TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- I just got back from the worst lecture I have ever attended.

I just got back from the worst lecture I have ever attended.

My school, Mary Washington College, proudly presented a lecture tonight by Dolores Huerta, pictured below as part of their celebration of Women's History Month.

I normally wouldn't have attended this lecture, as the topic - inequality among social groups in America - doesn't particularly interest me. But since I had nothing else to do, and since my roommate had to go to it for a class he is taking, I was persuaded to attend.

For those of you who don't know who Dolores Huerta is, I envy you. She's this woman (click on the image to read a short biography):



After sitting through over and hour of the most overtly racist, sexist, and downright asinine rhetoric I've ever heard from someone not wearing a white hood, I am firmly convinced that she is the single stupidest individual I have ever encountered.

Her thesis, as far as I could discern through her broken English, seemed to be that white, male, and/or upper-class individuals lead advantaged lives within our society as a direct result of the residual effects of past discrimination - and furthermore, that the best way to remedy these "inequalities" was, you guessed it, more discrimination!

However, her lecture covered a wide variety of topics. She started out by talking about racially inequality, spouting off a list of statistics and drawing broad conclusions from them (which seems to be a popular cop-out from actually having a rational argument). Essentially, she claims that the reason that blacks and Hispanics in particular don't have as good of an education on average, or as well paying jobs on average, as white people is because of, quote, "continuing institutionalized racism in America" - whatever that is supposed to mean.

After that passionate diatribe, she moved on to everyone's favorite topic for "women's history month" - namely, how the depiction of women as "sex objects" in the media is responsible for the fact that women get paid slightly less on average than men, and why there so few women in Congress. Scratch that - she didn't talk about how the depiction of women in the media causes these phenomena, but merely claimed that it does (without providing any evidence to substantiate her radical hypothesis).

At this point in time, I can honestly say that I felt physically ill at the notion that there were people who actually took this person seriously. But I had no idea what was to come, for it was at this point which she dropped her ultimate bombshell:

She claimed, in no uncertain terms, that the United States of America would benefit from modeling its political and social institutions after those of Cuba. I kid you not. After rambling on about Cuba in utopian terms for five minutes or so, one individual in the crowd who I've met a few times interrupted her to ask the question, "If Cuba's political and social institutions are so much better than the United States', why does Cuba have such an inferior standard of living?"

Her response, unsurprisingly, is that it was all America's fault. You see, if it weren't for the economic sanctions the United States has placed upon Cuba, they would be doing just as good as us today, if not better. Apparently, in Ms. Huerta's mind (and I use the term "mind" loosely), it's America's responsibility to cooperate with Cuba economically, and that if we fail to do so, then Cuba's inability to sustain its own economic growth is not a failure of Cuba's institutions, but ours. At this point, I was refreshed to see about twenty people from the audience, including the guy who asked the question, simply get up and leave.

But, masochist that I am, I decided I might as well stick it out, and it wasn't long before she moved on to her last topic. She ended her lecture by talking about how, since all white people, men, or the wealthy have benefited from historical discrimination, we ought to pay back this advantage in the form of reparations to groups including, but not exclusive to: blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans, and women.

Having finally finished her inane ramblings, she decided to grant us a question and answer period (or at least a question period as it would turn out). I finally got my redemption for having to sit through her horrible lecture when I was permitted to ask the following question:

"How do you respond to the criticism that your argument, namely that statistical inequalities apparent in modern American society are the result of historical discrimination, is a textbook example of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy?"

To which she responded:

"What do you mean?"

So, realizing that I was foolish to presume that an individual this stupid might have had an elementary education in logic, I tried to explain to her the problem with her argument by rephrasing my question as such:

"Although you have established that there are statistical inequalities among various social groups in modern society, and although the existence of historical discrimination cannot be denied, it doesn't seem that you have provided any evidence to suggest that the historical discrimination is actually the cause of contemporary inequality. Do you have any such evidence, or is your thesis nothing more than baseless conjecture?"

At this point, heroically, the professor who had invited her here to speak ran up, grabbed the microphone away from her, and announced that we would have to move on due to time restraints. I can only hope that everyone else in the audience found this as amusing as I did.

So, that just about sums up this rant. I honestly wonder sometimes why people this stupid are allowed to live, much less speak, much less masquerade as intellectuals. But at least I got the chance to embarrass her - it almost makes it worth the agony of listening to her "thoughts."

Until next time,

Arbiter

Tell me about it, I had to listen to Michael Moore and Prez Clinton speak in my University

arbiter: what do u think is the cause of contemporary inequality, then?

quote:

"How do you respond to the criticism that your argument, namely that statistical inequalities apparent in modern American society are the result of historical discrimination, is a textbook example of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy?"

hahah nice

Hehehe damned good story. Was she carrying the flag when she was speaking?

