If you are all to willing to stand with "us" against GOP/Teabagger bigotry but not against . . .

[wndycty]

. . .against progressive "bigotry" then what are your values?

I see too many folks who all too soon to join "us" in pointing the finger at the GOP/Teabaggers and call them out for their bigotry, but when we are in need of greater sensitivity within our own progressive ranks we often deny our transgressions.

I have a lot more respect for people who acknowledge they are imperfect and commit to doing better, than I do to people who just deny that they are capable of bigotry.

[Mr Deltoid]

1. Unrec

Another divisive strawman

[wndycty]

2. Care to explain why its a strawman or do you just want to leave a drive by comment...

...that adds absolutely nothing constructive to the conversation?

:kick:

[Mr Deltoid]

8. Its a strawman because

It is based on assumptions. It attacks an assumption. It is an attempt at dividing the party along racial lines and it will harm Obama's chances at reelection.

It is the most foolish possible road for Obama supporters to go down at this point in time because it drives people away from the Obama camp. The longer it gets dragged out, the more it will harm Obama and the Democratic party.

[wndycty]

12. Who is dividing the party along racial lines those who practice bigotry. . .

. . .or those who call it out.

If I and others see bigotry in the party are we supposed to sit down and shut the fuck up because you will call it a straw man argument?

I'd like an answer. If I see bigotry am I supposed to shut up? Yes/No

[Mr Deltoid]

16. No, it is the people pushing this phony 'issue'

That are harming Obama with these phony 'white liberals are racists' tripe.

It might temporarily boost your ego engaging in it, but it comes at a huge cost to Obama's chances at reelection and the future of the democratic party.

Race baiting is racism.

[wndycty]

19. How is bigotry a phony issue?

How is holding certain people to one standard and others to a different standard a phony issue?

So essentially you are saying if one group of folks see bigotry its not bigotry until the folks they believe are acting in a bigoted manner say it is?

If I see bigotry and I feel its bigotry and I know its bigotry am I supposed to stay quiet because you might think its a "phony issue?"

[Mr Deltoid]

36. Phony accusations of bigotry are bigotry.

You harm Obama by engaging in it. The longer it goes on, the higher cost to Obama's reelection chances.

[wndycty]

37. What makes it phony? You keep telling me its phony. I, and many others, don't think it is. . .

. . .are you the arbiter of what is phony and what isn't?

Why do I have to assume its phony just because you say so?

[Mr Deltoid]

42. Got evidence? Concrete evidence?

Of course not, because it is a made up issue.

Tell me how these blanket attacks against white liberals aren't racist?

[themadstork]

104. Not sure you know what a strawman is.

[treestar]

107. Hello these are people already saying he's lost them for

not being progressive enough!

[CakeGrrl]

3. I predict that

this will not be well-received because there are some seem to believe that there is no such concept of "progressive bigotry".

If one cannot conceive of that phenomenon, one will not give it any credence.

[Mass]

4. I am sure there are (nobody is perfect), but would you point us to a specific example

Sometimes, it is hard to put yourselves in somebody else's shoes and understand which specific things are shocking.

[CakeGrrl]

17. Who said anything was 'shocking'?

Biased behavior isn't shocking - not if you see the pattern. However, as we've seen, the very suggestion that some may exhibit it is outrage-worthy.

An example I saw the other day was the implication that President Obama's poor performance (the poster's opinion, certainly not mine) is poisoning the well for race relations. Why does the black president bear a burden that I've never seen borne by a white president? And why should he?

The implication here is that President Obama is indeed part of some sort of social experiment by which America gives the black guy a try, and by gawd, if he doesn't get it right, why should we pick another black President? That's the kind of institutional bias and double standard in place.

Speaking of double standards, the bias is evident, in my opinion, when President Obama's expectations are set ridiculously high and subject to dire consequences for not hitting those very lofty goals. Where does Michael Moore get off with his "I elected a black man, but I got a white man" b.s.? What does that actually MEAN? That, to me, is an example of setting the abnormally high expectations so that, perhaps, there's an excuse not to try the "experiment" again. People concoct this fantasy 'SuperFly' movie hero ass-kicking persona and then complain bitterly when that doesn't come to fruition.

