if y'all label each and every thing as "racist", then the word loses it meaning...

[1]

every other post here uses "racist" as the catch all, de facto reason for dismissing a republican argument.

am i the only person here that sees this argument as disingenuous and ultimately destructive?

if everything is considered "racist", then ultimately nothing is "racist". its just the way it is.

y'all are smart here. y'all get that right?

or am i just some "racist" pissing in the wind...

[Buzz Clik]

1. Yes, please feel free to interchange "Nazi" for racist about 50% of the time.

Then you'll look really smart.

[petronius]

97. Don't forget to mix in a random "fascist" every now and then

It is frustrating how words get tossed around without any consideration for their meaning - like the wingers with "socialism"...

[branders seine]

105. "bigot" is also a nice change of pace

once in awhile

[Octafish]

123. Smart people know racists and NAZIs share a common heritage.

Eugenics and the Nazis -- the California connection

GHW Bush used Nazi-collaborators to get elected

Dunno about anybody else, but I believe more people should know about these connections.

[Capn Sunshine]

144. Especially the actual Nazis that went to work in the National Republican Party

That's about the same time the meme started "calling something Nazi diminishes the millions of dead, so don't ever call someone a Nazi"
So the Nazis, who were here already became emboldened.

We forget, or many of us never knew, that there was a huge pro-Nazi movement here in the 30's, and many of America's leading industrialists were admirers of Hitler. Some, notably W's grandfather, Preston Bush, actually created finance and banking entities for Hitler to finance his war machine.

Did I mention these were all republicans in the 30's?

There's a reason the Roosevelt hatred runs so deep.

[autorank]

164. Don't forget fascist n/t

[Confusious]

175. You're Xenophobic

Bastard! :sarcasm:

[The Straight Story]

2. Your post is racist, way to go hitler, don't you have a nazi convention in town to go to?

:rofl:



btw, Agree with you.

[roseBudd]

3. I post on an MSM site everyday & my arguments never include you are against...

******* because you are racist.

I mostly use the failures of Republican rule.

PM me if you would like a link to my over 300 pages of comments from the last 14 months to study my tactics.

The dittoheads consider me dangerous.

[Le Taz Hot]

4. Something I've been arguing for years.

It's completely lost it's original meaning. It's over and inaccurately used liberally on DU. It keeps us from addressing certain issues that desperately need addressing.

[maxsolomon]

87. I posted something similar about 6 months back

I argued for using "predjudiced" and "bigoted" again, because almost everyone (well, not YOU, of course, generic post-racism perfect DU liberal) has predjudices regarding other ethnicities, but they don't rise to the level of "Racism"; believing a group of people is inherently inferior and basing policy on that belief.

Guess what happened?

I got called a Racist.

[goclark]

158. I agree with you completely and I'm African American

It has gotten so that everything that someone says or does that can be determined as a Negative regarding Obama is "racist."

It has lost its meaning.

Someone does like his Health Care Bill -- that's because they are Racist.

Someone believes he was not born in Hawaii - because they are Racist

Someone hollers "LIER" ~ because they are racist.


To me, it is used so much that it seems that what well meaning Democrats might be saying is, " That's what happens when we elect a Black President~ maybe if we had elected a White President, this wouldn't have happened"

They wore the Clintons out or Health Care and Monica -- was that because they were White? Because she was a woman? - Hell NO.

It was because they had POWER and ignorant people/bullies out of power will say anything that will make people believe they made the wrong choice. To buy into it is not the answer.

The bullies simply can not believe what is happening to them. They are afraid and in shock that this man is smarter than they are,walks with style and grace,handles the job as if he was born to it.

They FEAR him because deep down inside they know that he does not fear them in the least and they want to scare him, they want to scare us.

Have you noticed that he handles bullies in such a calm manner. He wiped the floor with Wilson.

Meanwhile,educated people are letting the words bigots and racists bounce off their tongues.

Let's put the focus where it belongs and get busy supporting the Democratic Party ~ set an example instead of using the dismissive words.

[inna]

264. +1. good post. nt

[TheKentuckian]

283. Birthers are racist and that's it. For what fucking reason do they not believe

his damned birth certificate and birth announcement is because they are redneck, chicken shit garbage. To give these assholes any cover on this in unconscionable and willfully ignorant.

Stop trying to trick yourself into the fantasy that your birther friend and relations aren't the liquid that collects at the bottom of a dumpster. The excuse finders of today will be siding with the racists when/if the shit goes down.

[WeDidIt]

5. When a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans

becomes the first Congressman in history to EVER call the president of the United States a liar as a catcall during a speech before a joint session Congress, and that president is the first African American president of the United States, it is partially due to the fact that the Congressman is a vile racist.

[1]

7. i didn't say it was never appropriate. i was speaking to its overuse...

[bettyellen]

49. so the episode this week did have a basis in racism and yet you react with this OP? Interesting.

[paulsby]

84. nobody knows

if you are referring to the wilson incident, if racism had anything to do with it.

people can speculate all they want, but it's just that. spec.

[CreekDog]

255. The original post didn't give a context, so the context is now

and right now that is the main issue.

if the original poster wanted to talk about some other incident, they neglected to mention one.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

156. The issue is....

....there are about five or six other "episodes" that I've seen "racism" used as the catch-all to explain why someone opposes Obama.

Apparently, no one here remembers the Clinton administration and what bullshit went on then too.

[treestar]

114. I agree, that is a reasonable conclusion

This guy would have had "respect for the office" for any white Democratic President.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

157. Really?

Do you think Bill Clinton really got "respect"? Especially when they tried to impeach him? Or imply he and his wife killed Vince Foster?

[A-Schwarzenegger]

153. But Wilson didn't use the N-word. Therefore ...

it wasn't racist.

[Dogtown]

6. Same overly simplistic rationale

as that other fellow.

If it's racist, it's racist.

If it masquerades as something else but is actually racist, it's racist. Pretending that confronting the racism will dilute the charge of racism is certainly not "disingenuous", it's a tactic. The ugliness of their racism will never "lose it's meaning". If *ignored*, it becomes acceptable: *that's* disingenuous.

Interesting effort though, including that faux-cornpone accent.

[Le Taz Hot]

10. OK, so if one agrees

with the OP's premise, they're racist. You just made the OP's point.

[Dogtown]

20. Not what I said

but you go ahead and hitch a ride on that Apologist bandwagon.

:eyes:

[Le Taz Hot]

24. Actually, it is. And I quote:

"If it masquerades as something else but is actually racist, it's racist." Determining whether something is masquerading as something else is extremely subjective. In fact, you labeled me an Apologists without knowing anything about me. The "R" term gets thrown around here pretty liberally and usually by people who can't defend their POV and have to stoop to calling people "apologists" or "racists" as their only defense. I guess you'd call that masquerading. }(

[Dogtown]

28. "if *IT* masquerades..."

is the OP an "it"? Are you an "it"?

Clearly, the comment was applied to the types of actions being referred to, not the OP or any other individual. You're displaying a displacement mechanism.

BTW, a subjective deduction is not necessarily invalid. It's clear you don't understand the niceties of the term. Kudos for your attempt at using a thesaurus, though.

Also, I didn't "label" you as "an apologists" (sic), I inferred it. You lack subtlety of distinction, but if the slipper fits, Cinderella...

[Le Taz Hot]

34. Your subject line states:

"Not what I said" and I responded with, "Actually, it is" so the "it" in this case does not refer to an individual but to your claim that it is not what you said.

So, in the few minutes we've had our little exchange, you have determined that I'm an "apologist" (apologies, ironically enough, for the TYPO -- it must be nice to have never made one of those yourself), I'm displaying "displacement mechanisms" (I took Psychology 101 as well), I rely on a thesaurus, I lack subtlety of distinction and I'm Cinderella. All without any evidence. Does the Pentagon know about you?

People who have no argument find it necessary to resort to name calling and blind accusations. Blithely throwing around "racist!" every time one disagrees with a person of color would be an example.

Now, where DID I put that glass slipper? I see it! It's under the thesaurus. :evilgrin:

[bettyellen]

43. nope, the "it" refers to the statement you made that he posted that agreeing w/ the OP is racist

and no "it" isn;t .. you are taking a big leap- you are the only one here "playing" a card.

[Dogtown]

50. You're not really up for this.

It isn't your lack of facility with language (though that is an exploitable weakness). Your real problem in this arena is a faulty premise. So you try to deflect the argument by whimpering that I'm a meanie.


I'll break it down in terms that I think you'll understand: If a man attacks me with a club, I won't call the police and complain about being stabbed.

Pretending that these people are not using racism to achieve their goals plays into their hands. If they don't get called on it, they can continue to inflame their (intellectually inferior) base by playing to the racism of that base.

Suggesting that you are an apologist for them is an example of how that works. It made you angry, so you spluttered and wailed and lost all credibility in this exchange. It was too nuanced an attack for you to see the mechanics of the ploy. You lashed out at your tormentor rather than planning your next move. You REacted instead of acting; thus, I've been able to control this exchange.

It doesn't matter if you're an agent provocateur or just another weak-kneed Lib afraid to counter their stick with a gun. The results are the same, our defense becomes weakened by our inability to act. Sad that one of our opponents' strongest weapons is our own reluctance to address them for what they are.

The Democrats have been so afraid of confronting the Republicans that they've been controlled in the debates. It's way past time to get real with these folks.

[Le Taz Hot]

59. You just keep digging yourself a deeper hole here.

Now I'm illiterate, stupid and a whiner. Interesting that here I thought we were having a debate about an issue that desperately needs to be addressed and you see an "exploitable weakness." I've no idea where you perceive anger from my posts (projection, anyone?) but I grow bored with your pseudo intellectualism and feigned outrage and bid you good day. Let me know when you're serious about debating THE ISSUE. I will pray to the goddess for your enlightenment.

[Dogtown]

74. Deflection

You haven't discussed a single "issue". All you've done is carped about my phraseology, and petulantly retorted with your own ill-conceived conceits.

It is the most common face-saving of the opposition party: insist on turning it personal and stalk away in sanctimonious posturing . I've noted that Republican mouth-pieces frequently complain about elitist "pseudo-intellectualism" when they can't mount a substantial argument in debate. Transparent.

Go ahead and pretend you're not giving up. That egg on your face will wash away in time.

[hfojvt]

128. so it really wasn't personal?

this "but you go ahead and hitch a ride on that Apologist bandwagon." was not personal? Post 28 was not personal?

The charge of racism and apologist is always personal.

Clearly you do not just think you are debating ideas and truths, but you are engaging in some sort of combat. You don't just think the other person is wrong, you think they are inferior.

[Dogtown]

131. Grandiose display of stupidity.

1st off, no "charges" were made. I insinuated, I inferred. If charges were made, I would have violated posting rules, yet neither you nor the poster involved were successful in "alerting" my post.

2nd. It WASN'T personal. If that poster or you are offended or feel ill used, that's your problem. I was dispassionate, as one should be in discussion. My very point was that the poster was reacting emotionally rather than evaluating the facts. It seems that you are reacting emotionally, also, since you've (actually) charged me with feeling superior and treating others as inferior. Those are direct insults. Since I'm dispassionate (and capable of assigning merit to a given source) I'm not offended. I merely point out the hypocrisy you display by posting a personal attack, accusing me of posting a (non-existent) personal attack.

If I'm playing chess, and my Queen removes a Pawn, it isn't because I feel superior, nor is it personal. Grow up.

