Let us begin by granting that American blacks are the battered spouse in an abusive relationship. There are aspects to the analogy that are very easy to see—because the bruises are so readily identifiable. The abuse is very real. But because it is an analogy that compares groups containing millions of people with a marriage containing two people, there are ways that the analogy can go astray. In fact, that difficulty is one of the chief tools that the real abuser uses to perpetuate his abuse.
Who then is the abusive spouse? Is it white America? Is it the more nebulous culprit that is being called white privilege? Is it the history of race-based slavery? Is it something that Calhoun said? Or is the problem (much) closer to home?
Remember that when dealing with battered wife syndrome, one of the marked features of this pattern is the learned helplessness—as one article put it, you have “psychological paralysis – where the victim becomes so depressed, defeated, and passive that she believes she is incapable of leaving the abusive situation.” Not only so, but between episodes, the battered wife learns to make excuses for the abuser, for remaining in the relationship with him. He promised to be better. She might even learn to attack anyone who suggests that she leave, as though a genuine offer of outside help were the problem.
As we look around our cultural landscape, thinking in terms of this analogy, is there any group that American blacks are married to, and which is a group that does appalling things to them in return? The answer really is plain—the abusive spouse in this comparison is the Democratic Party. Remember that an abusive spouse is one who does things; he has to have policies and actions that have terrible consequences. The abuse is the kind that leaves a bruise.
Think about it for a moment. Make a list of cities that the Democratic Party has had complete control of for a generation or more—Detroit, Baltimore, Chicago, say. Are these places paradises that blacks stream to because the opportunities are so wonderful? Right—they are nothing of the kind. They look like downtown Beirut after the most recent outrage. They are tangled nests of corruption, conflict and crime.
Which party adopted welfare policies that created economic incentives for massive illegitimacy, and then was astonished at the subsequent wave of illegitimacy? Which party imposed the abortion carnage on our nation, resulting in a grotesquely disproportionate number of black children being executed? Which party is run by economic nincompoops who never met a job-creator that they didn’t want to fine heavily until he fled the state, taking his jobs with him? Which party promotes race-hustling quislings to positions of high honor? Which party honors rap artists who celebrate deeply destructive patterns of human behavior? Which party attacks any attempts to do basic budgetary math as though that were deeply and profoundly racist?
And if you don’t want to follow what might appear at first glance to be arcane arguments, just content yourself with looking at the results. Whenever socialism—the singular mania of the Democrats—is imposed anywhere, it is the death of that place. It has been imposed on black America, and it was imposed on black America by the Democrats. The results have been an unmitigated disaster. The ones who should be held responsible should be the ones who did it. I have no objection to black leaders calling abuse. It is long past time for them to do so. But they ought to call abuse on the one who is actually hitting them. Your next door neighbor has been urging you to leave for some time now, and I think this would be a good time to stop calling her the racist.
So in using the abused wife metaphor—which I think is most necessary—it is also necessary to ask and answer the most basic questions. The first one is this: “Is this an abusive relationship?” The answer is plainly yes. But the second question is equally critical: “Who are you married to?” When you finally get the divorce, what names will be on that paper?
Or, in the words of The Donald, “What the h____ do you have to lose?”
Excellent, insightful, well-stated analogy that unfortunately will never be read or heard by the abused spouse!
Excellent, insightful, well-stated analogy
LOL
It’s a completely jacked up analogy.
It’s terrible.
Seems unfair to the author to label his work “terrible” and “jacked up” without making any effort to substantiate why you feel that way. Of course, it is the nature of any analogy to not be a perfect parallel, but I think Wilson’s is a commendable attempt to show a correspondence between the plight of black people in America and their continual (and apparently naïve) support of liberal Democrats.
It’s only a correspondence if you assume that black Americans and white Americans want the same kinds of lives and have the same kinds of interests. Undoubtedly some do, but plenty don’t.
“If black people would only act more like white people then they wouldn’t be oppressed.”
You know, doesn’t the wife-beater say something similar?
The correspondence is not about lifestyle choices but rather about the victim continuing to support the victimizer and his policies. For white Americans consider this possible analogy: white taxpaying middle class folks should stop electing liberals whose policies continue to contribute to government waste, overspending, poor education in government schools, intrusion into personal freedom, etc.
My point is that what Pastor Wilson considers “abuse” is actually what many black Americans want. Perhaps “spoiled child” is a better analogy than “battered wife”.
I think ash and 40 acres are a good example of why our battered electorate stays with their abusers
Really. Why would that be, exactly?
Better the devil you know than the jerks who think you actually enjoy being abused?
I’m afraid you’ve stretched this analogy beyond recognition.
I keep forgetting, recognition and self awareness are not your strong suit.
Let me speak plainly, when confronted by an idiot who actually believes you like to be abused, most people are going to prefer to just stay with the abuser who at least apologizes once in a while and promises not to do it anymore.
You are assuming the consequent. Pastor Wilson claims these things are abuse, but they are things that black Americans are, for the most part, doing to themselves. I am not claiming they “like to be abused”: I am saying that it requires projecting his middle class white American value system and desires onto these people to call it abuse.
40 ACRES and ashv suppose that socialism simply enables blacks to return to their innate biological disposition, and that socialism would not have a similar affect on whites, because their innate dispositions are radically different from those of blacks. Of course, 40 ACRES and ashv can only maintain this view by ignoring the “white trash” culture that has succumbed to the same welfare temptation. There are some distinctions that can be made (such as a noticeable tendency toward meth and other drug addictions for whites, and theft for blacks), but the overall trajectory of socialism is remarkably similar across races.… Read more »
White trash existed before welfare. How is this an argument? I don’t think the current treatment of the underclass in the USA is just or reasonable for any race. But there’s a fundamental difference between mistreating people by giving them what they want and by not giving them what they want. The dispute is not that blacks are mistreated, but rather in what the remedy is.
