Right Wing Bloggers on Race

Blogosphere • Views: 22,231

Confirming everything I’ve written about them, the delightfully vindictive John Hawkins of rightwingnews.com takes a poll of the right wing blogosphere on their attitudes toward race. It’s as bad as you might imagine.

Get a load of Hawkins’s title: Polling Conservative Bloggers On Race, Jesse Jackson, the NAACP, & False Accusations of Racism. Now that’s how you take a poll! Gallup, please note.

This poll makes it very clear why the wingnuts united in lockstep to promote Andrew Breitbart’s fraudulent Shirley Sherrod scam: they live in a giant Internet-equipped echo chamber.

100% of them oppose any type of affirmative action, all of them hate the NAACP, all of them deny being “racially prejudice” (except one, who admits it), an overwhelming majority think whites are victims of racism, and 100% of them think most accusations of racism are false.

Apparently nobody noticed the cognitive dissonance of the last two items.

1) How big a problem is racism in our society today? Is it a big problem, somewhat of a problem, a small problem or not a problem at all?

A) A big problem: 4.8% (3 votes)
B) Somewhat of a problem: 20.6% (13 votes)
C) A small problem: 60.3% (38 votes)
D) Not a problem at all: 14.3% (9 votes)

2) If you honestly assessed yourself, would you say that you’re racially prejudice [sic]?

A) Yes: 1.6% (1 votes)
B) No: 98.4% (62 votes)

3) Do you think blacks have achieved racial equality, will soon achieve racial equality, will not achieve racial equality in your lifetime, or will never achieve racial equality?

A) Have achieved: 78.7% (48 votes)
B) Will soon achieve: 16.4% (10 votes)
C) Won’t achieve in your lifetime: 4.9% (3 votes)

4) In general, do you approve or disapprove of giving preferences to blacks and other minorities in things like hirings, promotions, and college admissions?

A) Approve: 0% (0 votes)
B) Disapprove: 100% (63 votes)

5) Do you believe that the government discriminates against white Americans based on their skin color?

A) Yes: 79.4% (50 votes)
B) No: 20.6% (13 votes)

6) Do you believe that people who are opposed to illegal immigration could best be described as…

A) People who want to see the border secured, support law order, or believe illegal immigration is bad for America: 96.8% (61 votes)
B) People who don’t like Hispanics: 0% (0 votes)
C) Not sure: 3.2% (2 votes)

7) In your opinion, have you or a group you’re a part of ever been falsely accused of racism?

A) Yes: 86.9% (53 votes)
B) No: 13.1% (8 votes)

8) Do you think the majority of accusations of racism in politics today are false?

A) Yes: 100% (62 votes)
B) No: 0% (0 votes)

9) Do you think that NAACP would better be described as a group that…

A) Represents black Americans: 0% (0 votes)
B) Represents liberal black Americans: 100% (62 votes)

10) Which of the following do you think best describes Jesse Jackson & Al Sharpton?

A) People are genuinely trying to fight against racism and injustice: 1.6% (1 votes)
B) People who make mostly false accusations of racism to get attention, make money, or for political gain: 93.7% (59 votes)
C) Not sure: 4.8% (3 votes)

11) Do you believe that the Democratic Party falsely tries to convince black and Hispanic Americans that Republicans hate them as a political strategy?

A) Yes, they do: 100% (63 votes)
B) No, they don’t: 0% (0 votes)
C) Most Republicans do hate black & hispanic Americans: 0% (0 votes)

These people really suck.

Jump to bottom

315 comments
1 dragonfire1981  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 10:39:09am

And the most ridiculous thing of all to me is that these people make the white race look worse and worse, further adding to the problem of racism.

This are supposedly political blogs. I didn’t know Democrats or Republicans were terms that had anything to do with race, but apparently I was wrong.

Also, well I am throwing out random thoughts, what exactly is all this race baiting and destructive racist posturing supposed to accomplish? I can’t see a single constructive thing that could come of this.

2 Irenicum  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 10:41:18am

Even though it seems pretty clear that this was meant as a “push poll” by the person who did it, it still ended up showing quite accurately what their views actually are concerning race. Both fascinating and utterly disgusting.

3 Four More Tears  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 10:43:43am

Heh. One of those sites responding was Hot Air.

4 b_sharp  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 10:45:47am
3) Do you think blacks have achieved racial equality, will soon achieve racial equality, will not achieve racial equality in your lifetime, or will never achieve racial equality?

A) Have achieved: 78.7% (48 votes)
B) Will soon achieve: 16.4% (10 votes)
C) Won’t achieve in your lifetime: 4.9% (3 votes)

Damn, I haven’t laughed so hard in ages. I actually have tears running down my cheeks.

5 Four More Tears  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 10:46:53am

re: #4 b_sharp

Damn, I haven’t laughed so hard in ages. I actually have tears running down my cheeks.

I’ll remember this next time I’m accused of seeing the world through rose-colored glasses.

6 Irenicum  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 10:47:04am

Hot Air and one other site on that list I recognized. All the others were unknown to me. I think I like it that way.

7 Cato the Elder  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 10:47:11am

Quatrain for the victims of reverse racism

Most accusations of racism: false.
Except when you ask about me and my spouse.
I feel it all over: they look at me wise
out of their big yellow black-people’s eyes.

Copyright © 2010 Cato the Elder

8 Four More Tears  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 10:49:17am

re: #6 Irenicum

Hot Air and one other site on that list I recognized. All the others were unknown to me. I think I like it that way.

Yeah, that, Moonbattery, and Weasel Zippers are the only names I recognize. I must lead a sheltered political life…

9 jamesfirecat  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 10:50:23am

“9) Do you think that NAACP would better be described as a group that…

A) Represents black Americans: 0% (0 votes)
B) Represents liberal black Americans: 100% (62 votes)”

Keep answering questions like that and you’ll be right sooner or later, once you’ve driven all African Americans to effectively become liberals….

10 Irenicum  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 10:50:48am

re: #8 JasonA

To be sheltered from the crazies is not a bad thing.

11 Four More Tears  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 10:53:43am

[Link: www.youtube.com…]

12 wrenchwench  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 10:54:46am

I think they left off one of the answers on this one

3) Do you think blacks have achieved racial equality, will soon achieve racial equality, will not achieve racial equality in your lifetime, or will never achieve racial equality?

A) Have achieved: 78.7% (48 votes)
B) Will soon achieve: 16.4% (10 votes)
C) Won’t achieve in your lifetime: 4.9% (3 votes)

To interpolate:

D) Will never achieve racial equality: 3.2% (2 votes)
13 Cato the Elder  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 10:55:32am

I’ve had people who post here tell me in private conversations that the NAACP has “served its purpose” and should disband because “interest groups” are passé and harmful to harmony.

Friends, please direct your considered attention to the results of this poll, and then defend your position.

14 Solomon2  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 10:56:16am

I am a history buff. I know that our current nobody-mention-racial-characteristics is merely a contemporary pretense. Differences between peoples - how they think, personal inclinations, physical prowess, inclination to intellectual achievement, acceptable social conduct - do exist. By today’s standards recognizing this by interacting with different peoples on this basis earns one the derogatory label of “racist”.

15 wrenchwench  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 10:58:02am

re: #14 Solomon2

Differences between peoples - how they think, personal inclinations, physical prowess, inclination to intellectual achievement, acceptable social conduct - do exist. By today’s standards recognizing this by interacting with different peoples on this basis earns one the derogatory label of “racist”.

Rightly so.

16 reine.de.tout  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 10:58:26am

Sign the NAACP Pledge:

I believe all Americans have equal rights and equal value.
I cherish the diverse cultures, beliefs, and values of America.
I believe we can disagree without being disagreeable.
I repudiate all acts of racism and hate, both in words and action.
I have faith in the promise of America – a promise built on mutual respect, common civility, and hope for a better tomorrow.
I commit to building that better America by participating actively and peacefully in the democratic process.

17 robdouth  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 10:58:32am

Most of those questions were very innocuous.

Remember that one of the questions was, do you think most claims of racism in “politics” are false, and that’s true given both sides crying racism to tear down opponents. If they had asked if all claims of racism in every facet of life were false, then I’d give more credence to the poll. Also the questions are generically worded. It would be better if he asked, do you think most claims of racism in politics are politically motivated. Then you’d get a yes from the majority of Americans. There’s very little damning about this poll.

If you believe that affirmative action is discrimination (which by definition it is) then logically the government does discriminate against whites. Whether or not it’s correct is the issue, not whether it happens. If you are going to take race into account for hiring practices, then by definition there will be discrimination based on race.

Definition of discrimination: treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs. That’s the definition of affirmative action also.

I’m with you when you criticize the language used by the bloggers, and I’m against a couple of the specific questions responses (such as their opinion of Sharpton and James) But given the way the Congressional Black Caucus discriminates, it’s not off base to say they and the NAACP are more likely to represent liberal blacks rather than blacks as a whole.

18 ShaunP  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 10:59:35am

re: #14 Solomon2

…Differences between peoples - how they think, personal inclinations, physical prowess, inclination to intellectual achievement, acceptable social conduct - do exist….

So, please don’t hold back; which races would you say are less intelligent and are less likely to maintain civility?

Scum…

19 robdouth  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:00:09am

re: #9 jamesfirecat

“9) Do you think that NAACP would better be described as a group that…

A) Represents black Americans: 0% (0 votes)
B) Represents liberal black Americans: 100% (62 votes)”

Keep answering questions like that and you’ll be right sooner or later, once you’ve driven all African Americans to effectively become liberals…

African Americans have been a bloc vote for the Democratic party way before any of this recent race-baiting. The worst they can do is piss enough people off to raise the voting rate amongst minority groups.

20 Solomon2  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:01:22am

re: #15 wrenchwench

Rightly so.

But aren’t we carrying this too far? One doesn’t greet a Japanese with an open palm and direct eye contact; that is considered bad etiquette. You bow instead. Am I a racist for offering to bow before extending my hand?

21 jamesfirecat  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:01:44am

re: #19 robdouth

African Americans have been a bloc vote for the Democratic party way before any of this recent race-baiting. The worst they can do is piss enough people off to raise the voting rate amongst minority groups.


You are correct sir, I believe that African Americans became a voting block for Democrats way back with the race bating of my fathers day and age that we today know as the Southern Strategy….

22 reine.de.tout  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:01:53am

re: #16 reine.de.tout

Sign the NAACP Pledge:

I believe all Americans have equal rights and equal value.
I cherish the diverse cultures, beliefs, and values of America.
I believe we can disagree without being disagreeable.
I repudiate all acts of racism and hate, both in words and action.
I have faith in the promise of America – a promise built on mutual respect, common civility, and hope for a better tomorrow.
I commit to building that better America by participating actively and peacefully in the democratic process.

In fact, the NAACP yearly membership is a mere $30.
Join.

23 Four More Tears  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:02:01am

re: #13 Cato the Elder

I’ve had people who post here tell me in private conversations that the NAACP has “served its purpose” and should disband because “interest groups” are passé and harmful to harmony.

Are they black? I’m not really expecting an answer to that.

24 Coracle  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:02:19am

re: #14 Solomon2

I am a history buff. I know that our current nobody-mention-racial-characteristics is merely a contemporary pretense. Differences between peoples - how they think, personal inclinations, physical prowess, inclination to intellectual achievement, acceptable social conduct - do exist. By today’s standards recognizing this by interacting with different peoples on this basis earns one the derogatory label of “racist”.

Only because such behavior is the very definition of racism, just as the assertion you make above it is a foundational racist belief.

25 jamesfirecat  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:02:25am

re: #20 Solomon2

But aren’t we carrying this too far? One doesn’t greet a Japanese with an open palm and direct eye contact; that is considered bad etiquette. You bow instead. Am I a racist for offering to bow before extending my hand?

How do you go from different cultural traditions to different capacities for intelligence?

26 wrenchwench  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:02:54am

re: #20 Solomon2

But aren’t we carrying this too far? One doesn’t greet a Japanese with an open palm and direct eye contact; that is considered bad etiquette. You bow instead. Am I a racist for offering to bow before extending my hand?

That’s culture, not race. You might be a racist for thinking that’s a race issue.

27 cliffster  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:03:05am
1) How big a problem is racism in our society today? Is it a big problem, somewhat of a problem, a small problem or not a problem at all?

A) A big problem: 4.8% (3 votes)
B) Somewhat of a problem: 20.6% (13 votes)
C) A small problem: 60.3% (38 votes)
D) Not a problem at all: 14.3% (9 votes)

that shows some pretty head-up-the-ass thinking right there; there has never been a time in history when there wasn’t some degree of racism, and there probably never will be.

28 robdouth  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:03:52am

re: #21 jamesfirecat

You are correct sir, I believe that African Americans became a voting block for Democrats way back with the race bating of my fathers day and age that we today know as the Southern Strategy…

That’s what I’m saying. It’s not a new thing. They can’t alienate a voting bloc that’s already as lockstep alienated as it can be. The best Democrats can hope for is that the race-baiting becomes so egregious that African Americans actually vote at a higher percentage.

29 Solomon2  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:03:56am

re: #18 ShaunP

So, please don’t hold back; which races would you say are less intelligent and are less likely to maintain civility?
Scum…

See? Just saying so makes me “scum”. I don’t need to offer examples, let alone reasoning and proofs, to earn such a label. It is unthinking and reactive. Has anyone else considered that it could also be dishonest?

30 Charles Johnson  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:04:26am

re: #19 robdouth

African Americans have been a bloc vote for the Democratic party way before any of this recent race-baiting.

And there’s a reason for that. It didn’t start with the “recent race-baiting.”

31 jamesfirecat  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:04:51am

re: #28 robdouth

That’s what I’m saying. It’s not a new thing. They can’t alienate a voting bloc that’s already as lockstep alienated as it can be. The best Democrats can hope for is that the race-baiting becomes so egregious that African Americans actually vote at a higher percentage.

That or that… you know… good honest white people are actually offended by such blatant dog whistling….

32 Kronocide  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:05:23am

The poll was a major push poll with sloppy/loaded questions. If I had to take it I would find myself voting with the majorities on some of the questions.

Others are laughers.

33 Obdicut  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:05:29am

re: #22 reine.de.tout

I told them that if they stood up for Shirley Sherrod they could expect my support, and I meant it.

I joined.

34 Cato the Elder  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:05:48am

re: #14 Solomon2

I am a history buff. I know that our current nobody-mention-racial-characteristics is merely a contemporary pretense. Differences between peoples - how they think, personal inclinations, physical prowess, inclination to intellectual achievement, acceptable social conduct - do exist. By today’s standards recognizing this by interacting with different peoples on this basis earns one the derogatory label of “racist”.

There are racial differences in “how people think”?

Tell that to Clarence Thomas.

Oh, and you forgot to mention “personal hygiene”. You really should, you know. I’m a dirty Irish-Celtic bastard, meself.

35 robdouth  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:05:50am

re: #30 Charles

And there’s a reason for that. It didn’t start with the “recent race-baiting.”

Exactly, I just said that. The way he made it sound, this alienating behavior was going to drive voters away, You can’t drive them away if they aren’t voting for you already. You can just keep them away.

36 Solomon2  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:05:55am

re: #26 wrenchwench

That’s culture, not race. You might be a racist for thinking that’s a race issue.

Of course it is a “culture” issue! But there isn’t any reason I can’t be accused of racism for being “culturally sensitive”, is there?

37 Charles Johnson  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:06:03am

re: #20 Solomon2

But aren’t we carrying this too far? One doesn’t greet a Japanese with an open palm and direct eye contact; that is considered bad etiquette. You bow instead. Am I a racist for offering to bow before extending my hand?

You seem to have a drastic confusion going on between “race” and “culture.” Handshake styles and figures of speech have nothing to do with race. But you yourself identified intelligence and socially acceptable behavior as qualities you DO assign to race.

You didn’t expect to be challenged on that?

38 Jack Burton  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:06:39am

re: #27 cliffster

that shows some pretty head-up-the-ass thinking right there; there has never been a time in history when there wasn’t some degree of racism, and there probably never will be.

Unless we get invaded by aliens or AI revolts against us.

/

39 wrenchwench  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:06:41am

re: #29 Solomon2

See? Just saying so makes me “scum”. I don’t need to offer examples, let alone reasoning and proofs, to earn such a label. It is unthinking and reactive. Has anyone else considered that it could also be dishonest?

I think ShaunP’s comment was quite honest. You are the dissembling one here.

40 Gus  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:06:42am

8) Do you think the majority of accusations of racism in politics today are false?

A) Yes: 100% (62 votes)
B) No: 0% (0 votes)

Wow. 100 percent?