Also, I never "called" any one in this thread a racist. I have called some politicians racists. If anybody here THINKS I was calling them a racist, maybe it's their own guilt talking.

3rd. Those remarks have been explained in another post. The intent was a display of HOW the opposition uses emotional triggers to control their base. I knew the poster I used for the example wouldn't get it. Apparently you don't either.

4th. You haven't deigned to discuss the issue at hand, anymore than my original antagonist. Both of you have posted nothing of substance in our discussion. All either of you has to contribute is a dislike for me.

"Clearly"? You have no idea of my design in addressing this issue and these particular posters, you merely think you do. I am *extremely* concerned about Republican politicians using racism to whip they're Borgs into a killing frenzy. I'm very concerned, also, about Dems being too weak to fight back. I am certainly concerned about the presence of Republican activists infiltrating our board and using it to undermine our cause. BTW, when I spot a pig-troll, I follow the rules and "Alert" on them. I don't engage the filth in conversation.
*********************************************************

Go on judging me. I'm sure you fail to observe your own hubris in charging me with feeling superior, but you just committed that very sin.

[hfojvt]

140. Actually I did not say anything about a dislike for you.

I made a factual observation. You cannot post something like "grandiose display of stupidity" and "grow up" and then cry foul when I point out that your argument, such as it is, relies heavily on personal attacks.

You seem to miss the point too. "Also, I never "called" any one in this thread a racist" Whether you have called anyone racist is beside the point.

edit: I had to go back and get an exact quote.

You posited this:

"If it's racist, it's racist.

If it masquerades as something else but is actually racist, it's racist."


Under that theory, ANYONE can ascribe racism to ANYTHING. My post right here, for example, is not overtly or clearly racist. It is masquerading as something else. Like logical argument or straight up whining. But IF (not when, IF) somebody calls it racist, then, by your standards, it is racist. You posit no other standard for defining racism other than "it exists whenever a liberal calls it". It becomes like the word of God. A liberal said it. I believe it. That settles it.

[Dogtown]

148. You're preference was inferred

I don't believe I was mistaken.

You claim my defense that I have not called anyone racist is "besides the point". I'll quote you: "The charge of racism and apologist is always personal." As support, you claim that my suggestion he's "climbing on the bandwagon" was such a personal attack.

"Clearly" you don't understand that phrase. Folks who jump on the bandwagon are not already members of the group, they're in the process of joining it. The phrase suggests that the absent and forgotten poster was being deluded by rhetoric (easy to believe given his lack of facility with language) and was becoming a willing follower. Of the apologists, that is, and I guess I'd better make it clear that an apologist for racism need not be a racist himself.

I might suggest at this point you let that poster defend himself. He needs the practice, clearly. And you shouldn't go tilting windmills not your own out of some romantic idealism. Please understand, that phrase was not intended to characterize you as either a racist or an apologist for racists.


In regard to the minor attempt to address an actual issue, you haven't successfully faulted my logic. "If it's racist, it's racist." Pretty clear, but here's an example:

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Three_accused_in_Obama_revenge_racist_0107.html

I hate to belabor the obvious, but you've called into question my entire statement, so I'll exercise due diligence in supporting it. In this instance a racist act is clearly racist; hence, "if it's racist, it's racist."


An example of a masquerade would be Jim Crow laws: they were purportedly written to ensure that voters were educated enough to vote, or sufficiently committed to the community to vote (evidenced by owning property). In fact, they were racist laws intended to disenfranchise black citizens. They masqueraded as something else, but were written with racist intent; hence, "If it masquerades as something else but is actually racist, it's racist."




You state: "Under that theory, ANYONE can ascribe racism to ANYTHING." That's pure sophistry and you know it. OF COURSE many human acts can be falsely ascribed to racism; a logical person will be able to discern a subterfuge, unless they willfully choose not to. For example, Michele Obama has been accused of racism for using the term 'whitey". It was subsequently debunked, therefore your suggestion that my premise can prove ANYTHING to be racist is fallacious: false charges of racism can be proved to be false. Returning to the meat of this thread, BUT NOT WITHOUT CONFRONTING THE ACTIVE RACISM ASSAILING US.

You haven't disproved the premise, you've merely reinforced it.

[Hannah Bell]

172. "false charges of racism can be proved to be false." no, they can't.

generally, they can't.

because they're often entirely about one person's assumptions about someone else's actions, what those actions "mean" about his inner beliefs & feelings.


e.g. I pull my kid out of obama's speech, thus i'm racist. this could be shown true (e.g. if i were also heard to make comments denigrating the president because he's black, etc.) - but could it so easily be shown to be false?

i don't think so. & that's its beauty for political fighting. the charge is one of those that, the more you deny it, the more you look guilty. even when you're not.

"i'm not racist! i donate to naacp! i have black friends! i date black guys! i marched in the civil rights movement!"

notice how the right began using the charge as a political weapon, both in its "reverse racism" variant & in its straight version - e.g. if you oppose charter schools, you're "racist" & want to prevent ghetto kids from getting a good education like suburban white kids.

identity politics is a dead end. ok, if we all agree the teabaggers are "racist," what then? we're going to pass a law making it illegal to be "racist" or something?

it's a big, fat, political blind alley, but oh so good for dividing the electorate & ensuring nothing productive ever gets done, because people can't unite for productive ends.

just continue yakking about who's racist or not.

[inna]

273. unbelievably abusive. -1.

:thumbsdown:

[Hannah Bell]

159. The personal attacks don't make your case, mr. leftist.

i noticed you started out with the same thing with me.

[inna]

277. what drivel. ad hom much?

:thumbsdown:

[bettyellen]

37. yep, you see this all the time here.

[Raineyb]

31. That's not what he said. But thanks for proving his point. n/t

[1]

11. well ok then... keep on keeping on. fuck me for being overly simplistic.

according to you, everything is racist. fuck yeah!

how sad it must be to live in your world.

[Dogtown]

19. Don't cry, 1!

I gave you credit for trying.

[Raineyb]

33. Your disingenuous interpretation just proves you're not really interested

in dialog.

Fuck you for being overly simplistic? How about fuck you for your constantly dismissive attitude? It sounds less victim-y and is actually closer to the truth.

[lamp_shade]

12. Bravo, Dogtown.

[eShirl]

21. spot on. n/t

[me b zola]

126. The OP seems familiar

IMO, the OP is a variation of the meme that says that because we call out racism when it occurs, then we are saying that everyone who disagrees with the president is a racist (which of course no one is saying that).

It would be nice if the OP and a few others were offended at the amount and type of racism that has been coming out of the woodwork rather than attempting to minimize it by creating strawmen.

[hileeopnyn8d]

127. +1

[Dogtown]

135. Very well put, me b zola

Wish I'd said that.

:applause:

[Caliman73]

139. I concur with your opinion

well put.

[Confusious]

178. It would be nice if you could define racism

Seems some people around use the "I know when I see it" argument. And they see little racists bunnies everywhere. If this was the french revolution, the would be the leaders of the Reign of Terror.

[me b zola]

204. Confusious says

Confusious says man who goes to bed with itchy butt wakes up with stinky finger.

[AsahinaKimi]

232. Hey whats with the Confusious joke! ??

Confucius was a Chinese thinker and social philosopher, whose teachings and philosophy have deeply influenced Chinese, Korean, Japanese, Taiwanese and Vietnamese thought and life.

His philosophy emphasized personal and governmental morality, correctness of social relationships, justice and sincerity. These values gained prominence in China over other doctrines, such as Legalism or Taoism during the Han Dynasty (206 B.C.E. – 220 C.E.). Confucius' thoughts have been developed into a system of philosophy known as Confucianism. It was introduced to Europe by the Italian Jesuit Matteo Ricci, who was the first to Latinise the name as "Confucius."

Seriously,.. You have a deadly serious dicussion about Racism and then do a joke that uses an highly revered historic Chinese philospher?? Whats up with that?

[NatBurner]

137. boop

[Name removed]

176. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AgadorSparticus]

235. well said. excellent response!! n/t

[eShirl]

8. and the Civil War wasn't about slavery, but states' rights?

[Hannah Bell]

9. non seq

btw, it was about money & power.

[Dogtown]

22. And Mussolini only wanted the trains to be punctual...

You're a piece of work, Hannah Bell.

[Hannah Bell]

129. no, the analogous rejoinder is, "and world war II was only about money & power..."

and of course, it wasn't *only* about that. just fundamentally.

[Dogtown]

132. I wasn't trying to parrot your meme

I was pointing out the fallacy behind it.

Politicians don't "fight" wars, they manage them. The motive for southern antebellum politicians was power and profit. Indeed, the profit motive was only the means to an end, money buys power.

The Civil War was fought by soldiers. They didn't fight for either money or power. The Southern troops were motivated, mostly, by racism. As has been pointed out, few of them owned slaves. In fact, most of them would have been the most disenfranchised class in the country (the AmerInds having already been murdered or banished), IF NOT FOR THE BLACK SLAVES. This fact was used by cynical amoral politicians and politico-generals to galvanize them to slaughter others. Much as Bush cynically and amorally used ethno-racism, religious intolerance, and faux-patriotism to gain his ends.

Your post was a smug sophistry. It was also a gross over-simplification. I hoped you would be adroit enough to recognize the pompous foolishness expressed in my rejoinder as sufficient rebuttal. Apparently your sophistry is sophomoric, as well.

[Hannah Bell]

138. "It was also a gross over-simplification" could be. only 7 words, you know.

"The motive for southern antebellum politicians was power and profit."

i rest my case.


ps: non-significant items in parentheses:

Table 2
Probabilities of Joining a Mississippi Unit, with Other
Variables Controlled, Mississippi Sample

Probability of Difference
Enlistment
Age:
17 .719
.123
35 .596

Real estate owned:
None .679
(.055)
log ($4,000) * .624

Personal wealth:
None .559
.147
log ($11,000)(*) .706

Occupation:
Farmer .666
(.037)
Other .629

Place of Birth:
Slave states .670
.178
Free states .492

Place of residence:
River counties .528
.147
Elsewhere .675

Household head:
Yes .662
(.015)
No .647

Number of co-residing
relatives:
0 .657
(.000)
7 .657

Slaves as % of
county's population:
30 .656
(.003)
70 .659

(*) The logarithm of wealth has been used to reduce variation; see
text. Note: differences in parentheses are not significant at .05.




CWBR: How did the demographic makeup of General Lee's Army change throughout the war's course? What does your research suggest about the old argument that the Confederate war effort constituted a rich man's war and a poor man's fight?

JTG: There was a surprising degree of consistency among soldiers who entered the war in 1861 and 1862. The median degree of wealth placed them solidly in the middle class. Compared to the South in 1860, a much high percentage of soldiers in Lee's army (both officers and enlisted men) came from slaveholding households. The actual and sample numbers tapered off for men who first entered the army in 1863 and 1864, but if we combine those two year groups, we find more extremes--older and younger men, more rich and more poor--, but backgrounds quite similar to the soldiers of 1861 or 1862.

The fact is that rich or well-to-do men were overrepresented in Lee's army, deserted less frequently (this is understandable, because war's hardships affect poorer people more severely), and were more likely to be killed in action than their poorer comrades.


http://www.lib.lsu.edu/civilwarbookreview/index.php?q=2957&field=ID&browse=yes&record=full&searching=yes&Submit=Search.


