Subject:
|
Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 14 Jun 2001 16:09:16 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1023 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?
>
> 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? THAT is why I answered Scott the way I did, to highlight
> the inherent meaninglessness of the question.
Since I share Bruce's misgivings on this subject, I'll mention a few
thoughts, too. The validity or invalidity of the LP's views is, of course,
wholly independent of the racial, cultural, age, or gender makeup of the
party, but that's not what Bruce appears (to me) to be disputing. My
feeling, and the feeling of many others, is that the message of the group is
apparently favorable to white males if white males are the principal
proponents of the message. If, as the LP press packet indicates, the
Libertarian agenda is truly the best plan for every man, woman, and child,
then why is it that only white males latch onto it? If the problem is
simply one of exposure (which I do not believe to be the case), then the LP
needs to make its presence known so that the non-white-male populace can see
the benefits of the party.
I suspect that Bruce isn't simply dismissing the LP's platform as a white
supremacist construct; he has noted its shortcomings and sees in those
shortcomings something that the white male constituency identifies as
expressly beneficial to them. The supposition is that, if it were the
greatest good for all, then all would be eager to join.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda)
|
| (...) Let's dig into that a bit... Is that an accurate supposition? That is, *are* there things that are "good for you" that you wouldn't necessarily choose to do? We know that's true in the individual case, right? I know that exercising more and (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Libertarian SPAM (Propaganda)
|
| (...) Yup, that's pretty much it - and let me add that I don't regard the Libertarian Party as a white supremacist group in the slightest. I'd said what I did in part because I think the Libertarian Party *for it's own benefit* needs to address the (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
