This article is a summary of the video of Scott on the right, below the Candace Owens and Thomas Sowell videos.
“Where are we if we don’t have diversity of thought? How are we to have intelligent conversations with each other? How are we to learn from each other? How are we supposed to get a different perspective on life?” ~ Zuri Davis
Barriers to racial harmony
(1) Marxism: Reduce to one class. Not okay to be poor or rich. Differences are considered “not cool” and labeled as inequality, which we are trained to see as a bad thing.
(2) Politically correct speech: Remove offensive speech; reducing vocabulatory to range that is “safe for all”. Luckily, SOME opposite approaches that encourage acceptance of diversity: the “A Practical EmPath” system (PEP) and Nonviolent Communication (NVC), which aim to remove coercive speech, placing responsibility on the listener for how they choose to deal with what they hear.
(3) Psychological/behavioral norms: Anything outside the “norm” is deviant, radical, or broken. We must all be similar in our psychological makeup.
(4) Religious fanaticism: This religion is good and that one is bad. We must all be the same in our spirituality.
(5) Radical feminism: Labeling the recognition of gender differences as “victimizing”. And, often, the opposite, refusing to award the female “extra credit” for her “handicaps incurred by the patriarchy,” will incur the wrath of a radical feminist.
(6) Racism: Forcing “social and business focus on skin color”, entitlements, forced association, and integration. If your skin is white then you just can’t understand our plight.
(7) Education: Centralized. One size fits all. Common Core. PC speech as a rule spreading like a cancer through Universities.
I think it serves us better to consider the broad definition of “discriminate”. We discriminate every time we choose what to wear, what to eat, what job we pick, and yes, whom we choose to associate with; friends lovers, clients, workers, etc. It is unfair to arbitrarily say, “But business relationships are different.” Or “You can have these reasons for saying no but not these other reasons.”
And I’m talking about what is fair, sustainable, non-coercive, and scale-able, not what is legal. Laws can and should change to fit those criteria.
If a black woman says no to a date with a white man and when asked her reason, she says, “I’m not attracted to white guys,” or even, “I don’t like white men,” should she be castigated, punished, or forced to date him? NO!
Yet, if she runs a business, do you want to tell her how to pick employees and clients?
When you force people to go against their desires or beliefs, it never turns out well. Here’s an idea:
Let’s allow all opinions to be heard so they can be aired, known, and argued against.
How’s that war on racism coming along? About as well as the war on drugs, war on ignorance, war on poverty, and war on terror.