The 26th North Carolina Infantry, according to one of its commanders, was composed of men from "the great middle class that owned small farms in central and western North Carolina."

http://scottcraft-military.com/civwar/c26ncarol.htm.

[Dogtown]

151. A well articulated and copiously cited riposte.

It would seem to refute mine and I'm not sure I could marshal evidence to rebut it. I'll concede that point, since I haven't the stomach for the research at the present time.

I'll caveat that economic class is not necessarily an indicator of racism, and add my (unsupported for the nonce) opinion that racism played a heavy role in the motivation of the war. The only example I can cite is a negative one: much of the draft resistance in the North was known to be caused by a reluctance to risk their lives for "Negroes".


I'd like to admit a grudging respect for an occasional adversary. I've felt that your posts in the past (those I've stumbled across, that is) are a bit centrist for my taste and tend to be trite. Perhaps I've only read those written in haste; you are clearly able to make a case when need arises.

[Hannah Bell]

154. "centrist" - i don't think so. but thanks for being civil.

[Dogtown]

155. Meh, only my opinion

could be I'm too leftist for many, too. At any rate, I'll be more cautious in crossing your blade.

[Fire1]

234. It was more about the preservation of a way of life, i.e.

superiority, of which slavery was an intricate part.

[joeycola]

13. I agree it is used too often.

[Captain Hilts]

18. Agree. Having lived in SC in the early '70s and seen racism at its worst and institutionalized to

preserve economic and political disparities, I'm hesitant to use the term lightly.

Hell. Norfolk and VA Beach in the '70s had political systems designed to keep blacks and military people from gaining office. Racism and classism all over the joint. I remember how exciting it was when Bobby Scott got on the Norfolk City Council. Voting for Doug Wilder, etc.

A whole lot of the shit that Prez O is getting is the same shit Bubba got. Yes, some of it is certainly based on racism. The racial divide among the parties in the South shows you that.

But folks here won't acknowledge that the majority of R's just support the R's message of small govt.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[paulsby]

85. how do you know if it's "white people" such as the OP. do you know his/her race?

or are you assuming?

[dolphindance]

142. +1000 (n/t)

[Confusious]

181. o there's this pharmacy I go to

Have to go, get my anti-depressants, every 30 days. I've been going there 5 years now, probably more then once a month, 'cause I got high blood pressure and cholesterol ( Borderline, but with my family history ). Seen yellow, white, black, red there. never any problems. The people are helpful, and I get everything when they say, in the time they say. So I walk in one day, and a black lady comes walking by me, screaming "Fucking white People!!". The same people I've know for 5 years are behind the counter, who I've seen help everyone. What am I suppose to think? Racism? maybe. But not on their part.

The point of the story is "attitude". Be nice, and most people will be nice in return. Be an asshole, take what you get. It don't matter, red, black, yellow, white.

[Raineyb]

205. If you think it's only about attitude then there's nothing to say to you.

You obviously don't know what the hell you're talking about.

You can bow and scrape all you want and racists will still hate you. And to suggest that racism is only about attitude shows a hell of a lot of cluelessness on your part.

Racists expect you to defer to them and act as though you are inferior to them. There is no amount of nice that will change the mind of a racist and I am under no obligation to kow tow to them.

[Confusious]

299. Well you still don't get it

There is racism, I know that.

But I'd like to know who you think is the racist in my little story.

And I'd like to know if you think sometime black people end up getting so jaded about white people that things get turned around and they start being racist toward white people.

Maybe if we just took people on a case-by-case basis things would be better.

That is all.

[ecstatic]

63. It's used often because it happens often

:eyes:

[zinnisking]

14. Allen Keyes

The same people that are called racist would gladly back a lunatic like Allen Keyes (sp?). I've seen it.

Using the word racist for every situation is anti-intellectual. I have seen smart people do it a lot lately. It's very disappointing.

[Raineyb]

36. Do you know what the words "useful idiot" mean? After you look it up

go find Alan Keyes again.

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Pangolin2]

92. Going out on a limb here and presume you're not familiar with Dale Carnegie

:shrug:

[Raineyb]

109. I usually give back what I receive. And there's been a hell of a lot of

disrespect thrown around here lately.

I don't do self help books they're basically scams filled with mindless happy talk from people who'd have you ignore what you need to fight in order to avoid making waves.

[Hannah Bell]

149. ok, so let's say i buy into your belief that the school thing, the "liar" thing, the

teabagger thing - all due to racists practicing their racism.

what then? what's the political response?

[treestar]

118. Not sure of that

Interesting thought. You know they were doing it with Clarence Thomas and Sandra Day O'Connor. I remember right wingers being so smug about those appointments - now you damn libruls can't say we don't appoint women and minorities.

I don't think the grand office of President as they conceive it would be one they would be willing to give to a black man, though. They'd make Keyes Sec. of State or the like, but that one high honor, no that has to go to a white man in their eyes.

Interesting that their racism is bigger than their sexism. A black man is, after all, a man. I think they thought that if Palin were President, some men would be in real control behind the scenes.

[zinnisking]

134. I agree with you mostly

in that their appointments of people of color are tactical. Steele is another example (or was he elected?).

I used to work with a RepublicanChristian (who fit every stereotype of a RepublicanChristian) who, when Alan Keyes was running for president, want wanted him for president.

For rank-and-file Republicans, when it comes to choosing their leader, I think having the qualities of illogical lunatics are more important than anything, even more important than race. Of course some of them would NEVER vote for a person of color. But at large illogical lunacy seems to me to be the most considerable standard. In that regard, someone like Alan Keyes has redeemed himself.

BTW, thanks for having a different opinion than me while still replying in a pleasant manner (as apposed to acting like a wet-behind-the-ears LUNATIC).

[Raineyb]

150. More dismissive bullshit from the newbie apologist.

Poor put upon apologist. A mere question gets him so upset.

[Raineyb]

152. Alan Keyes has always been the epitome of the useful idiot

what the poster you're answering took offense to was my asking him if he knew what the words "useful idiot" means. Alan Keyes has always allowed himself to be used by the Republicans. It is well known that there are certain members of the black community who have allowed themselves to be used in furtherance of a white supremacist agenda. There's a video on you tube with a black preacher running the Pat Buchanan line that black people in America should be thankful that their ancestors were brought over to this country in chains. There was Thom Hartmann show discussion a black preacher who is featured neo Nazi websites. Why? Because some white people think that if they can put a black face on bigoted policies that they can hide it's bigotry. The problem is far too many people who claim to be progressives apparently think the same way! Why else would they throw Alan Keyes at you when you discuss racism among the GOP? I find such thinking insulting and generally respond in kind. I don't have the patience to school people on things like this and at this stage in the game why the hell should I have to do so anymore?

[cbdo2007]

15. Yes, I agree. It's just easier for some people to call the Repubes racists than to argue

against their points so many on DU take the easy way out.

Everything anyone says about Obama must be racist...though people have been saying horrible stuff about presidents for hundreds of years.

[hileeopnyn8d]

42. Really?

What points are they making that we disregard in favor of calling them racist? Examples please.

[Confusious]

182. What standards do you use to call someone racist?

Examples please.

[Lerkfish]

16. however, NOT calling something racist, when it is, is a worse crime

IMHO

[Orsino]

104. +1 n/t

[Raineyb]

206. Unfortunately, it seems as though your attitude on this is in the minority

It looks as though people here think that actually calling someone a racist is worse than actually BEING a racist.

And as far as I'm concerned attitude (not yours) is disgusting.

[progressivebydesign]

231. +2 here. n/t

[Hannah Bell]

249. that might be true if "calling something racist" actually accomplished something.

but it doesn't, generally.

[goclark]

269. Right ~ they wear the title as a badge of honor

Calling them a racist makes them proud.

That makes them feel powerful when they are really little people with nothing to fear because they will be protected by their little clan.

[MercutioATC]

17. Amen!

...but I'll bet you're not going to change any minds, regardless of the logic of your assertion.

Those most likely to see every act they don't like as "racist" are, by default, not using logic to evaluate situations.

[Dogtown]

23. If we recognize

the difference between a spade and a shovel, what use to call it a shovel?

Ignoring their use of racism to enrage their racist base will not diffuse their tactic.

Too long have we failed to confront the realities of the Republican Janus. Democrat pussy-footing hasn't won us any battles in the past.

[MercutioATC]

45. ...and, as the OP suggests, finding "racism" behind every tree is counterproductive.

It's also inaccurate.

[bettyellen]

48. why is it always every time every person- what total BS. if this is about strategy and you want

people to STFU and get on the back of the bus man up and say so.

[MercutioATC]

53. No, I'd like people to stop using "racism" as a generic label for things they just don't like.

The fact that a racial minority as one factor in an equation does NOT make that equation inherently racist.

[bettyellen]

61. but to claim it is used in every instance is nonsense i see loads of oppostion to BO here discussed

where no one brings up race as an issue. but you;d never know it reading many of these posts here. they totally exaggerate how often it is applied. that said, i think the issue is escalating due to the birther movement, which is widely recognised as having racist roots, and also the not my school kids speech bs, which was based on fear of having your kids exposed to an intellegent charasmatic black man. Both these recent movements are expressions of pervasive xenophobia, at the very minimum.
these people passionately hate the president for no other reason than hat he is or where he;s from. Pretty indefensible stuff, if you ask me. And Joe Wilson is on that bandwagon, it;s not a big leap to see that.
It's not a big leap to see the dangerous atmosphere that's been created by these haters, and I think we have to call out the motivation for what it is.

[MercutioATC]

65. Fair enough. "every instance" is an exaggeration.

However, I believe it's fair to say that there are often shouts of "racism" in a lot of circumstances, even when there's no real evidence of it...simply because of the race of one of the parties.

[bettyellen]

76. and read his thread! the "every instance" claim is there- id guess 85% of the itme, LOL

it's ridculous. and you know what- there isn;t always going to be evidence. that;s the way these isms work.
every action designed to opress someone doesn't necesarily have a racist component flagging it as such.
this is why women and people of color get their backs up when they are dismissed or put down out of hand- because it happens so often - we know what it is and why- but oft times yuo can't convince a while man unless you had your ass grabbed or were called a n^#$%.
very often the satandard is it;s not racism if it doesn;t rise to the level of assault - physical or verbal- and it doesn;t have a specific bigoted component. and you know what- they are wrong about that. most bigits know to try and fly under the radar, and few african americans and women over react. except in this thread where it is claimed, we always over react.

[Dogtown]

58. Not to offend, but I think you're missing the point.

Racism IS behind every Republican tree, at least in our present battle. It's a reliable tactic. They play on the "stranger danger" primate-response to whip their rank and file into a frenzy.



They need to be publicly shamed into abandoning the tactic.

The current brouhaha is a perfect opportunity. A white supremacist (Sons of Confederate Veterans) has openly and dishonorably shown grave disrespect for the President during a formal event, an act of cowardice that is only acceptable to his constituents because Mr. Obama is black. If we do not address his racist act for what it is, we lose our credibility and weaken our ability to expose future attacks of this nature. We will appear weak, and no-one wants to back a weakling.

The ONLY way to defeat bullies is by confronting them.

Our wimpy refusal to point a righteous finger at them is tantamount to going turtle and hoping they stop beating up on us before we get hurt. Remember, there's no "Teacher" going to put them in detention in *this* schoolyard.

[Hannah Bell]

287. Then confront the leadership for playing to & inciting racism, for pulling the strings

behind the scenes, for funding the protests. Point out where the money's coming from, the kind of big money interests who are the puppet masters.

