rights.'
Liberalism is an obsession with conformity to labels. Only old white men can be Republicans or Conservatives. Only blacks can represent "black lives matter." It is a very tribal sense of allegiances that requires individuals of certain labels - most notably as pertaining to labels of 'virtue.'
All homosexuals must be in support of X, Y, and Z policies or they aren't 'real homosexuals' according to liberal thought. Why? Because the label of "homosexual" has been assigned a virtue by liberals. Therefor, all ideas that most liberals find to be virtuous must apply to a "real homosexual."
These societies will always result in the French Revolution - where people just butcher the living shit out of each other for not conforming to the virtue of the month.
Now, why is this?
Liberals define themselves and others according to labels. The label is the identity.
This can be seen in some of the opposition to Voter ID laws in America. Hillary Clinton went on a tirade against Voter ID, claiming that it was unfair to not use a College-issued ID as a means of proving ID prior to voting. Why does this work within liberal thinking? Because the ID one is issued by the college is symbolic of the identity of a College Student. When someone says a college ID is not sufficient to prove ID upon voting - the liberal interprets this to mean that being a college student is insufficient to vote. The individual is a consequence of the label.
The conservative, on the other hand, sees the label as a consequence of the individual. Labels can apply to an individual, but are not a sufficient description of the individual or an all-encompassing explanation. Further, the individual can invalidate a label by making his or her actions inconsistent with what a label would properly describe. Labels don't have to exist for everything in the mind of the conservative, and there's no requirement to conform to the expectations generated by the label. Labels are simply useful for conversation and business - they facilitate communication so that we can relate to what is being discussed.
In the mind of a liberal - in order for everyone to be equal, all individuals must have a label that describes them, and everyone must be equally joyous about how amazing it is for that person to wear that label. When an 8 year old discovers he is into BDSM while at a trip to Smitten Kitten in his health class, this is something to be celebrated and universally accepted.
No, I'm not completely off of my rocker, something similar happened:
You must be registered for see links
"Gaia Democratic School director Starri Hedges took about a dozen students to the Smitten Kitten last week. Hedges told the Star Tribune (
You must be registered for see links
) that she wanted to provide a safe environment for students to learn about human sexual behavior.
Besides offering adult books, videos, toys and other products, the store also has educational workshops, which the students attended.
"What I saw happening on our trip, I thought it was beautiful because kids could talk to these *** educators without any shame, without any fear," Hedges said. Some of her students bought condoms, she said."
Yes. A field trip to a store for *** toys for middle school students.
The problem with liberal ideology is that labels are fixed. You are born into things like homosexuality. Forget the science that completely disproves that assertion. But, we see this in instances where people are attacked and derided for leaving a homosexual lifestyle.
Why? Because they have attempted to change their label.
This is why these societies will always implode and always destroy themselves.
Moral equality for a liberal can't exist. It will always collapse under the weight of attempting to preserve virtue across all labels of individuals. This is why they are perpetually miserable people who are psychologically unstable and prone to the behavior of a sociopath.
The conservative mentality (which can be adopted) doesn't see things this way. Moral equality is achieved by being able to value the individual outside of the label. I can think Homosexuality is worse than murder - but I can also respect what other things a person who is a homosexual does - and the individual has the potential to invalidate the label of being a homosexual.
A conservative can, therefor, befriend people and trust people he may not necessarily believe have good or virtuous habits and doesn't expect every individual to conform to his or her ideas of what labels are good/bad to wear. There is no need to campaign for a 'bad' label to be embraced and seen as 'good.' There's no need to find new labels for each case where the existing labels aren't an exact match.
A very simple analogy is that Liberals are insistent upon setting strict dress codes while conservatives are more apt to ask why you aren't dressed appropriately.
What you say is interesting, and makes one think. However, I can't help but feel that I must have missed something here. It very well may be my own fault, maybe I misunderstand your words, or it's just that things are a bit different there in the other side of the Atlantic, and my knowledge on the American political history is lacking: but isn't individualism usually related to liberalism? Because you seem to put a great emphasis on the individual. (Which I can agree with). Or maybe my concept of individualism is flawed?
If it's the liberals who label others, doesn't it mean that actually they are conserving "castes"? (Which is kind of a paradoxon,after all it's conservatives who are supposed to conserve traditional values and societal institutions, no?)
Also, according to statistics, it's usually the conservatives that have more prejudice against certain groups (f.e blacks, muslims), so aren't they the one actually labeling people?