I asked: How do 40 ACRES and ashv account for this overall similarity, given the notion that blacks are supposed to be so different in their inherent dispositions? and ashv responded by saying that “white trash existed before welfare”. How is that an answer? Isn’t ashv arguing that blacks had their inherent dispositions before welfare as well? I’m pointing out that blacks and whites descend together in astonishingly similar ways when they each succumb to the temptations of socialized government welfare dependency. Given their notions about radical inherent racial distinctions, I don’t see how 40 ACRES and ashv can account… Read more »
I still don’t see what surprises you. Characterisations of group behaviour necessarily uses statistical distributions. Some people are above average, some are below. The fact of lower average intelligence, lower net worth, and higher propensity to violence doesn’t negate the existence of the Booker T Washingtons, Ben Carsons and Colin Powells of the world, nor does it negate the existence of white individuals below the African-American norm.
Katecho: It’s like they don’t know Appalachia exists.
Here you go, George: Let us begin by granting that American blacks are the battered spouse in an abusive relationship. Sure, and while we’re at it, why don’t we grant that abortionists are the battered spouse in an abusive relationship with pregnant women who want to kill their baby? Let us begin by granting that American blacks are the battered spouse in an abusive relationship. Sure, and while we’re at it, why don’t we grant that people with 12 DUI arrests are the battered spouse in an abusive relationship with the alcohol industry? Let us begin by granting that American… Read more »
As I pointed out earlier your “analogies” are not fair representations of Pastor Wilson’s analogy. Rather than caricature his with yours, why not actually address what you feel is inaccurate about his analogy. And your last statement about Doug believing “blacks can’t be held responsible for their actions” is a completely untrue and unfair appraisal of his article. It’s okay to disagree but not to deliberately misrepresent the other person’s view.
As I pointed out earlier your “analogies” are not fair representations of Pastor Wilson’s analogy.
Actually, they’re quite fair.
If Dems are somehow forcing black people to vote for them, then sluts are somehow forcing pornographers to film them.
Nothing in the article suggested Dems were “forcing” black people to vote for them. And since you seem to have a fundamental logic problem understanding how your analogy is incongruent with Wilson’s, this is my last response to you on the subject. Best to you.
Nothing in the article suggested Dems were “forcing” black people to vote for them
Nah, nothing at all. We all know abusive husbands NEVER use force.
That’s why they’re called abusers!
That’s why battered women are called battered!
Because their husband never laid a hand on them!
Let us begin by granting that American blacks are the battered spouse in an abusive relationship. There are aspects to the analogy that are very easy to see—because the bruises are so readily identifiable.
See, Doug clearly says there are NO BRUISES ANYWHERE TO BE SEEN.
LMAO
Which seminary do you teach at?
LOLOLOL
LOL
You’ve convinced me!
The overall phenomenon seems more a case of not recognizing the consequences of incorrect presuppositions. This is a general problem with liberals/left. The political class thinks it’s doing good and does not recognize the failures as a direct consequence of their actions. In this case it is the recipients of the “doing good” being done harm, and again, not recognizing it as a direct consequence of the “doing good”.
Well, if they ever do gain the courage to divorce, I’d recommend they stay single for a good long time and not run right into the arms of another party. Having effectively recently divorced the GOP, I can testify that they’re just another abusive relationship.
Substitute “American blacks” with “principled conservatives” and “Democratic Party” with “GOP,” and this article reads the same.
I was listening to NPR, I believe it was yesterday morning, on the drive in to work and they were interviewing some college-educated black guy. He talked about how the low-educated white Trump supporter was voting against his own interests, and if that Trump supporter just had more education and better decision-making skills then they wouldn’t be supporting Trump. I don’t think anyone I’ve ever listened to on radio has ever gotten my blood boiling so hot. I reckon black people must feel the same when whites try to talk over their heads about how blacks are just too ignorant… Read more »
The transcript is here: http://goo.gl/Xqv8N1
I had to laugh when he said the solution to the problem is education.
All together now: “Democrats are the real racists!”
Here here!!
We’re the party of Lincoln!
I think Doug is trolling the Alt-Right now.
If so you’d think he’d pick material that hadn’t been mocked to death a year ago.
Let us begin by granting that American blacks are the battered spouse in an abusive relationship. Sure, and while we’re at it, why don’t we grant that abortionists are the battered spouse in an abusive relationship with pregnant women who want to kill their baby? Let us begin by granting that American blacks are the battered spouse in an abusive relationship. Sure, and while we’re at it, why don’t we grant that people with 12 DUI arrests are the battered spouse in an abusive relationship with the alcohol industry? Let us begin by granting that American blacks are the battered… Read more »
Careful now, someone might accuse you in believing in racial equality.
This truly is “the soft bigotry of low expectations.”
This is like, What’s the Matter With Blacksas? Remember how What’s the Matter With Kansas totally overturned the political landscape, leading to the complete collapse of the Republican party in the South and Midwest? Oh wait, no, it was seen entirely as condescending self-flattery.
First step to outreach: assume that the people you are reaching out to aren’t complete idiots.
Well said. They don’t call it the dem plantation for nothing.
I actually think this is a bad opinion.
https://nickbsteves.wordpress.com/foundational-readings/the-flight-93-election/
This is what a battered spouse looks like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpAOwJvTOio
Yeah, that video represents all black people.
Here is one that represents all white people. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5UV2kdWLh4
Remember that “racist crap” comment I made. Your comment is another great example.
I’m not going to judge what your family does for entertainment. But posting it in public might not be very kind.
Labor Day was INSANE
Some hair pulled. Some punches thrown. No one seriously injured.
Yeah, it’s just like the south side of Chicago.
In Chicago, 67 year old black preachers shoot their friends to death over a religious argument.
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2016/09/05/religious-argument-may-have-preceded-fatal-shooting-of-pastor-80/
I’m sorry. That was really uncalled for.
What I should’ve said is that in Chicago, 67 year old black preachers are the battered spouse in an abusive relationship with theology.