That, to my mind, would be a much more effective tactic than saying some 80-yr-old white guy in golf shorts & white socks is an evil "racist". Those 80-year-olds are only on TV because of the big money in the background.

[OHdem10]

25. Overuse makes it trivial..and the time will come when people will

ignore. No Consequences.

[Raineyb]

67. There are no concequesnces now because no one will call it out.

How could it possibly be treated more trivially than it is now?

[Hannah Bell]

247. seems to me there have been dozens of threads calling it out. i've

also seen press articles calling it out.

also commenters of various stripes calling it out.

[Raineyb]

258. Really if that's the case then why all these bullshit OPs and comments by the

uncomfortable that the word racist is being over used? You don't get credit for noting the really obvious cases if you poo poo people when they point out the more subtle ones which is exactly what this OP is seeking to do. As you are as you seem to think that pointing out racism only makes it worse which is the most ridiculous bit of tripe I've ever heard.

[Hannah Bell]

260. i see. unless everyone in the world is united in calling out racism, then

"no one is calling it out."

if only *some* people call it out, *no one* is.

nothing less than complete unanimity will do.

there's a name for that...

[Raineyb]

265. You mean like the type of people who claim racism is used for everything

when in fact it's not called that often at all? And then on the occasions when it is called out they dare lecture about the overuse of the word because they're uncomfortable dealing with it?

There's a name for people like you too.

[Hannah Bell]

272. no, i mean like when people say "no one calls out racism," then when told

a number of people are, indeed, calling out racism, respond: "well then why are these *other* people *not* calling out racism?"

there's no point in continuing this discussion. we have different ideas & they're not going to meet.

[Raineyb]

276. On that we agree. There's no point in hell in continuing this discussion.

You can't make yourself heard when the other person has their head buried in the sand.

[Solomon]

26. A good thread for all the deniers to get together. And there's plenty.

Kumbaya and all that. Let's see them all congregate.

Reminds me of that speech Ronald Reagan gave when he was running for president when he basically said America didn't have a race problem until black people started complaining. Yep. yep. It's all our fault.

We need to learn that if anything occurs that even remotely might have some other element in it, then it's not racism. No, not at all.

A good example is the timing of this thread. Has to be because Joe Wilson disrespected the president. That's the occasion which prompted the post because some people are attributing it to racism. But we can safely hide behind the excuse that Obama is a democrat and Wilson is a republican, therefore it had nothing to do with racism, right? R i g h t.

[Raineyb]

35. Indeed. And they can get together and make up shit about what it means

when people call them out on their blatant disrespect. They can cry together at their shared victimization at the hands of those pesky people who call everyone racist (even though they didn't)

[bettyellen]

40. spot on! just because there's deniabilty, doesn't make it plausible folks

[pipi_k]

86. How assumptions can make a person look foolish

for example, making assumptions about the "timing" of this thread coinciding with Joe Wilson's rants the other night.

Maybe...just MAYBE the timing of this thread has a lot more to do with other things...like, oh, I dunno...a recent thread in which someone made an assumption that a man was a "racist" just because the man said he didn't like Obama.

Plus there really are lots and lots of instances lately in which the word "racist" is being used by people who really and truly believe (in classic sheeple fashion) that all, or most, Republicans are racists at heart.

Honest to god, sometimes I can see in my mind the peasants storming the "castle" with pitchforks and burning rushes. And that's on THIS side. I mean, bad enough there are crazies on the other side, but when people on this side act the same way, it's embarrassing...

[pecwae]

244. Stop making sense.

[TheKentuckian]

291. Are you seriously trying to pretend that the Republicans are not heavily motivated by racial issues?

The same people who are proudly anti-gay, the same folks that actually fight to maintain a wage disparity for women, the same individuals that get foaming at the mouth against those from south of the border or that are of Arabic decent, the same party that you can name a significant proportion of their minority members off the top of your head, the same group with deep intellectual, philosophical, and cultural commonalities with the Klan?


You are running away from the obvious. Black people aren't the ONLY ones they hate but at this point we are all niggers or worse from their perspectives nigger lovers. People act like Johnson signed a bill and all the back of the bus, jim crow, lesser, other, 3/5 human being, lynch mob mentality that was a mainstay of American culture before the signing of The Declaration of Independence was even a thought just flitted away into space, never to be seen again.

[Uzybone]

125. like flies to a pile of shit

[stray cat]

27. same for facist, police state etc - but DUers are melodramatic to an extreme.

[spanone]

29. who is y'all mr racist pissing in the wind?

[ptex]

30. wow

wow that was racist.

[KittyWampus]

38. Note to all DU'ers who don't get the point- the larger, underlying issue is CLASS

but then, this weekend it was pointed out to me the extent that DU"ers really do tend to slam poor people without even realizing they are doing it.

[bettyellen]

41. but racism itslef is a thouroughly worthy topic, thank you. we do know that...

it is a horrid deady tool they use to promote class warfare, but the impact is too great for such a dismissive attitude.

[KittyWampus]

47. I'm pretty sure all DU'ers agree Racism is a worthy topic. But . politicians also use homophobia

to promote class warfare among other tactics.

So IMO, reducing everything to Racism is incorrect and largely misses the overarching point.

[Raineyb]

51. No all DUers DON'T agree that racism is a worthy topic

otherwise we wouldn't get OPs like this one or the people who insist on telling you that you're overusing the word racist to describe the actions or motives of people when you actually take the time to say so. Or frankly, replies like yours. They prefer to correct you, dismiss you, and change the subject to class or homophobia or sexism (sound familiar) which while all these things have merit it's insulting to immediately dismiss the race factor in favor of these. We should be able to discuss all of them. We don't because race makes a hell of a lot of people on this board uncomfortable. Race only seems to come up when it's PAINFULLY obvious or some of the white posters want to chastise the black posters here for bringing race up too often (which we don't bring up enough frankly)

[KittyWampus]

54. So you agree it isn't JUST Race and yet you object when someone points that out.

If someone wants to discuss the topic of Race and how it is being evoked in the public consciousness, terrific.

But I have noticed that DU'ers are simply calling out Racism for EVERYTHING> issues are being reduced to that single, incomplete word.

And perhaps a big part of this is the fact that people who follow politics know what the "Southern Strategy" is or was but the Republican party has never been held to account for using it. I started a thread about that very topic once. It sunk like a stone.

Fact is, DU'ers throw the word Race around but really don't want to talk about it. Not in any depth. Just to the point that >those guys over there are Racist.

And to my experience, especially after another DU'er pointed it out to me, Class is even less likely to be discussed here. And some pretty snide comments that are made regularly are tacitly slamming poor people.

[Raineyb]

62. I object because it only seems to be brought up because they want to deflect

the discussion from race. EVERY time someone brings up race there's always someone else ready to deflect to something else. Well what about sexism, homophobia, class, etc. Is it too hard to have the discussion of race without deliberately changing the subject? Apparently it is. The people who insist on changing the subject can easily start a thread about class, or sexism but they don't. They wait until race is brought up then use the other ism to deflect because they REFUSE to discuss race at all unless of course it's to scold. I don't find people call out racism for EVERYTHING but it's a convenient accusation to make in order to avoid discussing the situation that was brought up.

If someone brings up a discussion specifically on race I don't think it's too much to ask to leave the other stuff out and concentrate on race for a change instead of immediately bringing up class as though all poor people are equally oppressed when that's not the case at all.

[bettyellen]

73. exactly! no one claims everything is all about race, but that BS claim is all over this thread.....

in fact. it seems to be all they got. they are tired of the discussion, find it distasteful and fear it will alienate.... who? their relatives and friends?- so it's not wise strategy either! ugh.

[Lilyeye]

56. Umm not all

I just read a post on here yesterday by a DU'er who said racism is no longer an issue in America and that America is one of the least racist countries around.

[maxsolomon]

96. in comparison, they had a point

hutus and tutsis. the Roma in eastern europe. the black christians in southern sudan. africans in russia. xenophobia is an inherent trait of our species.

america has the most ethnicities, so our task is to have the most tolerance. i won't claim racism is no longer an issue, but i assert that, since the civil rights movement, we are better at tolerance than the rest of the world.

even western europe has vitriolic ethnic strife now that they have a sizeable muslim population in their former ethnic monocultures. amsterdam, that bastion of tolerance for ages, now has murders in the street over this shit.

[bettyellen]

66. well, you have missed a lot of posts here then. lot's feel its bad strategy to discuss race...

the conversation is distasteful and may alientate some borderline racists and be counterproductive.. to -you know -white people.
i see it all the time here. same w/ sexism and homophobia. back of the bus kids...

[KittyWampus]

75. Are you talking about strategy proposed for Real World or DU'ers not wanting Race talked about here?

If you are talking about the Real World we can go back to Howard Dean:

DEAN: I am tired of coming to the South and fighting elections on guns, God and gays. We're going to fight this election on our turf, which is going to be jobs, education and health care.

How would you approach someone who is poor, uneducated and in the thrall of demagogues who use race, sex and gender to divide people so they can be kept poor and uneducated wage-slaves?

Do you think getting in their face and calling them Racist helps bridge gaps and gets across to them?

I think there are a lot of economically insecure people who are never able to fully develop their Higher Brain functions and thus have only really learned to react from their Reptilian Brain. Republicans will prefer to speak to the Reptile part of humanity and keep them at a disadvantage.

IMO, Democrats are about speaking to and encouraging the loftier parts of our Selves. Yes, we recognize the Racism, and there is a place for discussing that, but implementing strategy and reaching goals means focusing on the positive.

[bettyellen]

78. well the aplogists are confused that discussing it here actually means the national discourse....

should be centered on this, so they actually tell people here to STFU and not discuss it at all, which is insane.
I think Obama handles this well by rising above, but it's a mistake for the rest of us not to have a dialog about it.
That said, the only ones I see "playing" the race car here are the apologists, the deniers. And that would be because this is not their probelm, but merely a game or startegy to them.

[Romulox]

83. I've noticed that a few of the "race experts" at DU are actually EXTREMELY conservative economically

In fact, I think it is clear that viewing everything through the prizm of race is encouraged by those in power--deflecting talk away from class greatly reduces the threat that workers will organize across racial lines for their own benefit.

It is much more *profitable* for working people to be set against one another on the basis of skin pigment than it is to deal with an organized, well-educated workforce united to work in its own self interest, that's for sure.

[Hannah Bell]

130. interesting observation.

[dolphindance]

145. Good point, but then as soon as we acheive something, we'll go back into our race camps again.

Racism will always be a problem if we refuse to talk about it. Blaming things on grand schemes, even if they are true, doesn't change the fact that some races feel they are intrinsically superior to others.

[Romulox]

147. "At least you're not a..." is what the Plantation owner told my sharecropper great great grandad.

That's not a "grand scheme"--that's a specific instance of a self-serving ideology. One that survives on the lips of the modern day plantation owners.

[Mike Daniels]

44. There seems to be a tendency on DU to see any criticism of Obama as "racist"

despite the reality that most objections towards Obama's policies would still exist even if his name was Joe Smith, he grew up in Dallas and he was snow-white with blond hair and blue eyes.

My Republican in-laws have no issue with Obama's race but they didn't support him in the election and wouldn't have even if he met the conditions I listed above. They don't agree with the policies he supports because he's a Democrat - not because of his skin tone or name.

Claiming that every person who objects to something Obama does or says is racist will only serve to turn off the middle/independent voters who ultimately gave Obama the election in the first place.