That is my opinion of examples that embody some of these biases. It doesn't mean people are wearing hoods and burning crosses. It is NOT that clear-cut or necessarily extreme. But it does exist and it shapes the response to the President and what he does.

I fully expect that people will rail against it and deny it. But I stand by my observations and draw my own conclusions from what people continue to say and do.

[Mass]

31. Thanks. This makes it clearer to me.

I dont think people should rail against it. First, this is something that people feel deeply about. I had not seen Michael Moore's quote, but I agree it is bothering (fault of a better word), as are people who say that Obama's "performance" should have nothing to do with race relations in this country (not that his performance is poor, considering the problems) or people who expected that Obama would be more progressive than other Democrats because of his background.

However, the fact that you are able to point to some concrete examples makes it clearer to people, because a lot of us were left to ask ourselves: what is it in our behavior that is biased (and there is always something for everybody), and this is what put people on the defensive, I think.

[CakeGrrl]

38. Thanks for the response.

If only more dialogues could be a little more flame-free...

[treestar]

108. Your third paragraph

Exactly. MHP's paragraph comparing Clinton to Obama nails it dead. Where was all this pearl clutching when Clinton signed DADT? Yet Obama signs DADT repeal and it's still not enough and there are looney suggestions he even really didn't intend for it to be really repealed! There is the evidence right there.

[EffieBlack]

7. And they assume that even the mention that any progressive could be prejudiced means

you're calling ALL progressives racists and that means you're calling THEM a racist and therefore you are a racist.

[wndycty]

14. Here is the best part Effie. . .

. . .in the OP I specifically said "bigotry" not "racist" or "racism." Everybody automatically assumed it was "racism." That was done on purpose.

[ClarkUSA]

20. heh

I noticed that. ;)

[Cali_Democrat]

53. Why did you do that on purpose?

And what do the results prove?

[wndycty]

66. To see if people would automatically assume I was talking about race. . .

. . .to be inclusive so that other identity groups (LGBT, women, immigrants, etc.) could be maybe view the "us" and bigotry through the prisms they know.

[Cali_Democrat]

72. Perhaps it's because of your other post in this forum

"If your unhappiness with Obama is not due to race then I and others are not speaking . . ."

Also, your other posts on the first page are all about MHP and the kerfuffle over her article.

That's probably why some assumed you were talking about race.

[EffieBlack]

74. Therein lies a problem with stereotyping

Just because someone discusses race in one area does not mean that they are talking about it every time they bring up an issue. Especially if they are as eloquent as Wndycty is - he/she writes very clearly, in plain language and is extremely clear. If people misunderstand him/her, it's because THEY are injecting something into what they are reading, which is a problem with the reader, not with the OP. And the fact that some readers make assumptions about a poster simply because of something the poster wrote in another thread in another context on another issue indicates that those readers are subject to prejudging and that perhaps they should consider more carefully before jumping to conclusions.

For example, many on this board continue to insist that everyone - including Melissa Harris-Perry, me and several posters on this board - have and continue to accuse all white progressives of racism even though we have done nothing of the kind and, in fact, have said in plain English in no uncertain terms that we are not. Yet, the same folks keep coming back at us using that same flat out wrong assumption over and over and over as the premise for their arguments. I can't imagine how anyone with any basic language comprehension skills could continue to make such an argument unless they are purposely trying to skew these discussion. Yet they keep doing it.

Why is that?

[wndycty]

76. You know what happens when u ass u me, right?

:kick:

[Cali_Democrat]

79. Well it wasn't me. I didn't mention the word "race" once in this thread until now

But I can see how others would assume you were talking about race because of your other posts.

[xchrom]

5. Joe McCarthy? Is that you?

I thought you were dead?

[polichick]

65. LOL

[Cali_Democrat]

6. Progressive bigotry?

Example?

[Mr Deltoid]

9. Its a strawman

No examples forthcoming.

