Future of Republican Party

[infinite monkey]

Originally Posted by Ibby

yeah, but only cause you're racist.
yes, i said it. no, i won't take it back. you're racist if you think that black people have any power whatsoever to oppress white people. because you're wrong, and only your deep-seated racism can explain the fact that black people have never, ever held the power to oppress white people in this country or anywhere else.
and the fact that I know you're about to disagree proves that you have no understanding of what racism means or is.

This is not true. I'm sorry, it's just not.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Racism must be defined before that question can be answered. Does racism only mean you think white people are superior to blacks people? Does it mean one race is somehow superior/inferior to another in certain aspects? Does racism apply to only conscious actions or subconscious thoughts and actions as well? Can cultural prejudice be considered racism? Can only people enforcing power be considered racist?


Different people have different definitions of what racism is and it is very easy to have very emotional arguments over something that is purely semantic. Keep in mind that, while I (and I'm assuming you) disagree with this definition, racism is largely defined as limited to people who have extreme animosity towards people of another skin color and racists are considered to be on the same level of those who committed genocide with that definition. This definition is popular here in the United States due to the extreme racism that existed.

Therefore, while my definition of racism is very loose (I think almost everyone who grew up in a racist environment is technically racist to some degree), I need to be careful throwing it around because some people have a much different definition and can, rightfully, take much offense to it.

Dear ph45

You don't need the farcical contrast of Ibby's posts on this subject to make this post look so good, so rational, so wise. You post looks good on its own, and Ibby's posts look ridiculous all on their own. I mention them both at this point because I'm injecting myself into the conversation at this point.

By making clear the important distinctions between emotional reactions to the words and actions of others and the difficulty establishing a definitive, comprehensive meaning for such a subjective idea as "racism". Your measured, thoughtful approach is an example of the best way to discuss such a difficult subject, and the only way to begin to develop solutions to the problems that are created by the effects of racism.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Ibby

I have a question for you, classic. What percentage of our country do you believe is racist to some degree or another?

My answer to your question is 100%.

Originally Posted by Ibby

I have no time to care about the poor fee-fees of people who uphold and continue racist structures but feel like "omg no i can't be racist i have a black friend and i think the kkk sux gosh if you're going to call people racist youre just gonna turn them off and make them worse" because racism is SO much deeper than consciously having a problem with black people.
and like, I'd basically define racism as "not struggling every day to erase insidious colonialist/imperialist/racist cultural values from your life and actions"

This is a ridiculous definition. By your definition, someone who struggles every day is not racist, and anyone who doesn't struggle any day is a racist. You're improperly conflating actions and attitudes. Racism is a state of mind. That state of mind is sometimes the energizing force behind some actions, sometimes partly so, more or less, and sometimes there are actions that are completely free from any influence of a given attitude. Not every choice I make as a white man is a racist one or a sexist one, despite the fact that I have color and gender. Buddy, you need to find a different definition, that one is useless. On top of being so preachy that only your most infatuated fans will still give you any serious attention after hearing it.

Originally Posted by Ibby

which is about as broad a definition as it's possible to construe, because the PoC who suffer from the effects of racism and know way better than i do what racism IS say so, and to assume that white people know better about racism than they do is completely fucked up.
So I'll "throw it around" while utterly denying that there is any "rightulness" to their narcissistic offense-taken.

--snip

I dismiss your offense-taking with an equal measure of righteous disdain. Now we're even.

So, you're saying that PoC know what racism IS, and Pw/oC don't. How the fuck do you know what racism is then? You are not a person of color.

Originally Posted by Ibby

What experiences can possibly lead white people to any understanding that would allow them to define racism, other than listening to the experiences of PoC or consulting bare statistics?

Oh, this is your answer? By listening to the experiences of PoC or consulting statistics. You mean a white racist has no understanding at all of racism? White supremacists don't have any standing in defining racism? You probably don't see how narrow and useless your definition is. You are making a strenuous effort to claim--no--campaign/proselytize/cheerlead for the claims of the only real source of knowledge about racism. You, by your own definition, can't know it, you can only be told about it, so you're just parroting someone else's story.

Originally Posted by Ibby

the fact that you think black people can be racist against white people alone is laughable. --snip

... words fail me here to adequately express how wrong this position is. you may indeed find it laughable, but that doesn't mean it's wrong, only that you are incapable of understanding. You're saying black people can know what racism *IS* but can't *BE* racist against white people? That is bullshit.