Re: I just got back from the worst lecture I have ever attended.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter "How do you respond to the criticism that your argument, namely that statistical inequalities apparent in modern American society are the result of historical discrimination, is a textbook example of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy?"

Well aren't you a smarty poo poo. If anyone should be embarrassed I think it should be you. Post hoc ergo propter hoc -

US trade sanctions have fucked up Cubas economy. It's only been in the past few years that some goods are flowing again. Whether Cubas economy would have been healthy if there were none can't be proven but it certainly hasn't helped. There is evidence that communist countries economies aren't the healthiest anyway so I don't think she can blame the big bad US 100%.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter "Although you have established that there are statistical inequalities among various social groups in modern society, and although the existence of historical discrimination cannot be denied, it doesn't seem that you have provided any evidence to suggest that the historical discrimination is actually the cause of contemporary inequality. Do you have any such evidence, or is your thesis nothing more than baseless conjecture?"

If you think about a plantation owner in the 1800 using slaves to work their land and getting rich off it, then passing on that wealth to his sons etc. Result: rich white guy living the priveleged life today, that wealth being founded on slavery. There is a connection between past inequality and todays.

Compensating those descriminated against is just not going to happen, and probably wouldn't solve the descrimination problem anyway.

What the answer is I don't know. Probably education for all and time.

quote:

Originally posted by AnotherWay83 arbiter: what do u think is the cause of contemporary inequality, then?

I don't think there is an answer to that question that wouldn't be a gross generalization. There are a near-infinite number of variable which end up contributing to any given individual's economic prosperity, each to varying degrees. To be honest I think it's the entirely wrong approach to life to divide ourselves up into different "social groups" and then try to draw conclusions from statisical aberrations that occur between those groups.

As much as it's hard for some people to believe, money doesn't buy happiness. Wealthy people don't describe their lives as being any more fulfilling than middle class people, or even poor people. It's not the answer. But while we're striving so hard to achieve some sort of superficial economic "equality" between these "groups" we've sorted ourselves into, all we're doing is fostering hate and resentment between those groups. Even if we did achieve this goal of "equality" in a statistical sense, I don't think people would be any happier, or lead any more fulfilling lives than they do now. Meanwhile, we would have caused serious damage to the harmony of our society with divisive rhetoric - which could in a very real sense make all of us just a little less happy, or a little less fulfilled.

The almighty dollar isn't what we need in order to be happy. We need to recognize our similarities and embrace our differences - but we need to do it as individuals, not "social groups." As soon as we divide ourselves up into these groups, we lock ourselves into an "us against them" mentality which ultimately doesn't help anyone.

I don't know how many people here have seen the South Park episode "Chef Goes Nanners," but this whole issue reminded me of it. For those of you who haven't, the gist of it is that the South Park flag depicts four white men hanging a black man, and some people are calling for it to be changed because it is "racist" while others want to preserve it in the name of "history." Ultimately the children of South Park end up staging a debate, and the team supporting the preservation of the flag totally missed the point of the debate, thinking it is about violence, rather than race. In the word's of the character Chef, the children were "So not racist, that they didn't see 4 white people hanging a black person, they just saw five people."

That's what we should be aiming for. All the money we spend trying to calculate and analyze these obscure statistical differences is a waste. We should be striving to become a genuinely colorblind society, not one which is so hopelessly obsessed with inane racial distinctions that we base our entire socioeconomic infrastructure on trying to ensure statistical equality among each group.

Oh, and no Occ, she didn't have the flag this time. It would have been amusing though.

b1_, I don't really disagree with much of what you've said. I just think it's an overgeneralization. There are plenty of black folks who aren't the descendents of slaves, and I don't think very many white people are descendents of plantation owners. It's impossible to tell to what extent this type of situation is the cause of the inequalities we observe. It might be a major factor, and it might be a relatively minor one. I was wondering if she had any evidence that it was a major one, since that seemed to be what she was implying, not trying to insinuate that it was completely unrelated.

Great post Aribiter--I wish I could've been there myself. That's one of many leftist mindsets that I absolutely cannot stand and will not tolerate. Perhaps the standard of living in Cuba is shittier because the people live under an oppressive dictatorship. But no, instead of taking responsibility, the left claims that less fortunate people are simply victims of society who have no control over their own happiness. In other words, there must be someone else to blame for my failures--and if I can't put my finger on someone in the present day and age, it must be the fault of someone hundreds of years ago. Hey, if all else fails, just blame the U.S. They're the easiest scapegoat of all.

