Rachel Dolezal

Discussion in 'Off-Topic Discussions' started by Kizmet, Jan 7, 2019.

Loading...
  1. Kizmet

    Kizmet Moderator

  2. John Bear

    John Bear Senior Member

    In a similar vein, I came upon a story on Natalie Suleman ("Octomom") in People (I think) in the doctor's office last month. She seems to be saying that she got into her life of regrettable things (drugs, porn films) because she was blackmailed by her agent (threat of exposing welfare fraud). Now living well, it said, with her 14 children, in New Jersey.
     
  3. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

    Does that make her Quadradecimom now?
     
  4. Kizmet

    Kizmet Moderator

    [​IMG]
     
  5. Kizmet

    Kizmet Moderator

  6. Bruce

    Bruce Moderator

  7. Kizmet

    Kizmet Moderator

    Or, a bunch of people who are highly educated, trained and paid to analyze and comment on social behavior and phenomenon who are analyzing and commenting on social behavior and phenomenon. I would not say they are rationalizing Dolezal’s behavior. I would say they are trying to understand it. I am a little surprised that a person with a Masters degree in Forensic Psychology would refer to this as “the bizarre behavior of a con artist” Isn’t that exactly the sort of thing you’re interested in studying?
     
  8. Bruce

    Bruce Moderator

    Forensic psychology is the intersection of the law and psychology. As far as I can tell, Dolezal broke no laws (other than being accused of welfare fraud after her race charade came crashing down), it’s not illegal in any jurisdiction I’m aware of to try to pass yourself off as a different race.

    However, she got jobs & postions that she almost certainly never would have received if she was honest about her race; President of the Spokane, Washington NAACP Chapter, and Instructor of Africana Studies at Eastern Washington University.

    Again, not illegal, the NAACP and EWU know better to make race a job requirement, but we all know where her applications would have ended up if she was honest about her race.

    Criminal? No, at least other than the accused welfare fraud.

    Con-artist? Of the highest order.
     
    heirophant likes this.
  9. Kizmet

    Kizmet Moderator

    OK, well, whatever. It's clear that you have no interest in the story or the analysis. Still, you seem to be going to a lot of trouble to indicate that you have no interest. Most people simply ignore the threads they're not interested in.
     
  10. JBjunior

    JBjunior Active Member

    Octomom seems to be doing well with the Nike sponsorship.
     
  11. heirophant

    heirophant Well-Known Member

    It's the second one that most interests me. (I don't care who the NAACP chooses as their officers, that's their concern.) I think that we see preferential hiring a lot in academia, people being chosen for professorial positions in higher education based in some large measure on their race, sex and politics. It's happening more and more and in some of the more "socially relevant" subjects, where it's seemingly become the rule rather than the exception.

    And more and more, it feeds the general public's distrust and disrespect for higher education. Not disrespect for learning per-se, but distrust in the objectivity and intellectual credibility of the social institution charged with producing it.

    My own rule of thumb is that the more relevant an academic subject is to hot-button social issues, the less authoritative and reliable it is likely to be. In those areas, academics too often begin with a conclusion in mind and then tailor their arguments and select their evidence to produce desired results.

    Something else: Rachel is a member of a socially disfavored social class (white) pretending to be a member of a privileged class (black) in order to receive higher social standing and employment preferences. Blacks used to try to pass as white all the time, back in the day, for the same obvious reasons. The fact that whites are now trying to pass as black (or as American Indian in another famous case) just shows how that's been stood on its head in recent years.

    Finally, I wouldn't call Rachel Dolezal a con-artist of the highest order, since she was eventually found out.
     
    Last edited: Jan 26, 2019
  12. Bruce

    Bruce Moderator

    Please show us all where I said I had no interest.

    HINT: You can’t.

    I don’t need to read a bunch of philosophical babble to recognize a con-artist when I see one. She pretended to be a different race in order to secure employment and preferential treatment that is unavailable to members of her real race.

    Sometimes, things are exactly as they seem.
     
  13. Bruce

    Bruce Moderator

    They all get found out eventually. Bernie Madoff was probably the greatest con-artist in history, but even his carefully designed scheme came crashing down.
     
  14. Phdtobe

    Phdtobe Well-Known Member

    Elizabeth Warren!
     
  15. Kizmet

    Kizmet Moderator

    Yeah, it's not like this is a discussion board or anything like that. You don't need to pay attention to the ideas of others, especially if they are not an exact match with your own. You're right, I don't think you should bother with any of this stuff.
     
  16. Bruce

    Bruce Moderator

    You could post a link to the Satanic Bible here, that doesn’t mean I’m going to read it or even click on it.

    Do you read every article that’s posted here? Every single word? If not, then I’d say your above statement is just a tad hypocritical.

    I started to read the link you posted, and recognized it immediately as a bunch of apologists for a con-artist. I have better things to do with my time.
     
  17. Kizmet

    Kizmet Moderator

    I think a lot of people would click on a link to the Satanic Bible (is there really such a thing?) mostly out of curiosity. You don't need to agree with something in order to expose yourself to it. There's no harm done. As for reading every article, you're absolutely right, I don't. But if I don't read it then I also don't trash it. Beyond that I'll only say that you've flattered me with your time. You have none for the famous Philosophers but plenty to argue with me. It's been fun, thanks.
     
  18. Bruce

    Bruce Moderator

    Get those famous philosophers here, and I'll be more than pleased to debate them.
     

Share This Page