What you say is interesting, and makes one think. However, I can't help but feel that I must have missed something here. It very well may be my own fault, maybe I misunderstand your words, or it's just that things are a bit different there in the other side of the Atlantic, and my knowledge on the American political history is lacking: but isn't individualism usually related to liberalism? Because you seem to put a great emphasis on the individual. (Which I can agree with). Or maybe my concept of individualism is flawed?
If it's the liberals who label others, doesn't it mean that actually they are conserving "castes"? (Which is kind of a paradoxon,after all it's conservatives who are supposed to conserve traditional values and societal institutions, no?)
European Conservatism and Liberalism are not directly equitable to American Conservatism and Liberalism.
Further complicating the issue is the erosion of the definitions of Liberalism and Conservatism. Liberalism has largely become synonymous with the idea of 'change' and 'liberty' while Conservatism has become synonymous with the ideas of 'staying the same' or 'control.'
In this case, we can almost say that there are three different 'types' of Liberalism / Conservatism.
In Western thinking, we can trace the core concept of Liberalism and Conservatism back to Plato and Aristotle, respectively. The ideas likely go back well before them - possibly dating back to the first philosophical discussions, but our records are limited to Plato and Aristotle:
Plato -
You must be registered for see images
You must be registered for see images
You must be registered for see images
Plato believed that human beings were born with an innate virtue to behave correctly and that it was the influence of our various constructs (religion, philosophy, etc) that caused us to deviate from this nature. Human nature, therefor, is something that must be liberated from the sociological constructs of humans.
Likewise, each individual was born into a set group of aptitudes. A musician was to be a musician. A craftsman was to be a craftsman, so on and so forth. Attempts to act outside of this predestination were potentially hazardous to the individual and by extension a waste of resources within society.
Within this - we can see that Plato favored the idea of "Philosopher Kings" - people born with enough virtue and intelligence to be able to reason through problems and properly direct the efforts of many people. A proper government was, therefor, was most important to staff with people of the proper virtue. The structure of the government was more of a product of the times or necessity and not important so long as virtue was present in the leaders.
What is important is that those who have proper virtue be obeyed for the better of society. Compliance with what virtue has ordained to be the proper path is essential in this view of humanity and government.
This forms the basic viewpoint from which all Liberal actions and opinions spawn.
Aristotle -
You must be registered for see images
You must be registered for see images
You must be registered for see images
Aristotle rejects the notion that human beings are born with any inherent virtue. Aristotle suggests that man serves, most consistently, his own self-interests. This means that human beings have a predictable set of faults. Human nature is to follow the interests of personal gain and expediency. Therefor, Human nature is something that is to be conserved.
Since human beings are born with the same faults and their nature is to fail along similar patterns of behavior, a proper society and government would analyze these patterns and establish systems in order to delay the onset of these patterns, minimize their impact upon society, and prevent them where possible. The ideal government, therefor, is systemic in approach and is developed from a trial and error process against common flaws we are all born with.
That doesn't mean that we are incapable of escaping these flaws - but that we define ourselves according to how we rise above these flaws and restrain our own behavior. A human being is, therefor, self-made and fully capable of gaining control over his or her self.
---
Not everyone is strictly liberal or strictly conservative. Not every view is strictly liberal or strictly conservative. Most, however, will fall mostly into one category or another in how they perceive people and life in general.
Generally speaking, Europe is a very liberal region where most people have the unconstrained view of humanity. This is why the Euro is more or less destined to fail. Europeans still tend to have the idea that a government should be built around virtue.
This is why Yugoslavia failed. Tito embodied the virtue of the Southern Slav ideology and was able to demonstrate this by crushing anyone who tried to place various regional ethnic interests over those of the Yugoslav ideology. When he was no longer around, it proved impossible to truly replace him. Democracy couldn't fix the issue, since no amount of voting would convince the Bosnians that a Serb would do anything other than play lip-service to Yugoslavia while pandering to their Serbian roots.
Since governments in Europe are typically given a very large amount of power ("Virtue, without which Tyranny is destructive; Tyranny, without which Virtue is impotent") it is not realistic to expect a Constitutionally limited government to resolve the issue. Even if the Constitution outlined limitations for the government that would prevent one interest group from running over the other interest groups - the politicians could get away with violating these principles as the concept of limited government is generally not well understood or accepted in Europe.