[treestar]

109. Read the article that started all of this

Examples are in it.

[Empowerer]

113. You've hit on the problem

Some people demand "proof," but when examples are provided, they're picked apart, dismissed or, as we see here, ignored altogether.

For folks who want to deny the existence of racism (or at least the existence of racism in THIS instance, since it never is at play in THIS instance), no proof is enough, no examples are sufficient, no reference is valid.

It's a game that they've become very adept at playing:

Where's your proof?"
"Here's some proof."
"THAT's not proof!"
"Here's more proof."
"THAT"s not proof!"
"Here's more proof."
"THAT'S not proof!"
"So, where's your proof?"
"What's the point? Nothing's going to change your mind."
"AHA! You have NO PROOF!!!"

[Whisp]

11. There were a lot of charges here about DUers, and the President, being Homophobic.

I'm assuming then you mean that only 'liberal' DUers are/can be bigoted in that way, but not progressive ones?
Pretty foolish territory to go trapsing in, don't you think, this all or none stuff.

[Cali_Democrat]

13. I don't think anybody should be bigoted in any way

I'm not sure how you extrapolated that from my one-word question asking for specific examples.

Also, your example isn't very specific. It's extremely vague.

[Whisp]

21. my point was that selecting certain groups and labels as being thoroughly 'good'

against other labels and names as being 'not quite as good as'
is just wrong all the way, as in: Progressives here vs. the rest of DUers here.

You seem to think Progressives don't have the human failings the rest of us do.

[Cali_Democrat]

22. "You seem to think Progressives don't have the human failings the rest of us do"

When did I say anything remotely close to this?

Are you responding to another poster?

[Whisp]

24. your post number 6.

''progressive bigotry? Example?''

Like it is an odd little creature you have never seen before.

[Cali_Democrat]

26. Those 3 words made you think that I feel progressives don't have human failings?

[Whisp]

27. no, that the thought of progressives capable of being bigots is out of the realm of thought to you.

[wndycty]

29. Not only that the poster assumes that if you believe a particular progessive is being bigoted

You are accusing all progressives of being bigoted. That is not the case but some folks are no sophisticated enough to see that.

[Cali_Democrat]

33. Ya...I'm just not as sophisticated as you

Help me see the light.

[Cali_Democrat]

30. Those 3 words made you think that I feel progressives aren't capable of being bigots?

Those 3 words made you think it's it's out of the realm of thought for me?

[Whisp]

40. not you personally, just a generalization that I get here sometime.

The IDEA that a progressive could be bigoted! *gasp.

[Mr Deltoid]

86. Strawman

Rides again

[Mr Deltoid]

44. Zero examples forthcoming

As per your original three words.

[Empowerer]

49. See Post #17

therein is a perfect example.

[Supersedeas]

117. equivalency -- TeaBagger bigotry is the same as white liberal criticism

[r0nr0ntaiwan]

119. I'll bite.

On the left, Affirmative Action is a noble call. And, I can see how people would think this way. But the assumption behind it is that a black person can't achieve things on his/her own.... he/she needs help by white people in order to get a fair shake or make something of him/herself. Actually, it's worse: He/She needs institutionalized help, help from (a mostly white) government in order to get a fair shake or make something of him/herself. This is bigotry. It implies that a black person can't succeed on his/her own, and it implies that only a white government can help that black person.

I've heard many people on the left criticize "rich, fat, white American men." This is clear bigotry against people that have become more successful, people that have weight problems, people that are white, American and male.

During the 2008 election year, on a few occasions, I'd heard people say that they wanted to vote for Obama because they didn't want to see "another white man" as President. Why should color even matter? This is bigotry. By the way, I have conservative/Republican friends. I'd never heard any of them say that they didn't want Obama in the White House because he is a black man.... although many here will probably assume that, despite not saying it, they were likely thinking it.

Bigotry doesn't have to be against people of color or poor people only.