Just keep trolling FAAAK. You have no scripture to back up anything you post and you still post as though you were not a Christian.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJmfNEFen-o&t=3m50s
Haha. First off, no one was killed in the Obama phone video either. Remember who started posting videos attempting to define whole races. Second, whites commit plenty of murders in the US (about half). Third, yes, today’s murder rate is higher among black people but nowhere near as high as the white murder rate was in London during the 15th century. Further, there are black neighborhoods that have lower murder rates than some white neighborhoods (take some of the meth head counties of West Virginia for example). In short, there are a lot of cultural reasons for high murder rates.… Read more »
That’s not a very tight argument. The claim you are trying to dispute is that the black murder rate, in America, today, is proportionately much higher than that for whites. Bringing in Elizabethan London or Genghis Khan’s China is an irrelevancy.
Farinata, I am trying to dispute that the black murder rate is higher? Not sure why you would say that given that I granted the point in the very comment you are responding to. My point of bringing up different eras (Elizabethan England for example) is to show that the higher murder rate among blacks in the USA today is not indicative of intrinsic racial differences but instead is a reflection of other socio/economic/cultural factors. Given the right socio/ecomomic/cultural context, whites will murder just as much (as witnessed in much of Europe prior to the last few centuries).
My point is that the comparison you seek to draw is irrelevant. We don’t know the racial breakdown of violence in Shakespeare’s London. We do know it in modern Chicago. And there, where both black and white people live, even controlling for economic factors, there’s a major disparity in murder rates.
No. Your point was that I was claiming something I was not. Once I pointed out how wrong you were you decided to change your point. Now you are changing your point to be that because black people and white people have different murder rates in the same city, race must indeed be the causal driver behind the higher murder rates. And this is where my Elizabethan murder rate comes in. Unless your claim is that the socio/economic culture environment of the South Side of Chicago (and black America in general) and the richer areas (or white America in general)… Read more »
I haven’t changed anything. I repeat in both posts that your comparison is irrelevant. You were objecting to the claim that blacks murder with greater frequency, all things being equal, than do whites. You did this by calling attention to an all-white society five hundred years ago, as if to say “look, in certain conditions whites kill a lot of people too”. Which, fine, is true. You could have likewise cited the Battle of Verdun. But it’s still an irrelevant comparison. (That’s the third time I’ve said this. It’s the point I’ve been making since the start.) The reason it’s… Read more »
I was objecting to blacks murdering at higher rates with “all things being equal”? No, I did not. Because all things are never equal. Each human being has a different context and as I said in my previous post, blacks in the US are often raised in contexts that are quite different from the typical white person experience. On whites and blacks and murder rates, first off, can you show me the data you are looking at? Can you show me the data that suggests that blacks that are raised in middle class two parent households have higher criminal rates… Read more »
One data point is that a disproportionate number of violent felons in this country are black, despite black people being like, what, 15% of the population. Sure, it’s possible there is a conspiracy somewhere and blacks are more likely to be sentenced harshly. But the most elegant explanation is that they are more prone to violent crime. I read a report last week (I think it’s a few years old now) called “The Color of Crime”, a collection of statistics from the Department of Justice. You can probably find it on Google. I agree that context and upbringing are important,… Read more »
I feel like I am in bizarro world where my words are meaning something else. I AM NOT DENYING THAT BLACKS HAVING HIGHER CRIME RATE!! What I am saying is that there are cultural/economic/sociological reasons for that that have nothing to do with race at the core. Do you understand the difference between these two statements? 1) Group A commits crime due to cultural reasons 2) Group A commits crime for genetic reasons That is my point. There is nothing genetic in black people that causes immorality or crime. In other contexts, whites have done just as much murder, rape… Read more »
I acknowledge that you believe there are other, external factors at work. Points 1 and 2 are different. However (and I think this is the part you overlook) they are NOT mutually exclusive. As I just said in my last, I don’t think you can by mere fiat rule nature or nurture as out of bounds: my view is that the two work in combination. Your objection to there being some genetic component appears to be dogmatic rather than empirical. Is there, do you think, some Biblical case to be made in support of your view? How would you go… Read more »
The biblical case is that Sin is a choice biblically. No one is forced to sin. If it was not a choice, it would not be a sin. You cannot blame someone for doing what their nature dictates. A lion might kill a child but who says the lion is a sinner. No. If we are going to take a black individual and say that they sin when they murder or rob, we have to acknowledge that they are sinning by doing that. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot say “don’t rob” to the black man and then… Read more »
You are arguing with a figment of your own devising. I never said a word about one race being absolutely superior to another. Nor am I a genetic determinist – everyone, black and white and yellow, has meaningful moral agency under God’s sovereignty. And I said that pretty clearly above. So we agree on these points, but I wish you would read my answers before sounding off on them. The argument I am actually making is for genetically controlled tendencies. The race who brought us “Riverdance” and Guiness are known for being hot-tempered, but it is still generally a sin… Read more »
So for instance, East Asians tend to excel at academic tests. I agree that there are cultural factors at work. But by what argument do you reject the possibility that they’re simply naturally smarter and more studious? Is that an evil thing to think?
Interestingly, even the Obamaphone Lady proved that it is possible to leave a bad relationship. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLZuKGTZlEY
Let us begin by granting that American blacks are the battered spouse in an abusive relationship.
Doug, you might want to take a sabbatical from posting for a while.
Just sayin’.
FAAAK, you might want to take a sabbatical from trolling for a while.
Just sayin’
Tooshay.
You really need to control your keyboard impulses and stop trolling.
You claim to be washed in the blood, but the posts you make don’t show the blood of Christ at all. So what part of the Bible are you upset with?
You right. He really do.
Unless we argue that the average black pregnant woman does not understand that an abortion will kill her child, I can’t see that anyone has imposed this choice on her. It is tragic that the black abortion rate is so high, but I can’t accept that Dems are any more responsible for black abortions than for others. Otherwise, aren’t we arguing that the easy availability of abortion is more tempting to black women than to white? And isn’t that infantilizing them to some extent?