Makes me sick to see people like that dumb ugly lady. I wish they sent people like her to Cuba, Iran or some 3rd world countries. Lets see how much people are going to care about her complaints. And what kind of moronic idiot would give her the chance to lecture at a school? I'm glad you were there to put her sorry ass into place! Under a pile of sh*t that's were she belongs!

Re: I just got back from the worst lecture I have ever attended.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter But I had no idea what was to come, for it was at this point which she dropped her ultimate bombshell: She claimed, in no uncertain terms, that the United States of America would benefit from modeling its political and social institutions after those of Cuba. I kid you not.

entertaining story arbiter, i'm sorry you had to go through that

and btw i think that was one of the most classic southpark episodes ever. SP beats family guy or simpsons hands down

Re: Re: I just got back from the worst lecture I have ever attended.

quote:

Originally posted by Izzy entertaining story arbiter, i'm sorry you had to go through that and btw i think that was one of the most classic southpark episodes ever. SP beats family guy or simpsons hands down

Watch it on the Family Guy comments! I love SouthPark to no end, but I hardly think the 2 are comparable. Family Guy is one of the smartest, funniest cartoons ever written. And it's coming back!!! Thank goodness! It's like trying to compare apples to oranges. South Park makes such great political commentary, while Family Guy just makes hilarious jokes and old school references that take the show to a whole new level.

Re: I just got back from the worst lecture I have ever attended.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter My school, Mary Washington College, proudly presented a lecture tonight by Dolores Huerta, pictured below as part of their celebration of Women's History Month.

You're kidding me, you go to MWC(Soon to be MWU)?
That's where I work!

Re: Re: Re: I just got back from the worst lecture I have ever attended.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Watch it on the Family Guy comments! I love SouthPark to no end, but I hardly think the 2 are comparable. Family Guy is one of the smartest, funniest cartoons ever written. And it's coming back!!! Thank goodness! It's like trying to compare apples to oranges. South Park makes such great political commentary, while Family Guy just makes hilarious jokes and old school references that take the show to a whole new level.

Family Guy is coming back? Yeepee! Love that show, funniest ever. Kinda like the old Simpsons.

Re: Re: Re: Re: I just got back from the worst lecture I have ever attended.

quote:

Originally posted by DjSway Family Guy is coming back? Yeepee! Love that show, funniest ever. Kinda like the old Simpsons.

Like the Simpsons--only much smarter(not the characters--the writers!).

Last I heard

I own the DVD set--I can't get enough.

Re: Re: I just got back from the worst lecture I have ever attended.

quote:

Originally posted by WhoaNellie1487 You're kidding me, you go to MWC(Soon to be MWU)? That's where I work!

Wow, small world.

I'm graduating in a couple of months with my degree in Computer Science. What do you do here?

Re: Re: Re: I just got back from the worst lecture I have ever attended.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Wow, small world. I'm graduating in a couple of months with my degree in Computer Science. What do you do here?

lol I'm one of the paper ladies. I deliver the Washington Post.

computer science? very cool.^_^

arbitor, along with occrider, drug tito, and others i cant name right off the bat, are very smart. ide name them the intellectuals of the political forum.

Re: I just got back from the worst lecture I have ever attended.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter She claimed, in no uncertain terms, that the United States of America would benefit from modeling its political and social institutions after those of Cuba. I kid you not. After rambling on about Cuba in utopian terms for five minutes or so, one individual in the crowd who I've met a few times interrupted her to ask the question, "If Cuba's political and social institutions are so much better than the United States', why does Cuba have such an inferior standard of living?" At this point, heroically, the professor who had invited her here to speak ran up, grabbed the microphone away from her, and announced that we would have to move on due to time restraints. I can only hope that everyone else in the audience found this as amusing as I did. So, that just about sums up this rant. I honestly wonder sometimes why people this stupid are allowed to live, much less speak, much less masquerade as intellectuals. But at least I got the chance to embarrass her - it almost makes it worth the agony of listening to her "thoughts." Until next time, Arbiter

Arbiter was just so politically correct. I would've put on the leather gloves, punched her right between the eyes to stun 'er, then bent her over the podium to ass f*ck the bitch. Well, anyhow, at least Arbiter stood up for human decency.