41 Cato the Elder  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:06:57am

re: #20 Solomon2

But aren’t we carrying this too far? One doesn’t greet a Japanese with an open palm and direct eye contact; that is considered bad etiquette. You bow instead. Am I a racist for offering to bow before extending my hand?

Way to confuse “culture” with “race”.

You should change your nick to “Solomon’s Court Jester”.

42 robdouth  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:07:02am

re: #31 jamesfirecat

That or that… you know… good honest white people are actually offended by such blatant dog whistling…

Look back to my response, he was talking specifically about the black population, and therefore the black vote. Check it.

43 Kronocide  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:07:09am

A) A big problem: 4.8% (3 votes)
B) Somewhat of a problem: 20.6% (13 votes)
C) A small problem: 60.3% (38 votes)
D) Not a problem at all: 14.3% (9 votes)

This is a laugher. Most of these poll takers caterwaul about ‘reverse racism.’ Yet 60.3% think that’s a ‘small problem.’ You wouldn’t think that by the blogging they do.

44 Charles Johnson  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:07:23am

re: #40 Gus 802

8) Do you think the majority of accusations of racism in politics today are false?

A) Yes: 100% (62 votes)
B) No: 0% (0 votes)

Wow. 100 percent?

More than one of these poll questions got a 100% response. Talk about an echo chamber.

45 Obdicut  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:07:42am

re: #34 Cato the Elder

Well-said.

As any biologist will tell you, the genetic variation within a group is higher than between groups: the sum total of genetic difference between you and I is higher than the sum total of genetic difference between, say, the Japanese and Roma.

There is no coherent, good, meaningful definition of race. It is not a real thing. It is only an arbitrary and inconsistent distinction made by us.

46 b_sharp  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:07:52am

re: #14 Solomon2

I am a history buff. I know that our current nobody-mention-racial-characteristics is merely a contemporary pretense. Differences between peoples - how they think, personal inclinations, physical prowess, inclination to intellectual achievement, acceptable social conduct - do exist. By today’s standards recognizing this by interacting with different peoples on this basis earns one the derogatory label of “racist”.

Nonsense.

We do talk about differences, Bill Gates is a better business man than I am, Steve Nash plays better Basketball than I do, Lady Gaga sings a lot better than I do.

What is a problem is when differences that rightly apply to individuals are applied to groups, groups I might add that are incredibly diverse in all of the traits and abilities you listed. All racial groups are defined arbitrarily, the borders are fuzzy and ill defined. Take any one of the currently defined four races and you’ll find a range of those traits you’ve specified that is greater than the range of traits between an average member (based on any given trait) of that group and any other.

BTW, being a history buff does not give you the putative lofty state of an authority.

Oh, yah, I suggest you stop reading crap like ‘The Bell Curve’.

47 Solomon2  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:07:55am

re: #34 Cato the Elder

Oh, and you forgot to mention “personal hygiene”. You really should, you know.

I thought of that, but I am trying to keep the discussion “clean”. :)

48 wrenchwench  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:08:32am

re: #44 Charles

More than one of these poll questions got a 100% response. Talk about an echo chamber.

And shows what FoolishJammie, among others, thinks.

49 Kronocide  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:08:46am

re: #21 jamesfirecat

You are correct sir, I believe that African Americans became a voting block for Democrats way back with the race bating of my fathers day and age that we today know as the Southern Strategy…

Excellent point. The GOP isn’t going to get them back anytime soon either.

50 Vicious Babushka  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:08:53am

re: #20 Solomon2

But aren’t we carrying this too far? One doesn’t greet a Japanese with an open palm and direct eye contact; that is considered bad etiquette. You bow instead. Am I a racist for offering to bow before extending my hand?

That is a cultural custom, not a racial characteristic.

51 Coracle  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:08:57am

re: #47 Solomon2

I thought of that, but I am trying to keep the discussion “clean”. :)

Unfortunately, I believe that wasn’t a joke.

52 Gus  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:09:14am

re: #44 Charles

More than one of these poll questions got a 100% response. Talk about an echo chamber.

I’ll say. It’s pretty hilarious that the fool John Hawkins is blogging this proudly over at Right Wing News. They’re from another planet.

53 b_sharp  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:09:19am

re: #16 reine.de.tout

Sign the NAACP Pledge:

I believe all Americans have equal rights and equal value.
I cherish the diverse cultures, beliefs, and values of America.
I believe we can disagree without being disagreeable.
I repudiate all acts of racism and hate, both in words and action.
I have faith in the promise of America – a promise built on mutual respect, common civility, and hope for a better tomorrow.
I commit to building that better America by participating actively and peacefully in the democratic process.

Even though I’m not an American (beyond being a North American) I signed the pledge.

54 Stanghazi  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:09:28am

What a depressing read.

Actually it’s a pretty depressing day - wonder how the Mosque protest in Temecula will turn out.

I think I will get some work done.

55 Cato the Elder  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:09:48am

I make a deep bow and respectfully suggest that Solomon2 might want to buff up his understanding of history.

56 jamesfirecat  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:10:04am

re: #36 Solomon2

Of course it is a “culture” issue! But there isn’t any reason I can’t be accused of racism for being “culturally sensitive”, is there?

It wouldn’t surprise me if people who are racist are culturally insensative, but one hardly leads directly to the other in any logical argument.

57 Shiplord Kirel  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:10:15am

The main problem with race relations in this country is that we have built a whole culture around denial and falsehood. We can’t afford this anymore. It’s really time to be honest about it.

As Andrew Young said, you really can’t grow up in this country without being racist to some extent. By that definition, I am prejudiced about race, I am a racist.

Prejudice toward, and fear of, “the other” is an evolutionary hold-over from prehistoric times, when “the other” usually was dangerous or at least a competitor. As with so much of our heritage, it has been made obsolete by the progress of civilization, but our inner selves haven’t caught up.

The important thing is what we do about it, how well we recognize and deal with our own prejudices. Prejudice is an emotion. Do we indulge that emotion and perpetrate injustice, or do we use the faculty of reason to overcome it?

For example, this poll makes it clear that the racism denialists regard affirmative action and similar programs as unjust on their face. Really? REALLY? Setting aside how these programs are administered, what kind of fool cannot look around and see that the deck is stacked against black Americans?

It is similarly stacked against poor whites, as I know from personal experience. It is not just the lack of resources that blights opportunity in that class, it is growing up in a social environment that is fundamentally hostile to intellect and learning. (Looking like a “messican” didn’t help either but that is another story.)
This anti-intellectual atmosphere exists for poor people of all races in one way or another. Is it an injustice that I was eligible for the GI Bill and certain scholarships that were not available to my more fortunately born contemporaries? It really isn’t and, indeed, not many people think that it is.
Why, then, do they regard other efforts to level the playing field as favoritism and injustice?

58 Fozzie Bear  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:10:31am

re: #14 Solomon2

I am a history buff. I know that our current nobody-mention-racial-characteristics is merely a contemporary pretense. Differences between peoples - how they think, personal inclinations, physical prowess, inclination to intellectual achievement, acceptable social conduct - do exist. By today’s standards recognizing this by interacting with different peoples on this basis earns one the derogatory label of “racist”.

This is an absolutely indefensible statement. Race, in terms of visually identifiable sets of shared physical traits such as pigmentation and minute differences in the shape of facial features, certainly does exist.

As far as intellectual capacity, overall physical prowess, “how they think”… that’s just pure racist eugenicist garbage.

Holy shit man, did you just get out of a time machine from the 1800’s or something?

59 darthstar  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:10:47am

Wow…80% think the government hates whitey? and 90% think they’ve been falsely accused of racism, while only one admits to having racial prejudice? Any guesses on the demographics of these right wing bloggers? I hope they don’t think this poll is doing them any favors.

60 b_sharp  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:11:39am

re: #18 ShaunP

So, please don’t hold back; which races would you say are less intelligent and are less likely to maintain civility?

Scum…

It would only let me upding you once. :(

61 robdouth  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:11:52am

re: #40 Gus 802

8) Do you think the majority of accusations of racism in politics today are false?

A) Yes: 100% (62 votes)
B) No: 0% (0 votes)

Wow. 100 percent?

Yeah in politics, that’s an easy vote. Most of the claims in “POLITICS”, which means columnists with axes to grind, talking points to make oponents look bad. Notice the 100% if to agree with the idea that a majority of claims in politics, not all. That means there are some legitimate claims, but some people are using it as a tool or weapon against their oponents.

I would have answered yes to that a while back. Nowadays though in the last year or two, I’d probably be someone who voted no when asked that question. Depends on the time-frame.

62 jamesfirecat  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:12:13am

re: #42 robdouth

Look back to my response, he was talking specifically about the black population, and therefore the black vote. Check it.

“African Americans have been a bloc vote for the Democratic party way before any of this recent race-baiting. The worst they can do is piss enough people off to raise the voting rate amongst minority groups.”

I disagree.

The worst they could do is become so blatant in their racism that white people who aren’t racist feel ashamed to vote for their party.

You didn’t specifically say “the worst they can do among blacks is….” so I fail to see how you make a valid point.

63 Obdicut  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:12:25am

re: #56 jamesfirecat

It wouldn’t surprise me if people who are racist are culturally insensative, but one hardly leads directly to the other in any logical argument.

One of the best scenes in The Searchers is the one where Ethan shoots out the dead Comanche’s eyes— without his eyes, he’s doomed to wander forever in the spirit world.

Ethan is the character who knows most about the Comanche, and hates them the most as well. A lot of racists have deep, deep understanding of the other culture— they’re obsessed with it.

It’s one of the creepier forms of racism.

64 darthstar  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:12:44am

re: #40 Gus 802

8) Do you think the majority of accusations of racism in politics today are false?

A) Yes: 100% (62 votes)
B) No: 0% (0 votes)

Wow. 100 percent?

The last time I saw a 100% vote on anything, it was when Saddam Hussein was ‘re-elected’ in Iraq.

65 robdouth  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:13:03am

re: #46 b_sharp

Nonsense.

We do talk about differences, Bill Gates is a better business man than I am, Steve Nash plays better Basketball than I do, Lady Gaga sings a lot better than I do.

What is a problem is when differences that rightly apply to individuals are applied to groups, groups I might add that are incredibly diverse in all of the traits and abilities you listed. All racial groups are defined arbitrarily, the borders are fuzzy and ill defined. Take any one of the currently defined four races and you’ll find a range of those traits you’ve specified that is greater than the range of traits between an average member (based on any given trait) of that group and any other.

BTW, being a history buff does not give you the putative lofty state of an authority.

Oh, yah, I suggest you stop reading crap like ‘The Bell Curve’.

I would guess Lady Gaga doesn’t sing that much better than you…

66 Obdicut  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:13:04am

re: #58 Fozzie Bear

This is an absolutely indefensible statement. Race, in terms of visually identifiable sets of shared physical traits such as pigmentation and minute differences in the shape of facial features, certainly does exist.

Even that doesn’t actually exist. For any feature you mention, you can find a member of that ‘race’ who doesn’t have it.

67 ShaunP  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:13:10am

In case there are any other “history buffs” out there; might I suggest a good book on the topic of why some societies developed faster than others:

Guns, Germs & Steel - Jared Diamond

Hint: it has nothing to do with “innate intelligence”…

68 b_sharp  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:13:21am

re: #20 Solomon2

But aren’t we carrying this too far? One doesn’t greet a Japanese with an open palm and direct eye contact; that is considered bad etiquette. You bow instead. Am I a racist for offering to bow before extending my hand?

Non sequitur and massive conflation.

Or maybe the other way around.

69 Irenicum  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:13:33am

I wonder how many of these bloggers have been pulled over for driving while white? None? I didn’t think so.

70 Gus  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:13:49am

re: #64 darthstar

The last time I saw a 100% vote on anything, it was when Saddam Hussein was ‘re-elected’ in Iraq.

You think would be at least one that would voted otherwise. This is like something out of Myanmar.

71 Four More Tears  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:14:15am

re: #69 Irenicum

I wonder how many of these bloggers have been pulled over for driving while white? None? I didn’t think so.

I’m sure each and every one of them will inform you that “driving while black” is a myth.

72 Solomon2  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:14:22am

re: #37 Charles

You seem to have a drastic confusion going on between “race” and “culture.” Handshake styles and figures of speech have nothing to do with race. But you yourself identified intelligence and socially acceptable behavior as qualities you DO assign to race.

You didn’t expect to be challenged on that?

Of course I did. But have we in America reached the point where we can once again discuss, if not recognize, the possibility of such differences openly - as, say, Marco Polo or Disraeli did - or must we wallow in self-imposed silence?

73 Obdicut  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:14:32am

re: #67 ShaunP

I take a lot of issue with his arguments, but it’s certainly a fascinating starting point.

74 darthstar  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:15:11am

re: #70 Gus 802

You think would be at least one that would voted otherwise. This is like something out of Myanmar.

It’s really sad, actually. It shows just how few of the right-wing bloggers are actually able to think for themselves. I notice Erick Erection didn’t participate…but I won’t be surprised to hear him reference this poll in a positive light.

75 Obdicut  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:15:21am

re: #72 Solomon2

You don’t understand genetics. At all.

76 b_sharp  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:15:46am

re: #30 Charles

And there’s a reason for that. It didn’t start with the “recent race-baiting.”

Race-baiting, in various forms, has been a hobby of some for a very, very long time.

77 Four More Tears  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:15:53am

re: #72 Solomon2

Of course I did. But have we in America reached the point where we can once again discuss, if not recognize, the possibility of such differences openly - as, say, Marco Polo or Disraeli did - or must we wallow in self-imposed silence?

Must? You’re 100% free to say every racist thing you can think of (well, not on Charles’ blog…). We, in turn, are 100% free to mock and deride you for it. So go ahead. No one’s stopping you at all.

78 Randall Gross  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:16:34am

Wow. Some of you are beginning to sound like the 1940 Encyclopedia Brittanica.

re: #72 Solomon2

Can you be specific as to the differences you are thinking of?

79 cliffster  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:16:58am

re: #38 ArchangelMichael

Unless we get invaded by aliens or AI revolts against us.

That’s funny, but true. Widening rights of self-identification..

me -> me family -> my friends -> my town -> my country

80 b_sharp  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:17:15am

re: #36 Solomon2

Of course it is a “culture” issue! But there isn’t any reason I can’t be accused of racism for being “culturally sensitive”, is there?

You lost me. What the fuck are you talking about?

81 Coracle  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:17:22am

re: #72 Solomon2

Of course I did. But have we in America reached the point where we can once again discuss, if not recognize, the possibility of such differences openly - as, say, Marco Polo or Disraeli did - or must we wallow in self-imposed silence?

How about wallowing in biological fact instead?

82 Cato the Elder  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:17:57am

Anyone remember the creepy movie “Rising Sun” from 1993? Despite a veneer of tolerance in the character played by Sean Connery, it was basically a screed about how the “efficient” Japanese salaryman was going to eat white and black Americans for breakfast.

LOL.

Good to see we’re back to the basic forms of American racism: fear of blacks and Mexicans. Not.

83 Kronocide  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:19:01am

re: #76 b_sharp

Race-baiting, in various forms, has been a hobby of some for a very, very long time.

race baiting is nothing more than an more complex form of antagonism. It’s an emotional reaction.

84 Obdicut  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:19:02am

re: #82 Cato the Elder

Yes. With the simultaneous fascination/repulsion for the Japanese, the movie reminded me a lot of old attitudes towards Jews.

All of Clive Cussler’s books are great examples of stupid, jingoistic racism of the most pathetic variety, for that matter.

85 Solomon2  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:19:11am

re: #58 Fozzie Bear

As far as intellectual capacity, overall physical prowess, “how they think”… that’s just pure racist eugenicist garbage.

Holy shit man, did you just get out of a time machine from the 1800’s or something?

No, and that’s the upsetting part. I went to a very liberal school as a kid. But I feel I’m too honest a historian to maintain this race-blind stuff much longer. If I say pygmies are shorter than other folk, isn’t that racism? If I say Andes Indians are often good runners because their lungs process oxygen better, isn’t that racism?

86 Irenicum  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:19:19am

re: #71 JasonA

Yeah, the “myth” that keeps on giving.

87 jamesfirecat  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:19:22am

re: #63 Obdicut

One of the best scenes in The Searchers is the one where Ethan shoots out the dead Comanche’s eyes— without his eyes, he’s doomed to wander forever in the spirit world.

Ethan is the character who knows most about the Comanche, and hates them the most as well. A lot of racists have deep, deep understanding of the other culture— they’re obsessed with it.

It’s one of the creepier forms of racism.

Reminds me of that scene in American Dad where we get to have what a Bar Mitzvah is explained to us by the high school’s skinheads.