Plenty of countries have rejected Democratic like policies and have seen their economies do well. Much of South East Asia, Botswana in Africa. Though I have heard younger people support a switch to a more socialistic approach in these countries. They ignore that welfare is only possible with significant wealth and ignore how that wealth was generated. I also note with concern that when anti-freemarket policies are put in place and the resultant socialist policies lead to increasing debt and destruction that the Marxian apologists blame any remaining freemarket, right-leaning, or otherwise sensible policy, for the demise. The apple is… Read more »
Venezuela isn’t doing well with socialism. Cuba is barely hanging on with communism. Zimbabwe isn’t doing so well. Neither did all those folks over 30 in Cambodia with Pol Pot. Nor those in the old USSR, the PRC, or Vietnam after the communist reunified the countries by killing those who objected to their doctrines. Unfortunately, America’s youth are not taught about these historical and current failed economic policies.
You are correct in your analysis of socialism. There has never been a successful implementation of socialism/communism in any country in this world’s history.
Great metaphor! Powerful because it’s accurate and people understand it. Now, how do you support the battered wife?
That is truly the question. Extending the analogy, the person who tries to persuade her to leave must have something much better to offer. “We are going to cut off the financial support that binds you to your abuser and make you fend for yourself” is not exactly compelling, especially delivered by someone you have reason to suspect despises you.
“But they ought to call abuse on the one who is actually hitting them.”
Well that’s the thing…they are. Maybe they see something you don’t?
Funny how Black Lives Matter has kept such a low profile after they shot all those cops.
Soros must’ve realized that blacks murdering cops left and right was going to massively help Trump, so he cut off the funds.
For Jillybean, K2 and others: Yes, the democratic party is responsible for the high black abortion rate. The push for abortion as a right was foisted by the democrats during the start of LBJ’s Great Society to keep black population in control. This is well documented with well noted socialist/communist Sanger’s comments on abortion. The DNC holds true to this fact today as abortion is a foundational plank in the party platform. Hillary has spoken several times about her great admiration for Sanger and her social concepts. I lived outside Washington D.C. during LBJ’s Great Society setup and if you… Read more »
My apologies for the formatting. The paragraph breaks just aren’t making it through the ones and zeros.
Maybe that’s Jim Jones telling you that you need to take a sabbatical from posting.
Proverbs 16 tells us that a deceitful man stirs up strife and a gossiper separates friends. That’s who you are FAAAK.
So what part of scripture really is bothering you?
Proverbs 16 tells us that a deceitful man stirs up strife and a gossiper separates friends. That’s who you are FAAAK.
Please…FAAAK is my father.
Call me 40.
Except that makes no sense. If LBJ’s purpose was to keep blacks under control, why give them the vote? Why make it illegal for employers and landlords to discriminate against them? That doesn’t strike me as a good strategy if your goal is putting them back on the plantation.
They are on the plantation right now. The social programs keep them there. They vote for your programs because they don’t have to work to live. They are uneducated and are not interested in reading the documents that enslave them. They don’t have to work to the standards that others have to in order to keep their jobs. A retired black navy admiral admitted to me that any blacks in line for promotion would be promoted because they are black not because of their abilities and performance.
A retired black navy admiral admitted to me that any blacks in line for promotion would be promoted because they are black not because of their abilities and performance.
And right after they get promoted, the government gives them very late-term abortions.
It’s all part of the Democrats’ ingenious scheme to get as many votes as possible by genociding their most reliable supporters.
Troll on FAAAK
You do realize that I get a bonus every time someone replies to me, right?
So you’re a plant by Doug to up the comment count…
Unless voting is just to keep us all on the plantation by thinking we contribute anything in our most blessed representative democracy!
Capndweeb was throwing out drunk-uncle-at-Thanksgiving conspiracy theories so I thought that pretty tame.
At one point in my office career, I had to organize lunch meetings for up to a dozen professionals at a time. The virtual impossibility of doing this has made me an absolute skeptic about conspiracy theories.
Having worked on projects answerable to the Army Corps of Engineers and NASA engineers, I completely agree. They may be great and intelligent individually, but as I’ve heard others say, if you want to know the IQ of a particular bureaucracy, take the lowest IQ in the group and divide by the number of members. As an aside, on those same jobs, I learned that if you think that our government is concerned about conservation of the environment then you’ve never had to print 300+ page submittal packages in septuplicate just so that some useless and outdated boilerplate job specification… Read more »
Don’t be taking my conspiracy theories away.
We finna have trouble.
What I’m reading with my Kindle Unlimited subscription. Just downloaded it tonight:
https://www.amazon.com/Selected-Extraterrestrials-secret-think-tanks-secretaries/dp/1515217469/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&coliid=I2DB2654J6IVBV&colid=1DPFWYJUCWB67&qid=&sr=
It is undoubtedly true that the Democratic Party today is fervent in its support for abortion. But I don’t think that support or opposition has always fallen neatly along party lines. Of the seven judges who formed the majority opinion in Roe, five had been appointed by Republicans. Justice Byron White, who dissented, was a Kennedy appointment to the court. Back in the day when many Catholics felt an almost knee-jerk loyalty to the Democratic Party, there were a lot of Catholic Democrats who opposed abortion. I have always felt sorry for Reagan who, as governor of California, signed off… Read more »
LBJ was extremely racist and his recorded conversations and quotes showed that without doubt. The perceived empowerment of blacks wasn’t to help them but to get them to vote for democrats and the associated socialist/communist policies. I lived outside D.C. at the time and it was quite clear that the Great Society welfare was to put blacks back on the plantations and abortion was to control black population. If you have votes for a program, you can push it through Congress and then it is paid for by taxpayers. The larger the program, the easier it is to skim large… Read more »
In which case it would not have been in his best interest to encourage black abortion. I think that Margaret Sanger was a detestable woman, and I think that any eugenics program is ungodly. But I am not convinced that there was a conscious and organized effort to legalize abortion in the hope of aborting black children. Many nations with no sizable racial minority or permanent underclass (Canada and Sweden) also legalized abortion during that time frame. But, even if that were so, that does not reduce the moral culpability of a black woman who chooses abortion. To suggest otherwise… Read more »
In which case it would not have been in his best interest to encourage black abortion.