[[[smoke]]]

Re: I just got back from the worst lecture I have ever attended.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter My school, Mary Washington College, proudly presented a lecture tonight by Dolores Huerta, pictured below as part of their celebration of Women's History Month. I normally wouldn't have attended this lecture, as the topic - inequality among social groups in America - doesn't particularly interest me. But since I had nothing else to do, and since my roommate had to go to it for a class he is taking, I was persuaded to attend. For those of you who don't know who Dolores Huerta is, I envy you. She's this woman (click on the image to read a short biography): After sitting through over and hour of the most overtly racist, sexist, and downright asinine rhetoric I've ever heard from someone not wearing a white hood, I am firmly convinced that she is the single stupidest individual I have ever encountered. Her thesis, as far as I could discern through her broken English, seemed to be that white, male, and/or upper-class individuals lead advantaged lives within our society as a direct result of the residual effects of past discrimination - and furthermore, that the best way to remedy these "inequalities" was, you guessed it, more discrimination! However, her lecture covered a wide variety of topics. She started out by talking about racially inequality, spouting off a list of statistics and drawing broad conclusions from them (which seems to be a popular cop-out from actually having a rational argument). Essentially, she claims that the reason that blacks and Hispanics in particular don't have as good of an education on average, or as well paying jobs on average, as white people is because of, quote, "continuing institutionalized racism in America" - whatever that is supposed to mean. After that passionate diatribe, she moved on to everyone's favorite topic for "women's history month" - namely, how the depiction of women as "sex objects" in the media is responsible for the fact that women get paid slightly less on average than men, and why there so few women in Congress. Scratch that - she didn't talk about how the depiction of women in the media causes these phenomena, but merely claimed that it does (without providing any evidence to substantiate her radical hypothesis). At this point in time, I can honestly say that I felt physically ill at the notion that there were people who actually took this person seriously. But I had no idea what was to come, for it was at this point which she dropped her ultimate bombshell: She claimed, in no uncertain terms, that the United States of America would benefit from modeling its political and social institutions after those of Cuba. I kid you not. After rambling on about Cuba in utopian terms for five minutes or so, one individual in the crowd who I've met a few times interrupted her to ask the question, "If Cuba's political and social institutions are so much better than the United States', why does Cuba have such an inferior standard of living?" Her response, unsurprisingly, is that it was all America's fault. You see, if it weren't for the economic sanctions the United States has placed upon Cuba, they would be doing just as good as us today, if not better. Apparently, in Ms. Huerta's mind (and I use the term "mind" loosely), it's America's responsibility to cooperate with Cuba economically, and that if we fail to do so, then Cuba's inability to sustain its own economic growth is not a failure of Cuba's institutions, but ours. At this point, I was refreshed to see about twenty people from the audience, including the guy who asked the question, simply get up and leave. But, masochist that I am, I decided I might as well stick it out, and it wasn't long before she moved on to her last topic. She ended her lecture by talking about how, since all white people, men, or the wealthy have benefited from historical discrimination, we ought to pay back this advantage in the form of reparations to groups including, but not exclusive to: blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans, and women. Having finally finished her inane ramblings, she decided to grant us a question and answer period (or at least a question period as it would turn out). I finally got my redemption for having to sit through her horrible lecture when I was permitted to ask the following question: "How do you respond to the criticism that your argument, namely that statistical inequalities apparent in modern American society are the result of historical discrimination, is a textbook example of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy?" To which she responded: "What do you mean?" So, realizing that I was foolish to presume that an individual this stupid might have had an elementary education in logic, I tried to explain to her the problem with her argument by rephrasing my question as such: "Although you have established that there are statistical inequalities among various social groups in modern society, and although the existence of historical discrimination cannot be denied, it doesn't seem that you have provided any evidence to suggest that the historical discrimination is actually the cause of contemporary inequality. Do you have any such evidence, or is your thesis nothing more than baseless conjecture?" At this point, heroically, the professor who had invited her here to speak ran up, grabbed the microphone away from her, and announced that we would have to move on due to time restraints. I can only hope that everyone else in the audience found this as amusing as I did. So, that just about sums up this rant. I honestly wonder sometimes why people this stupid are allowed to live, much less speak, much less masquerade as intellectuals. But at least I got the chance to embarrass her - it almost makes it worth the agony of listening to her "thoughts." Until next time, Arbiter

Haha, good one...

quote:

Originally posted by Heinz arbitor, along with occrider, drug tito, and others i cant name right off the bat, are very smart. ide name them the intellectuals of the political forum.

hey!

Hey! You're too much of a right-wing neo-con, hyphen-loving hawk!

Bravo, Arbiter. Halfway through reading your initial post I was hoping that you would have actually stood up and challenged her position, which I'm glad you did.

What's scary is that her views are widespread enough to have allowed her to speak as a position of authority at an upper educational institution in the civilized world.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Hey! You're too much of a right-wing neo-con, hyphen-loving hawk!

You neglected to mention the fact that he's a right wing communist. I'm still trying to get my head around that.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.