Or much of the rest of the world, for that matter. China exterminated millions of their own who lacked proper virtue.
Stalin did the same. I don't mean to say that Europe is alone in this or a unique example. It's just that Europe is what we most frequently can compare across Western concepts of government.
Liberal movements within Europe can often be considered to be more ideologically conservative. They seek to liberate the individual from the control of the virtue-commanding state.
The American Constitution was built largely around the Constrained (or Conservative) view of man. The Constitution was designed to limit the authority of the government and to deny it the authority to establish 'virtues' for society. The Government was not here to tell us how to go about life, it was simply here to make it possible to avoid destroying each other in the process - it was a means for preventing and resolving the conflict that would predictably arise. In order to do this, one group cannot be arbitrarily empowered over the other by any means (including a vote - which is little more than a simulated war that assumes a 1:1 attrition ratio).
The Conservative view holds that laws should be written based upon experience and necessity more so than virtue and morality. New laws are typically seen as unnecessary and old laws are typically seen as being the product of generations of trial-and-error that should be considered carefully before altering or removing.
Again, this doesn't mean that all Conservatives are 100% of the Conservative ideology. Many American Conservatives tend to be rather progressive when it comes to things that border on religious morality. Subjects like abortion, drug prohibition, and the legal definition of marriage tend to be rather staunchly defended on the grounds of virtuous or moral appeal.
Note that I used "progressive."
Liberals are more prone to 'Progressive' politics, but Conservatives aren't immune, either. "Progressive" politics, tactics, or ideologies tend to argue that the end justifies the means - that the intrusion of government authority is necessary and/or worth the hazards it represents.
A progressive argues for the necessity of things like a government-enforced minimum wage, for government-enforced 'social safety nets,' for laws 'that protect people from poor decisions,' etc. Generally speaking, progressives argue that it is necessary to expand or apply further force in order for the government to act properly.
Because of the differences between how Conservatives and Liberals view the nature of human beings and therefor the responsibilities/authorities of government, Liberals tend to be more apt to embrace progressive goals than Conservatives - but it's not an absolute. Again - the nature of human beings is to follow their interests - if the progressive mantra benefits the individual interest, then it is the exceptional individual who over-rides their instinct to follow that self-interest and behave according to an adopted ideology or philosophy.
Also, according to statistics, it's usually the conservatives that have more prejudice against certain groups (f.e blacks, muslims), so aren't they the one actually labeling people?
A survey of Saudi Arabia shows that 90+% of them are concerned about religious extremism in their country. That same survey also showed that some 80% believed one should be given the death penalty for leaving Islam.
Thus, the term "religious extremism" must be put within some kind of context, since, obviously, murdering someone for converting is quite extreme by the standards of those of us in the West.
Likewise, we have to consider how the different mentalities look at a label.
If you give me a standard: "1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree" test where you ask me whether or not certain statements applied to a certain race - I'd be inclined to agree that a stereotype exists for a reason and that blacks are more apt to criminal behavior, that they are less likely to perform in the work place, etc, etc.
Why? Because it is an observation of a trend.
That doesn't mean I will not give a black person the chance to succeed or fail. I can answer "strongly agree" and hire a black man the next day without seeing it as a conflicting in the slightest. If the black guy pans out in his job - he's just like any other hire to me. If the black guy fails... he's just like any other hire and will be told to go find something else.
On the other hand, a Liberal views "black" as the identity of every black man. It is integral to their character and any statements that apply to one black man must apply to all 'true black men.' Note that those who fall outside of this category are derided and destroyed. A black man 'comes out' as a conservative and people lose their minds, calling him an Uncle Tom and everything else. Why? Because Black is the identity, not the individual.
Thus, the liberal must appeal that all of those who are truly of X, Y, or Z race must be virtuous. Particularly if they are a racial group that is distinct from the majority racial group.
Note the development of the concept of "white privilege." This is, in a nutshell, the idea that the majority race has an inescapable and subconscious advantage that it grants itself over other races. There's no "Black Privilege" in the Congo, or "Asian Privilege" in Korea... but there's "White Privilege" in America. And it's a problem. And if you deny it even exists - you're part of the problem that must be fixed.
Prejudice is the idea that you have pre-judged someone. They are guilty or innocent before you have even seen their case.
