right??!?! I really miss these types of debates where nobody is flinging chairs or screaming into the other person's face which has become all too common in today's ... er .. "discussions". Sigh!

@@jeevs4187 “Quarreling” is the word you are looking for.

@@eldermillennial8330 haha! today's discussions are yesterday's quarrelling 🤣

@@jeevs4187 Discussions? They still have those? 🤔 Who does this? 😉👌

Agreed.

Agreed

Kissinger said that Buckley single handedly shifted American politics to the right, which means he set socialism back on its heels- probably for decades. So yes you’re right, Buckley was a great person.

Lol

😂😂😂😂😂

Sowell? He's actually quite succinct. Especially considering he has to skillfully dispel the many layers of rhetoric most of us have been indoctrinated with for most of our lives. Unless you're talking about the cross examiner, lol.

@@Drummr88 I'm talking about the slow talking socialist professor.

@CarbonGlassMan Gotcha. I figured that's what you meant, but wasn't sure lol.

my sentiments exactly! :)

They are discussed, but not in public discourse.

People in the United States actually still discuss topics like this, with the sole exception of democrats. But to be fair the Democrats did declare independence and they are still Confederates, so there society heads different customs then Americans.

Oh saint Thomas! I vow to sacrifice a nice white lamb for your honor, or if I can't find one at a descent price, then six pigeons. Jokes aside. Thomas is truly a great thinker. Going through Basic economics. Good stuff!

Sowell

By my calulations he's be roughly 51. The talk was done in 1981, I just googled it because you got me courious. He was born Jume, 30th, 1930.

@@tvfan14 I read that this was filmed in November 1983. I'm not sure of the accuracy of that information, though. However, Sowell made a previous appearance in The Firing Line, which I think is the 1981 one you're referring to.

Dang. Late bloomers have all the looks. Sigh. I’ll look like an old man when I’m 53.

@@eldermillennial8330 well, there's also the "black don't crack" aspect of it I guess. lol

Jeez, I'm 42 and definitely look older - and unwiser ...

Dennis thinks Israel is more important than America

You have an excellent mentor then!

He is a thought leader if not a political one.

And prescient, as well. Those people that are *now* the most needed *are now* the most hated.

Undoubtedly! :)

*@CatsClaws* Hello again! Did you check out that essay: "Black America Before LBJ"?

Hey @@sv3931 hi! I haven't yet, but I will.

I wanted to trade Crypto but got confused by the fluctuations in price

I heard that he strategies are really good

@@charlottemia7716 Yeah My first investment with Mr Steven hart earned me profit of over $30,530 US dollars ever since then he has been delivering

he has really made a good name for himself

he's obviously the best invested 20,000USD with him and 9days I made a profit of 50,000USD

I can see the family resemblence!

@@BasicEconomics LOL!

hope it was worth a 2nd watch :)

@@BasicEconomics I certainly think it is!

@@BasicEconomics I've seen at least thrice; original run, on F.L. archives and again here...enjoyed it everytime! Thanks!

Probably over in the Firing Line archive.

1983

A repackaged version of critical legal theory

Booker T Washington was the FIRST to identify and condemn Race Hustlers and wedge issue farmers, tried (and sadly failed) to nip it in the bud before it could metastasize into the abomination it is today.

One could say the Michel Foucault was a large source of "ammunition" for those originating this theory. Now, as an existentialist, though some vary, he believed that nothing exists. So, to follow with existential and postmodern types of nihilism and skepticism, what is there to be critical of? But in order to criticize anything, you have to have a point of reference.......which is knowledge, damn! Can't know things, so..... Race probably is just a mental construct anyway huh? Actually, none of this is correct because it is stated with a degree of assertion, as in, small degree of certainty of validity. We can't really know anything, even that. That we can't know that we can't know anything. Now that I think of it, because I've given these ideas words, and conceptualized them, they are necessarily invalid a la Immanuel Kant. If the last few things that I said are wrong, then the opposite is right? Wait, I'm forgetting that it's stupid to ask questions because if we can't know reality, then what is it I hope to hear as an answer? Damn, I asked another question. OK, there exists invisible forces that only the indoctrinated or anointed are capable of seeing, that subjugate certain non-white males and females, and white females into an entrenched ancient system of lineage attempting to keep solid hold on their means of power through completely deterministic unwitting biologically driven systemic and unconscious racism, sexism and other badisms. This sounds like racism, toward a particular race. But, who am I to know anything? This is what it is like to take any philosophy after immanuel kant seriously, with the exception of a couple. They can't be nihilistic because to commit to that idea, presupposes a claim to knowledge witch their thomas khun tells them cannot be correct. "People used to think the earth was flat, but science changed, and now says the earth is round, or oblong and bumpy, make up your mind science, I just waiting on tomorrow when its finally discovered the earth is cubical." This is what is being taught in universities today. It's not an oversimplification, students are taught blatant subjectivism. This causes all forms of neurosis. Which is what critical theory of "It's all the white mans fault" is in fact, a social neurosis.

