Funny, I haven’t blogged in quite a while, and when I do, I’m talking about the Derb again:
Ben Tillman posted this comment about Derbyshire’s The Talk at Sailer’s blog:
Ultimately, the Derbyshire controversy boils down to the following question: Do Blacks own non-Blacks?
If you have a problem with what Derbyshire wrote, then you have answered the question in the affirmative.
Suppose that Derbyshire’s daughters and other non-Blacks followed Derbyshire’s advice. What would be the result? Only that Blacks would be deprived of the presence of non-Blacks and the positive externalities they produce.
If you object to this result — if you think this is wrong — you are asserting that Blacks have an ownership interest in non-Blacks that obligates non-Blacks to be where Blacks want them to be and to share with Blacks what they produce.
Interesting. I wonder what substantive answer Libtards could, or would, give to this. That might be a bit like asking “I wonder what non-libtard answer libtards could give to this,” I suppose. They’d probably just change the subject, or argue over semantics, or lean on their old standby, feminine shaming language:
“The problem is Derb’s hate-speech”
“Laws against discrimination are not slavery.”
I think they’d just stick to talking about how indecent it was of Derb to say what he said. But that raises the question: why are libtards so comfortable ignoring criticisms leveled against them? Why are they so uninterested in acknowledging, much less correcting, their obvious moral and ethical failings? Is it just as simple as conformity? I.e., they wouldn’t get a “buzz” from going against the grain of their groupthink and moving to higher moral and ethical ground because they only get a buzz from the groupthink?