Please stop making sense, jilly.
Doug, virtually all evangelical leaders, and the majority of evangelicals swear up and down that:
1) Liberals bribe blacks with welfare because they want more Democrat voters.
and
2) Liberals keep abortion legal to genocide blacks.
It’s really deep stuff.
It used to be said that a hallmark of insanity was the ability to believe two contradictory statements at one and the same time. I think that ability has become commonplace, and we no longer even notice let alone marvel at it. I am very grateful that I was educated at a time when teachers didn’t hesitate to eviscerate logical nonsense. Insensitive and uncaring they may have seemed, but they didn’t set us loose on the world unable to dissect an argument, especially our own.
Isn’t the implication then that black people sell out for cheap baubles and government cheese and then commit racial suicide?
That particular red pill is an elephant suppository.
That is unless there’s a different reality other than the American conservative narrative.
So what is it when white people sell out for government cheese? You would think that only black people get food stamps and AFDC. Of course, if you are rich and influential enough, it is called a corporate bailout and doesn’t count.
40 nailed it about those two points being premises upon which the conservative strategy for communicating with black people is based. Seeing it distilled like that is really helpful.
I think generally, when whites do it, it’s taken as them acting below their class or station, and is therefore more shameful. I think a lot of people are less put off when a black person does it because of lowered expectations, maybe?
That’s just an observation/hypothesis rather than a value statement.
I thought the argument was that abortion was a method of social control – to keep the virtually-enslaved black population from exploding.
No. Abortion was legalized because liberals want to wipe out the black race.
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=abortion+black+genocide
Democrats want to get more votes, so that’s why they want to genocide their most loyal supporters
The temptation is the same unless you are following Jesus ever hour of every day. Our society doesn’t view abortion in the same manner that Bible believing Christians do. One black girl that I worked with had four abortions in just over three years and didn’t think a thing about it. Abortion to her was an approved government provided birth control method. Jesus is the only answer to avoid abortion.
I lived outside Washington D.C. during LBJ’s Great Society setup and if you read his papers and those of his staff, the purpose was to enslave blacks, control their population and put them back on the plantation.
Really?
Please point us to some of these “papers” by LBJ and his staff where they wrote about their desire to enslave blacks and control their population and put them back on the plantation.
(This oughta be good!)
I would like to read these myself. I especially want to understand how these papers provided the rationale for the Civil Rights and Voting Acts.
Well, you know, there is that very well known quote of LBJ crowing — concerning “his true motivations regarding his support of civil rights legislation” and his “Great Society” (i.e. massive, and ultimately crippling, expansion of welfare) in general.
Troll on FAAAK.
Dave, have you ever read The Sovereignty of Diversity by A. W. Pinko?
It’s a classic of modern Reformed theology, and required reading at most seminaries.
Seems like it would be right up your alley.
Pinko? Please tell me his first name is Commie.
AW Pink wrote the Reformed classic, The Sovereignty of God around a century ago.
https://www.amazon.com/Sovereignty-God-Arthur-W-Pink/dp/1604596732/ref=sr_1_7?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1473427820&sr=1-7&keywords=a+w+pink
Of course, if he were alive today, as a Reformed theologian, he wouldn’t go on and on about God – he’d go on and on and on and on and on and on about non-whites, especially blacks.
Just like commies and pinkos used to do.
And in a few years, he’d be going on and on about gays and trannies.
Okay, I think Wilson’s post is excellent, but reading the comments here is a bit like reading the alt-right. So why do blacks, women, minorities often side with the Democrats who abuse them? Because it’s still a far better option than siding with a Right that obviously hates them.
If you want to truly solve the political riddle, a far better question to start asking is why she stays.
Free housing, free food, free cell phone, free transportation, free medical, free social security benefits, girls get well paid to have babies, other free social benefits just to name a few. One of my working friends lives outside Chicago and has a lawn care business on the side. He frequently has guys visiting asking for a job. He offers them one and sets the starting wage — which is well above the minimum wage — and they all tell him that they really don’t want to work, they just want him to sign the paper say’n that they asked for… Read more »
“Free” is why battered women often stay trapped in abusive marriages,too. Another way a of saying that is they are reluctant to become homeless and starve to death so they tolerate abuse. Somewhere in this thread there are probably a couple of orcs right now wanting to rid the world of no fault divorce and alimony so wives are economically obliged to forever put up with their crap. Do I wonder why Democrats keep winning elections? No, no I do not. There is something innately stupid about the Right side of the aisle that would drive any rational person to… Read more »
Do you support no fault divorce?
Can you explain to me why you think a man or woman who is divorced should keep paying money to a divorced spouse?
Because if we’re going to ask primarily women to sacrifice education and career in order to stay home and have a family, it’s unethical to then abandon her and run off with your secretary, leaving her no means of support. Many of those who complain about no fault divorce see only one side of the issue, this celebrity version of alimony as financial rape. You need to come see all the homeless women in their 60’s now living in their car, and eating at the food pantry because some guy got tired of his 30 yr marriage and ran off… Read more »
In that case she’s the victim of adultery and financial costs can be a legitimate punishment of the offending spouse. The logic is similar with divorce for abuse. Both of those scenarios can be handled with fault based divorce. Why exactly do you demand no-fault?
I think no-fault has encouraged precisely those scenarios. For the person who wants to trade in a spouse, no-fault made it no-problem.
“You need to come see all the homeless women in their 60’s now living in their car, and eating at the food pantry because some guy got tired of his 30 yr marriage and ran off with a younger model.”
How does no fault divorce help this situation?
Perhaps no fault is being understood in the colloquial sense as in “This divorce is no one’s fault and the court is not interested in assigning blame” as opposed to divorce for fault which meant “One party to this marriage has committed the acts of adultery, cruelty, or abandonment.” Laws that permit divorce for fault are much more in the interest of the aging, faithful homemaker who is abandoned.