“Yes, yours is a rich and varied culture that we seek to undermine and destory.”

88 lawhawk  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:19:45am

OT:
FDA approves world’s first test of embryonic stem cell therapies in humans.

The trial will test cells developed by Geron Corporation and the University of California, Irvine in patients with new spinal cord injuries.

The F.D.A. had initially cleared the clinical trial in January, 2009, in what was viewed at the time as a research milestone.

But before the study could begin, the agency then put a so-called hold on the trial after cysts were discovered in some mice injected with the cells. Geron had to do another mouse study and develop better ways to check the purity of its cells.

On Friday, the company announced in a press release that the F.D.A. had lifted the hold. Geron shares rose in morning trading.

Embryonic stem cells can turn into any type of cell in the body. Scientists envision one day making replacements for injured or diseased tissues to treat a wide variety of illnesses.

89 b_sharp  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:19:57am

re: #47 Solomon2

I thought of that, but I am trying to keep the discussion “clean”. :)

I suggest you start digging a different hole, the one you’re in is deep enough to swallow an entire culture.

90 Gus  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:20:35am

re: #85 Solomon2

No, and that’s the upsetting part. I went to a very liberal school as a kid. But I feel I’m too honest a historian to maintain this race-blind stuff much longer. If I say pygmies are shorter than other folk, isn’t that racism? If I say Andes Indians are often good runners because their lungs process oxygen better, isn’t that racism?

Straw man.

91 Cato the Elder  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:20:45am

re: #72 Solomon2

Of course I did. But have we in America reached the point where we can once again discuss, if not recognize, the possibility of such differences openly - as, say, Marco Polo or Disraeli did - or must we wallow in self-imposed silence?

Go ahead. Make yourself comfortable.

And then provide some credible scientific evidence for the racial “differences” you allege.

You have thirty minutes, starting now.

92 robdouth  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:21:22am

re: #57 Shiplord Kirel

The main problem with race relations in this country is that we have built a whole culture around denial and falsehood. We can’t afford this anymore. It’s really time to be honest about it.

I can’t get behind this. If you don’t teach a child one way or the other about race, they will ignore it. In that case, ignorance is bliss, but having gone through public school and a public university, their may be instances of individual denial, but not as a society. So much of schooling deals with race, every year an entire month is dedicated to the history of one race, so it’s almost impossible to deny.

This doesn’t mean there aren’t problems, but I whole-heartedly disagree that the main problem is denial.

93 darthstar  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:21:25am

I actually agree that a majority of the accusations of racism in politics today are false, but I also think that a majority of the complaints about racist signs appearing in disturbingly high numbers at Teabagger rallies is true. But as far as politics goes, I haven’t seen a lot of racist behavior in our elected officials. Some open bigotry, yes, and a lot of prejudice against certain religious groups and cultures based on the fact that it’s an easy ‘fear button’ to push with constituents, but that’s not racism, per se.

94 Solomon2  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:21:35am

re: #90 Gus 802

Straw man.

Where do you draw the line?

95 robdouth  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:22:12am

re: #62 jamesfirecat

“African Americans have been a bloc vote for the Democratic party way before any of this recent race-baiting. The worst they can do is piss enough people off to raise the voting rate amongst minority groups.”

I disagree.

The worst they could do is become so blatant in their racism that white people who aren’t racist feel ashamed to vote for their party.

You didn’t specifically say “the worst they can do among blacks is…” so I fail to see how you make a valid point.

Very good, fine job of hair-splitting. congrats.

96 Four More Tears  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:22:38am

re: #85 Solomon2

If I say Andes Indians are often good runners because their lungs process oxygen better, isn’t that racism?

Do you know why athletes often go to higher altitudes to train? This is not specific to race.

97 Obdicut  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:23:06am

re: #85 Solomon2

If I say pygmies are shorter than other folk, isn’t that racism?

No.

If I say Andes Indians are often good runners because their lungs process oxygen better, isn’t that racism?

It’s very simplistic to say that their lungs process oxygen better. In general, in high-altitude populations you find a lot of various mutations regarding lung size, oxygen saturation in blood, blood vessel proliferation, heart strength, etc.

And, no, it’s not racist to note allele differences between various environments. Nor is it sexist to note that women lack penises.

Sheesh, this is sophomore-level crap from you.

98 Cato the Elder  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:23:12am

re: #85 Solomon2

I went to a very liberal school as a kid.

And then what happened. Did a cholo steal your lunch money?

99 Obdicut  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:23:46am

re: #92 robdouth

This doesn’t mean there aren’t problems, but I whole-heartedly disagree that the main problem is denial.

irony calling.

100 Coracle  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:24:18am

re: #94 Solomon2

Where do you draw the line?

Here:
“…how they think, personal inclinations, physical prowess, inclination to intellectual achievement, acceptable social conduct…”

101 Irenicum  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:24:21am

re: #85 Solomon2

Your basic argument from the beginning of this thread is a classic racist argument. And yet you constantly ask “is it racist” to notice differences between various peoples. To notice differences between different peoples is not racist. To add the part about intelligence and other “innate” abilities or lack thereof is racist. That’s what you started with. Therefore you are a racist. Therefore you can go to hell.

102 jamesfirecat  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:24:50am

re: #85 Solomon2

No, and that’s the upsetting part. I went to a very liberal school as a kid. But I feel I’m too honest a historian to maintain this race-blind stuff much longer. If I say pygmies are shorter than other folk, isn’t that racism? If I say Andes Indians are often good runners because their lungs process oxygen better, isn’t that racism?

Racism is the belief that one race is out and out simply superior to another or all the others, not the belief that there are differences like how I’m going to need more suntan than an African American if we both went to the beach and didn’t want to get burnt….

103 Cato the Elder  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:25:24am

re: #94 Solomon2

Where do you draw the line?

How about the word “race”?

Biologically, there is no such thing.

Any dog can mate with any other opposite-sex dog. (Let’s leave aside the existence of homosexual dogs, which proves another point entirely.)

Any human can mate with any other opposite sex human. What does “race” mean in that context?

104 Fozzie Bear  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:25:27am

re: #66 Obdicut

Even that doesn’t actually exist. For any feature you mention, you can find a member of that ‘race’ who doesn’t have it.

Of course, but it’s all about averages. Most people of African descent have wider noses than most people of European descent. Most Africans have darker skin than most Irish.

You can acknowledge the uneven global distribution of certain superficial phenotypic traits without going down the road of assuming that these differences indicate the existence of more fundamental mental and physical differences, a claim for which there is no evidence.

Yes, there are light skinned Africans, Dark skinned Irish, and black people with narrower noses than mine. If anything, those exceptions prove the rule that individual variation within subgroups vastly exceeds the variation between subgroups.

Unfortunately, it’s difficult to discuss this kind of nuance without some moron (whose moronic nature has nothing to do with his/her ethnic background) asserting that these kinds of variations simply must extend to the realm of intellectual capacity.

Whether “race” is a real thing depends entirely on how you define it. Some find it entirely too tempting to try to define “sub-species” of Homo sapiens, when really, the reality is that there are superficial regional adaptations in our species, much like how grey squirrels appear to exhibit slight variations in size and coloration over the extent of their range. They are still grey squirrels, whether they have light grey fur, or black fur, and individual variability vastly exceeds “racial” variability.

Imagine for a moment the absurdity of trying to break squirrels down into “racial” groups to fit the racist meme of variability=speciation.

They still all eat nuts, can interbreed, and share 99.999% of their genetic material.

Then again, this is a really retarded debate to get into. Why did I type this again?

105 robdouth  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:25:41am

re: #74 darthstar

It’s really sad, actually. It shows just how few of the right-wing bloggers are actually able to think for themselves. I notice Erick Erection didn’t participate…but I won’t be surprised to hear him reference this poll in a positive light.

That’s faulty logic. They may all think alike, but it’s jumping the shark to think they couldn’t have all reached the same conclusions independently. If you ask an innocuous question of all liberal leaning bloggers and they all say yes, does it mean they can’t think independently, or does it mean they all agree with that point. Especially given how general the questions are. If they were all narrow and specific questions and offered many multiple choices, but when they are sometimes vague and mostly Yes/No, you don’t get the degrees to which they agree or the reasoning behind why they do.

106 Solomon2  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:26:47am

re: #91 Cato the Elder

Go ahead. Make yourself comfortable.

And then provide some credible scientific evidence for the racial “differences” you allege.

You have thirty minutes, starting now.

Sure. Consider sickle-cell anemia. The condition is genetically prevalent in Africa, India, and the Middle East. People with it may live shorter lives, but have superior resistance to malaria. Europeans who tried to settle in such regions suffered terribly until the discovery of quinine. Quinine made colonization of these regions possible.

107 darthstar  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:27:25am

re: #85 Solomon2

If I say Andes Indians are often good runners because their lungs process oxygen better, isn’t that racism?

No, that’s just called ignorance. See Greek, Jimmy the for more information on how fucking stupid you sound.

108 jamesfirecat  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:28:39am

re: #95 robdouth

Very good, fine job of hair-splitting. congrats.

You know what they say….

[Link: www.motivatedphotos.com…]

109 Obdicut  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:28:43am

re: #104 Fozzie Bear

Yes, there are light skinned Africans, Dark skinned Irish, and black people with narrower noses than mine. If anything, those exceptions prove the rule that individual variation within subgroups vastly exceeds the variation between subgroups.

Absolutely. What I meant is that for any gene present in a population, you will find it in other populations as well.


Then again, this is a really retarded debate to get into. Why did I type this again?

Because it’s worthwhile to state, over and over, that race is mostly a fiction and most people who are very, very interested in it are, as you note, behaving in a ridiculous manner.

Hell, even speciation is not a clean-cut biological construct. Wolves and coyotes can and do interbreed all the time. They are considered separate ‘species’.

For those of you who haven’t, reading The Selfish Gene and The Extended Phenotype are really good ways to get a grip on this.

110 robdouth  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:29:10am

re: #90 Gus 802

Straw man.

No, it’s a non-sequitir, not a straw man. For it to be a straw man, he’d have to present an argument not given, and refute it easily. He instead asked a question that wasn’t related to race and asked if believing something not related to race makes him racist. The two examples were genetic and geo-cultural instead of racial.

111 b_sharp  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:29:14am

re: #85 Solomon2

No, and that’s the upsetting part. I went to a very liberal school as a kid. But I feel I’m too honest a historian to maintain this race-blind stuff much longer. If I say pygmies are shorter than other folk, isn’t that racism? If I say Andes Indians are often good runners because their lungs process oxygen better, isn’t that racism?

You are confused.

112 Coracle  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:29:46am

re: #106 Solomon2

Sure. Consider sickle-cell anemia. The condition is genetically prevalent in Africa, India, and the Middle East. People with it may live shorter lives, but have superior resistance to malaria. Europeans who tried to settle in such regions suffered terribly until the discovery of quinine. Quinine made colonization of these regions possible.

That is not an example of the “…how they think, personal inclinations, physical prowess, inclination to intellectual achievement, acceptable social conduct…” you were talking about earlier. Nor is it a demonstration of anything other than local biological adaptation to conditions by a long resident population of humans.

113 Cato the Elder  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:29:55am

re: #106 Solomon2

Sure. Consider sickle-cell anemia. The condition is genetically prevalent in Africa, India, and the Middle East. People with it may live shorter lives, but have superior resistance to malaria. Europeans who tried to settle in such regions suffered terribly until the discovery of quinine. Quinine made colonization of these regions possible.

That is known as local adaptation. As is the different lung capacity of people living at different altitudes.

What does any of it have to do with the discredited notion of “race”?

And what does it have to do with “socially acceptable behavior”? Again, you mix categories worse than a first-semester freshman logic student.

Oh, wait. You’re just moving goalposts. Sorry. My bad.

114 Four More Tears  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:29:59am

re: #111 b_sharp

You are confused.

That’s not the word I would have picked…

115 Randall Gross  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:30:12am

re: #85 Solomon2

No, and that’s the upsetting part. I went to a very liberal school as a kid. But I feel I’m too honest a historian to maintain this race-blind stuff much longer. If I say pygmies are shorter than other folk, isn’t that racism? If I say Andes Indians are often good runners because their lungs process oxygen better, isn’t that racism?

How do Andes Indian’s lungs process oxygen better? Do you have a link to a scientific paper for that claim? [ it’s a specious notion that’s completely false. There are genetic differences but lungs “processing different” is not it…]

Pygmies are shorter than other people, again you are pointing out genetic, not racial differences. You really don’t have a clue do you?

116 CuriousLurker  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:31:02am

re: #14 Solomon2

I am a history buff. I know that our current nobody-mention-racial-characteristics is merely a contemporary pretense. Differences between peoples - how they think, personal inclinations, physical prowess, inclination to intellectual achievement, acceptable social conduct - do exist. By today’s standards recognizing this by interacting with different peoples on this basis earns one the derogatory label of “racist”.

What a crock. Those differences exist form person to person, regardless of race. Acceptable social conduct is cultural and can vary from family to family.

117 Obdicut  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:31:25am

re: #106 Solomon2

Sure. Consider sickle-cell anemia. The condition is genetically prevalent in Africa, India, and the Middle East. People with it may live shorter lives, but have superior resistance to malaria. Europeans who tried to settle in such regions suffered terribly until the discovery of quinine. Quinine made colonization of these regions possible.

Man, you can’t get anything right.

Sickle-cell anemia is a disorder that occurs when two alleles of a gene that protects against malaria are present. Those in the population with one copy of that allele don’t suffer sickle-cell, but still have increased protection against malaria.

And the condition is genetically prevalent in any area with high degrees of malaria. It is a very good example of a gene that is not tied to any particular ‘race’, but will surface in any group that lives in that area for any amount of time.

118 darthstar  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:31:39am

re: #105 robdouth

That’s faulty logic. They may all think alike, but it’s jumping the shark to think they couldn’t have all reached the same conclusions independently. If you ask an innocuous question of all liberal leaning bloggers and they all say yes, does it mean they can’t think independently, or does it mean they all agree with that point. Especially given how general the questions are. If they were all narrow and specific questions and offered many multiple choices, but when they are sometimes vague and mostly Yes/No, you don’t get the degrees to which they agree or the reasoning behind why they do.

The questions support a narrative. You either fall lock-step in with narrative or you don’t, according to the poll answers. Just look at the following two questions side by side, and explain how one could say they weren’t prejudice, but thinks they’re being discriminated against because they’re white.

2) If you honestly assessed yourself, would you say that you’re racially prejudice [sic]?

A) Yes: 1.6% (1 votes)
B) No: 98.4% (62 votes)

5) Do you believe that the government discriminates against white Americans based on their skin color?

A) Yes: 79.4% (50 votes)
B) No: 20.6% (13 votes)

119 Cato the Elder  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:32:02am

What do you get if you mate a liberal pygmy woman to a six-foot, six-inch blond Swedish fascist.

A human baby. QED.

120 Shiplord Kirel  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:32:27am

re: #14 Solomon2

I am a history buff. I know that our current nobody-mention-racial-characteristics is merely a contemporary pretense. Differences between peoples - how they think, personal inclinations, physical prowess, inclination to intellectual achievement, acceptable social conduct - do exist. By today’s standards recognizing this by interacting with different peoples on this basis earns one the derogatory label of “racist”.

I didn’t join in down-dinging you for this because I think it is just as well to get this out in the open, something right-wing bloggers are apparently committed to not doing.
Suppose, for the sake of argument, that these differences in intellect etc. are real. If so, they are only averages across an enormously large and diverse group of people, a “race.” Only the most ignorant and deranged racists would suggest that every black person is less intelligent or more inclined to violence than every white person.

On that basis alone, segregation and the denial of equal opportunity are an injustice.

Yet, this assumption of blanket inferiority was actually the case in our society until quite recently in historical terms. During World War 2, for example, it was asserted that blacks could not fly airplanes. Racists went well beyond claiming that the average aptitude of blacks was lower or anything like that. They were unwilling to accept that there were even a few hundred blacks who could be proficient aviators from a population of millions. They were proven wrong, but there are racists today who will still not admit that the Tuskegee airmen were a success.

I happen to believe that the notion of generalized, inherent difference in intellect and behavior is a relic of 19th century pseudoscience. The more important truth, though, is that it is actually largely irrelevant to how we conduct ourselves as a society and as human beings.

121 Randall Gross  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:32:29am

Someone is displaying a blazing amount of ignorance.

122 Obdicut  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:32:31am

re: #119 Cato the Elder

Fucking bravo.

123 cliffster  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:33:05am

re: #97 Obdicut


It’s very simplistic to say that their lungs process oxygen better. In general, in high-altitude populations you find a lot of various mutations regarding lung size, oxygen saturation in blood, blood vessel proliferation, heart strength, etc.

