Subject:
|
Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 14 Jun 2001 16:01:08 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
987 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
>
> > But in the sense that you meant it, precious few. I have noted several
> > times (and specifically within this string) that the overwhelming majority
> > of Libertarians are white males - I have met several hundred people who have
> > identified themselves as Libertarians and they have been 100% white males,
> > though there are undoubtedly some that are not. When you consider the vast
> > diversity of ethnicity in SoCal, that's a telling statement.
>
> Why?
>
> Was the message of the SCLC less valid because SCLC members were mostly black?
> Was the message of AIM less valid because AIM was mostly native american?
Ok, what is SCLC or AIM?
>
> I resent the implication that groups need to be "ethnically balanced" to
> have valid messages.
>
> The participants in this newsgroup are more white and more male than the
> norm too. So what?
How do you know that we are more white - you only assume (as I do).
Scott A
> THAT is why I answered Scott the way I did, to highlight
> the inherent meaninglessness of the question.
>
> ++Lar
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda)
|
| (...) Why? Was the message of the SCLC less valid because SCLC members were mostly black? Was the message of AIM less valid because AIM was mostly native american? I resent the implication that groups need to be "ethnically balanced" to have valid (...) (23 years ago, 14-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
271 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