“To simply rant about no fault divorce is to only see one side of the issue, one that fails to take into account some of the immoral decisions men are more than capable of making.”
The above scenario is abandonmemt making the man clearly at fault, a no fault divorce is ignoring his immorale decisions.
Yes, exactly. What has changed over the decades is that women now initiate over half of divorces. I think that no-fault might benefit the woman who does not take her marriage vows seriously. She can walk out the door for a frivolous reason, and as long as she is not self-supporting, she will have at least temporary support from her husband.
It doesn’t. No fault divorce is a response to this situation. Many people just want to ignore the problem and blame the response.
No fault divorce means that you can divorce without there being a fault (like neglect or adultery). No fault makes it easier for people to leave and for men to abandon women. That is why I asked you if you supported no fault divorce. It just seemed to me to be unusual to be pro no-fault if it allows men to abandon women.
I do not deny that a wife is entitled to assets at the time of divorce. I wish to know what justification you have for saying that payments to the ex-wife should continue indefinitely?
I know we keep going around on this one, but I am puzzled by your point of view. In a case such as mine (the abandoned housewife is too old and/or sick to enter the workforce, and, in any event, her credentials have lapsed because she was unemployed throughout several decades of marriage), why would you think it fair to add extreme poverty to the misery she is already facing? The divorce is not of her choosing. She was faithful throughout the marriage. Chances are that even if her parents are still alive, they are far too old to offer… Read more »
Because I am arguing in the abstract and you are arguing from your mistreatment. This may make you more compassionate than I when dealing with other abandoned women (good) but it could (maybe) affect your view of what is just. I think law needs primarily to be just without incentives to evil. Now it may mean that ongoing alimony is fair (I am not yet convinced) but not necessarily. It is clear that God cares for the oppressed and the helpless (widows and orphans) and the OT law allowed for that. But the widow would also cry out to God… Read more »
We’re actually still in the negotiations phase, and I am hampered by my unwillingness to give him trouble. When the judge told me to wise up and realize I am dealing with an adversary, I realized I am no good at this. I still love him and I don’t want to be a burden. But neither do I want to be homeless. I am one of the lucky ones, as these things go.
And I’d hire you to teach my children. The excuse for English they get in school….
:)
My dear sister went to New Zealand many years ago to teach English. She ended up in a tough, inner city Auckland school but she quite enjoyed it. When she left, she brought back with her an accent, a husband, some startling epithets, and a steamer trunk full of Maori art.
“I wish to know what justification you have for saying that payments to the ex-wife should continue indefinitely?” I really don’t believe payments should continue indefinitely. In this state at least, it’s called maintenance and it usually expires after a few years. My objection to getting rid of no fault divorce is that every divorce than must become a trial where you must prove fault and that cost a lot of money and clogs up our courts. So you “win” your divorce but now you owe your lawyer and court costs. No fault divorce keeps more money in people’s hands.… Read more »
I don’t think the innocent partner should have the law biased against him, but just law doesn’t always mean good outcomes for everyone. It should punish the guilty and acquit the innocent; but the need to not punish the innocent can hamper punishing the guilty. And bad laws to help one person end up destroying far more through bad application. Sometimes we just have to wait out the ultimate judge who will put all things to right. You are right that law doesn’t help a wicked heart, I do think however, perverse incentives can encourage a wicked heart and increase… Read more »
Spousal support doesn’t arise in many divorces. Because very few women stop working upon marriage, the court will not automatically consider them to need support when they divorce. If one party has held a low-wage job and the other has earned a good income, there may be an adjustment in that case. If one party is sick and unable to work, spousal support may be ordered. In California it is gender-blind and no-fault. If I were a downtown lawyer and my husband had stayed home with our child, I would be required to support him. In general terms, the court… Read more »
I thought you made some good points in your earlier response. And I think that the OT is worth reviewing about this. I would be interested in Doug’s view.
But I am concerned about the ongoing support. The problem being that provision is one part of the contract. Do we expect ongoing sexual support? Jesus made it clear that the adulterous spouse was clearly in the wrong. And a society the executed adulterers would give all the money to the innocent party
I think they are two separate issues. One can have a valid marriage in which neither spouse expects to support the other financially. I have known childless, dual income couples in which each maintains entirely separate finances and negotiates the division of household expenses. When such a marriage ends, there is no question of spousal support. The implied contract is not part of the marriage vows. It is a private arrangement between the parties–an arrangement that used to be the norm, and is now becoming uncommon. If one party, with the full consent of the other, gives up paid employment… Read more »
Yes, but the idea that you can separate marriage as a contract into marriage contract and financial contract is fraught with problems. The contract is there because of marriage. To force someone to keep his part of the contract while allowing the other to neglect his part seems unjust.
I agree with you that the no-fault system results in injustice. My preference was for the old system under which the financially dependent spouse did not qualify for support if he/she left the marriage on grounds other than adultery or cruelty. I understand why people get upset about paying support to ex-spouses who forced a unilateral divorce on them. If I had hauled my husband into divorce court simply because I was bored with him, it would have struck me as very unethical to ask him to go on supporting me. Under the old system, the judge was allowed to… Read more »
I’ll have to think about this some more. Just thinking out loud below. In the OT a man was forbidden to divorce his wife if he seduced an unbetrothed woman (Deut 22). This provided security for her. So what is it about the Deuteronomy situation that forces this requirement? He has taken her without parental permission. Marriage provided for the woman but the man was trying to get pleasure illicitly without the promise of future security. Presumably the man is hoping not to get caught, so if he got caught he had to make it right. And the law about… Read more »
If the man wanted to exercise conjugal rights with his wife, why is he demanding a divorce? Presumably he has lost interest in her as a sexual partner. He has not been deprived of his conjugal rights; he has forfeited them voluntarily. I don’t know if you have ever lived with a beloved spouse who you know is sleeping with other people. It is humiliating and degrading beyond my power to describe. Whether these other people are paraded in front of you, or whether you merely catch sexually transmitted diseases from your spouse’s association with them, or both, it is… Read more »
I think you misread me. I don’t think the adulterous spouse calls the shots, I was saying that he didn’t. Assuming the man is the adulterer (though often it is the other way around) then he could not initiate divorce in the scenario, only she could. So she can leave if she wishes, or if she wants to try and make the marriage work she can choose to keep him. And if she leaves then she can get the assets divided (or perhaps all the assets). What I am struggling with is the justice of her saying that he goes… Read more »
But future income over the long term is rarely awarded anyway. My circumstances are unusual, and most marriages that end in divorce have not lasted so long that the wife is incapable of supporting herself. So, your concern that the adulterous husband not be unfairly saddled with supporting his ex-wife doesn’t apply in most cases. I am not aware of any court that would give the wife all the assets (bearing in mind that an adulterous husband who wants out of the marriage scotch-free has probably hidden many of the assets to begin with). In saying that she is creating… Read more »
Would you counsel someone to stay and try to make the marriage work in the presence of unrepentant, ongoing adultery?