I could run 150 miles a week for the next 5 years and those dudes from Kenya would still finish a marathon before I crossed the halfway mark.


And, no, it’s not racist to note allele differences between various environments. Nor is it sexist to note that women lack penises.

I met a girl one night and it turned out she had a penis. That was a bad night.

124 Fozzie Bear  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:33:07am

re: #119 Cato the Elder

What do you get if you mate a liberal pygmy woman to a six-foot, six-inch blond Swedish fascist.

A human baby. QED.

LMAO.

This is the shortest possible refutation of racism I have yet seen in written form.

125 b_sharp  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:33:11am

re: #101 Irenicum

Your basic argument from the beginning of this thread is a classic racist argument. And yet you constantly ask “is it racist” to notice differences between various peoples. To notice differences between different peoples is not racist. To add the part about intelligence and other “innate” abilities or lack thereof is racist. That’s what you started with. Therefore you are a racist. Therefore you can go to hell.

Don’t be sending him to hell, that’s where I’ll end up, with all the other atheists and I’d rather be drinking and screwing than punching out bigots.

Have a heart.

126 Solomon2  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:33:16am

re: #111 b_sharp

You are confused.

Yes!

127 blueraven  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:33:17am

re: #20 Solomon2

But aren’t we carrying this too far? One doesn’t greet a Japanese with an open palm and direct eye contact; that is considered bad etiquette. You bow instead. Am I a racist for offering to bow before extending my hand?

That is custom/cultural…not race related.

128 webevintage  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:33:59am

Iowa GOP Will Impeach Obama, For Accepting Nobel Prize

Nixon is both the very low standard America has set for Criminal Presidents and the only example, ever, of presidents so guilty that they’ll actually resign rather than face justice. And that’s why (?) Republicans have, ever since, spent all their time trying to make up some reason why a Democratic president should be impeached. For example, did you know Barack Obama must be impeached because, uh, the Iowa Republican Party wants to “change” the 13th Amendment.

Ha ha, you are probably thinking, “Oh jesus christ they want to make slavery legal again, and then impeach Obama for being a runaway slave?”

[Link: wonkette.com…]

The GOP….providing you hours of entertainment since Jan. 21, 2009.

129 Irenicum  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:34:27am

re: #123 cliffster

Was her name Lola?

130 Obdicut  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:35:09am

re: #123 cliffster


I could run 150 miles a week for the next 5 years and those dudes from Kenya would still finish a marathon before I crossed the halfway mark.

Some dudes from Kenya would. Other dudes from Kenya wouldn’t. And Emil Zapotec would be right alongside with them.

131 b_sharp  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:35:20am

re: #104 Fozzie Bear


Then again, this is a really retarded debate to get into. Why did I type this again?

I don’t know, but I’m glad you did.

132 darthstar  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:35:37am

re: #129 Irenicum

Was her name Lola?

Or Dil?

133 Solomon2  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:36:04am

re: #117 ObdicutIt is a very good example of a gene that is not tied to any particular ‘race’, but will surface in any group that lives in that area for any amount of time.

That may be how modern science looked at it, but in the past Western observers would say something like, “Negroes and Indians are adapted to their harsh environment; white men are not.” Wouldn’t such people be labeled “racists” today?

134 cliffster  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:36:48am

re: #129 Irenicum

Was her name Lola?

it was… she drank champagne and it tasted like cherry cola

135 Cato the Elder  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:37:18am

re: #133 Solomon2

It is a very good example of a gene that is not tied to any particular ‘race’, but will surface in any group that lives in that area for any amount of time.

That may be how modern science looked at it, but in the past Western observers would say something like, “Negroes and Indians are adapted to their harsh environment; white men are not.” Wouldn’t such people be labeled “racists” today?

Not necessarily. They might or might not be racists.

I would label them “pre-scientific empiricists” and leave it at that.

136 darthstar  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:37:55am

re: #130 Obdicut

Some dudes from Kenya would. Other dudes from Kenya wouldn’t. And Emil Zapotec would be right alongside with them.

Or Keith Bechtol from Palo Alto who won the SF Marathon by two minutes, despite starting in the third tier of runners as he’d never competed in a marathon before.

137 wrenchwench  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:38:11am

re: #133 Solomon2

Wouldn’t such people be labeled “racists” today?

They’d be labeled as “ignorant”. You, if you’re ignorant, that’s not as bad as if you’re putting this crap out just to rile people up. You’re either ignorant or you’re a troll, or perhaps both.

138 Obdicut  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:38:40am

re: #133 Solomon2

That may be how modern science looked at it, but in the past Western observers would say something like, “Negroes and Indians are adapted to their harsh environment; white men are not.” Wouldn’t such people be labeled “racists” today?

White men are adapted to their harsh environment too, so they’d just be labelled ‘stupid’. We’re all adapted to the environment. And the ways we’re adapted are 99.99% similar.

Nobody says that it’s racist to note that sickle-cell is something that occurs because of certain genes.

You argue very badly.

139 Fozzie Bear  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:38:46am

re: #133 Solomon2

It is a very good example of a gene that is not tied to any particular ‘race’, but will surface in any group that lives in that area for any amount of time.

That may be how modern science looked at it, but in the past Western observers would say something like, “Negroes and Indians are adapted to their harsh environment; white men are not.” Wouldn’t such people be labeled “racists” today?

It’s not racist to say that my pasty Irish ass wouldn’t survive a year in the Sahara desert. It is racist to say that a person from ethnic background X is likely to be intellectually less capable than a person from ethnic background Y, as a result of the difference in ethnicity.

And yet, you did say just that. It’s indefensible, incorrect, and fucking stupid.

140 b_sharp  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:39:09am

re: #106 Solomon2

Sure. Consider sickle-cell anemia. The condition is genetically prevalent in Africa, India, and the Middle East. People with it may live shorter lives, but have superior resistance to malaria. Europeans who tried to settle in such regions suffered terribly until the discovery of quinine. Quinine made colonization of these regions possible.

Many Africans are of the ‘Negroid’ race, but Indians and ME are mostly of the ‘Caucasian’ race.

That allele crosses racial lines.

Or are you a splitter and feel there are more than four races?

Personally I think the whole idea of race is bullshit. It’s just a tool for tools to make themselves feel better about themselves.

141 b_sharp  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:40:30am

re: #109 Obdicut


For those of you who haven’t, reading The Selfish Gene and The Extended Phenotype are really good ways to get a grip on this.

I second that recommendation.

142 Kronocide  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:40:51am

It seems the point of pointing out differences in genetics may provide some potential for a race interested person to hang their hat on. Most of the specifics in this post (and Jimmy the Greek’s ignorant statements, and lungs from Andean peoples) are still environmental factors that caused the changes if they even exist at all.

The way to blunt the ‘camel in the tent’ approach to this logical construct is to point out that genetic variations are so infinitesimal so as to be inconsequential. This likely extrapolates to our brains and minds.

Why is it so important to pursue the concept of one genetic group somehow superior in intellect to the other, seeing as how any differences may be in the .001% range, if even quantifiable?

It’s not important to me, or to the betterment of the rest of us, to find this out. It doesn’t matter.

143 Cato the Elder  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:41:01am

A lot of marathon runners with enough scratch go to high-altitude places to train. It works very well, especially if you train for six weeks in Quito and then come back to run a sea-level marathon in Amsterdam.

What does this tell us about “race” or genetics? Precisely nothing. What does it tell us about individual human adaptability? Lots.

Lysenko, anyone?

144 cliffster  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:42:12am

re: #130 Obdicut

Some dudes from Kenya would. Other dudes from Kenya wouldn’t. And Emil Zapotec would be right alongside with them.

There’s actually a growing school of thought that indicates that performance in a marathon has way more to do with the ability to sustain a higher percentage of your own VO2max, which comes from training, than having a high VO2max to begin with. That, plus running economy, gives you the incredibly incredible men who finish a marathon in a hair over 2 hours. That gives me hope because I can train my ass off, but the “running economy” blows it for me - I’m 6’1” but my legs are so short you’d see them on a guy who is 5’7”. But it does give hope to people with normal legs, who are not from Kenya.

145 Kronocide  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:43:04am

re: #119 Cato the Elder

What do you get if you mate a liberal pygmy woman to a six-foot, six-inch blond Swedish fascist.

A human baby. QED.

Uh… interesting family functions? LOL

146 robdouth  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:43:31am

re: #99 Obdicut

No, apparently you don’t understand either irony or denial. Denial would be saying “nope, no problem here”, Instead I said there is a problem, but I disagree with what he claims are the root causes. I would agree that a stronger case for denial could have been made in the 50s and 60s where there was stronger racism, and no education about it, and most white people tried to pretend there wasn’t a problem.

However, now, it’s much more vocal, and while still a problem, it’s not being denied on a societal level like the 50s and 60s, but by groups like right wing bloggers, etc.

The average American student is learning what they should about the history of race relations and is getting a great exposure to the problems of our countries past, so I don’t think denial is the primary cause anymore.

147 Obdicut  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:43:48am

re: #144 cliffster

Emil Zapotec is my favorite runner because he constantly looked like he was breaking his legs. Terrible stride— yet somehow an amazing runner.

148 Solomon2  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:43:57am

re: #139 Fozzie Bear

It’s not racist to say that my pasty Irish ass wouldn’t survive a year in the Sahara desert.

Are you sure? Suppose I am a personnel officer in the State Dept. If I assign White Boy to, say, Burkina Faso he could come down with malaria in a few months, whereas if I assign an African-American with SCA he’ll almost certainly stay healthy for the duration of his tour. But don’t State Dept. policies forbid this sort of racial choice, even if it has a sound physiological basis to it?

149 Obdicut  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:45:01am

re: #146 robdouth

You’re denying the problem is denial, dude— that’s where the irony is. It has nothing to do with whether you’re actually right about that or not.

Don’t assume that the other person you’re talking to doesn’t understand what you’re saying— it can leave you looking silly.

150 Irenicum  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:45:04am

Appropriately enough just today Big Questions Online has a story about why some people are more willing to confront prejudice than others. Here’s a key section:

Obviously, there are a number of factors involved here, but one of them, they say, is how we think about personality. Those of us who hold an “incremental” view of personality—who believe it is malleable and can change over time—are more likely to confront prejudice than those who believe people have fixed personality traits—what’s called the “entity” view.

And then they provide a link to the study. Well worth reading.

151 Shiplord Kirel  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:45:21am

re: #92 robdouth

I can’t get behind this. If you don’t teach a child one way or the other about race, they will ignore it. In that case, ignorance is bliss, but having gone through public school and a public university, their may be instances of individual denial, but not as a society. So much of schooling deals with race, every year an entire month is dedicated to the history of one race, so it’s almost impossible to deny.

This doesn’t mean there aren’t problems, but I whole-heartedly disagree that the main problem is denial.

I think you’re confusing emphasis with honesty. It is true that society in general, and the education system in particular, pay a great deal of attention to race. Much of this, most of it, is aimed at overcoming racism.

That is not the same as teaching people to honestly address their feelings and attitudes. Much of it in fact probably works to the detriment of healthy dialog. The lesson is often not so much that you shouldn’t be a racist, but that you shouldn’t be honest about it. This contributes to the kind of transparent denial we see in the poll results above.

152 Obdicut  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:46:01am

re: #148 Solomon2

Common sense forbids it, since who has a percentage chance of contracting malaria is really not the best way to make that judgement. Plus, you know, we have invented anti-malarial meds. That’s the cool thing about being human.

153 Solomon2  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:49:30am

re: #152 Obdicut

Common sense forbids it, since who has a percentage chance of contracting malaria is really not the best way to make that judgement. Plus, you know, we have invented anti-malarial meds. That’s the cool thing about being human.

“Common sense” - isn’t that what people used to cite to justify racism? And suppose anti-malarial medication hadn’t been discovered; the problem could still exist.

You are starting to see my point, I think.

154 b_sharp  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:49:44am

re: #144 cliffster

There’s actually a growing school of thought that indicates that performance in a marathon has way more to do with the ability to sustain a higher percentage of your own VO2max, which comes from training, than having a high VO2max to begin with. That, plus running economy, gives you the incredibly incredible men who finish a marathon in a hair over 2 hours. That gives me hope because I can train my ass off, but the “running economy” blows it for me - I’m 6’1” but my legs are so short you’d see them on a guy who is 5’7”. But it does give hope to people with normal legs, who are not from Kenya.

I’m 6’0” and have the legs of a man 9’4”. I’m just a head sitting on an ass.

155 robdouth  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:50:26am

re: #118 darthstar

I agree that the answers don’t make them look good, but since they all answered independently without knowing who was going to be asked and what their “peers” would answer, I’m just saying it’s faulty logic to assume they didn’t all reach the same (incorrect) conclusions independently. However, I do think the discrimination against whites is a loaded question because of the definition of discrimination and how it lines up exactly with affirmative action. By definition, preference for one group is discrimination against those not in that group. That’s just definitional, so it’s a meaningless question. If someone asked me if there was invidious and malicious discrimination, i’d respond no, but given there are policies to discriminate or prejudge or prefer based on race (every public university has an affirmative action department, and the recent financial regulations law created 20-30 new offices of minority and women hiring areas for different areas in the government) you kinda have to answer yes to that question.

156 Obdicut  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:51:17am

re: #153 Solomon2

You don’t have a point. If the decision really was made based on the chance of contracting malaria— let’s say it was a 100% deadly disease— then that wouldn’t be a choice being made on the subject of race, but on the subject of a specific person’s protection against malaria.

There are plenty of white people who also have that allele, you know.

You don’t have a point, except to be an ass. You’re very transparent.

157 Fozzie Bear  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:51:24am

re: #148 Solomon2

Are you sure? Suppose I am a personnel officer in the State Dept. If I assign White Boy to, say, Burkina Faso he could come down with malaria in a few months, whereas if I assign an African-American with SCA he’ll almost certainly stay healthy for the duration of his tour. But don’t State Dept. policies forbid this sort of racial choice, even if it has a sound physiological basis to it?

My skin color and general lack of melanin would make my survival in such an environment difficult, as I am not physically well-adapted to prolonged exposure to direct sunlight. It’s not racist to say this.

Your example of Sickle-Cell Anemia is a massive rhetorical stretch, to put it mildly. We have cheap and effective anti-malarial medications.

Now, if we could back up a moment, would you care to justify your statement up above that “Differences between peoples - how they think, personal inclinations, physical prowess, inclination to intellectual achievement, acceptable social conduct - do exist.” ?

Note that you used the plural, “peoples”, indicating that you believe there to be significant differences in intellectual capacity between groups. There is NO evidence for this claim, and it’s not for a lack of effort on the part of racists over the past hundred years or so to find evidence.

158 cliffster  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:51:25am

re: #154 b_sharp

I’m 6’0” and have the legs of a man 9’4”. I’m just a head sitting on an ass.

I hate you.

159 Kronocide  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:51:49am

re: #151 Shiplord Kirel

I think you’re confusing emphasis with honesty. It is true that society in general, and the education system in particular, pay a great deal of attention to race. Much of this, most of it, is aimed at overcoming racism.

That is not the same as teaching people to honestly address their feelings and attitudes. Much of it in fact probably works to the detriment of healthy dialog. The lesson is often not so much that you shouldn’t be a racist, but that you shouldn’t be honest about it. This contributes to the kind of transparent denial we see in the poll results above.

Brilliant statement SK. Many have locked onto the emphasis and not the honesty part, myself being guilty of being too caught up in the emphasis previously. I have been transitioning in the last few years helped along on LGF.

Just because there’s a Black History Month and not a White History Month doesn’t equate to reverse racism. To say so is ignorant of this point, or worse, demagoguery.

160 robdouth  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:51:59am

re: #149 Obdicut

You’re denying the problem is denial, dude— that’s where the irony is. It has nothing to do with whether you’re actually right about that or not.

Don’t assume that the other person you’re talking to doesn’t understand what you’re saying— it can leave you looking silly.

Well when the only thing you put down is “Irony calling” it certainly leaves the impression that you are claiming I’m wrong. My apologies if that’s not your implication, but you could have made that clearer.

161 Gus  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:52:14am

re: #148 Solomon2

Are you sure? Suppose I am a personnel officer in the State Dept. If I assign White Boy to, say, Burkina Faso he could come down with malaria in a few months, whereas if I assign an African-American with SCA he’ll almost certainly stay healthy for the duration of his tour. But don’t State Dept. policies forbid this sort of racial choice, even if it has a sound physiological basis to it?

In other words assign someone for the physical characteristics rather than their qualifications? What next hiring only white people for Arctic expeditions?