*@Moatengator* Im going with: _Subjective personal mental meanderings_ for $50! *critical* "1)adj. Judging severely and finding fault. 2) adj. Relating to or characterized by criticism; reflecting careful analysis and judgment."* *rational* "1)adj. Having or exercising the ability to reason. synonym: logical. 2)adj. Consistent with or based on reason or good judgment; logical or sensible. 3) adj. Of sound mind; sane."* of philosophy: *•Rational Thought* "Rational thinking is the ability to consider the relevant variables of a situation and to access, organized, and analyze relevant information to arrive at a sound conclusion."* *•Critical Thought* "Critical thinking is the intellectual process of actively conceptualizing, applying, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information generated by observation, experience and reflection, as a guide to belief and action. In its exemplary form, it is based on intellectual values that transcend subject matter division such as clarity, accuracy, precision, consistency, relevance, sound evidence, good reasons, and fairness."* To wit, Rational Thought _collects and analyzes information_ with the purpose of arriving a sound conclusion, and •Critical Thought _evaluates_ information with the purpose of arriving at a belief. Or Rational: how to think Critical: what to believe • Evaluate: "To determine the importance or worth of."* Based on _what?_ Importance to _whom?_ Objective: "expressing or dealing with facts or conditions without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations."* Subjective: "existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject (read: oneself) rather than to the object of thought (opposed to objective)."* While considered a "subset" of Rational Thought... CRITICAL THINKING _IS NOT_ •RATIONAL •LOGICAL •SOUND CRITICAL THINKING _IS_ •IRRATIONAL •ILLOGICAL •ILLIBERAL •SUBJECTIVE, PERSONAL MENTAL MEANDERINGS •A EUPHEMISTIC "In rhetoric, the use of a mild, delicate, or indirect word or expression in place of a plainer and more accurate one, which by reason of its meaning or its associations might be offensive, unpleasant, or embarrassing."* BUZZWORD "A word drawn from or imitative of technical jargon, and often rendered meaningless and fashionable through abuse by non-technical persons in a seeming show of familiarity with the subject"* Example: *Critical Race ...* *...Theory?* "a _well-substantiated_ explanation of an aspect of the natural world. Theory not only explains known facts; _it is testable._ "* or *...Hypothesis ?* "a _supposition_ or proposed explanation made as a basis for reasoning, _without any assumption of its truth._ "* or *....Doctrine?* "a set of beliefs held and taught by a group, such as a church, political party, or other group."* *All definitions courtesy of chrome

@@ptbuse21 _i love this post!_

That’s not capitalism, it’s not even Cronyism, it’s just drooling stupidity. I say this as a Chestertonian Distributist who is opposed to both Macro-capitalism and socialism. By the way, read more Chesterton, especially “Irish Impressions” where he illiterates the third way economics that USED to come naturally to traditional Irish. It came to an end after 1985, however, when globalists used pop culture to get a foothold where nothing else could.

*@Kim OBrien* The problem with _all_ socialist economics is that it was the product of an alcoholic slacker so lazy he lived in a body covered in boils rather than bathe. A slacker who never held a job but lived off stipends from his capitalist dad, a dowry from his capitalist in-laws, inheritances from capitalist relatives, and in the last, a stipend from his buddy Engel who finally took a job in a capitalist concern owned by his capitalist daddy...from which he supported his deadbeat drinking buddy Karl until his death. Ole Karl was a real peach...unfortunately,he smelled like the back end of a bovine, and raised his 7 kids, those that made it out of infancy, in abject squalor; so sad about that boy who required daddy Marx to publish a GoFundMe to bury him! sad, so so sad! At any rate, I think we can easily see why _socialism doesn't work._

The free market doesn't just create wealth from thin air. That is the dealings of a corrupt government.

His argument is that the case that CRT tries to demonstrate, namely, that the system is set up and stacked against minorities, blacks in particular, is not demonstrably true. The economic context would rule that theory out if the theory concludes that such racism and discrimination is, in fact, effective. Sowell is not just providing context, he's arguing that the discrimination was, while present, not effective, and that measures to tip the scales in the other direction have been detrimental. That is directly opposed to CRT, as represented in state DoE outlines for public school curricula.

@@VincentWeisTheThird CRT is a new way to oppress minorities that Sowell didn’t have to address. Because he never doubted the existence of racism and oppression, doesn’t seem to follow that he would have signed on to the bullshit.

​@@VincentWeisTheThird his simple premise is that government intervention to a problem that is states that it solves creates bigger problems then it solves and it ends up getting exponentially worse as time goes on.

CRT is about far more than acknowledging that racism exists, which no one anywhere denies. Instead it concerns itself with systemic racism, and it views unequal outcomes as evidence of systemic racism by definition. This assumption is deeply flawed, and Sowell's whole body of work refutes that particular notion again and again and again.