Christian Domestic Discipline

[serious crayons]

Hmm. What's that saying about the person who brings the Nazis into an argument? 

First of all, let's clarify that I did not bring Nazis into this argument. Jonah Goldberg did -- the point of his book that I linked to was that liberals are like Nazis because of some unrelated nonsense or other. I was pointing out that his book was ridiculous, so I hardly think that constitutes an example of argument violation via Godwin's Rule. I myself did not compare you or anyone to a Nazi.

There was nothing "flawed" about my suspicions about writers who urge white people to have more children three years ago, and there is nothing flawed about it now.

When an argument is based on a sentence like this ...

While, unfortunately, I can't cite anything, I'm sure I've read about writers in the past--and maybe not so far in the past--writing openly that the white race needed to breed more to keep from being overwhelmed by the black, brown, and yellow "races." There is historical precedent for what I'm "hearing" as I read about these books.

... I'd say it's pretty darned flawed. You can't site anything. You're sure you've read about such writers "in the past." Well, of course all kinds of writers wrote all kinds of things in the past, and I'm sure some writers did just what you vaguely recall hearing they did.

But writers in the 21st century can hardly be tarred with the same brush you would use on writers whom you vaguely remember from the (very) distant past (and yes, that would be very distant -- like, probably about 100 years ago if you're talking about mainstream writers openly encouraging the "white race" to breed more; that's been uncool since long before the Civil Rights movement).

A German Catholic clergyman wrote The Malleus Maleficarum ("Hammer of the Witches") in 1486. It was a hugely influential book in the European witch persecutions, which led to up to 60,000 executions. I would say it's unfair in 2014 to hold German Catholic clergymen responsible for that.

(Wonder what law covers bringing European witch persecutions into an argument?  )

[Jeff Wrangler]

But writers in the 21st century can hardly be tarred with the same brush you would use on writers whom you vaguely remember from the (very) distant past (and yes, that would be very distant -- like, probably about 100 years ago if you're talking about mainstream writers openly encouraging the "white race" to breed more; that's been uncool since long before the Civil Rights movement).

No, it would be no further back than the Nineties of the last century, if that far, and I also doubt the very contemporary "Full Quiver" people are urging people who are not white to have lots more chldren.

I've been thinking, too, that tribalism does not apply here. The Amish and the Mormons are "tribal." An argument that encourages people of one race to breed more children, while ignoring, discreetly or otherwise, people of other races, is inherently racist in my book. That's my story and I'm stickin' to it.

[serious crayons]

No, it would be no further back than the Nineties of the last century, if that far,

So let me make sure I understand. You're saying you have heard of writers in the 1990s or later writing actual books published by legitimate publishers -- as opposed to some tract they printed off in their basement and passed around at their neo-Nazi gatherings -- that openly urged white people to have more babies to combat the rising population of non-white babies.

Well, I guess I'd have to see titles. Or names of authors. Or reviews. Or something. Otherwise, frankly, I'm skeptical.

and I also doubt the very contemporary "Full Quiver" people are urging people who are not white to have lots more chldren.

Me, I like to wait until I hear someone say something racist before I accuse them of racism. Just because someone has one characteristic I dislike doesn't mean they have all the characteristics I dislike.

I don't claim to be an expert on the Full Quiver philosophy, but as far as I know it doesn't have anything to do with the overall population's racial balance. And -- they're conservative Christians, right? -- many conservative Christians are non-racist.

I've been thinking, too, that tribalism does not apply here. The Amish and the Mormons are "tribal." An argument that encourages people of one race to breed more children, while ignoring, discreetly or otherwise, people of other races, is inherently racist in my book. That's my story and I'm stickin' to it.

Stick with whatever you like.    Personally, I like to base my beliefs on actual evidence. Vaguely imagining that that a person is "ignoring, discreetly or otherwise, people of other races" just because they don't explicitly mention race at all does not count as evidence in my book.

I don't usually explicitly mention race when I'm writing about something that has nothing to do with race, but that doesn't mean I'm directing my words only at white people.

[serious crayons]

OK, possible partial mea culpa -- I just googled "white people more babies" and found this right away:

http://newobserveronline.com/if-white-americans-dont-start-having-babies-now-the-us-will-vanish-by-2100/

If White Americans Don’t Start Having Babies Now, the US Will Vanish by 2100

... “We’re jumping the gun on a long, slow decline of our white population, which is going to characterize this century,” William Frey, a demographer with the Brookings Institution, was quoted as saying.

... The figures show clearly once again that unless white Americans get serious about increasing their birthrate—and having more children immediately—then it is certain that the America of 1776 will no longer exist by 2100.[/b]

It's the "the US Will Vanish," of course, that makes it racist. As if the US would not exist as an entity if it weren't majority white. That's not a book, but it looks like a pretty established, well-financed, professionally produced site. And of course there are plenty of other far more sleazy-looking sites where people express similar sentiments.

There are also a few stories from liberal sites accusing conservative commentators on Fox News or wherever of saying racist things about birthrates.

So I guess it's not entirely far-fetched that some conservative book might mention this issue in a racist way. Though I'm still skeptical about the existence of a whole book entirely on that topic. You'd think it would have raised more of a fuss. If stray stupid comments by Paula Dean or a football-team owner could rule the news cycle for a week or more ...

Meanwhile, there are other neutral sites and stories reporting projected demographic shifts in the population due to declining birthrates among white people. And a few conservatives in mainstream publications (e.g., Ross Douthat in the NYT) expressing alarm about declining birthrates overall and urging people in general to produce more babies -- for the sake of the economy, not the racial balance. I don't count either of those as racist.