162 Obdicut  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:52:28am

re: #155 robdouth

You have to answer yes if you ignore that in the justice system, in employment, and in almost all areas of life, discrimination favors whites.

163 Obdicut  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:53:31am

re: #160 robdouth

Well when the only thing you put down is “Irony calling” it certainly leaves the impression that you are claiming I’m wrong. My apologies if that’s not your implication, but you could have made that clearer.

Sure. And you could have not jumped to an assumption, and asked for clarification.

164 Randall Gross  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:54:10am

re: #133 Solomon2

That’s not “how modern science looked at it” it’s how it is in reality.
Adaptation to environment is not race. Indians at equatorial latitudes are also black, as are many Malays and Carribean islanders. Adaptation to environment is not Race, no matter how much you want to make it so. Picts as well as pygmies are short, that’s genetics not race…

As to how people referred to race in the past I’ll refer you to any edition of the Encyclopedia Brittanica from the 1920’s - 1961

165 darthstar  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:55:32am

re: #155 robdouth

Yes, but these people regularly read each other, cross post each other’s diatribes against the “Kenyan Muslim Socialist Commie” and follow the same leadership of Beck/Palin/Limbaugh. The fact that they all answer the same isn’t surprising, it’s predictable. What would have been surprising would have been for 48% of them to think that the government is NOT prejudiced against white people. But that would go against what they read and write on a daily basis.

166 Randall Gross  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:57:15am

The “scientific racialism” of the VDARE / Derbyshire crowd is odious and insidious, it is racism dressed up for academia. IF you follow it you are a racist.

167 Solomon2  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:58:16am

re: #157 Fozzie Bear

My skin color and general lack of melanin would make my survival in such an environment difficult, as I am not physically well-adapted to prolonged exposure to direct sunlight. It’s not racist to say this.

So if you were a State Dept. employee would you argue, on this basis, that you should be assigned to Paris rather than Ouagadougou?

Note that you used the plural, “peoples”, indicating that you believe there to be significant differences in intellectual capacity between groups -

I wrote “inclination”, not “capacity”. Inclination is influenced both by environment and (as studies with separated twins seem to demonstrate) genetics.

168 b_sharp  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:58:57am

re: #150 Irenicum

Appropriately enough just today Big Questions Online has a story about why some people are more willing to confront prejudice than others. Here’s a key section:

And then they provide a link to the study. Well worth reading.

Part of the idea of fixed personality comes from the mind/body duality. If you look at the mind as the brain and the brain as an organic electro-mechanical learning device, which it is, learned responses can be changed over time. If the mind is separate from the physical body, personality can be hard coded into the ‘mind’ whatever that is thought to be.

Unfortunately, even self repairing mechanical devices can break down or have errors in the AI programming.

169 Obdicut  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 11:59:21am

re: #167 Solomon2

You really need to catch up to modern genetic theory if you want to keep being a pseudo-science racist.

You’re using nearly every term you use wrong.

170 Solomon2  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 12:00:09pm

re: #169 Obdicut

You really need to catch up to modern genetic theory if you want to keep being a pseudo-science racist.

You’re using nearly every term you use wrong.

Be specific, please.

171 Fozzie Bear  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 12:01:34pm

re: #167 Solomon2

I wrote “inclination”, not “capacity”. Inclination is influenced both by environment and (as studies with separated twins seem to demonstrate) genetics.

This is the lamest dodge I have yet seen on LGF. And I’ve seen some whoppers.

What is “race”, other than genetic variability, in your estimation?

172 Obdicut  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 12:03:01pm

re: #170 Solomon2

Be specific, please.

I already have, a few times. In this case,

Inclination is influenced both by environment and (as studies with separated twins seem to demonstrate) genetics.

A) Environment includes the environment of other genes in the organism.

B) “Genetics” is the science of genes, not the genes themselves. You mean that genes influence inclination, not that genetics does.

C) The phenotypic expression of genes is really what you mean, not the genes. Genes don’t do anything on their own.

etc.

173 robdouth  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 12:05:03pm

re: #159 BigPapa

Brilliant statement SK. Many have locked onto the emphasis and not the honesty part, myself being guilty of being too caught up in the emphasis previously. I have been transitioning in the last few years helped along on LGF.

Just because there’s a Black History Month and not a White History Month doesn’t equate to reverse racism. To say so is ignorant of this point, or worse, demagoguery.

Now that’s a strawman, because I never claimed black history month equated to reverse racism. I only pointed to it as an example of how as a society we try not to deny the racial injustices of the past and make it a point to teach all public school students about it. I was using it to refute the idea that denial is still the main problem regarding race.

174 b_sharp  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 12:06:15pm

re: #173 robdouth

Now that’s a strawman, because I never claimed black history month equated to reverse racism. I only pointed to it as an example of how as a society we try not to deny the racial injustices of the past and make it a point to teach all public school students about it. I was using it to refute the idea that denial is still the main problem regarding race.

What are you guys arguing about?

175 darthstar  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 12:07:09pm

re: #174 b_sharp

What are you guys arguing about?

Ford vs. Chevy, I believe.

176 robdouth  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 12:07:30pm

re: #163 Obdicut

Sure. And you could have not jumped to an assumption, and asked for clarification.

Fair enough, point taken.

177 Randall Gross  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 12:07:44pm

It’s interesting to note that scientific racialists oft use genetic variability due to adaptation to environment to argue for apartheid and tribal homelands.

The real argument for noting and segregating by genetic variations is only in medical treatment where based on your genetic history one medicine or course of treatment can be more effective than another. There really isn’t an argument by race.

178 Kronocide  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 12:08:02pm

re: #173 robdouth

Now that’s a strawman, because I never claimed black history month equated to reverse racism. I only pointed to it as an example of how as a society we try not to deny the racial injustices of the past and make it a point to teach all public school students about it. I was using it to refute the idea that denial is still the main problem regarding race.

It’s not a strawman in that I wasn’t speaking to you specifically about your exact points, especially since this is a free form open forum of multiple nuanced conversations. You never said ‘black history month… reverse racism.’

Ignorance and fear is the main problem regarding race. Denial is a symptom of that.

179 Solomon2  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 12:08:16pm

re: #171 Fozzie Bearre: #171 Fozzie Bear

What is “race”, other than genetic variability, in your estimation?

Classical writers often assumed what we are referring to as “cultural” in this thread to be racial characteristics. It might be interesting to construct an experiment and see, for example, if the Japanese aversion to eye contact is innate rather than learned, but somehow I doubt it could happen, for it would give the researcher proposing it a bad name, yes? Now you can see how the failure to pursue this sort of study could be something that holds science back.

180 SpaceJesus  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 12:08:36pm

Image: concise.png

181 Randall Gross  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 12:10:19pm

re: #179 Solomon2

Bullshit, stuff like that’s studied all the time, you haven’t kept up with anthropology or cognitive sciences very well I can see.

182 Solomon2  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 12:10:50pm

re: #172 Obdicut

A) Environment includes the environment of other genes in the organism.

B) “Genetics” is the science of genes, not the genes themselves. You mean that genes influence inclination, not that genetics does.

C) The phenotypic expression of genes is really what you mean, not the genes. Genes don’t do anything on their own.

etc.

Thank you. I must express myself clearly, especially when dealing with a very sensitive subject.

183 Obdicut  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 12:11:03pm

re: #179 Solomon2

Stuff like that gets studied all the damn time.

You have no clue what you’re talking about, and you make it abundantly clear.

184 Shiplord Kirel  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 12:11:33pm

re: #173 robdouth

Now that’s a strawman, because I never claimed black history month equated to reverse racism. I only pointed to it as an example of how as a society we try not to deny the racial injustices of the past and make it a point to teach all public school students about it. I was using it to refute the idea that denial is still the main problem regarding race.

I don’t think BigPapa meant to accuse you personally of having such a belief. He was just citing a prominent example of how great emphasis does not equate to an absence of denial.

185 Obdicut  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 12:11:35pm

re: #182 Solomon2

Thank you. I must express myself clearly, especially when dealing with a very sensitive subject.

You do express yourself clearly. You clearly have no actual knowledge of genetics, and nothing you’ve said is of any value.

186 Kronocide  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 12:11:39pm

re: #179 Solomon2

re: #171 Fozzie Bear It might be interesting to construct an experiment and see, for example, if the Japanese aversion to eye contact is innate rather than learned, but somehow I doubt it could happen, for it would give the researcher proposing it a bad name, yes? Now you can see how the failure to pursue this sort of study could be something that holds science back.

That’s enough for me.

187 Solomon2  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 12:12:43pm

re: #183 Obdicut

Stuff like that gets studied all the damn time.

Could you provide a reference, please?

188 b_sharp  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 12:13:12pm

re: #175 darthstar

Ford vs. Chevy, I believe.

Oh.

Chevy all the way man.

189 Shiplord Kirel  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 12:13:15pm

Rats, gotta go. Mom’s air conditioner is not working. As the darkest member of the family, I am naturally the best-qualified to get up on the roof in the middle of a blazing hot summer day:)

‘Bye all. You know I love you.

190 Randall Gross  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 12:14:02pm

re: #187 Solomon2

[Link: wwwsoc.nii.ac.jp…]

191 robdouth  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 12:14:33pm

re: #162 Obdicut

You have to answer yes if you ignore that in the justice system, in employment, and in almost all areas of life, discrimination favors whites.

I don’t agree. If you tell me the justice system favors the rich, then I’ll jump on board with you. I think you have a better chance of being wrongly convicted if you’re poor vs. rich, than if you’re black vs. white.

As for employment, I don’t know and I’ll defer to you on that one, but the question asked a vague question about the government discriminating. If you take that to mean by policy, then you have to answer yes. If you are saying, look at the stats that show this and this, but which is not policy, but what happens because of biases inherent to people, that’s a separate issue. I won’t argue that African Americans are discriminated against in what Jesse Jackson referred to as “covert racism” which may amount to subconscious preferences working their way out to the surface in employment and judicial decision-making. However, that isn’t a government policy.

I guess a better question would be, do you think the policies of racial preferences counteracting the biases in society working against minorities nets to a loss or gain for white people. Or something asking them which group is worse off. If they say white people, then they’re wrong, but again I would argue that money (class) makes much more difference than race in most of these examples.

192 b_sharp  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 12:15:15pm

re: #179 Solomon2

re: #171 Fozzie Bear

Classical writers often assumed what we are referring to as “cultural” in this thread to be racial characteristics. It might be interesting to construct an experiment and see, for example, if the Japanese aversion to eye contact is innate rather than learned, but somehow I doubt it could happen, for it would give the researcher proposing it a bad name, yes? Now you can see how the failure to pursue this sort of study could be something that holds science back.

You just don’t have any idea what you’re saying and you can’t help yourself.

193 Solomon2  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 12:15:20pm

re: #190 Thanos

[Link: wwwsoc.nii.ac.jp…]

But that is Japan and they are inclined to study such things. I’m talking about Western societies.

194 Randall Gross  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 12:15:58pm

re: #187 Solomon2

[Link: registrar.ucdavis.edu…]

195 Shiplord Kirel  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 12:17:04pm

re: #191 robdouth

Oh, one last thing before I load the ladder and run off: Thanks for a polite and frank exchange of views. Too rare these days and one of the reasons I keep coming back here.

196 Randall Gross  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 12:18:04pm

re: #193 Solomon2

[Link: registrar.ucdavis.edu…]
one college, many others exist in the “west” of course.

197 Solomon2  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 12:20:41pm

re: #196 Thanos

[Link: registrar.ucdavis.edu…]
one college, many others exist in the “west” of course.

I see. So these courses make it clear how one can discuss and research cultural characteristics without being accused of racism? Something simple, uneducated, folk like me cannot do otherwise?

198 Coracle  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 12:20:42pm

re: #179 Solomon2

re: #171 Fozzie Bear

Classical writers often assumed what we are referring to as “cultural” in this thread to be racial characteristics. It might be interesting to construct an experiment and see, for example, if the Japanese aversion to eye contact is innate rather than learned, but somehow I doubt it could happen, for it would give the researcher proposing it a bad name, yes? Now you can see how the failure to pursue this sort of study could be something that holds science back.

You’re kidding, right? So my former classmates and colleagues of Japanese descent, some of whom have Japanese and some of whom have American upbringing, who look me right in the eye as they talk to me, are what? Race traitors? Aberrations? Or proof that ‘eye aversion’ is nothing but cultural - and non-monolithic even in that case?

Solomon, this would really be funny if it so wasn’t.

199 Obdicut  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 12:21:09pm

re: #191 robdouth

I don’t agree. If you tell me the justice system favors the rich, then I’ll jump on board with you. I think you have a better chance of being wrongly convicted if you’re poor vs. rich, than if you’re black vs. white.

It’s both. I don’t know why you discount that possibility. Can you explain?

200 b_sharp  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 12:21:13pm

re: #195 Shiplord Kirel

Oh, one last thing before I load the ladder and run off: Thanks for a polite and frank exchange of views. Too rare these days and one of the reasons I keep coming back here.

You are quite welcome. And stop calling me Frank.

201 robdouth  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 12:21:28pm

re: #178 BigPapa

It’s not a strawman in that I wasn’t speaking to you specifically about your exact points, especially since this is a free form open forum of multiple nuanced conversations. You never said ‘black history month… reverse racism.’

Ignorance and fear is the main problem regarding race. Denial is a symptom of that.

Ok, you’re response was directly to his point, and mentioned black history month, which I had mentioned as an example of why I don’t think denial is the main factor anymore. I think it’s definitional that ignorance and fear are the main factors of racism. If you understand that race has no meaning in that we are all the same, and you have no fear of that which is different, then of course there won’t be problems of racism.

202 Randall Gross  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 12:22:59pm

re: #197 Solomon2

Nobody’s accusing you of being racist because of discussing cultural and genetic differences, you are being questioned because you seem to equate cultural and genetic differences with race.

To you the “Japanese” appear to be a race — they are not.

203 Kronocide  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 12:23:23pm

re: #191 robdouth


I guess a better question would be, do you think the policies of racial preferences counteracting the biases in society working against minorities nets to a loss or gain for white people. Or something asking them which group is worse off.

Why ask the question in and of itself? The question should be asked first if these policies nets to a loss or gain for all people.

204 robdouth  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 12:23:37pm

re: #195 Shiplord Kirel

Oh, one last thing before I load the ladder and run off: Thanks for a polite and frank exchange of views. Too rare these days and one of the reasons I keep coming back here.

Yes, thank you, and I appreciate your helping me understand other comments. I was somewhat on gaurd expecting attacks, and that’s my fault for assuming and not giving the benefit of the doubt.

205 robdouth  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 12:28:00pm

re: #199 Obdicut

It’s both. I don’t know why you discount that possibility. Can you explain?

Perhaps it is both, but maybe I should say that income is a much greater factor than race. I should have been more clear. My friend who was a criminal justice major showed me one of his books for a class: The rich get richer, the poor get prison.

Because it’s hard to isolate for income and race separately it’s hard to know what percentage of incarceration stems from whether you were white or black, and what part is because you were poor and couldn’t afford adequate defense.

For example, if demographic statistics show that the African Americans are convicted moreso than whites in a given area, can you then cross-reference the average median income and see if it’s because their white/black, or because their’ rich/poor.

206 robdouth  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 12:29:19pm

re: #203 BigPapa

Why ask the question in and of itself? The question should be asked first if these policies nets to a loss or gain for all people.

I don’t understand you’re point. Are you saying this question should be asked of the government? What do you mean with regards to this poll?

207 Obdicut  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 12:31:09pm

re: #205 robdouth

Perhaps it is both, but maybe I should say that income is a much greater factor than race.

It’s not.


Because it’s hard to isolate for income and race separately it’s hard to know what percentage of incarceration stems from whether you were white or black, and what part is because you were poor and couldn’t afford adequate defense.

It’s actually rather easy to control for that. There are plenty of poor white people arrested too, you know.

Have you looked at any of the actual studies and data on this subject?


For example, if demographic statistics show that the African Americans are convicted moreso than whites in a given area, can you then cross-reference the average median income and see if it’s because their white/black, or because their’ rich/poor.

Yes.

208 Solomon2  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 12:33:13pm

re: #202 Thanos

Nobody’s accusing you of being racist because of discussing cultural and genetic differences, you are being questioned because you seem to equate cultural and genetic differences with race.

Didn’t I back this up in the sickle-cell example?

Don’t you agree that even though I didn’t express a derogatory opinion of any ethnic or national group, I still am considered a “racist” and someone beyond the pale, to be shunned, ridiculed, or shamed on that account?

209 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 12:34:12pm

re: #20 Solomon2

But aren’t we carrying this too far? One doesn’t greet a Japanese with an open palm and direct eye contact; that is considered bad etiquette. You bow instead. Am I a racist for offering to bow before extending my hand?