No. And my thoughts about this follow what Paul says in 1 Corinthians: Let the unbelieving spouse leave
I think the state should not be involved in most forms of welfare anyway. The family and the church.
You could always go to jail. :)
Oh dear, I wonder what she was like. He sounds a bit demented, and so probably is she. I knew an elderly lady with beginning dementia who called the police to evict “the lodger” from her house. When the police called her son, they learned that the lodger was her husband!
“If the man wanted to exercise conjugal rights with his wife, why is he demanding a divorce? Presumably he has lost interest in her as a sexual partner.”
Jilly, whatever should be, that’s not necessarily the way it works with men.
One of the many things I will never understand!
Something may be being overlooked here is that the *woman* is guaranteed conjugal rights here as well. Having a man support you for life but not being able to marry and bear children would not be justice for the woman. And she would effectively be off the marriage market, once the story was public. So by being forced to marry her, he isn’t just keeping her from starving. He is giving her the benefits of marriage and motherhood. I think the ancient attitude toward marriage was very different from what you describe. We see it as humiliating to have a… Read more »
Speaking of rational people, this is why marriage rates are dropping — there’s no incentive for men to take the financial risk when they can get most of the benefits for free.
Women are ignorant to what works in their own interests.
This is fun!
No Fault Divorce was an American continuation of the hardness of hearts in old Israelites. Jesus told the Pharisees that Moses gave divorce because of the hardness of their hearts. There are scriptural reasons, not excuses, for divorce but in today’s America most divorces do not follow Biblical lines. Preaching in American churches has been weak for decades and now stupid is strong in both Christian thinking and action. The divorce rate is one indication of how far away from the Bible we have strayed. Christians bought into the world view instead of the gospel view and now see nothing… Read more »
I dunno… The guys I assume you’re characterizing as being “a bit like…the alt-right” appear to be the ones actually interested in treating black people like sentient beings, adults even, who have their own aspirations rather than reducing them to being like battered women who are too ignorant and dependent upon the state to know how to act for their own good.
“rather than reducing them to being like battered women who are too ignorant and dependent..to know how to act for their own good.”
Is that what you really think of battered women? That they’re all just ignorant, uneducated, dependent? Kind of stupid and therefore deserving of what they get?
That’s not an uncommon assumption, but it’s actually false. That’s why I said, a far better question to start asking is “why she stays.” Many people genuinely don’t understand the complexity in that answer, but politically speaking it really does explain why Dems are so much better at winning elections.
Is that what you really think of battered women? That they’re all just ignorant, uneducated, dependent? Kind of stupid and therefore deserving of what they get?
Actually, no. Or at least not in every case.
But the hypothetical battered woman is not the subject of conversation, but black people who are likened to such and all that such might entail.
Wilson drew an analogy between battered spouses and black folks. I guess how you perceive victims of abuse will also color how you perceive what Wilson is saying
The way I perceive victims of abuse is that they are people that they are victims of unjust violence from the victimiser. None of the examples Pastor Wilson cites fit that pattern.
ME. It’s simple. The point of my comment *is not* what a battered woman is or is not. The battered woman is an analogy *for black people who vote Democrat*. DW, reduces them to being like battered women who are victims, ignoring the option that they *aren’t victims* but rather people who have determined what their interests are and consequently act in such a way so as to best accommodate those interests. Don’t get me wrong, there are plenty of people who make poor decisions out of a lack of information and wisdom. But there are plenty who have decided… Read more »
Hmm, well that’s an interesting idea. The thing is, I live in the midst of very white, wannabe socialism. You’re right, no amount of education can transform them into small government conservatives…..but running a small business just might do the trick. It’s a bit funny, but I hadn’t really given it much thought. I really do perceive all those white people as victims, as in indoctrinated and brainwashed beyond knowing what they truly want, what is actually best for them. That is because I see the harm they do to themselves and to others and the fallacy of their policies.… Read more »
Unless you’re willing to be racist, you will forever be politically at the mercy of people who can threaten to call you racist.
LOL! Oh, Ash, if only you knew how funny that was. I can’t recall ever having been influenced by fear of being politically incorrect or at the mercy of other people’s opinions.
Sure. Because you’ve never had an opinion threatening to power.