[r0nr0ntaiwan]

120. More bites.

People in the Tea Party are constantly ridiculed by those on the left as "teabaggers." This is humorous because the term "teabagging" has a certain meaning. It's a sexual act. Stereotypically, this act is performed by homosexuals. So, it seems that people criticizing the Tea Party are doing so by using "teabagging" as something negative. Would this be homophobic?

[Cali_Democrat]

10. Who is "us"?

[wndycty]

15. I used "us" and "bigotry" for a reason. . .

. . .this OP does not necessarily need to be about any particular "ism" or "phobia."

Let's see how many people realize that before they respond. There are assumptions being made that are not necessarily accurate.

[Cali_Democrat]

18. So who is unwilling to stand against progressive "bigotry"?

[wndycty]

23. In my example I see many folks failing to acknowledge Harris-Perry's point about. . .

. . .white liberals holding Obama to a different standard than they held Clinton.

Now someone else might accuse other progressives of not standing against a different type of bigotry.

[seaglass]

41. Oh no, there have been a lot of posters who have stated why MHPs

comparison between Clinton and Obama is not valid - but some don't want to hear it so they pretend it's not being said.

[Supersedeas]

118. silly facts

[wndycty]

25. My "us" and your "us" might not be the same "us"

What you think is bigotry might be different than what I think is bigotry.

[Cali_Democrat]

28. What if our definitions are the same?

[wndycty]

32. Oh brother. . .

. . .really?

If I belong to one identity group and you belong to a different identity group our perceptions of what is bigoted might not be the same.

[Cali_Democrat]

34. What if our perceptions are the same in terms of what bigotry is?

[jberryhill]

39. Half of "us" is you

[last_texas_dem]

35. If I see a "progressive" displaying bigotry, I'll stand against him/her.

Most of what I've been seeing are a handful of posters on this site trying to find bigotry where anyone who isn't resorting to extraordinary measures to "find" it would never think to claim that it exists. For what purpose, I'm not sure, as many of these posters are the same crowd who constantly complain about any discussion that might dare to divide or temper the enthusiasm of the Democratic base in any way.

[Union Scribe]

43. Just fucking stop it.

You've dropped enough grenades in this forum in the last week already.

[last_texas_dem]

45. +1,000.

[ClarkUSA]

46. Are you trying to censor wndycty? There are Hide Thread/Ignore functions. Use them.

Lots of us agree with Melissa Harris-Perry. You won't get us to shut up and sit down.

[Mr Deltoid]

47. OPs like this one harm Obamas reelection chances

The longer they go on, the more harm done.

[Empowerer]

50. How does what someone says on an internet discussion board harm the President's reelection chances?

Please be specific.

[Mr Deltoid]

56. Because it divides Obamas electorate along racial lines.

[EffieBlack]

57. Internet conversations "divide Obama's electorate along racial lines?"

With all due respect, that's pure bull.

Anyone who would decide to vote against President Obama because someone whom they don't know and who is not in any way connected to President Obama says something they don't like about race, that person probably didn't want to vote for him anyway and is looking for a convenient excuse. And the fact that they assume people would buy such a stupid excuse as "someone on an internet chat room divided Obama's electorate along racial lines so I'm not going to vote for him" tells me a lot about how they see the world.

[Mr Deltoid]

58. Yes

People who go online vote.

[EffieBlack]

59. And a Democrat who goes online and then decides to vote against President Obama because they

claim that some anonymous poster who supports President Obama "divided the Obama electorate along racial lines" is either an idiot or wasn't going to vote for him anyway.

[Mr Deltoid]

60. You can spin it all you want

But it harms Obama.

Are the attacks by Obama supporters against white liberals racist?

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

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

[Pab Sungenis]

97. Internet conversations don't divide.

They reflect the division that's out there in the real world.

[CakeGrrl]

63. Oh boo hoo, not this again!

How many people do you think are reading this?

That is, of the 80% to 20% Approve-to-Disapprove ratio of Dems/Liberals with regard to the President's job performance?

And how many of them are thinking "You know, now that this guy is posting stuff that's making people mad, I'm going to sit out the 2012 election! I don't care if the GOP gets in and sends the country to hell!"