You don’t understand the difference between race and etiquette?

210 wrenchwench  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 12:34:27pm

re: #208 Solomon2

Really all you did was make yourself look bad.

211 Solomon2  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 12:35:37pm

re: #210 wrenchwench

Really all you did was make yourself look bad.

You don’t think this shows an intolerant society as well?

212 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 12:36:28pm

re: #36 Solomon2

Of course it is a “culture” issue! But there isn’t any reason I can’t be accused of racism for being “culturally sensitive”, is there?

There’s also no reason you can’t be accused of being an idiot. Sir, you are an idiot.

213 Coracle  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 12:36:29pm

re: #208 Solomon2

Didn’t I back this up in the sickle-cell example?

Don’t you agree that even though I didn’t express a derogatory opinion of any ethnic or national group, I still am considered a “racist” and someone beyond the pale, to be shunned, ridiculed, or shamed on that account?

“Differences between peoples - how they think, personal inclinations, physical prowess, inclination to intellectual achievement, acceptable social conduct - do exist.” _Is_ derogatory. You _have_ expressed it. You _are_ racist.

I think you should be called out as such, and have the courage to own up to it.

214 Randall Gross  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 12:36:56pm

re: #208 Solomon2

I don’t think you are a racist, you are however propagating some ignorant myths expoused by the scientific racialists I mentioned above. e.g. as has been pointed out, sickle cell is not confined to a single race.

215 Solomon2  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 12:37:56pm

re: #212 SanFranciscoZionist

There’s also no reason you can’t be accused of being an idiot. Sir, you are an idiot.

Explain.

216 Kronocide  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 12:38:23pm

re: #211 Solomon2

You don’t think this shows an intolerant society as well?

You’re trying way too hard. You have repeatedly confused race/environment/genetics/etiquette. A few gave you some harsh responses on a blog.

When you live with discrimination due to your skin color then you can claim to live in an intolerant society. Ask Shirley Sherrod about intolerance.

217 Obdicut  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 12:38:28pm

re: #215 Solomon2

Explain.

GAZE.

218 wrenchwench  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 12:38:43pm

re: #211 Solomon2

You don’t think this shows an intolerant society as well?

If by “society” you mean me, and if by “intolerant” you mean “doesn’t put up with bullshit”, then yes.

219 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 12:39:50pm

re: #50 Alouette

That is a cultural custom, not a racial characteristic.

Which can be observed by the fact that a white guy doing business in Japan will bow, and a Japanese-American executive will shake hands and make eye contact.

220 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 12:40:32pm

re: #53 b_sharp

Even though I’m not an American (beyond being a North American) I signed the pledge.

You can have faith in us and help up out anyway. In fact, I’d say you’re doing that by participating in these discussions.

221 jamesfirecat  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 12:40:58pm

re: #211 Solomon2

You don’t think this shows an intolerant society as well?

I find nothing wrong with a society that refuses to tolerate intolerance.

222 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 12:42:17pm

re: #63 Obdicut

One of the best scenes in The Searchers is the one where Ethan shoots out the dead Comanche’s eyes— without his eyes, he’s doomed to wander forever in the spirit world.

Ethan is the character who knows most about the Comanche, and hates them the most as well. A lot of racists have deep, deep understanding of the other culture— they’re obsessed with it.

It’s one of the creepier forms of racism.

One that is being pathetically attempted by the folks with their dogs down Temecula way.

223 Kronocide  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 12:42:40pm

re: #219 SanFranciscoZionist

Which can be observed by the fact that a white guy doing business in Japan will bow, and a Japanese-American executive will shake hands and make eye contact.

I’m sure the Japanese businessmen are used to etiquette deficient US businessmen by now and rarely take offense.

If only they can isolate the etiquette gene and give it to all… and isolate the asshole gene….

224 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 12:43:07pm

re: #64 darthstar

The last time I saw a 100% vote on anything, it was when Saddam Hussein was ‘re-elected’ in Iraq.

He only got 99.98%. When his advisors asked what more he could want, he said, the names and addresses of the 0.02%.

225 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 12:43:29pm

re: #65 robdouth

I would guess Lady Gaga doesn’t sing that much better than you…

You ain’t heard me sing!

226 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 12:44:37pm

re: #66 Obdicut

Even that doesn’t actually exist. For any feature you mention, you can find a member of that ‘race’ who doesn’t have it.

Race and culture, culture and race…I once worked with a woman for three months before it suddenly dawned on me that she was black.

227 Solomon2  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 12:44:55pm

re: #216 BigPapa

You’re trying way too hard. You have repeatedly confused race/environment/genetics/etiquette.

So you maintain that everyone from classical Greek writers to twentieth-century historians like Will Durant were all “confused”?

A few gave you some harsh responses on a blog.

Oh?

228 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 12:46:23pm

re: #72 Solomon2

Of course I did. But have we in America reached the point where we can once again discuss, if not recognize, the possibility of such differences openly - as, say, Marco Polo or Disraeli did - or must we wallow in self-imposed silence?

Teach the controversy!!

229 Coracle  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 12:47:00pm

re: #227 Solomon2

So you maintain that everyone from classical Greek writers to twentieth-century historians like Will Durant were all “confused”?

I maintain that one 21st-century blog commenter named Solomon2 is woefully ignorant, possibly willfully so.

230 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 12:47:31pm

re: #78 Thanos

Wow. Some of you are beginning to sound like the 1940 Encyclopedia Brittanica.

Can you be specific as to the differences you are thinking of?

No, he’s being kittenish. It’s all about ‘can’t we even think about these differences without being called racists?’.

231 Solomon2  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 12:47:43pm

re: #221 jamesfirecat

I find nothing wrong with a society that refuses to tolerate intolerance.

I do indeed question if there is something wrong with a society that won’t tolerate intolerance. I am no fan of political correctness.

232 Kronocide  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 12:48:00pm

re: #227 Solomon2

Oh?

I maintain that you are wrong. Don’t fall behind Greek writers.

Doh!

233 Randall Gross  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 12:48:52pm

re: #230 SanFranciscoZionist

Yes, I think he wants to be a victim, and if you want to be a victim I’m always glad to help out with downdings.

234 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 12:49:08pm

re: #79 cliffster

That’s funny, but true. Widening rights of self-identification..

me -> me family -> my friends -> my town -> my country

The Beduin say: “Me against my brother, my brother and I against our cousin, me, my brother and our cousin against the stranger.”

235 Solomon2  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 12:49:44pm

re: #228 SanFranciscoZionist

Teach the controversy!!

I think that is indeed the most constructive approach.

236 jamesfirecat  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 12:50:24pm

re: #230 SanFranciscoZionist

No, he’s being kittenish. It’s all about ‘can’t we even think about these differences without being called racists?’.

What do you mean he’s being kittenish? Kittens are cute loveable fuzzballs!

237 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 12:52:29pm

re: #92 robdouth

I can’t get behind this. If you don’t teach a child one way or the other about race, they will ignore it. In that case, ignorance is bliss, but having gone through public school and a public university, their may be instances of individual denial, but not as a society. So much of schooling deals with race, every year an entire month is dedicated to the history of one race, so it’s almost impossible to deny.

This doesn’t mean there aren’t problems, but I whole-heartedly disagree that the main problem is denial.

Actually, there was an interesting article in Newsweek a while ago, that suggested that we do children a disservice by not talking to them about race. They notice physical differences, and instead of giving sensible explanations, they way we do for gender differences, we become embarassed because the kid is noticing race. The child sees this, determines that racial differences are bad and embarassing…

238 Obdicut  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 12:53:33pm

re: #236 jamesfirecat

[Link: www.cracked.com…]

239 jamesfirecat  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 12:53:34pm

re: #231 Solomon2

I do indeed question if there is something wrong with a society that won’t tolerate intolerance. I am no fan of political correctness.

I’ll be worried that our intolerance of intolerance has gone too far when if someone announces that they’re a member of the KKK or a Neo-Nazi in a public place, they get beaten to a bloody pulp.

If you can’t handle getting verbally smacked around on the internet by people more informed on this issue than you maybe you should try growing some thicker scales…


Also I’m waiting to see you talk about

“Differences between peoples - how they think, personal inclinations, physical prowess, inclination to intellectual achievement, acceptable social conduct - do exist”

And prove it.

Will it be a stand up routine?

See white people think like this, and black people think like this!

240 Charles Johnson  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 12:56:16pm

re: #208 Solomon2

Oh, stop whining and defend your opinions if you can. Complaining about how mean people are being to you is tedious and annoying.

You said race is responsible for intelligence and social behavior. What exactly did you mean by that?

241 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 12:57:35pm

re: #119 Cato the Elder

What do you get if you mate a liberal pygmy woman to a six-foot, six-inch blond Swedish fascist.

A human baby. QED.

Albeit, one doomed to very strange Thanksgiving dinners for the rest of its life.

242 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 12:58:42pm

re: #128 webevintage

Iowa GOP Will Impeach Obama, For Accepting Nobel Prize

[Link: wonkette.com…]

The GOP…providing you hours of entertainment since Jan. 21, 2009.

Didn’t Teddy Roosevelt also accept a Nobel?

243 Coracle  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 12:59:44pm

re: #242 SanFranciscoZionist

Didn’t Teddy Roosevelt also accept a Nobel?

I guess they could deport Krugman, too. Probably a side benefit. /

244 Solomon2  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 1:00:26pm

re: #239 jamesfirecatAlso I’m waiting to see you talk about

“Differences between peoples - how they think, personal inclinations, physical prowess, inclination to intellectual achievement, acceptable social conduct - do exist”

Do I really need to find specific examples? Isn’t it enough to prove that such difference CAN exist? Here, I imagine you’ll find this derivation particularly offensive: link

245 Kronocide  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 1:00:42pm

re: #240 Charles


You said race is responsible for intelligence and social behavior. What exactly did you mean by that?

And etiquette! The Japanese have ‘Bow Look Away’ Gene! LOL

246 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 1:01:08pm

re: #133 Solomon2

It is a very good example of a gene that is not tied to any particular ‘race’, but will surface in any group that lives in that area for any amount of time.

That may be how modern science looked at it, but in the past Western observers would say something like, “Negroes and Indians are adapted to their harsh environment; white men are not.” Wouldn’t such people be labeled “racists” today?

Jesus, that’s the most twisted attempt at argument I’ve seen in an age.

People in the past had less scientific research and context available to them. That doesn’t make them stupid, but in many cases made them wrong. See: germ theory.

Now, are you trying to protect nineteenth century men of science from being wrongly accused of racism, or are you trying to suggest that we can think like them, despite evidence against their theories?

247 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 1:02:22pm

re: #136 darthstar

Or Keith Bechtol from Palo Alto who won the SF Marathon by two minutes, despite starting in the third tier of runners as he’d never competed in a marathon before.

Palo Alto, BTW, is home to the black squirrels. They are unique to the area, and very pretty.

My husband gives them a black-power salute whenever he sees them.

248 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 1:04:29pm

re: #148 Solomon2

Are you sure? Suppose I am a personnel officer in the State Dept. If I assign White Boy to, say, Burkina Faso he could come down with malaria in a few months, whereas if I assign an African-American with SCA he’ll almost certainly stay healthy for the duration of his tour. But don’t State Dept. policies forbid this sort of racial choice, even if it has a sound physiological basis to it?

Are you actually insane, or just hoping we’ll forget that nonsense about ‘intellectual achievement’ and ‘acceptable social behavior’ in your earlier posts?

249 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 1:05:34pm

re: #158 cliffster

I hate you.

Me too. I have short legs. Shapely enough, I suppose, but short.

250 Randall Gross  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 1:05:37pm

re: #244 Solomon2

What a lot of hypothetical happy horseshit. You speculate on whether a race might be morally superior to another. To which races do you refer in the real world? Why be hypothetical?

251 jamesfirecat  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 1:05:54pm

re: #244 Solomon2

Also I’m waiting to see you talk about

“Differences between peoples - how they think, personal inclinations, physical prowess, inclination to intellectual achievement, acceptable social conduct - do exist”

Do I really need to find specific examples? Isn’t it enough to prove that such difference CAN exist? Here, I imagine you’ll find this derivation particularly offensive: link

Okay I’ll try and read them with an open mind…

“That a “moral superiority” exists between them is certain, because this was the choice faced by the unlucky members of X and Z. “

Here’s my first problem, what neither moral system is superior to the other but instead the two are morally equivalent?

How can we be certain that Race X and Z while embracing the exact opposite moral systems, are not in effect embracing morally equivalent systems much as one might argue that while Andrew Ryan and Sophia Lambs moral systems have no intersection, neither is morally superior to the other as they are both equally repugnant?

252 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 1:06:40pm

re: #159 BigPapa

Brilliant statement SK. Many have locked onto the emphasis and not the honesty part, myself being guilty of being too caught up in the emphasis previously. I have been transitioning in the last few years helped along on LGF.

Just because there’s a Black History Month and not a White History Month doesn’t equate to reverse racism. To say so is ignorant of this point, or worse, demagoguery.

My school this past fall celebrated European American Heritage Month.

One of the black students pulled me aside to ask, quietly, if this was something that had been invented ‘so white people can have a month too’.

I said, “Yes, that’s basically it.”

She said, “OK, I just wanted to ask.”

253 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 1:07:04pm

re: #161 Gus 802

In other words assign someone for the physical characteristics rather than their qualifications? What next hiring only white people for Arctic expeditions?

Inupat would do just as well, no?

254 jamesfirecat  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 1:09:14pm

re: #244 Solomon2

Also I’m waiting to see you talk about

“Differences between peoples - how they think, personal inclinations, physical prowess, inclination to intellectual achievement, acceptable social conduct - do exist”

Do I really need to find specific examples? Isn’t it enough to prove that such difference CAN exist? Here, I imagine you’ll find this derivation particularly offensive: link

Also your argument argues to me that very different circumstances can create races with different moral systems, but not in any way argues that such differences can be seen in the modern day world.

So once again, what proof dd you have that


“Differences between peoples - how they think, personal inclinations, physical prowess, inclination to intellectual achievement, acceptable social conduct - do exist”

255 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 1:09:26pm

re: #179 Solomon2

re: #171 Fozzie Bear

Classical writers often assumed what we are referring to as “cultural” in this thread to be racial characteristics. It might be interesting to construct an experiment and see, for example, if the Japanese aversion to eye contact is innate rather than learned, but somehow I doubt it could happen, for it would give the researcher proposing it a bad name, yes? Now you can see how the failure to pursue this sort of study could be something that holds science back.

The answer to ‘innate rather than learned’, is quite simple, and can be determined by spending a little time with third or fourth generation Japanese Americans, as they shake hands, make eye contact, eat cheesburgers, and show their teeth in big happy American smiles.

256 Randall Gross  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 1:09:28pm

It’s not surprising in the least to me that Solomon also has a buttload of outright bigots in his blogroll either.

257 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 1:11:21pm

re: #211 Solomon2

You don’t think this shows an intolerant society as well?

No, but I think your posts show someone who desperately wants to be allowed to talk nineteenth century nonsense about race without facing any social consequences.

258 jamesfirecat  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 1:20:55pm

re: #244 Solomon2

Also I’m waiting to see you talk about

“Differences between peoples - how they think, personal inclinations, physical prowess, inclination to intellectual achievement, acceptable social conduct - do exist”

Do I really need to find specific examples? Isn’t it enough to prove that such difference CAN exist? Here, I imagine you’ll find this derivation particularly offensive: link

Finally I do feel that it rather is required for you to prove that specific examples do exist.

Because otherwise you’re arguing “what if?”

And if we’re going to argue “what if?”

I can respond “what if some nefarious person tried to design a robot built for trolling? This robot would not be able to perfectly mirror human thought processes but instead would be built with a pre-programmed set of conclusions. This robot would then be sent loose onto the web to troll by searching the web for any scrap of information that could possibly support, or if non was to be found, it would attempt as best it could to create some information to support its pre-programmed points.

After that it would seek out those who disagreed with those points and argue with them.

Surely this is all possible isn’t it?

Thus I put it to you, do you dream of electric sheep?


And that is why we argue with concrete examples, rather than saying “what if”.

259 Randall Gross  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 1:24:29pm

re: #258 jamesfirecat

Hey, I’d give you more updings if I could for working in the Phillip K. Dick quote.

260 b_sharp  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 1:24:36pm

re: #244 Solomon2

Also I’m waiting to see you talk about

“Differences between peoples - how they think, personal inclinations, physical prowess, inclination to intellectual achievement, acceptable social conduct - do exist”

Do I really need to find specific examples? Isn’t it enough to prove that such difference CAN exist? Here, I imagine you’ll find this derivation particularly offensive: link

I just went and read that essay of yours.