[bettyellen]

46. claiming every person .. is a racist doesn't happen, sorry. and your concern of stategy and how it

might be better if people how actually have seen racism just STFU about it is noted. Good to know what your priorities are.

[treestar]

121. That's not true

There is plenty of left wing outrage about the health plan and the public option and I haven't seen it called racist. Probably because it would be absurd to call anyone from the further left racist.

Dennis Kucinich has some critique of that kind and no one said that about him.

Many of the right wingers and their batshit theories of "socialism" would likely say the same thing of a white Democratic President. It's just that right wingers are more likely to be racist and when they come up with crap like the birther theory you have to wonder if their racism isn't kicking in.

[Statistical]

52. racist is the new nazi

which is sad because there are far more real racists out there than real nazi's. Calling every possible slight racist provides cover for those who actually are.

[pipi_k]

55. Well I'm glad somebody pointed it out

because yeah...the word "racist" is getting a bit overused here at DU, IMO.

Also, the word "bigot"

I always groan when I see either word here now.

I refuse to believe that every. single. person. in the Republican party is a "racist" or a "bigot". Or anyone who happens to disagree with Obama, for that matter. Didn't we see enough of that shit during the primaries? People who didn't like Obama were "racists". People who didn't like Hillary were "sexists". WTF...are we all back in Kindergarten, for petes sake?

When I see people throwing words like "racist" or "bigot" around, I wonder if they are trying to make themselves look so much BETTER than the people they're trying to denigrate: "Oh, you're a RACIST and I'm not, therefore I must be better than YOU!!!"

It gets so fucking tiresome, and it's embarrassing to boot.

anyway, thank you for mentioning this. I wish people would stop and think a bit before hurling insults at others based solely on what they THINK the other person believes.

[quiet.american]

57. Tend to agree, but the OP would be stronger with a few examples.

There is so much real and true racism expressed by "our friends across the aisle" these days, that even I've stopped trying to call it anything else, and I used to be very reluctant to use the word.

A few examples of DU posts that feature misguided use of the word, or at least where the post decisively leans towards misguided use of the word, would be more persuasive for the OP's case.

[pipi_k]

71. Well I don't know if we're supposed to mention things like this, but

there is a thread around (that thankfully seems to have died) in which the OP took a pretty innocuous statement: "I don't trust Obama" and turned it into the person being a "racist". No concrete proof...just the assumption that the person who didn't like his/her bumper sticker and didn't trust Obama MUST be a racist. And this person reported the man to his employer.

That, IMO, was (at the very least) misguided. I also think it went beyond misguided and entered the realm of assholish-ness.

Imagine...you say "I don't trust Obama" and some fool accuses you of being a racist.

But the sad thing is, I doubt very much that sort of logic would penetrate through whatever obsession people have with lobbing the term "racist" around whenever someone says something they don't like.


someone upthread said s/he is hesitant to use the term "racist" lightly. So am I. Because I've seen how UTTERLY nasty some people can really be.

The statement "I don't trust Obama" is like a pisshole in an iceberg in terms of racism compared to some of the shit I've heard from a few relatives and acquaintances.

People say they "know racism" when they see it. Just like others will say "I know porn when I see it". Lots of things are purely subjective. In fact, I'll bet many here have ridiculed RW nuts who have gone after alleged "porn" in Disney cartoons. They usually end up finding what they're looking for, even if they have to spend a month finding it. If we look hard enough, we usually find what we're searching for, whether it's "evidence" of an affair, porn in cartoons, or "racism".

[bettyellen]

80. your post is totally misleading the bumpersticker thread was about a birther - where BO "was from"

is an issue of total xenophobia, that was never just about trust.
by misrepresenting the OP, you have entered the realm of assholish and totally outed yourslef as a bither sympathiser.

[pipi_k]

90. Were you there?

did the man IDENTIFY himself as a "birther"?

He only said he didn't know where Obama came from. How on earth does that even come close to translating to someone being a "birther"???

"Birthers" are NOT all "racists". God, this just gets so sickening after a while...

anyway, good job on keeping those epithets flying around instead of engaging in adult conversation...

:eyes:

[WhollyHeretic]

197. Birthers are not all racist?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

That is without a doubt a racist movement. Anyone with half a brain can see that. Of course racists often don't have half a brain...

[Raineyb]

219. Neither, I dare say do their apologists

At least I haven't seen any evidence of that.

This would be funny if it weren't so deadly serious.

[Number23]

233. "He only said he didn't know where Obama came from.

How on earth does that even come close to translating to someone being a "birther"???"

Good God... the blindness and denial are THICK with you, grasshopper.

[quiet.american]

81. Okay. Yet, those claiming "I don't trust Obama" stop there, unable to produce a single reason why.

So what is one to think, other than that the reason is race-based? Ask these folks why they don't trust him, and a majority of the further responses are "I just don't trust him."

Or:

He's a Muslim (a statement which is discriminatory in itself)
He's an Arab (more racism)
He's a terrorist (they even stopped short of claiming Kerry was a terrorist, or that he hung out with terrorists)

And you know the rest of the drill.

As you said, imagine you say... "I don't trust Obama." And yet you can't produce a single, credible reason as to why. And I'm not even talking about a single, true reason - just something more illuminating than "I just don't trust him."

I actually think you do have a point, though, and I used to think along the same lines. The problem is that the GOP has truly welcomed the racists among them to become the face of the party. So now, I'm not interested in spending time pondering who among them is truly racist, just bigoted, or actually not racist. If they're not interested in distancing themselves from racists, why should I be?

If someone actually raises a point of order over policy, or Obama's statements, or even what their perception of his policy or his statements are (and I mean his real-world policies and statements, not someone going off about something FAUX fed to them) -- even if I think they're dead wrong in their opinion, I don't consider them racists -- because they are able to point to actual policies, facts, statements and/or events that they strongly disagree with. That to me is a different case than, "I don't trust Obama." Why? "I just don't trust him."

[pipi_k]

93. there are lots of people I neither like, nor trust, and yet I can't say why

Some are black, some are white, some are male, some are female, some have red hair, some have blue eyes, some are tall, some are short...

shall I go on?

You mean to tell me that people don't have the right to not trust or not like someone without (and not know why) having to be called names?

good lord...

[quiet.american]

94. One word: context. nt

[pipi_k]

100. Yeah, context, as in...

as long as someone doesn't know why they don't like a black or gay Democrat, he's a racist or bigot.

If someone doesn't like a black or gay Republican but doesn't know why, well that's a different story altogether.

Yep...context...I get it.

[quiet.american]

106. Why the 'tude? I replied to you in good faith.

Now I'm not interested in anything else you have to say, because you're not interested in discussion, just pushing your 'tude.

[pipi_k]

163. Well, I guess I misunderstood your intent

it's very easy to do online when there aren't any verbal or facial cues.



edited to add...


Not everyone is going to understand what we mean. Especially when it's written in one sentence with no accompanying text to explain. I always try real hard to make sure I'm going to be understood. In some cases, I might end up overexplaining myself. But I do my best and if someone doesn't understand me, I try and try until they do, or I just give up.

so please don't take this the wrong way when I say that it's up to you to make yourself understood and not get all snippy when someone really doesn't understand.

Because I don't usually run around with a "tude" unless I feel I'm getting one. And since I had nothing else to go on besides a one liner, I thought you were giving ME a "tude" first.

that's all I have to say. If you want to play the "ignore" game with me because I didn't understand, then be my guest.

:shrug:

[quiet.american]

168. I thought I gave a reasoned, multi-paragraph explanation, but I could be wrong.

The bulk of which you failed to acknowledge, especially the part in which I said I basically agreed with you.

Now, you look to pre-empt a likely "ignore" reply from me. But I really have never seen the point in informing the ignored that they are ignored.

I haven't seen a genuine gesture from you that you're interested in sincere debate.

[pipi_k]

169. Like I said...it's not my job to try and make heads or tails of what you said

If it seems like I'm not "getting" what you wrote, then do yourself a favor and try to state it another way.

I honestly don't go around intentionally trying to misunderstand people.

yes, your first post sounded like you were agreeing with me. But then there was the one-liner about "context" and that's where I got confused because then I wasn't sure if you were just being sarcastic the first time around.

As far as the pre-emptive "ignore", you were the one who said you were no longer interested in anything I had to say. How the hell am I supposed to take that?

If someone says to me they're no longer interested in what I have to say, then yes...to me that means they're going to ignore me. I mean...WTF?

geez.

I'm really trying to be nice here and explain what happened. Apparently my explanation isn't good enough.

But I'm going to reiterate what I said before. If you wrote something in good faith and someone else takes it the wrong way, then maybe there was a problem in translation or understanding. Don't go off accusing someone of having an attitude and then say you're no longer interested in anything that person has to say. Next time you might try kindly asking a person if they really understood what you wrote.

[quiet.american]

170. I answered you with reasonableness, and you answered w/rudeness.

Now, you're trying to be "nice."

What was so mystifying about my response to you?

What was not to understand?

Smoke and mirrors.

[pipi_k]

199. Why are you insistent upon carrying this on?

I gave you my honest answer. I misunderstood.

I misunderstood your words, I misunderstood your intent. That was it and nothing more.

I've tried to explain it the best way I could, and as nicely as I could.

If someone honestly misunderstands your words and/or your intent and the first thing you do is jump on them with accusations of them having an attitude and then saying you're not interested in hearing anything else they have to say, then be prepared for a lot more similarly unpleasant experiences.

People misunderstand each other all the time, even in the Real World. Usually, when a misunderstanding is admitted, both parties say, OK, fine...I'm glad that's all it was. You, however, want to carry this on and on and on, because lord knows, it's just NOT OK for someone to misunderstand anything you write.

"Smoke and mirrors"? After I've done my best to smooth things over by explaining that I merely misunderstood your intent? You, my dear, are the one who is being nasty now. And you've earned a place on my (very short) Ignore List.

End of this discussion.

[quiet.american]

200. You replied to me, and when I reply to you, I'm being "insistent"?

That I'm on your "ignore" list is no loss to me.

And why do I get the feeling that would surprise you?

[bridgit]

68. There's decades of time & energy already spent in framing *white people*...

as the only other people even capable of rascism...which is something less than true when one takes a reading of the internals within other countries and regions: Hutu/Tutsi, English/Irish, German/Polish (Prussia), Shia/Sunni, Goths/Rome, Serbia/Balkan Slavs, well...slaves, Pawnee/Cheyenne, China/Tibet, Jerusalem/Not-Jerusalem, etc, etc, round the world; so that by willfully forcing the eye elsewhere to that same ole form of impulse buy we aren't able to reeea-lly see that the deep, wide, root-system of human ignorance and intolerance threads down through each one of us and into the earth like a recurring, negative discharge so firstly I do I recognize the problem as larger than the current application of "racism" is able to accommodate while, at the least, secondly: I wonder...

How many times are you able to slather a house with whitewash from that old, bent, splatter dripped rust bucket and a big floppy broad-brush before the windows will be painted shut? Cause if any topic needs an open window full of fresh air it's this one.

[BlooInBloo]

69. And the racism defenders and enablers proudly march on.

[JonLP24]

195. I knew I could count on you to show up

Always straight and to the point as well as truthful.

[gravity]

70. Crying racism all the time hurst the Democrat's cause

It will break down the political argument to race, instead of the facts. You are putting a blanket label on a whole party, where many people have objections that have nothing to do with race. This includes independents and moderates who have voted for Obama in the elections.