Oh, the tales I could tell, ash, they’d peel the paint off your walls. :)
On the bright side, be nice to me, I might just save you the top bunk at Fema camp.
https://youtu.be/cKs_iW0QVNY?t=147 I ran across this this morning and found it exceptionally relevant to my point and to our conversation. It’s a video from the Discovery Channel, so no alt-right “racism” or any other bogeyman. The guy discusses the Mirror Test and self-awareness, and I linked to the point in the video where he discusses humans specifically, but the whole video is interesting and good for background. He talks about how Westernized children can “pass” the Mirror test (perhaps at 15-18 months, though that figure isn’t given explicitly linked to Westernized babies) whereas non-Western (he brings up Kenyans) children may not… Read more »
Isn’t the much simpler answer that the Democrats don’t actually abuse them? Whatever thin gruel the Democrats give black people, it is much better than the Republican prescription of free market economics solving all of our problems forever. That is to say, at least the Democrats do pay some attention to the specific concerns of black people, even if they rarely act on that. And besides, if you have a situation where 95%+ of a voting bloc is going one way, it’s a hard sell that they’re all too stupid to know what’s good for them. As a matter of… Read more »
And besides, if you have a situation where 95%+ of a voting bloc is going one way, it’s a hard sell that they’re all too stupid to know what’s good for them. Doug has to say that. Because he’s a big, big fan of interracial marriage and something called “racial reconciliation.” Normally, he’d say that a person who votes for “baby killers” and “same sex mirage” and funding Planned Parenthood is in no way a Christian. But that’s only white people. White people are responsible for their actions. But you can’t preach that white Christians have an obligation to “reconcile”… Read more »
FAAAK is a troll and really misses the mark in his posts.
Well, I think he has a point on this one. How can it be a serious sin for a white to vote for a Democrat, but merely proof of abuse when a black does it? My next door neighbor is a black school principal whose lifestyle is as middle class as my own. Would Doug think it is a sin for me to vote for Clinton but not for her to do the same? Or is it only okay for uneducated blacks to vote for Clinton? In that event, is it okay for poor and uneducated whites living on welfare… Read more »
Is abortion a sin? Is stealing a sin? Are diverse weights and measures an abomination to the Lord?
The DNC supports abortion, stealing and diverse weights and measures. Do you lose your salvation if you vote for Hillary? No. However, it does show a gross lack of discernment and understanding of Biblical principles applied to our daily lives and our government. Currently we are plagued with the results of 60-70 years of voting without understanding and implementing Biblical standards in America.
There isn’t a logical disconnect but a scriptural one.
My point is not whether voting for the DNC is sinful. My point was simply, if voting for Dems is sinful, then it must be sinful regardless of the individual voter’s race. Doug seemed to me to be suggesting that it is a sin for whites to do so, but not for blacks. I find this position illogical.
I didn’t see that inclination in this post at all. Where exactly are you reading that?
LOL! One must put their racial goggles on to read these comments and also grab one’s Catholic school girl googles, and than suddenly everything begins to make more sense.
Wilson has stated no such thing, but the never ending mantra around these parts is that black folks (and women) are getting special privileges and get out sin free cards. So this post is being perceived as black folks don’t have to take any personal responsibility and that’s unfair!
If you accept the “black Americans/Democratic elites” → “battered wife/abuser” analogy, then it sounds like you are arguing that battered wives should take personal responsibility for getting abused.
We can and should accept the analogy/generalization with the additional notion that black Americans are the battered wife (like some roughed-up ho) after she has been voluntarily hanging out at the local super intense S&M club with her Democrat lascivious like-minded hubby.
Folks are often represented quite well with the civil magistrates they voluntarily (with full personal responsibility) have made king/ruler over themselves when voting them in (1Sa 12:13,14,15,25).
The people of Israel did not make Saul king. Samuel did. (Besides, only a very small fraction of government employees in the USA are selected by voting, and only a small fraction of government power is controlled by them.)
Yes, the Lord and Samuel did make Saul king, but the people were also pertinently involved in Saul being made king, by first wickedly asking for a king (1 Sa 12:17,19,20,25). God gave them over to their wicked desire/request. Likewise, the Jews also asked for Christ to be crucified, but of course it was brought about or made to happen by Roman decree & hands in God’s providence — yet the Jews can be said to be responsible for Christ being made crucified. Once again, God gave the Jews over to their wicked lust for making some desired outcome of… Read more »
Deut 17:15 indicates that having a king wasn’t per se sinful, so the issue in 1 Sa 12 was that they asked from bad motives, so far as I can tell.
Anyway, if your theology of government makes voters responsible for the acts of elected officials, that sounds like an excellent reason to never vote.
I wondered if you could clarify that for me. Is a battered woman the roughed up ho who enjoys S&M? Or are black Americans roughed up ho’s?
Jill, I don’t believe you need this clarification to understand the analogy.
Please note the word “like” and retry engaging your reading comprehension skillset.
Well, I freely admit that my reading comprehension skills are not good enough for me to understand the point you were making. That’s why I asked–politely, I hope–for further clarification. Which, obviously, you are under no obligation to give. You can simply decline–politely, I hope.
Ok, if you freely admit this, then maybe I’ll change that belief.
The battered wife who has been beat up as a result of this own lascivious/bad desire of hers has similarity to some/a roughed up ho with the same desire.
In continuing with the analogy, American blacks have an analogical likeness to this battered wife, and thus also an analogical likeness to this roughed up ho.
FAAAK is indeed a troll, but he’s also easily trolled. And someday, maybe he will actually succeed in laughing his donkey off, but it’s very stubborn –not unlike a mule.
Cap, join me in praying that FAAAK will ask Christ to relieve him of his bitterness, anger or whatever the root cause of his discomfort is.
Amen! Lord, shine light into the darkness and let your truth overcome the darkness! Let it be to the praise of your glory. AMEN!
You should read Up From The Projects by Walter Williams. He shows how young blacks are destroyed by DNC policies. You will have a different view of free market thinking after reading his work.
“Isn’t the much simpler answer that the Democrats don’t actually abuse them?”
That would certainly be the sensible answer, measuring by Occam’s Razor.
Except for the part where it’s contrary to fact.
Reminder: “Every terrible thing our segregationist ancestors said would happen because of ‘civil rights’ has happened.”
in 2016, Wilson calls us a “battered spouse”.
In 1964, Malcolm X called us “political chumps” – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BYVv4LY_KQ
They’re both right! And in both cases, they target the abuses of the Democrat party.
An abusive spouse
vs.
The rapist and murder hiding in the bushes
Decisions. Decisions.
Question: Which party promotes race-hustling quislings to positions of high honor?
Answer: Republicans, obviously. Look at the top of your ticket.