All I can say is Fuck you’re an idiot.

Good bye.

Don’t let the door hit you on the ass on the way out.

261 jamesfirecat  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 1:26:54pm

re: #259 Thanos

Hey, I’d give you more updings if I could for working in the Phillip K. Dick quote.

Normally I wouldn’t give three replies to the same post, but really I had a lot to say about it.

If you want to see me really unload on somebody lets find a guy who wants to argue about abortion or Marijuana!

My exuberance to post frequently outstrips my knowledge of the subject at hand, but those are two subjects I did a fair bit of studying about for various philosophy classes.

262 b_sharp  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 1:27:23pm

re: #251 jamesfirecat

Okay I’ll try and read them with an open mind…

“That a “moral superiority” exists between them is certain, because this was the choice faced by the unlucky members of X and Z. “

Here’s my first problem, what neither moral system is superior to the other but instead the two are morally equivalent?

How can we be certain that Race X and Z while embracing the exact opposite moral systems, are not in effect embracing morally equivalent systems much as one might argue that while Andrew Ryan and Sophia Lambs moral systems have no intersection, neither is morally superior to the other as they are both equally repugnant?

They were fucking coerced and it isn’t genetic. Race is based on phenotype which is based on genotype and development.

It’s a garbage argument, from a Philosophy 101 failure.

263 b_sharp  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 1:29:20pm

re: #255 SanFranciscoZionist

The answer to ‘innate rather than learned’, is quite simple, and can be determined by spending a little time with third or fourth generation Japanese Americans, as they shake hands, make eye contact, eat cheesburgers, and show their teeth in big happy American smiles.

My Japanese daughter-in-law’s parents came over for the wedding. They looked me in the eye, shook my hand and I bowed to them.

264 Laughing Gas  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 1:34:53pm

There is a rather disturbing subset of the right, the so-called human biodiversity (HBD) believers. The most prominent pundit belonging to the school is Steve Sailer, who most of you probably have heard of. These are the people who believe that blacks, and other groups, are biologically inferior to whites and Asians. They are strong believers in the material in “The Bell Curve” and other similar works. I’m willing to bet many of these wingnut bloggers are believers in HBD, though they may not outwardly admit it.

265 Fearless Fred  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 1:37:08pm

re: #4 b_sharp

3) Do you think blacks have achieved racial equality, will soon achieve racial equality, will not achieve racial equality in your lifetime, or will never achieve racial equality?

But, what’s ‘racial equality’? Aren’t there differences among the races (cultures?)? I don’t see how policies forcing one race to give everything to another race results in ‘equality’. Seems like that type policy would result in the race being given everything simply wishing more stuff be given them, and the race forced to give their stuff away simply tying to hide all their stuff from the government. What’s the evidence that government force will substantially reduce ‘race’ problems? We already live in a country where it’s illegal and considered immoral to harm another person. Isn’t that enough? Why do we now have to have our stuff forced away from us by a bunch of liberals and given to some particular race they’re feeling guilty about? Why is it assumed force will solve problems of differences among races?

266 Charles Johnson  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 1:38:03pm

re: #264 Juice

There is a rather disturbing subset of the right, the so-called human biodiversity (HBD) believers. The most prominent pundit belonging to the school is Steve Sailer, who most of you probably have heard of. These are the people who believe that blacks, and other groups, are biologically inferior to whites and Asians. They are strong believers in the material in “The Bell Curve” and other similar works. I’m willing to bet many of these wingnut bloggers are believers in HBD, though they may not outwardly admit it.

“Human biodiversity?” So that’s what they’re calling it now?

Sailer is also one of the people behind the hate site VDARE, where Michelle Malkin is a contributor.

267 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 1:38:58pm

re: #265 Fearless Fred

3) Do you think blacks have achieved racial equality, will soon achieve racial equality, will not achieve racial equality in your lifetime, or will never achieve racial equality?

But, what’s ‘racial equality’? Aren’t there differences among the races (cultures?)? I don’t see how policies forcing one race to give everything to another race results in ‘equality’. Seems like that type policy would result in the race being given everything simply wishing more stuff be given them, and the race forced to give their stuff away simply tying to hide all their stuff from the government. What’s the evidence that government force will substantially reduce ‘race’ problems? We already live in a country where it’s illegal and considered immoral to harm another person. Isn’t that enough? Why do we now have to have our stuff forced away from us by a bunch of liberals and given to some particular race they’re feeling guilty about? Why is it assumed force will solve problems of differences among races?

Is there enough room for you in your house, with all those strawmen taking up space everywhere?

268 Randall Gross  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 1:40:07pm

I’m off to rehab see you all in a bit

269 wrenchwench  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 1:40:22pm

re: #264 Juice

There is a rather disturbing subset of the right, the so-called human biodiversity (HBD) believers. The most prominent pundit belonging to the school is Steve Sailer, who most of you probably have heard of. These are the people who believe that blacks, and other groups, are biologically inferior to whites and Asians. They are strong believers in the material in “The Bell Curve” and other similar works. I’m willing to bet many of these wingnut bloggers are believers in HBD, though they may not outwardly admit it.


Here’s a link about them, with some names.

270 hugh59  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 1:42:28pm

Lots of hatred towards conservatives here. Just checking in to see if things have improved. They have not.

271 b_sharp  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 1:43:41pm

re: #265 Fearless Fred

3) Do you think blacks have achieved racial equality, will soon achieve racial equality, will not achieve racial equality in your lifetime, or will never achieve racial equality?

But, what’s ‘racial equality’? Aren’t there differences among the races (cultures?)? I don’t see how policies forcing one race to give everything to another race results in ‘equality’. Seems like that type policy would result in the race being given everything simply wishing more stuff be given them, and the race forced to give their stuff away simply tying to hide all their stuff from the government. What’s the evidence that government force will substantially reduce ‘race’ problems? We already live in a country where it’s illegal and considered immoral to harm another person. Isn’t that enough? Why do we now have to have our stuff forced away from us by a bunch of liberals and given to some particular race they’re feeling guilty about? Why is it assumed force will solve problems of differences among races?

I’m sorry, but you can’t talk to me. The back of the bus is that way.

272 jamesfirecat  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 1:44:09pm

re: #270 hugh59

Lots of hatred towards conservatives here. Just checking in to see if things have improved. They have not.


Really? Some of my best friends on this board are conservatives, Dark Falcon is a conservative, and people like Solomon2 are not “conservatives” worthy of the name.

I respect conservatives when they bring respectable arguments to the table.

273 b_sharp  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 1:45:03pm

re: #270 hugh59

Lots of hatred towards conservatives here. Just checking in to see if things have improved. They have not.

Lots of hate towards racists, I agree.

But unless you equate conservative with racist you’re wrong.

274 simoom  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 2:11:21pm

Kind of related, from the CBS/NYT Tea Party poll back in April:
[Link: www.cbsnews.com…]

Asked if too much has been made of the problems facing African-Americans, 52 percent said yes.

That compares to 28 percent of Americans overall who say too much has been made of the problems facing blacks, and 23 percent of non-Tea Party whites who say as much.

Sixteen percent of Tea Party supporters say whites have more opportunities to get ahead, compared to 31 percent of all Americans who believe whites have more opportunities to get ahead.

Seventy-three percent of Tea Party supporters say both races have equal opportunity, compared to 60 percent of Americans overall.

A majority of Tea Party suppers believe the Obama administration treats both blacks and whites the same way. But one in four believe the administration favors blacks over whites, an opinion shared by just 11 percent of Americans overall and seven percent of non-Tea Party whites.

I’d imagine the numbers on some of these questions have shifted since then, since it’s only been the last month or two that the Right-media Black-Supremacist-Obama-Admin narrative has been pushed into overdrive.

275 robdouth  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 2:13:30pm

re: #237 SanFranciscoZionist

Actually, there was an interesting article in Newsweek a while ago, that suggested that we do children a disservice by not talking to them about race. They notice physical differences, and instead of giving sensible explanations, they way we do for gender differences, we become embarassed because the kid is noticing race. The child sees this, determines that racial differences are bad and embarassing…

I guess that depends on the age and how much they have been socialized and the attitude of their parents. You put 2 year olds together, they don’t care what the race of their playpal is. If they ask questions about race, it’s from a point of pure innocence wondering why there is a difference, and at that age, what is around you is the norm, so if you haven’t seen someone of a different race at 2, it’s bound to lead to some embarassing questions (for the parents who are socialized to be hypersensitive to race) since they are innocent to racial tension and bigotry.

276 [deleted]  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 3:21:03pm
277 Fearless Fred  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 3:24:52pm

re: #271 b_sharp

I’m sorry, but you can’t talk to me. The back of the bus is that way.

Is that a city bus, or a privately owned bus? If I’m black, and my tax dollars didn’t pay for that bus, I’ve got no complaint. You’re the fool. I’ll take my business elsewhere! Hah

278 Randall Gross  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 3:29:25pm

re: #277 Fearless Fred

Is that a city bus, or a privately owned bus? If I’m black, and my tax dollars didn’t pay for that bus, I’ve got no complaint. You’re the fool. I’ll take my business elsewhere! Hah

Either way it’s traveling on a public freaking road sustained by public tax dollars, and it’s covered by equal protection, so if you owned the bus and discriminated like that you would end up in court and you would rightly lose the case due to your bigotry.

279 Charles Johnson  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 3:53:54pm

Yowza.

280 Steve  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 4:46:32pm

So, now that you all have trashed this survey, “How would you answer it?” and “How would you write a survey?”

I will check back later. I have to go to work.

281 Solomon2  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 4:57:20pm

re: #260 b_sharp

I just went and read that essay of yours.
All I can say is Fuck you’re an idiot.
Good bye.
Don’t let the door hit you on the ass on the way out.

If the only reply you can come up with is an ad hominem attack, why should your opinion have any credibility?

282 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 4:59:40pm

re: #281 Solomon2

If the only reply you can come up with is an ad hominem attack, why should your opinion have any credibility?

hahaha yyeeeaaah, you’re just doing so well here, your notions make a lot of sense to me

283 Solomon2  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 5:01:16pm

re: #257 SanFranciscoZionist

No, but I think your posts show someone who desperately wants to be allowed to talk nineteenth century nonsense about race without facing any social consequences.

I think you might be on the right track, in the sense that some historians may have been thinking in terms of culture plus descent when speaking of “race”.

Shabbes comes, gotta go.

284 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 5:02:02pm

re: #280 Steve

So, now that you all have trashed this survey, “How would you answer it?” and “How would you write a survey?”

I will check back later. I have to go to work.

Hi there, class of 2004!

285 jamesfirecat  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 7:41:11pm

re: #281 Solomon2

If the only reply you can come up with is an ad hominem attack, why should your opinion have any credibility?

How about me?

I didn’t write out those THREE responses to your post just for my health you know!

286 changomo  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 8:14:25pm

Just curious,

Does anybody here disagree that Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are race baiters?

Again, an honest question - and please intelligent responses only - if you use an ad hominem, you’ve just stooped the the very same level you accuse some GOPers off.

287 Obdicut  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 8:58:09pm

re: #286 changomo

I doubt that you can define ad hominem.

Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson have both played the ‘race card’ inappropriately. They have both also done very real, credibly things in the service of civil rights.

288 changomo  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 9:00:26pm

on #12, that the Democratic party tries to convince Blacks and Hispanics that the GOP hates them…. I know a picture is worth a thousand words

Image: jimmy_carter_michael_moore.jpg

The guy that suggests the NRA is really the KKK, gets the best seat in the house….

289 changomo  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 9:08:02pm

re: #287 Obdicut

Hopefully a person can post a dissenting viewpoint here without first being personally attacked. My post was also a test, that if I can post something respectful (with no lewd or insult to anyone personally) would it be possible to get a first response that is just as civilized?

Obdicut, the irony of your first sentence is simply sad, again - I find more and more credence to the view that the level of tolerance to different viewpoints here is sadly lacking.
***

Of course not 100% of wha Shaprton and Jackson has done is race baiting - that’s a non-sequitur.

I would say that the mainstream view that they often race bait and are self proclaimed “Leaders of African Americans” (I have even witnessed some African American cringe when they are referred too)

I would say that for the most part they are race-baiters - I don’t see the question illegitimate.

290 jamesfirecat  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 9:27:39pm

re: #288 changomo

on #12, that the Democratic party tries to convince Blacks and Hispanics that the GOP hates them… I know a picture is worth a thousand words

Image: jimmy_carter_michael_moore.jpg

The guy that suggests the NRA is really the KKK, gets the best seat in the house…

So you deny the southern strategy existed?

You deny that the GOP has been backing Arizona on its racist crime bill?

You deny all the dog whistling that’s been going on recently?

The GOP may not flat out actually hate blacks and Hispanics, but at the its best its indifferent to them…

291 changomo  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 9:31:23pm

jamesfirecat -

Strawman, did I mention any of the things you said? Did I say the GOP does not have racist elements?

I addressed two questions on the poll. I will be happy to address each one, but I thought I would start with two.

#11 and #12

That Al Sharpton & Jesse Jackson are race baitors
That the Democratic party uses the notion of racism as a reason not to vote for the GOP.

If you can stay on topic and answer those two questions first, I would be happy to answer yours.

292 Obdicut  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 9:33:32pm

re: #289 changomo

There’s no irony in my first sentence at all. That’s not what ad hominem means.

I would say that for the most part they are race-baiters - I don’t see the question illegitimate.

Of course you would.

293 jamesfirecat  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 9:37:23pm

re: #291 changomo

jamesfirecat -

Strawman, did I mention any of the things you said? Did I say the GOP does not have racist elements?

I addressed two questions on the poll. I will be happy to address each one, but I thought I would start with two.

#11 and #12

That Al Sharpton & Jesse Jackson are race baitors
That the Democratic party uses the notion of racism as a reason not to vote for the GOP.

If you can stay on topic and answer those two questions first, I would be happy to answer yours.

Let me address the issue then.

“That the Democratic party uses the notion of racism as a reason not to vote for the GOP.”

If the GOP is behaving in ways that make even the head of the RNC himself an African American unable to come up with a reason why other African Americans should vote for the GOP then, I honestly think that that the GOP must be in some way racist or indifferent enough that the Democrats are speaking truth to power.

That said I’ll need you to provide me with some examples of “Democrats using the notion of racism as a reason not to vote for the GOP” before I can come to a solid conclusion, since the devil is of course in the details.

294 changomo  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 10:13:18pm

How’s this?

Carter: “an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward Obama due to his race”

Do I need to go into what Keith Olberman says?

Here is a more recent one:

[Link: nashvillecitypaper.com…]

and another one:

[Link: www.wistv.com…]

sigh…and another one….

“There’s only one kind of racism, and that’s the white supremacists, and a lot of the Republicans are,”

-Kevin Parker (D) NY

***
Remember, the point I brought up was #11 and #12 of the poll - let me remind you - I think they both proved accurate in their responses….If you are ready to concede, I’ll be happy to answer your questions.

295 changomo  Fri, Jul 30, 2010 10:18:40pm

re: #292 Obdicut

Obdicut,

The very first thing you did was make an ad-hominem attack on me, before even addressing my point

You said - >” I doubt that you can define ad hominem.”

This is just sad, you accuse me of not understanding what ad-hominem mean and you can’t even identify it yourself when you’ve just done it.

Just a refresher:
[Link: en.wikipedia.org…]

“Ad hominem abusive usually involves insulting or belittling one’s opponent in order to invalidate their argument”

As far as Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson - I’m okay to agree to disagree, you think they are great civil rights leaders, I think they are race-baitors - I’m at peace with that.

296 boxhead  Sat, Jul 31, 2010 12:08:37am

My jaw has dropped a foot reading the poll numbers. I should not be surprised, but damn! If this is not proof of parallel universes, then I don’t know what would be a stronger case…

297 jamesfirecat  Sat, Jul 31, 2010 4:41:21am

re: #294 changomo

How’s this?

Carter: “an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward Obama due to his race”

Do I need to go into what Keith Olberman says?

Here is a more recent one:

[Link: nashvillecitypaper.com…]

and another one:

[Link: www.wistv.com…]

sigh…and another one…

“There’s only one kind of racism, and that’s the white supremacists, and a lot of the Republicans are,”

-Kevin Parker (D) NY

***
Remember, the point I brought up was #11 and #12 of the poll - let me remind you - I think they both proved accurate in their responses…If you are ready to concede, I’ll be happy to answer your questions.

I disagree with what Carter says, I think that its just the loudest voices (the Tea party) are the most out of touch.

“Do I need to go into what Keith Olberman says?”

Well yes you would if you expect me to comment on it.