I am not denying that race plays a big role in the opposition to Obama, but the Republicans act crazy towards all Democrats.

You can call people racists if they actually do something racists. You shouldn't call them out if you are assuming that the reason someone opposes a certain policy is because they are racists. You have to still win the argument with the facts and not by calling each other names.

[Fire1]

236. The problem with your theory is the obvious omission of

the worst offenders, democrats.

[woo me with science]

72. You got that right, bub. nt

[kiva]

77. Agreed, for a handful of DU posters.

Most people on this board are pretty thoughtful about using racist and racism to describe someone or something, but for a few posters every issue gets labeled as racist. Labeling everyone who disagree with you a 'racist' makes some people feel comfortable because it reduces complex issues to simple black and white (sometimes literally) issues. If you label someone as racist, then you can dismiss anything they say without having to actually work at countering their arguments, or considering their point of view.

Most posts about illegal immigration will include one (or several) posters who fling the word 'racist' with abandon. Ask them for ideas about solving the problem of maintaining our borders while treating people humanely and they have no answers, just the R word. For some people the word 'Republican' is synonymous with racist, which make life simple - there's no point in trying to persuade a racist that they are wrong about an issue, so why even try? Better to just call them a racist on a discussion board, and not waste any time discussing with that person why they oppose health care reform.

[slackmaster]

79. Yes

K&R

:kick:

[paulsby]

82. i think it's absurd too

i know lots of repubs.

i know lots of repubs who are against obamacare and all kinds of other stuff

NONE are racist.

i think it's a childish response that many here use when they see an argument they disagree with.

it's a way to take logical discussion off the table and condemn the "other" as having bad motivations.

[Evoman]

88. I think some people are really shitty at detecting racism....especially people who complain about

"overuse".

I know too many people with their head in the sand. I've heard people tell me that their conservative friends are "not racist", minutes after those same friends spent time blaming native americans, or black culture, or making a joke about Obama and watermelon.

Just because you don't see racism too well, bub, doesn't mean it's not there.

[BlooInBloo]

91. Nah. They're deliberately covering for it.

[Pangolin2]

108. And just because someone sees it in every sentence doesn't mean it is.

Now you may call me a racist for pointing out a fact.

[Raineyb]

115. They see it but they don't care because it doesn't affect them.

And they get uncomfortable when others insist on pointing it out over their objections.

[datasuspect]

89. be careful that piss doesn't fly back on you

you answered your own question.

republican=racist. it's the definition of republican.

[pipi_k]

98. Yeah, because, like there are absolutely NO black Republicans anywhere in the US...

If some of these people like black Republicans but don't like black Democrats, that makes them racist?

Or if they like the Log Cabin Republicans but hate Barney Frank, that would make them "homophobes"?

Is that what we're saying here? That people are only racists or only bigots or only homophobes if they don't like Democrats, even if they do like black, Hispanic, or gay Republicans?


I'm really confused about this...

[datasuspect]

103. i'll give you the same advice i gave the OP

watch out for that flying piss. it's mighty windy today.

[pipi_k]

162. Obscure "advice" never makes up for discussion

In fact, people often think it's a real cool way to avoid discussion.

Dazzle 'em with a little fancy footwork...throw in a couple of meaningless words of "wisdom" and voila...

anybody can look like an Oracle.

[treestar]

124. Black Republicans are very few

I remember fondly many of the slams at Condi. I don't think anyone said anything about racism on DU.

But it would be coming from the left. Still, some of it could have been racist. A black person being a Republican wouldn't protect them from racism. It's just that you could safely say that the white DUer slamming Condi wasn't doing it just due to race, and would have done it to any white SOS Boosh might have picked.

[pipi_k]

165. Yeah, see there's the thing...

Condi...Colin Powell...Alan Keyes...

Republicans.

No doubt there are white Republicans who liked all of them.


But if those same people turned around and said they didn't like, or didn't trust, Obama, lots of people here would call them racists, whether or not the name-callers knew how those people felt about the black Republicans.

The name-callers know nothing at all about people's feelings about others, including black Republicans. They just hear certain "trigger" words or phrases and poof...a little button gets pushed and they're jumping up and down screeching "racism! racism!"

This is the double standard that is so disgusting. If I, a white Liberal, say I don't like Condi, it's just sort of assumed it's not about race. But let a white Conservative say he doesn't like or doesn't trust Obama, and no such benefit of the doubt is given. It's automatically assumed he's a racist.

Double standards suck.

[babythunder]

196. Let me guess

your one of those people that says "but he has black friends so how can he be racist"? Racism is a complex issue and unfortunately many people are made uncomfortable by the topic because it might require them to look into some more uncomfortable parts of their self. You assume that because someone is not using the word "n*gger, or wearing white hoods then how can it be racism. Disagreeing with the President is one thing and in fact there is a great deal about Obama's policies that I personally disagree with but if you honestly believe that the blatant disrespect showed towards BO during his address, or some of these town hall meetings don't involve race then you my friend have your head buried in the sand.

[pipi_k]

203. Call me crazy, but I like to think I'm giving people the benefit of the doubt

instead of just assuming, as you have, that disrespect toward Obama has its roots in racism.

Do you know what the word "racism" means?

It's contempt for someone based on the attitude that the person is inferior.

Maybe...just maybe...people disrespect Obama because they're AFRAID of him, or the things he stands for.

For one thing, his whole campaign message was all about change. You think that for eight years Bush supporters didn't live in their own little fantasy world where they felt safe and loved by a man who couldn't even speak English properly? Someone they'd like to have a beer with?


Now look...we have a man (and I won't even justify using the race card here by calling him a black man) who is educated... articulate... intelligent...a DEMOCRAT who, in their minds, stole the election from McCain and Palin...and who says he wants change.

Whoa...this alone is enough to drive Repubs over the edge. Why throw race into it when there is absolutely NO concrete evidence that is the case?

None. Only assumptions.

[babythunder]

217. You do realize

that many people in this country were brought up with the world-view of minorities and women being inferior to them. You honestly believe that someone such as Joe Wilson who proudly boasts his state's Confederate past thinks everyone is equal?

Just because you can't understand something does not make any less real. What exactly constitutes racism to you? Someone that uses racial epithets, a lynching, it's really unfortunate that we cannot have a discussion on race in this country it's clear that entirely too many people either subscribe to racist beliefs or they refuse to acknowledge it. How can people talk about it when someone like yourself wants to lecture minorities about using the word racism too much.

[treestar]

228. It isn't a complete double standard though

Republicans are more likely to be racists than Democrats are. Republicans as a party are mostly white. They got most of the white vote. They do have a bit heavier burden on this.

[Fire1]

237. Not a double standard. Those few blacks are more like

conservatives who happen to be "republican." In fact, there are conservatives who LIKE President Obama!! So, that's a strawman.
Don't be so naive to think that republicans such as Wilson, were actually FOND of ANY Black republican conservative. People like this don't care what side of the aisle Black people sit on and Blacks like Condi, Powell, Thomas and others are WELL AWARE OF IT!! Secondly, as far as racist, I've found democrats to be the worst offenders. Racism is not confined to a party affiliation.

[babythunder]

242. Bingo!

Let's not delude ourselves into thinking that it's just the "Evil Party" that only has racists.

[Pangolin2]

102. Sorry but that kind of broadbrush is just nutz.

I know you don't even believe it yourself. Well, I hope so anyway...

[datasuspect]

107. i just got back from Brush Expo '09

they're doing lots of keen stuff with brushes nowadays.

anyway. yes, a republican is by definition a racist. a black republican is like the black klansman in the old dave chappelle skit: totally blind.

[Pangolin2]

110. Bovine excrement.

...

[datasuspect]

112. the truth hurts when there isn't a sheet to hide behind.

[Pangolin2]

117. I won't name names but I have been told point-blank by 3 different DUers that

any criticism or negative comment whatsoever about Obama is a direct result of racism. The rules say I'm not allowed to say who it was but you can find those claims if you look. And take your white sheet accusations and shove them.

[datasuspect]

120. i'm not accusing you personally

just making an observation about racism in general.

and yes, probably a good 92% of the hoopla surrounding obama is the result of racism.

[TexasObserver]

95. probably that last option you gave

[Clintonista2]

99. Agree 100%

There is a ton of racism displaying itself, especially at these tea parties, but sometimes I just scratch my head at the racism accusations (for example, people who say the "you lie" comment was racist). It really makes people look like fools when they throw the word around so much.

[crazyjoe]

101. I agree %100, great post

[ShortnFiery]

111. Yeah, we just may inspire a Redneck Rampage.

Here's some selected cuts for what we can expect as behavior of the 9/12 Insane Clown Posse this weekend:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7VCHj2OSdw

[treestar]

113. I do think that's true

I know I've been called one, and if I'm one, then a stronger word is needed for the repukes. We all have a little bit of residual racism in us, especially if white.

But I do think that Wilson would not have done that to a white President. It's a matter of his own personal history and the district he comes from. It may have been subconscious on his part. I just think it a safe conclusion that if he spoke his mind clearly, he would say that he is shocked that a black man is President and does not believe that it should be so.

[hileeopnyn8d]

116. Borrowing your phrasing

I think what is disingenuous and ultimately destructive, is to try and shut down any conversation regarding racism. I think it is disingenuous and destructive to dismiss people when they say they see racism coming from what you are laughably calling the "republican argument".

I see very few reasoned Republican arguments these days, what I see are labels. How come they can throw every fucking "ism" and "ist" at the President, liberals, and Democrats but when we see them purposefully (and masterfully) using strategies aimed at arousing hatred and long standing fear of black men we can't call them on it. Maybe you see it thrown around so often here because for quite some time now calling someone a racist is a bigger crime than being one.

When it became the norm to ridicule and disparage people who perceive something as racism(Sharpton&Jackson), instead of asking/hearing why they see it that way, it forced others into silence. This is a discussion board, instead of trying to silence people further - how about you ask them why they think something is racist.

[Raineyb]

119. +1

:thumbsup:

[Kitty Herder]

133. Well said. Racism is becoming more visible and virulent in this country right now.

Obama's election seems to have brought it out into the open. I can't seem to have a conversation of any length with a conservative these days without them making some kind of racist comment. They're usually quite direct about it, using racial slurs and such. I guess they figure anything goes as long as it's just us white folk.

To avoid discussion of racism at this time would be to ignore the elephant in the room. You can't ignore the elephant shit (the opposition to every move Obama makes, no matter how inocuous) and it is blatant evidence of the elephant. You can keep cleaning up the shit but unless you deal with the elephant, you'll never be able to keep up.

Yes, Republicans in Congress and in the media would oppose Obama's every move even if he were white as snow, but I believe that much of the virulent opposition you see coming from the rank and file conservatives is based on racism. The racism they openly express around other whites whom they expect to agree with them makes that plain to me.

[Uzybone]

122. racist is the new nazi? As if its some kind of a joke.

I guess I shouldnt be too suprised to read this type of tripe on the board.

[Hansel]

136. No you are not the only one.

There are quite a few in denial that racism is a major tool being employed by those on the right.

Just because someone points that out does not mean that they are saying everyone who criticizes Obama is a racist. They are just saying that when you look at the RW strategy as a whole, that yes, most of it is playing on racist fears.

You can see it anyway you want, that's your prerogative. But others are not going to bury our heads in the sand nor are we going to look at isolated incidents and argue they are not part of the racist strategy.

