Thursday, February 16, 2023

The New York Times priority

Skin color.  It's all about skin color, or anything that can pit as many Americans against each other as possible.  

In this case, it goes after that most underrepresented group in the NFL - African Americans.  At least in terms of winning quarterbacks I guess?  Are they saying something about the talent level of African American quarterbacks?  

I doubt it.  At this point you aren't supposed to think it through.  You're supposed to react as if you're a donkey hit by a whip.  It says Black yadda yadda, and Super Bowls, more yadda yadda.  And naturally you respond: Racism!

I don't know what is the most shocking thing today.  That our institutions have become so corrupted towards such dark purposes, or that Americans were stupid enough to play along.  Either or, things are happening fast now.  Like it or not, we're entering a new age.  

Whatever betide, you have come to the end of the Gondor that you have known.  

                                                                                                JRR Tolkien, The Return of the King 

BTW, that the media was already beginning to hype the 'two black quarterbacks!' narrative before the results of the final playoffs, and that once again a key game was ended with a questionable call from the refs, reminds me of my old saying.  Sometimes it takes more credulity to disbelieve a conspiracy theory than to believe in one. 


  1. This very much reminds me of that swimming war hero you talked about awhile back. Like whatever is done, it's never enough. Blacks are participating in some of the highest paid jobs in the nation, watched and beloved by millions? Well they're not in THE highest position - or getting paid enough - or whatever. Whatever it is, it's never enough.

    Have you seen the recent Vice panel on asian americans that's been viral lately? You know, a demographic that's actually been largely outperforming whites in America? What do you hear from one of their complaints? "Where's the Asian president?" (Like... I'm pretty sure he would be in the asian nation. I know I haven't heard of a white emperor of japan anytime recently.)

    This doesn't seem set to lead to anywhere good.

    1. In 2016 the Nebula awards had its most "diverse" slate of winners ever, since all of the major awards went to women. The trend has continued since that point, with the only male to consistently win being Dexter Gabriel (who probably would not win if he was not black and did not write under the more "diverse" penname P. Djieli Clark.)

      But it's not enough. For example, best dramatic presentation usually goes to a movie with a male director. (In 2016 they tried to cope by saying that Mad Max: Fury Road was really a "chick flick" movie, but certainly neither George Miller nor Byron Kennedy is a woman.) Perhaps too many of the women who win are white. There's not enough trans and nonbinary winners. Sometimes there are too many men who make it into the nominees, even if it is still very rare for them to win, etc.

      And even if the preferred minorities did sweep all categories and nominations, they could still fall back on the complaint "but think of all the years that the Nebula awards largely went to white men! We haven't made up for those yet!"

    2. It reminds me of that S. American historian I met in a conference ages ago. His warning: never trust a revolution that doesn't admit victory. When it's never enough, and when anything that doesn't involve complete domination is criticized, you can guess that there are other designs behind the scenes.

      Or, as Rudolph points out, sometimes it's almost cartoon level. Just like it was pointed out in another webpage, if you use their numbers about the quarterbacks, that means 18% of the quarterbacks who have started in the Super Bowl were black. That's well above the percentage of blacks in America. What they mean is that whites ever played in the Super Bowl in the first place, which should be seen as a bad thing because whites. Or men. Or whatever group needs gutted.

      I think we need to accept that the point is to make America and the West appear as the one source of evil in world history, dating to the depths of time. Therefore anything and everything to do with the West (like equality, freedom, sanctity of life) can be jettisoned accordingly.

  2. I think we need to accept that the point is to make America and the West appear as the one source of evil in world history, dating to the depths of time. Therefore anything and everything to do with the West (like equality, freedom, sanctity of life) can be jettisoned accordingly.

    Had that come up recently. Some of us were chatting and one person said an immigrant coworker from the Congo (IIRC) said the other day that things were better when the French were in charge and they kind of missed them. The other folks were in disbelief, and also didn't believe me when I said Zimbabwe (IIRC) was begging farmers to come back.

    It's an easy temptation to for humans to believe that if you just get rid of "problem" people that everything will improve and work out. I'm sure many Germans thought if the Jews were just out of their way... Well nowadays whites are the target. But even if we assume whites were the absolute scum of the earth, like they were deliberately holding back farming knowledge etc from other races (and in some places and times in history, they literally were), just getting rid of them doesn't mean everybody else can level up and gain that knowledge.

    I mean what do these people think will happen next if you get rid of all the white people... and utopia doesn't arrive?


Let me know your thoughts