Originally Posted by Ibby

Is a single PoC here willing to agree that white people should get to define racism?
Is a single woman here willing to agree that men should get to define sexism and patriarchy?
Is a single queer here willing to agree that cishet people should get to define homphobia or transphobia?
just one of you, come on. Just one of any category that isn't cis het white male.

so... this is about who gets to define terms? you're saying that poc get to define racism? what is the definition then? did you get consensus on that definition? what about mixed race people? does obama get, what, half a vote? "Get to define"... what a stupid proposition.

Ibby, when you post stuff like this, you sound like the most oppressed victim in the history of the world. It makes me wonder why you don't have your on United Nation Protection Force. You're dripping with empathy for some people but those bitter tears blind you completely to the validity of the points of view of other people *outside* your pity party.

[Pico and ME]

Holy Fuck.

I dont give a goddamn if you 'adult' males think Ibby is responding in an emotional immature way, because he has a GREAT point. If only you could walk in a PoC's shoes for ONE DAY, maybe you would get it.

[BigV]

holy fuck indeed.

What makes you think I DON'T "get it"? Give me some example that indicates I don't understand racism. I'd like to hear one. Furthermore, show me an example of how Ibby's got some kind of advantage of understanding of racism over me. One last thing, what exactly is "his GREAT point"?

[IamSam]

Originally Posted by classicman

IAmSam - you described your Lunatic Fringe again.

They're not MY lunatic fringe. Don't give them to me. I don't want them!

*tosses lunatic fringe to Adak*

[IamSam]

Phew! *brushes off hands*

Or perhaps you're calling the entire tea party the lunatic fringe? If so, I agree. All else aside, it is lunacy to refuse any and all attempts at political compromise, to just vote "no" on EVERYTHING, and to put the financial future of the entire United States into jepordy just because you don't get every single you want down to the last eye lash.

The tp membership is composed of older, white, affluent males. Evangelicals also tend to be tp members. And as I stated in the other thread, its membership is largely concentrated in the Southern States with a few other places like Montana and the West Slope of otherwise liberal Colorado tagging along just for the hell of it.

The tea party also has a strong racist undertone which it attempts to hum under its breath when the commie liberal press from the East Coast is around, but swells out as loudly as the sound of a battalion of Confederate troops singing "I wish I was back in the land of cotton. Old times there are not forgotten..."

And I ain't just whistling Dixie, either. From Wikipedia:

• TeaParty.org owner Dale Robertson protested in 2009 with a sign that said "Congress = Slaveowner, Taxpayer = Niggar"
  
  
• Placards at protest rallies as early as 2009 have depicted President Obama as a witch doctor, and as having plans for "White Slavery".
  
  
• During a protest rally in Washington, D.C., before the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Bill was voted on in March 2010, several black lawmakers said that demonstrators shouted racial epithets at them. Congressman Emanuel Cleaver was spat upon, although it is unclear if this was deliberate, and said he heard the slurs. Congressman Barney Frank, who is gay, was called a "faggot".
  
  
• While attending the March 2010, health care rally in Washington, D.C., Springboro, Ohio, Tea Party founder Sonny Thomas posted a racist comment on the Springboro Tea Party Twitter page he managed by tweeting "Illegals everywhere today! So many spicks makes me feel like a speck. Grrr. Wheres my gun!?"
  
  
• Tea Party Express leader Mark Williams referred to Allah as "the terrorists' monkey god", and posted other anti-Islamic remarks in May 2010. When questioned by The Washington Post about his comments about Islam, Williams stated the controversy has "been fantastic for the movement". Williams received further criticism in mid-July when he posted a fictional letter named "Colored People" on his blog. Williams said that the letter was a satirical response to a resolution passed by the NAACP calling on Tea Party leaders to "'repudiate the racist element and activities' from within the movement".
  (nice try)
  
  
• Ozark Tea Party steering committee board member Inge Marler opened a June 2012, Arkansas Tea Party rally of over 500 people by telling a racist joke about African-Americans on welfare.

I appreciate the cultural/emotional/political nuances which must come into play when discussing the definition of "racism." However, I prefer to cut to the chase with that old truism, actions speak louder than words." (see examples above)

[classicman]

From Wiki ...

Supporters, however, say the incidents are the work of "a few bad apples", a small fringe that have unfairly maligned the movement

FWIW.

[DanaC]

Yeah, that works as an excuse if it isn't the leaders and founders of the movement making the racist comments.

The founder of the movement is not a 'fringe'.

[IamSam]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Yeah, that works as an excuse if it isn't the leaders and founders of the movement making the racist comments.

The founder of the movement is not a 'fringe'.

Thank-you.

I have completely lost patience with the way it has become a cultural norm to sugar coat everything. I was bemused to discover that children no longer get an "F" on their report card if they fail a subject. Instead, they come home with a note from the school congratulating them on "qualifying" for a special class that will be held after school 2 or 3 days each week. There will be cookies provided and fun games to play. If this "fun" remedial schooling doesn't work, the kid gets promoted to the 4th grade, anyway.