You might be better off trying to understand how it all fits together rather than viewing each individual incident in and of itself. It will make it easier to understand and perhaps you a little less antagonistic to fellow DUers.

Your dismissal of the very real offense that some on DU take to the RW'z obvious racist strategy is offensive in and of itself.

I don't always agree that racism is behind criticism of Obama, but when it is I'm going to call it for what it is and not run from it because you might ridicule me for it.



Edit for spelling

[Raineyb]

218. Unfortunately, that type of offensiveness is rather wide spread and

nothing is ever done about it. But you're expected to be uber polite to someone who consistently disrespects you in such a manner.

[Capn Sunshine]

141. I would posit to you, that if you hesitate to call something racist

because of this invocation, then racism continues to flourish.

[Hannah Bell]

179. because merely mouthing the magic word "racist" vaporizes racism?

i don't think so. in fact, i think it sometimes exacerbates or engenders it.

and sometimes, it seems that's the goal.

[Raineyb]

220. So now calling out racism makes it worse?

Talk about not putting the blame where it belongs.

Racists are rightfully marginalized. They should be afraid to lose jobs, status, and standing for their disgusting views. That they can operate in plain sight and openly just goes to show that we are not serious about doing anything about racism and as long as white people think that they won't be in the minority position not a damn thing will be done about it.

[earth mom]

143. Yep, the "R" word has been flung around DU like dog shit ever since the primaries.

Funny too, because wasn't Obama's election supposed to bring all races together? :crazy:

[Name removed]

146. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hello_Kitty]

167. Jesus Christ. You sound like every teabirther I argue with on facebook.

Funny too, because wasn't Obama's election supposed to bring all races together?

Are you fucking serious?

[Raineyb]

171. I hope not. n/t

[Occulus]

160. But IT IS RACISM

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6523509

[Confusious]

184. You're on the wrong page.

This is about people who could, if the moon is right, the stars are aligned, and the chicken cut right, be considered for apprentice racists, which mean not at all.

That's just plain racism.

[L0oniX]

161. ...see thread here...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6523509&mesg_id=6523509

[Hello_Kitty]

166. Not everyone who opposes Obama is a racist but everyone who's a Birther is.

I stand by that opinion.

[Hannah Bell]

174. and? that opinion & 5 cents gets you exactly where, politically?

you'd think that applying the label vaporized them or something.

[Forkboy]

177. Always the ray of sunshine, Hannah.

[Hannah Bell]

180. doesn't answer the question, forkboy. just more of the usual ad hom from your contingent.

[Forkboy]

185. Your "question" was just mean spirited nonsense at someone stating an opinion.

What difference is YOUR opinion making in this thread, Hannah?

I thought so.

Always a pleasure conversing with you. Let's do it again soon.

[Hannah Bell]

187. this is a discussion board, forkboy. i'm discussing, & the question is a serious one.

i'm asking what the political/social gain from the "racist" label is.

if the teabaggers are "racist" to a man, so what? where does that get you, politically?

let's hear your answer.

i say it gets you nowhere.

[Forkboy]

189. Why does an opinion have to get you somewhere?

Can't someone state an opinion just for the sake of stating their opinion? Does every opinion and utterance get us somewhere politically? Of course not, and you're being your usual self inflated righteous self to pretend that it does. As you say, this is a discussion board, and people state opinions and what they feel. You do it, I do it, others do it. Stop acting like DU is life and death and get a grip, and stop pretending you're the holy keeper of liberal values.

In other words, get over your damn self already.

[Hannah Bell]

190. it's not just an opinion; it's the stale, useless strategy of the democratic party.

[Forkboy]

193. No, it's just an opinion. The poster isn't setting Democratic strategy.

Would you prefer that people don't speak their mind? Would you prefer if the Democratic strategy was to ignore racism where they think it exists?

Maybe instead of whining that the posters words are useless you can write some useful ones to the people that are actually making these strategic decisions. I know there's no feeling of superiority in that, but it's more useful than anything you're doing in this thread tonight.

[Hannah Bell]

213. lol. i'm speaking *my* mind, fork. bugger off.

[Forkboy]

243. Looks like you're shit out of luck.

And it looks like my post was spot on as you have nothing to say in response except the always clever bugger off.

Cya in church, Sport. :hi:

[JTFrog]

192. If the teabaggers are racist to a man, so what?

:eyes:

I've heard everything here now.

Racism taints everything and harms everyone. There is too much to be lost by ignoring racism and everything to be gained by ensuring that we are united in the fight against it.

Ignorance gets you nowhere.

[Forkboy]

194. Ignoring racism would be fresh strategy though.

Calling it out is apparently a stale, useless one.

[Fire1]

240. Better yet, 'indifference' gets you nowhere. n/t

[Hannah Bell]

248. the hidden assumption in your post is that "calling out" examples of racism ends them.

it doesn't. especially when the examples are ambiguous.

& if the teabaggers *are* motivated by racism, they're unlikely to care what you say.

[JTFrog]

256. Ignoring racism is accepting it.

As long as you turn a blind eye, the racist will carry on. If they didn't care what people said, they probably wouldn't have a history of hiding behind white hoods.

[Hannah Bell]

259. again, you assume too much. in this case, that if one doesn't cry "racism", one must necessarily

ignore it. i.e., crying "racism" is the only legitimate method of addressing racism.

another assumption i'm reading between the lines: the belief that shutting people up momentarily ends either their beliefs or actions in the longer term.

[JTFrog]

261. "Crying?"

You're responses on this thread are rather disturbing.

I assume too much? You are the one that keeps making assumptions. You even said so twice above.

The harder you fight to hold on to specific assumptions, the more likely there's gold in letting go of them.

[Hannah Bell]

266. "cry" = "call out". perhaps you're unfamiliar with the usage, e.g. "cry 'havoc'!" once again, your

own assumption that a word means "x" & only "x" leads you to the judgment that i'm making "disturbing" comments.

what's disturbing is how people assume their own perspective, knowledge, experiences = the only possible ones, & their interpretation of other people's behavior = "truth".

[Hello_Kitty]

209. What's the political/social gain from ignoring the racism of the Birthers?

I await your answer.

[Hannah Bell]

214. I asked you first, kitty. still awaiting yours.

but your response *assumes* the charge you're trying to pin on them.

[Hello_Kitty]

224. I'm allowed to assume whatever I want and in this case I'm assuming correctly.

The better question would be what legitimate interest in the circumstances of Pres. Obama's birth that you think the Birthers have. Do you think they have any?

[Hannah Bell]

252. their "legitimate" interest is they're citizens & are allowed to make the case he was born in a ufo

if that's what they believe.

you, by the same token, are allowed to harp on their "racism," their golf shorts & funny white socks, the illiterate spellings on their signs, if you think it's an effective political response.

i don't.

"i'm assuming correctly." - did god come down from the sky & tell you so?

[babythunder]

225. You identify for their movement for what

it really is. So those people who don't subscribe to racist beliefs recognize that the tea bagger movement is nothing but a bunch of pissed off white people who hate the fact that the POTUS is a black man and not because of actual policies.

[hileeopnyn8d]

226. You see no value in recognizing

racism? Is that your position because I don't want to respond to something if it it gets me nowhere.

Maybe recognizing it allows us to be aware of their motives. Should the Southern Poverty Law center start ignoring the existence of white supremacist groups? Where does it get them to keep an eye on these people?

Maybe these teabaggers motives are to intimidate minorities into not voting next election. We don't "know" but it isn't in our best interest to ignore them either.\

I just don't get your position on this. Is it because you have such a hatred for Obama that you're feeling defensive about this topic in particular?

[Raineyb]

229. Spoken as someone who has never experienced it.

So what? So what if someone is sexist towards you"? Where does that get you politically? Why should I give a fuck it didn't happen to me?

It is exactly attitudes like this that I have been complaining about. But it doesn't affect you so you don't give a shit.

You are part of the problem. Actually you're worse, at least the birthers are up front with their bullshit. You pretend to be progressive with yours.

:puke:

With "allies" like these who needs enemies?

[Hannah Bell]

245. you don't know jack about who i am or what i have or haven't experienced.

identity politics is regressive, not progressive. it serves the ptb.

[Raineyb]

254. You don't know jack about a hell of a lot if you think the answer to

racism is ignoring it. That kind of stupid shit is only said by those who don't have to worry about it. I stand by what I said. Offended? Too fucking bad!

[Hannah Bell]

257. another thing i never said: "the answer to racism is ignoring it."

yet another thing i never said: "i am offended by what rainey is saying."

i fear you're debating with some phantoms of your own creation.

perhaps, in that case, you'd kindly leave me out of it.

[Raineyb]

270. You're the one who said that pointing it out makes it worse.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6520843#6529530

You also said "What difference does it make if someone's racist to a man?"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6520843#6529591

Clearly you don't think racism is important enough to bother to recognize. And these "phantoms" are your own rancid words.

Like I said, people like you are part of the problem.

[Hannah Bell]

274. your first link goes to this post, the one you just responded to:

<<257. another thing i never said: "the answer to racism is ignoring it."

yet another thing i never said: "i am offended by what rainey is saying."

i fear you're debating with some phantoms of your own creation.

perhaps, in that case, you'd kindly leave me out of it.>>



your second link goes to this, in which the question is clearly rhetorical, the context being: "what are the political gains?"


<<187. this is a discussion board, forkboy. i'm discussing, & the question is a serious one.

i'm asking what the political/social gain from the "racist" label is.

if the teabaggers are "racist" to a man, so what? where does that get you, politically?

let's hear your answer.

i say it gets you nowhere>>



there's no point in continuing the conversation.

[Raineyb]

280. No shit. I just quoted your own words what could you possibly say to refute

what's right on your screen?

[Hannah Bell]

282. here's what's right on my screen. there's nothing to refute. it doesn't say what you say it does.

<<257. another thing i never said: "the answer to racism is ignoring it."

yet another thing i never said: "i am offended by what rainey is saying."

i fear you're debating with some phantoms of your own creation.

perhaps, in that case, you'd kindly leave me out of it.>>



your second link goes to this, in which the question is clearly rhetorical, the context being: "what are the political gains?"


<<187. this is a discussion board, forkboy. i'm discussing, & the question is a serious one.

i'm asking what the political/social gain from the "racist" label is.

if the teabaggers are "racist" to a man, so what? where does that get you, politically?

let's hear your answer.

i say it gets you nowhere>>

[Raineyb]

286. You can deliberately copy and paste the wrong shit it doesn't change

what you wrote.

"because merely mouthing the magic word "racist" vaporizes racism?

i don't think so. in fact, i think it sometimes exacerbates or engenders it."

"if the teabaggers are "racist" to a man, so what?"

Those are YOUR words the evidence of either cluelessness or indifference right there.

[Hannah Bell]

289. i posted the comments you linked me to. it's not my fault you didn't post these:

"because merely mouthing the magic word "racist" vaporizes racism?

i don't think so. in fact, i think it sometimes exacerbates or engenders it."



regardless, the comments above are equally unobjectionable.

which is why i say, this conversation is pointless. talking to you is like talking to an eel.


on edit: i see you've now edited & changed the link. but are apparently pretending you linked correctly in the first instance.

which is why i say: the conversation is pointless.


on edit again: & are telling me i deliberately posted "the wrong shit".

no, i didn't. i posted what you linked me to.