[milomorris]

I've been thinking, too, that tribalism does not apply here. The Amish and the Mormons are "tribal." An argument that encourages people of one race to breed more children, while ignoring, discreetly or otherwise, people of other races, is inherently racist in my book. That's my story and I'm stickin' to it.

Using that logic, the NAACP is racist because it encourages blacks to get college educations while ignoring people of other races.

Encouraging people of one's own race is not a de facto discouragement of people of other races.

[Jeff Wrangler]

OK, possible partial mea culpa -- I just googled "white people more babies" and found this right away:

Your search skills are better than mine--or maybe I should say your search imagination? I might have puzzled and puzzled till my puzzler was sore and not thought to google that phrase.

http://newobserveronline.com/if-white-americans-dont-start-having-babies-now-the-us-will-vanish-by-2100/

It's the "the US Will Vanish," of course, that makes it racist. As if the US would not exist as an entity if it weren't majority white. That's not a book, but it looks like a pretty established, well-financed, professionally produced site. And of course there are plenty of other far more sleazy-looking sites where people express similar sentiments.

There are also a few stories from liberal sites accusing conservative commentators on Fox News or wherever of saying racist things about birthrates.

So I guess it's not entirely far-fetched that some conservative book might mention this issue in a racist way. Though I'm still skeptical about the existence of a whole book entirely on that topic. You'd think it would have raised more of a fuss. If stray stupid comments by Paula Dean or a football-team owner could rule the news cycle for a week or more ...

Meanwhile, there are other neutral sites and stories reporting projected demographic shifts in the population due to declining birthrates among white people. And a few conservatives in mainstream publications (e.g., Ross Douthat in the NYT) expressing alarm about declining birthrates overall and urging people in general to produce more babies -- for the sake of the economy, not the racial balance. I don't count either of those as racist.

Of course it isn't racist if it's urging people in general to have more babies.

So let me make sure I understand. You're saying you have heard of writers in the 1990s or later writing actual books published by legitimate publishers -- as opposed to some tract they printed off in their basement and passed around at their neo-Nazi gatherings -- that openly urged white people to have more babies to combat the rising population of non-white babies.

Well, I guess I'd have to see titles. Or names of authors. Or reviews. Or something. Otherwise, frankly, I'm skeptical.

No, that wasn't what I was saying. That's far too specific. All I'll allocate to is vague memories of reading or hearing something, some controversy, within the last two decades about some conservative writing something about the need for white people to have more babies.

I don't claim to be an expert on the Full Quiver philosophy, but as far as I know it doesn't have anything to do with the overall population's racial balance. And -- they're conservative Christians, right? -- many conservative Christians are non-racist.

No doubt the last is true, especially those who are not white, but I wonder how many non-white people go to church with the Duggers (sp?)?

Stick with whatever you like.    Personally, I like to base my beliefs on actual evidence. Vaguely imagining that that a person is "ignoring, discreetly or otherwise, people of other races" just because they don't explicitly mention race at all does not count as evidence in my book.

I don't usually explicitly mention race when I'm writing about something that has nothing to do with race, but that doesn't mean I'm directing my words only at white people.

Well, then, can you please explain to me why something urging specifically white people to have more babies doesn't have something to do with race?

[Jeff Wrangler]

Encouraging people of one's own race is not a de facto discouragement of people of other races.

Not as long as you're not encouraging them to breed more babies so they don't get overwhelmed by people of other races.

[serious crayons]

No, that wasn't what I was saying. That's far too specific. All I'll allocate to is vague memories of reading or hearing something, some controversy, within the last two decades about some conservative writing something about the need for white people to have more babies.

Um, OK ... Well, I certainly can't argue that nobody in the past 20 years has expressed that idea in print or aloud, especially since I just posted an example of it. So if that's all you're claiming at this point, then you're absolutely right.

However, back in 2011 your argument was that any white person who writes a book urging people to have more children is dog-whistling white people to have more children to counteract the rising non-white population. That's what I was disagreeing with, especially because I had read (and reviewed!) one of the books we were discussing and can vouch that it wasn't racially targeted. At all.

Scratch these white authors advocating that whites should have lots more children deeply enough and you'll find a racist afraid of the white population being "overwhelmed" by the nonwhite population. They used to be more open about that before racism became socially unacceptable in mainstream circles.

[Jeff Wrangler]

However, back in 2011 your argument was that any white person who writes a book urging people to have more children is dog-whistling white people to have more children to counteract the rising non-white population. That's what I was disagreeing with, especially because I had read (and reviewed!) one of the books we were discussing and can vouch that it wasn't racially targeted. At all.

"Dog-whistling"? Hmm. Well, I can hear it!

I see no reason to alter my opinon from three years ago, so I guess we've probably stopping point on this one?

[serious crayons]

"Dog-whistling"? Hmm. Well, I can hear it!

I see no reason to alter my opinon from three years ago, so I guess we've probably stopping point on this one?

Sure. I guess if you're not inclined to alter your opinion despite being admittedly underinformed on the issue, being unable to recall any specific incidents and having been presented with evidence to the contrary, you have every right to stick to your story! Many, many people do the same thing all the time.  

I still am curious, though, why if you accuse people like Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids author Bryan Caplan (economics professor at George Mason University, blogger for EconLog, writer for the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal etc., author of an earlier book called "the best political book of the year" by the New York Times) -- if you accuse him of being an undercover white supremacist, then why you don't do the same for NYT columnist Ross Douthat, who is also white and has also argued in favor of the general public increasing their procreation rates, primarily (he claimed!) for economic reasons.