Social Security and Medicare have morphed into something called "entitlements" instead of being earned benefits that almost every American worker has paid for through payroll deductions from their hard earned checks.

The social contract has turned into an "entiltlement," as well - consisting of a set of frivolous expenditures easily discarded in favor of maintaining the "defense" industry and keeping up the cash flow to Hallibuten. The 100,000 civilians killed in the Iraq war when we were "defending" ourselves from a country that had never attacked us were "collateral damage," and torture is now "enhanced interrogation."

The Bill of Rights was ruled null and void under something called the "Patriot Act." It is now "patriotic" to arrest citizens without letting them know what charges are being laid against them and hold them for some indefinate amount of time without trial - there is no more due process under the law, but that's OK because it's "patriotic."

The news media described 20 dead first graders as being "honored" by prayer vigils and through special funds set up in their memory. We used to honor someone (usually an adult) who gave up their life for the sake of some greater good. It is not an "honor" for a six year-old child to be slaughtered by a sociopath with a Bushmaster. It is a tragedy that we grieve ever happened and we mourn for the loss of those babies.

Billionaires are now called "job creators" and "small businessmen" when they outsource hundreds if not thousands of American jobs to China in order to increase dividends to stockholders who hold shares in a "small business" like Apple.

And there are no more people in the American South or anywhere else in the country, for that matter, who hold racist views. The Civil Rights movement of the 60's magically morphed Bubba into Atticus Finch and the few remaining Bubba's hiding out in a swamp somewhere are merely scattered members of the lunatic "fringe."










sent via a downed microwave tower on the Colorado Plateau

[xoxoxoBruce]

Don't dither about the word entitlements, it's been using interchangeably in official government documents since the programs were conceived. It carries no hidden agenda, it's simply a syn·o·nym, not a sin-of-name.

As for the rest of your rant, you go girl.

[DanaC]

Sam, that was awesome.

This line made me choke up a little (and it's a brilliant observation):

It is not an "honor" for a six year-old child to be slaughtered by a sociopath with a Bushmaster. It is a tragedy that we grieve ever happened and we mourn for the loss of those babies.

[Pete Zicato]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Sam, that was awesome.

Seconded.

Ibs. I agree that racism (not the only form of discrimination as you know) is easier for WASPs to ignore.

But you don't have to be a horse to judge a horse race.

[IamSam]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Don't dither about the word entitlements, it's been using interchangeably in official government documents since the programs were conceived. It carries no hidden agenda, it's simply a syn·o·nym, not a sin-of-name.

Sure, the word "entitlement" began life as a scrappy immigrant from France and quickly found employment in the legal profession, helping to define the rights of various groups and inndividuals.

Alas, the term fell upon hard times when people began to use it as a pejorative:

"Suzy thinks she'd entitled to get everything for free just because she has some sob story." or "Black people need to get rid of their sense of entitlement and go find a job like the rest of us."

Poor old entitlement now resides in the inner city, uses food stamps and welfare, and produces a child every year by a different father at the expense of tax payers.

As for the rest of your rant, you go girl.

Heh! Don't encourage me.









sent via the cold front which is now producing all that snow falling outside your windows

[tw]

Originally Posted by Pete Zicato

Seconded.

A third kudos. Eloquently stated.

Political correctness is necessary when an ego overwhelms or displaces logical thought. IamSam is completely correct by having little patience with those who need things sugarcoated. Who may even deny their inability to cope with hard reality. Who will even post

Originally Posted by _

Go fuck yourself.

using insults, soundbytes, and cheapshots to defend emotional biases or racist attitudes. Such emotions is sufficient to deny reality when sugarcoating does not work.

An emotional type will probably assume he has been labeled a racist rather grasp logic in that paragraph. Jumping to an emotional conclusion rather than read, grasp, or address the point.

We know which party most attracts and condons racists. As demonstrated so bluntly during Sen Strom Thurmond's last birthday party. So we should call it a 'disagreement' or 'misconception'? Hell no. A racist needs political correctness; to even deny he is racist. Only political correctness or angry denial (similar concepts) will avert that reality.

The most emotional who therefore hate or support extremist Republican positions with politically correct rhetoric will also post profanity rather than admit to biases. A sharp difference from moderate Republicans who are now under attack by their own party. Republican party (especially Tea Party) is popular among 'fringe' (ie hate) groups. And other disenfranchised members of society who have plenty of anger rather than a logical grasp. Fringe types will even post profanity rather than admit to a problem common to their poltiical peers.

Profanity is desperation when politically correct (sugarcoated) spin is routinely challenged and exposed.