[Raineyb]

293. I quoted what I wanted to point out.

And I fixed the link. Linking to specific posts can get rather tricky. Unlike you I don't pretend to be perfect. Also unlike you I'm not lying about what the fuck I said.

Like I said before this conversation is pointless. I will refrain from wasting my time on the likes of you. You're denial and dismissive attitude is more than enough bullshit for one evening.

[Hannah Bell]

295. yes, linking to specific posts can be tricky. maybe you should have remembered

that before you accused me of posting "the wrong shit" when I posted exactly what *you* linked me to & what I therefore had every right to believe was what you were talking about.

I'm not lying about anything I said. You aren't paying attention to what I say. You've already determined you *know* what I mean before I say it.

Which is why discussion is pointless. Talk to yourself, it's the same thing.

[kwassa]

285. Identity politics is neither regressive or progressive.

Identity is simply one factor among many in politics, but it is a very valid factor.

[Hello_Kitty]

208. Then what the fuck are you doing on a message board, Hannah?

Why don't you get off the computer and do something useful? Since everything one does is supposed to be getting them somewhere, politically. Go run for office or something.

[Hannah Bell]

215. beside the point, kitty. the "racism" meme is coming not only from you,

but from dem outlets.

[Hello_Kitty]

227. You disagree that Birthers are racist?

Met any lately? I have. They are obsessed with Obama's birth because it allows them to bring up the fact that he's the product of an interracial union.

[Fire1]

238. +1000

[Vickers]

173. At least yer spellin' "y'all" co-reckly.

:rofl:

[Confusious]

183. Spelling, the last gasp of a dying argument.

[readmoreoften]

186. If I label every piece of crisp, round, red fruit with white interior an apple, does the word apple

lose its meaning? Should I only save it for the juiciest of the round red fruits with white interiors?

What about "tree"? If I label each and every tree a tree, does "tree" lose its meaning?

[Hannah Bell]

188. the inadequacy of the comparison is obvious to anyone with functioning brain cells.

[pipi_k]

201. If it were anything other than an apple, then yes, it would lose its meaning

But, see, we're talking about something concrete.

An apple. You can see it. Feel it. Smell it. We all know that when we see a crisp red (or green) fruit with a white interior, it's an apple.

But "racism" isn't so easily discerned. People say they "know it when they see it", but that's a purely subjective view. We can take pornography, for example. I myself have a very low threshold for what I consider pornographic. What if I were to run around calling all sorts of things pornographic...even if, by someone else's standards, they're not? What if I were to run around accusing people of being "porn apologists" if they don't agree with me that this or that piece of art is pornographic?

Why should MY perception be the standard for everyone, and why should I have the right to bash others for not sharing my opinion?


I see this as being similar to the constant use of the word "racist" to describe people who haven't even shown actual concrete signs of being racists...just that they hate, or don't trust, Obama.

Use the word enough and it loses its impact. There are so many other more virulent cases of real, concrete racism that go unaddressed because people are focusing on the little things.

[aikoaiko]

191. You are correct.

I think its easier for some DUers to dismiss folks who oppose President Obama as simply being racists because Obama's message makes too much sense for any other reason to exist.

[Stinky The Clown]

198. Thanks Mom

[Time for change]

202. Since you give no examples to make your point, it's impossible to agree or disagree with you

There IS a good deal of racism in this country, especially among Republicans. Using it when it applies does not cause it to lose its meaning. That's not to say that it isn't ever over-used, but you say nothing to support your argument. The word is also under-used, I think a lot more than it's over-used.

[librechik]

207. I never even thought about it--until my president was black. Suddenly racism

turned up in so many public statements and acts that I couldn't ignore it. I guess others can, though.

[Swamp Rat]

210. You pissed against the wind.

"every other post here uses "racist" as the catch all" - Please cite examples.

According to your stated figure, approximately 23 million posts used this term improperly, so you have plenty from which to choose.

If you cannot post at least a few thousand examples, a small fraction of our stated figure, then it appears you have made a broad-brush, untenable assertion.

[Starry Messenger]

211. How would the word lose its meaning?

Racism is part of an overall system of oppression. Republicans who have happily reaped the benefits of the system are seeing their world turned upside down by a President who embodies the worst fears of many of them.

[branders seine]

212. Freud said that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar (or was that Woody Allen?)

Sometimes disagreement is just disagreement.

That said, I think Obama's election has unhinged a wide swath of American racists.

[DevonRex]

216. Look at the makeup of the GOP and tell me the party isn't racist at its core.

Your post is bullshit.

[TCJ70]

222. Because of the color of their skin? n/t

[DevonRex]

223. Because people of "other" skin colors aren't welcome there. Otherwise

they would BE there. Unless, of course, you're saying that "other than white" people aren't there because THEY are racists.

[trocar]

221. I've noticed

I'm sure there are many reasons, not all are "racist", some are just plain stupid. But, cry wolf too many times.......

[progressivebydesign]

230. I'm sorry, but are you the arbiter of all things racist or not? Because most of this shit is racist.

I saw the signs today, I saw the confederate flags at the march, I read the comments all over the internet. They're racist. 99% of the shit against our President is racist. Feel free to think what you want, but there is no natural law that states that a word can be overused that way.. it was used since the beginning of the civil rights struggle, and it still has meaning. If you want to believe that the massive resistance and scary behavior of those ugly old white men is anything but racist, that's your choice. not mine.

[The Fountainhead]

239. Standard OP

It is standard operating procedure for idiotic fuckheads to label anything they don't agree with as "racist" when they can't come up with a real argument. I am not saying that the protesters are right or wrong, but the vast majority are not racist. Face the facts, just because people oppose Obama doesn't make them a racist.

[Orsino]

241. I'm sure the lily-white nature of today's rally was entirely coincidental. n/t

[billh58]

250. You are,

of course, correct and many of the anti-Obama protesters are indeed racists -- not all, but many. Those who feel that the term "racist" is overused have obviously never experienced it firsthand, nor have they seen the raw racism that pervades many communities in the neoconservative Red States.

Many overt bigots do not see themselves as being "racist," because they have nothing to compare the trait with. IOW, they (or their relatives) have never NOT been racist, and consider their attitudes and world-view as being "normal."

The election of America's first African-American president has not caused this outburst of racism -- it has only exposed what has always been there. This country has been predominantly "racist" since before the Civil War, and for many that bloody war only outlawed slavery, but NOT the underlying racism which made war necessary. Reconstruction was never allowed by the racists to be completed, and hatred and resentment die slowly.

The assertion that the term "racism" will somehow lose its meaning or value due to overuse, could not be further from reality. There is no possible scenario where shining a bright light on racism, religious bigotry, or any form of hatred, will harm this country. Only silence, and continued ignorance, will perpetuate the harm to our nation, and our people.

[1]

246. hmmm... so, in the end, it looks like there will never be any resolution to the differences...

no give, no take.

the goal is just to piss each other off now. through our words and symbols and actions.

positional. unbending. steadfast in our mutual "fuck you!"

and we are all getting better at pushing each others buttons, its evolving. escalating.

yay, all of us.

well done...

[A-Schwarzenegger]

251. The hyperbole of your OP probably wasnt conducive to serious debate.

"if y'all label each and every thing as "racist"...

every other post here uses "racist" ...

if everything is considered "racist"..."

[1]

262. so you don't actually read posts here, huh?

[CreekDog]

253. From now on, only white people get to decide what is actually racist

everyone else is getting hung up on simple misunderstandings. :eyes:

[1]

263. that's pretty funny. since i am african-american. but... keep on with your ignorance...

you are so smart...

[CreekDog]

268. i didn't refer to your race

but keep on with your ignorance! :think:

[1]

271. of course you didn't, creek. that was my, and only my, misunderstanding...

[CreekDog]

292. ok :)

:rofl:

[Name removed]

267. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Swamp Rat]

275. "When you can't find an intelligent to add..."

:D

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

278. Your granite slab is on its way

Not long before you're raptured back to FR.

[Name removed]

284. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

290. I'll go you one better and tell you something psychic

You're a 21-year-old malcontent with a 2-year degree working in an entry-level management job. You've got a sense of entitlement that far outstrips any of your skills, talents or hereditary attributes, and you have no clue, buddy, NO CLUE AT ALL as to what lessons life still has to teach you about people who think they are more deserving than others. You still think that if you work hard and do the right thing, everything will go your way. Your friends call you a cheap-ass and your girlfriend IMs with sexy-sounding bad boys while you're asleep. That's what I know about you, pal.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

279. "You liberals"

:*

[Raineyb]

281. ...

[Cleita]

288. How about labeling racism as racist. Will that be acceptable? n/t

[Raineyb]

294. I suspect it is not hence this rather obnoxious OP. n/t

[1]

300. have you not read all my posts in this thread? did i not say that?

[TheKentuckian]

296. Wipers and danglers for racist have to invent excuses to protect

friends and family. They can't be fucked up, after all we can identify a hand full of soulless Uncle Ruckus types that they can stomach for as long as they toe the line. But as we saw with Powell, as soon as one breaks ranks they are accused of the bigot laced using "the race card" and defecting due to race. The fucking company line was Powell only supported Obama due to race.

I haven't traditionally been one to be into dividing up the stupidity but that doesn't mean I have ever had a single doubt that racism is part of the foundation of the modern Republican party. Shit, all you have to do is look at their election strategy and blatant and continuous efforts at disenfranchisement and it has to be PAINFULLY CLEAR that racism and overall xenophobia isn't a big, big piece of the GOP pie.

They have the same basic ideals as the Klu Klux Klan and are generally open about their hate and fear of Arabs and gays. You don't have to talk long with most to get a wacky Jewish conspiracy story but they try to keep a lid on it but the proud and open racism against black people just became too costly so it has become resentfully buried. Waiting, learning a less direct vocabulary, actively moving in the currents but festering because of restrictions imposed from "PC Police" and the already hated central government.

Why do you think the term "race card" has come into the vernacular? That term is dripping with that resentment as is all pissyness about black people using the word nigger (or some derivative) and feelings of the downtrodden white male.
The intimation that minorities are biting the hand that feeds them or something that is pervasive among much of the base of the Republican party and a solid chunk of the blue collar/Reagan Democrat that has become part of the fabric of America seems to have a fertile bed of support even on what passes for the far left, I guess.

If and when the shit ever goes down, the apologists will side with the knuckle dragging lunatics. Count on it. Just like the Congress, the numbers advantage we thought we'd cobbled out over the decades is very deceiving. There are quite a few who are talking a fair game but are already feeling very stretched along racial lines, distrust unions, and actively have personal trepidation about socialism in America (AS IF?!?) to varying degrees.

Some just need to accept that the vast majority of Republicans are sick and fucked up in some or a combination of ways that should be utterly unacceptable and cause them to be shunned and disapproved of. What the fuck difference does it make what anti-social brand of insanity it is the causes these crazy bastards to both behave and enact policy as they do? Hang the fucks on whatever you can hang them on.
Diminish them completely right along with their batshit foreign policy, voodoo economics, repression of people for whatever reason, and disgusting greed that magnifies poverty all on the working man's dime.

Whatever their motivations, they are all pretty heinous. The most important thing is to crush the Republicans and dump all their bullshit ideas into the dustbin of history. They are a hodge podge of sick fucks with failed ideas giving each other cover.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

297. Tell it, Kentucky.

With style!

[TankLV]

298. BUT - sometimes a CIGAR is a CIGAR!!!

And, most things dealing with today's repukes DOES involve RACISM!

"sorry" if it chafes your butt...