It is impossible to ascertain with a simple survey asking whether or not you believe certain unkind things to be agreeable. I would agree to the idea "Asians are good at math." If I had to walk up to a random person and ask for help with a math problem - I'd choose from a group of Asians if available. That said, I'm not going to think less of said Asian individual if he/she can't help me.
The conservative views stereotypes and 'prejudice' as a statistical probability. If I reach into a bag of peanut M&Ms, odds are, I'm going to get a peanut M&M. I'm not being prejudice - just assessing the probable return on my investment of time/energy/money/etc. If I bought a bag of peanut M&Ms and expected Skittles, I would rightfully be considered insane. That said, if I reach into a bag of Peanut M&Ms and pull out a jellybean, I'd be considered insane for insisting it is anything other than a jellybean. It would just not be considered reasonable to expect a jellybean from a bag of peanut M&Ms.
This is how Conservatives view various 'racial prejudices.' When you are dealing with unknowns about an individual - you hedge based upon available statistics. Blacks are more likely to file racial discrimination cases. Will this one? Can't know until you're crossing that bridge - but if you hire enough blacks, to expect your statistics to deviate substantially from the industry averages is unreasonable. Mexicans/latinos are more likely to test positive for illicit substances. Again - to expect your results to deviate greatly from the industry average for that group is unreasonable.
It's not necessarily a condemnation of each individual within the race or ethnic group. It is just an assessment of what results one is likely to see.
However, again, Liberals see this as more than a simple analysis - but as a permanent and inescapable identity one is born into. Saying that blacks are more prone to crime is tantamount to saying all blacks are born criminals or somehow less than human.
It's an apples and oranges view of the same question posed to two different groups who see the meaning of their answer in completely different ways.
Note the development of the concept of "white privilege." This is, in a nutshell, the idea that the majority race has an inescapable and subconscious advantage that it grants itself over other races. There's no "Black Privilege" in the Congo, or "Asian Privilege" in Korea... but there's "White Privilege" in America. And it's a problem. And if you deny it even exists - you're part of the problem that must be fixed.
The problem is how engrained certain values are in different people's heads. No matter what, society will always be made up of people from different generations that grew up with different sets of values and opinions on subjects. That's why you do have some people growing up racist even in this young age, because it's put into their heads by their parents whom were from a different time period. This transgender movement of sorts shouldn't be that big of a deal in this age, but it is. And I wish it wasn't. Because if we were truly progressing as a society (morally) then this would become a norm, rather than an extraordinary occurrence.
It's not a tough read, just a lot of information. It's the same stuff he says on pretty much any thread anyway. Liberals are bad guys, conservatives love everyone.
White privilege is what happens when the liberal mind must engage in racism. By the 1980s, it was becoming obvious that racism was not very prevalent amongst whites. Demonstrations for racial unity and other such things were predominantly white and the necessity of such things was beginning to be drawn into question. Was America truly close to ending racism?
But this obviously couldn't be. Blacks are statistically engaged in more crime. They make up a disproportionate percentage of the prison population. Something must be going on.
Reflect back to liberal and conservative visions. Under liberal visions, we are all born into relatively fixed positions. We are born as equally as we live. Since we are, also, not in control of our own being - if we are born equal, this means we are equal as adults as our development should be equal across all individuals. IE - you and I are not just born with equal opportunity, we are born with equal outcomes unless an outside institution acts upon us.
So, if blacks and whites are born to become equal adults - then the fact that more blacks are incarcerated must mean that society is somehow acting upon them to create this problem for blacks, as there is nothing within their nature to produce this phenomena.
White privilege and 'subconscious racism' are the answer the liberal arrives at.
The Conservative views the problem differently.
We may all be born with equal opportunity, but we are continuously a product of parental influence and our own conscious decisions. Human beings are in charge of their own development and, therefor, assume the bulk of the responsibility for the end product. If a group of people are not experiencing equal outcomes, the conservative looks at the individual and the environment to identify where our mutual thuggish and brutish behavior was not properly constrained (or conserved).
Basically, the conservative understands that it is the instinct of humanity to devolve into a third world hell hole without continual effort to restrain those instincts and preserve society. The human being is not naturally virtuous and, for society to exist and persist, the individual(s) must learn to constrain his/her nature.
What this means is that the liberal blames all factors external to the black population while the conservative blames a lack of constraint within the black population.
Like I said. Liberalism manifests as a never-ending campaign to assign virtue to one group while destroying those deemed to have lesser virtue. It is perpetual misery and a mental disorder resulting in sociopath behavior.