On your “more recent one”

The quote is

““I think some of the people who are against Obama are just against Obama because he’s African-American.”

Are you going to say that this isn’t true?

Because it so obviously is. You can quibble with saying “A lot” “most” “all” “many” “a great deal” of the people who oppose Obama are racist, but you can’t disagree with “some” Charles has provided WAY TOO MUCH proof that there exists at least “some” people who are against Obama just because he’s African American.

Observe…

[Link: blackchristiannews.com…]


[Link: simmerdown3.wordpress.com…]

Check and mate on the issue of “some”.


I really don’t get your next quote

What part of it are we objecting to?

That certain states do have high African American Populations?

Clarify things a little and I’ll comment on it (just woke up so I’m a little brain foggy)


Finally as for

““There’s only one kind of racism, and that’s the white supremacists, and a lot of the Republicans are,”

-Kevin Parker (D) NY

I disagree with Mr. Parker.

I think that it was a wrong headed thing to say.

It is correct that being a white supremacist is a kind of racism and it probably applies to some Republicans but I feel that to say it applies to “a lot” is to over step the bounds of what we know.


As for

”
Remember, the point I brought up was #11 and #12 of the poll - let me remind you - I think they both proved accurate in their responses…If you are ready to concede, I’ll be happy to answer your questions.”

I was born in the late (late) 1980’s so I don’t consider myself long in the tooth enough to make valid comments about Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson, other than to say Mr. Jackson seems to have gotten (or was already) a bit crazy recently what with his talking about wanting to take Obama’s nuts away.

Need another post….

298 jamesfirecat  Sat, Jul 31, 2010 4:58:38am

re: #295 changomo

Obdicut,

The very first thing you did was make an ad-hominem attack on me, before even addressing my point

You said - >” I doubt that you can define ad hominem.”

This is just sad, you accuse me of not understanding what ad-hominem mean and you can’t even identify it yourself when you’ve just done it.

Just a refresher:
[Link: en.wikipedia.org…]

“Ad hominem abusive usually involves insulting or belittling one’s opponent in order to invalidate their argument”

As far as Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson - I’m okay to agree to disagree, you think they are great civil rights leaders, I think they are race-baitors - I’m at peace with that.

To continue…

I would say “no” to the following question…

11) Do you believe that the Democratic Party falsely tries to convince black and Hispanic Americans that Republicans hate them as a political strategy?

A) Yes, they do: 100% (63 votes)
B) No, they don’t: 0% (0 votes)
C) Most Republicans do hate black & hispanic Americans: 0% (0 votes)

For one main reason.

“hate them as a political strategy”.

We have seen Jimmy Carter who isn’t running for anything and is already on the fringe (or should be) of the modern day left some guy from New York which is one of the bluest of blue states at the moment. Also the quote that you mentioned I can only find it via google with no video of it via thee sights which lean somewhat heavily rightward which makes me really wonder about the context involved just to be on the safe side.

I feel it is not a a “political strategy” because at the moment we’re only seeing isolated incidents of it here or there, being mentioned by people who aren’t even running, or in close races to begin with.

“The Southern Strategy” was a strategy (aside from the tautological nature of that statement) because it was conceived and enacted from the top down, rather than an idea that shows up every now and again. (Hell Jimmy Carter’s Statements on Hamas have made it pretty clear he’ll say any damn thing…)

What you’ve shown me so far is a few crazy people on the left saying things they shouldn’t.

Can you show me more respected Democrats making such statements and then sticking by them with the support of the rest of the party?

299 jamesfirecat  Sat, Jul 31, 2010 5:08:41am

re: #294 changomo

How’s this?

Carter: “an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward Obama due to his race”

Do I need to go into what Keith Olberman says?

Here is a more recent one:

[Link: nashvillecitypaper.com…]

and another one:

[Link: www.wistv.com…]

sigh…and another one…

“There’s only one kind of racism, and that’s the white supremacists, and a lot of the Republicans are,”

-Kevin Parker (D) NY

***
Remember, the point I brought up was #11 and #12 of the poll - let me remind you - I think they both proved accurate in their responses…If you are ready to concede, I’ll be happy to answer your questions.

Okay found some more stuff on Kevin Parker….


[Link: wcbstv.com…]

[Link: www.nydailynews.com…]

Ahh sweet context….

The ramblings of a man who is clearly a few votes short of a filibuster do not a political strategy make.

This guy is obviously at least a little unballanced and thus anything he says should be taken with an entire dump truck of salt….

300 Obdicut  Sat, Jul 31, 2010 8:19:21am

re: #295 changomo

Obdicut,

The very first thing you did was make an ad-hominem attack on me, before even addressing my point

You said - >” I doubt that you can define ad hominem.”

This is just sad, you accuse me of not understanding what ad-hominem mean and you can’t even identify it yourself when you’ve just done it.

Just a refresher:
[Link: en.wikipedia.org…]

“Ad hominem abusive usually involves insulting or belittling one’s opponent in order to invalidate their argument”

Right. You don’t understand ad homimen, as I thought.

I didn’t say that your argument was incorrect because you were stupid— that is an ad hominem attack. It’s a personal attack on you. Saying that you don’t understand what ad hominem means is not a personal attack— especially when you then demonstrate you don’t.


As far as Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson - I’m okay to agree to disagree, you think they are great civil rights leaders, I think they are race-baitors - I’m at peace with that.

And again: it’s not either/or. I have no idea why you think the only possibility is ‘race baiter’ or ‘great civil rights leader’. They were great civil rights leaders who have, as their stars have fallen, turned more to race-baiting— but that just makes the question require a more nuanced answer.

301 emcesq  Sat, Jul 31, 2010 9:39:58am

I take exception to the conclusions made on the basis of sample size of 63-some and which, clearly, was not randomly selected.

“Lies, damned lies, and statistics” - Benjamin Disraeli

302 Charles Johnson  Sat, Jul 31, 2010 10:13:15am

I’m no longer surprised that there are actually people who will defend this.

303 b_sharp  Sat, Jul 31, 2010 10:26:58am

re: #302 Charles

I’m no longer surprised that there are actually people who will defend this.

Surprised, no. Annoyed, yes.

304 jamesfirecat  Sat, Jul 31, 2010 10:51:17am

re: #301 emcesq

I take exception to the conclusions made on the basis of sample size of 63-some and which, clearly, was not randomly selected.

“Lies, damned lies, and statistics” - Benjamin Disraeli

“Some of which clearly was not randomly selected…”


That’s kind of of the point in this case.

How are we suppose to get a feel for where Right Wing Bloggers stand if we polled the entire blogging community at random!

305 Solomon2  Sat, Jul 31, 2010 6:54:04pm

re: #239 jamesfirecat

I’ll be worried that our intolerance of intolerance has gone too far when if someone announces that they’re a member of the KKK or a Neo-Nazi in a public place, they get beaten to a bloody pulp.

Then you’ll be worried far too late, for the Nazis prepared for the extermination of the Jews via dehumanizing propaganda first.

re: #251 jamesfirecat

“That a “moral superiority” exists between them is certain, because this was the choice faced by the unlucky members of X and Z. “

Here’s my first problem, what neither moral system is superior to the other but instead the two are morally equivalent?

How can we be certain that Race X and Z while embracing the exact opposite moral systems, are not in effect embracing morally equivalent systems much as one might argue that while Andrew Ryan and Sophia Lambs moral systems have no intersection, neither is morally superior to the other as they are both equally repugnant?

The “what [if] neither moral system is superior to the other but instead the two are morally equivalent? ” is a special case of the general case, unless it can be proved that the special case is the only one that exists.

Finally I do feel that it rather is required for you to prove that specific examples do exist.

Because otherwise you’re arguing “what if?”

Even without proving specific examples, I think the derivation is useful simply because it shows that one cannot take the moral equivalence of different cultures, peoples, or races for granted.

306 Obdicut  Sat, Jul 31, 2010 7:48:53pm

re: #305 Solomon2

Races don’t exist, no matter how hard you want them to.

Racists do. You’re one.

307 Solomon2  Sat, Jul 31, 2010 8:26:26pm

re: #306 Obdicut

re: #306 Obdicut

Races don’t exist, no matter how hard you want them to.

Racists do. You’re one.


Your proof?

308 jamesfirecat  Sat, Jul 31, 2010 9:12:42pm

re: #305 Solomon2

Even without proving specific examples, I think the derivation is useful simply because it shows that one cannot take the moral equivalence of different cultures, peoples, or races for granted.

Okay you know what I’ll give you that we can’t take the moral equivalence of different cultures or peoples (in then sense of we can’t take the moral equivalence of two different people) for granted.

However I don’t see how we can have entire races have lock stock and barrel cultural system without incredibly precise control.

Also here is the other problem with your example…

Even within the situation you’ve set up there is still going to be variation within the thought process of the races involved.

Maybe some members of Race X are cold blooded killers, because they’d be willing to end another life to prolong their own. Maybe some members of race X are revolutionaries who realize if they were all peaceful they’d be killed off as a species and the only way they can hope to rebel against their masters is to temporarily play the sick twisted game they’ve been forced into?


Maybe some members of race Z are saints who would be willing to give up their own lives if it saved that belonging to someone else. Maybe some members of race Z are like those of race Y who are just too meek and pathetic to think about rebelling or taking any sort of aggressive act?

We can’t be sure can we?

So even in the situation you set up, you can’t argue that race X and race Z have a coherent and shared moral system can you?

309 jamesfirecat  Sat, Jul 31, 2010 9:15:31pm

You know Charles these necro-threads are fun, you never know when you’re going to find another interesting surprise waiting for you!

Makes me think back to the Cinco De Mayo post, we were still arguing on that page for more than a week after the fact weren’t we?

310 changomo  Mon, Aug 2, 2010 11:52:37am

JamesFireCat:
First of all, let me say before I respond – that I do appreciate this lively discussion. I do want to note that you did not resort to personal attacks on my intelligence (As Obdicut has done) to prove your point. You have used intellectually honest debate – and I appreciate that. So thank you for engaging me honestly, and with respect. I will definitely return the favor.

Thanks for agreeing with me on Carter, I think he is not healthy for the Democratic Party. I appreciate your concession there. As far as Keith Oblberamn, you can think of him as the “Glen Beck/Rush Limbaugh” on the left. He says things like : [Link: txfx.net…]
I think most fairly minded liberals cringe when he opens his mouth, the same way fairly minded conservatives (like me) cringe when Beck opens his mouth – they are infotainment – rarely providing any constructive analysis.
You Said=On your “more recent one”
The quote is
““I think some of the people who are against Obama are just against Obama because he’s African-American.”
Are you going to say that this isn’t true?”
Of course some people are racists, and you’re right of course some people hate Obama just because he’s black – that’s true – but that is a non-sequitor. Ramsey made it very clear that he thought the MAIN reason people oppose Obama in Tennessee is due to race – why else would he say “one word: Appomattox?” Yes, he did say “some” because he’s too smart to say “all” since that impossible – but what is the context here? Why would he use Appomattox if he point was not to drive racism as the primary reason Tennessee is against Obama? Again, I would be happy to agree to disagree here, since I don’t think I can provide any more on this point other then to find a quote of Ramsey stupidly saying ALL republicans are racists. If you feel that Ramsey made the point of racism as only a tertiary point, well – like I said – I’ll agree to disagree.
You said->“I really don’t get your next quote
What part of it are we objecting to?
That certain states do have high African American Populations?”
Not a problem, thanks for giving me the chance to clarify - James Clyburn was talking Gov Sanford policies’ and implied the reason he has his policies is because the policies would affect African Americans detrimentally as his reason to his opposition to stimulus spending.

Again, thanks for agreeing that not the majority of Republicans are white supremacists – I agree with some sure are – but with the GOP voting in folks like Jindal and support of Nikkita in the south – I think that most republicans are not racist.

Thanks again, for your comments and candid response about Sharpton and Jackson, I believe the lack of rebuttals to my point they are race baiters puts most of us here on the same side.
You said->I would say “no” to the following question…
For one main reason.
“hate them as a political strategy”.
Can you show me more respected Democrats making such statements and then sticking by them with the support of the rest of the party?”

Okay how about Nancy Pelosi? That’s pretty high up there.
Here Pelosi characterizes conservative dissent to Obama’s policies with bigotry in the 70s
[Link: voices.washingtonpost.com…]
Or how about Howard Dean? Chairman of DNC from 05-09 now Chairman Emeritus
[Link: blogs.abcnews.com…]

311 changomo  Mon, Aug 2, 2010 11:54:41am

(cont)


Again, let me reiterate, I am not saying that are no racists in the GOP, of course they are, there are racists in every party – but I do believe the left tries to characterize racism as one of the main (if you look at LGF lately) *the main* reason why the right opposes Obama. Not his economic polices, not his social policies, but simply the color of his skin. This is something that I think does unfortunately exist, but is not the main reason the GOP rejects Obama – I think you would have the same reaction if Clinton won (except now you would get charges of sexism of our criticism)

P.S. as for the Southern Strategy, you’re right - but I like to focus things that occurred within my lifetime…..you go back enough and you’ll see intertwines views Remember what party Lincoln was from….

312 changomo  Mon, Aug 2, 2010 8:02:12pm

re: #300 Obdicut

obdicut….right… - the very first sentence to me was not an “insult” you were just making an observation…. hence it was not an ad-hominum attack on my intelligence to disprove my point - merely a point of view…

I must say, it is quite a stretch, but okay in civility- I’ll concede - you didn’t make an ad-hominum attack on my point - you merely insulted my intelligence for suggesting Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are race baiters.

As far as if they question of race baiting being (as you said) nuanced when it comes to these two - well, I’m happy to disagree.

You think they are complex human beings that can neither be defined as great civil rights leaders or race baiters. I hope you don’t consider me a racist if I think they are race baiters.

313 Obdicut  Tue, Aug 3, 2010 7:39:42am

re: #312 changomo

Well, right. I wasn’t saying your argument was invalid because of a personal characteristic.

I didn’t insult your intelligence at any point, either.

And I just think that you’re engaging in lazy, sloppy thinking if you just think of them as race baiters.

314 jamesfirecat  Tue, Aug 3, 2010 4:40:00pm

cre: #311 changomo

(cont)

Again, let me reiterate, I am not saying that are no racists in the GOP, of course they are, there are racists in every party – but I do believe the left tries to characterize racism as one of the main (if you look at LGF lately) *the main* reason why the right opposes Obama. Not his economic polices, not his social policies, but simply the color of his skin. This is something that I think does unfortunately exist, but is not the main reason the GOP rejects Obama – I think you would have the same reaction if Clinton won (except now you would get charges of sexism of our criticism)

P.S. as for the Southern Strategy, you’re right - but I like to focus things that occurred within my lifetime…you go back enough and you’ll see intertwines views Remember what party Lincoln was from…


This thread is now so old that I need to take several clicks to get to it so I would prefer we continue our discussion somewhere “Closer” like during an overnight thread.

That said your Howard Dean post is completely pointless for the following reason.

First of all calling the Republicans the “White” party does not imply they hate blacks. At the worst his quote is implying that there is glass ceiling in the Republican party and no/ a slightly higher glass ceiling in the Republican Party.

As for Pelosi that is a f***ing huge page and from the summary it seems like she doesn’t touch on Blacks/Hispanics at all, only gays. If you can give me the quote contained within the page where Nancy says that Republican Party doesn’t like blacks then I’ll give it another once over.

I personally consider Keith Olberman to be more Rush Limbaugh then Glenn Beck, I mean really Glenn Beck is in a class all of his own when it comes to crazy, there really can’t be any debate about that.

By the way I’m trying not to be offensive here but I think it is FOOLISH IN THE EXTREME If we pretend that the history which took place before we were born doesn’t exist or we try not to focus on it. There is a rich vibrant history and I think there is in fact a lesson to be learned in how Republicans went from the Party of Lincoln to the party that calls Lincoln a war criminal and we should be aware of every step of it.

I will probably not be responding to any further posts you make here. No offense intended by that but I just don’t have the free time to look back at a thread this far in the past.

Feel free to take it up again in an open night thread or bring it up with an OT on any other thread. You shouldn’t feel like you have to contain yourself to just one thread here….

315 changomo  Wed, Aug 4, 2010 10:28:58pm

thanks jamesfirecat, we’ll continue in other threads.

Cheers


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
The Pandemic Cost 7 Million Lives, but Talks to Prevent a Repeat Stall In late 2021, as the world reeled from the arrival of the highly contagious omicron variant of the coronavirus, representatives of almost 200 countries met - some online, some in-person in Geneva - hoping to forestall a future worldwide ...
Cheechako
3 days ago
Views: 116 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
2 weeks ago
Views: 278 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1