What you mean to say is that people on the internet bug you so much you might just vote against your own interests to spite them.

[Name removed]

85. Deleted message

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

[These Eyes]

83. Your warning that any discussion of race/racism/bigotry only serves to hurt Obama..

seems more like an attempt silence all discussion on the topic. If you don't want to talk about it, that's fine. But others do. Silence on the issue isn't going to make anything better.

[Mr Deltoid]

87. Its not the discussion

It is the ongoing systematic blanket attacks.

Tell me how these ongoing attacks on white liberal Democrats help Obama? Tell us how these ongoing attacks on white liberal Democrats do not hurt Obama? Tell us how intentionally dividing the Democratic party along racial lines bodes for Obama's reelection?

Tell me how these blanket attacks against white liberals aren't racist?

[These Eyes]

88. What blanket attacks?

I keep seeing that response posted, but I have yet to see the blanket attacks. Maybe it's a misunderstanding on my part. Can you show me an example of one. A link perhaps?

[Mr Deltoid]

90. Have you not read the article?

Do you know what 'Blanket attack' means? Charges leveled at a group. In this case, the 'group' are Democrats of a certain ethnicity.

http://www.thenation.com/article/163544/black-president-double-standard-why-white-liberals-are-abandoning-obama

[polmaven]

105. What I read

from the OP was a statement about bigoted liberals. There was absolutely no indication that all "Democrats of a certain ethnicity" are racist. The only blanket I see here does not belong to the OP.

[wndycty]

68. I ain't stopping shit. . .ignore/hide is your friend. . .

Your response and my, as well as others', response to your response keeps this thread kicked. . .so thank you very much.

[treestar]

112. When someone resorts to this, it's a sign they know

there's something wrong with their position, but they can't handle that.

[Enrique]

48. alerted for broadbrush accusation of racism n/t

[EffieBlack]

52. Alerted for an unwarranted accusation of making a broadbrush accusation of racism.

Good Lord - give it a rest. If after all of this time you still can't comprehend that every discussion of bigotry does NOT equate to a "broadbrush accusation of racism," maybe you should just go read a book or watch television for awhile and let the rest of us engage in a thoughtful, adult discussion without attempting to thwart it at every turn.

[Enrique]

54. i'm so sorry for thwarting this thoughtful adult discussion

i just glanced through the posts again and it's striking what a high-quality discussion was started by this OP, and I'm thoroughly chastened at my having thwarted it. :blush: :spank:

[EffieBlack]

55. We are the world . . . we are the children

Of course, the discussion here would be a lot more adult and insightful if the usual suspects didn't jump in and try to disrupt the conversation. . . as they usually do whenever the issue of race comes up. For some reason, this issue really sticks in some people's craw and provokes some rather ugly and childish responses, regardless how rational and reasoned the OP is.

[Pab Sungenis]

69. "...jump in and try to disrupt the conversation...when race comes up."

Now you know how LGBT*.* on here feel.

[EffieBlack]

71. I didn't need this to know how my friends in the LGBT community feel

I can't say that I know exactly how they feel because I'm haven't walked their mile. But I do have a lot of empathy for them and see for myself many of the challenges they face. And I've long been aware of how their views and perspectives are dismissed and marginalized on this board.

[yardwork]

77. Some of your best friends are gay. /nt

[EffieBlack]

78. Actually, some of my best friends ARE gay

When I say "my friends," I really mean my FRIENDS, not just some casual acquaintances or colleagues.

[CakeGrrl]

64. WHERE did you read that in the OP?

If you're tired of seeing this discussed, hide the thread.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

51. As I was telling Prism the other day: It matters much more when I as a black woman

stand up against homophobic rhetoric in the black community. I acknowledge that just because I am from a historically marginalized group doesn't mean that I am immune from having prejudices and biases. It is up to all of us to speak out against any and all forms of hatred and bias. And just because we may think that we don't exhibit feelings about others that are based our prejudices doesn't mean that we don't.

[Pab Sungenis]

70. Gays were among the Freedom Riders.

Gays were there with Dr. King at the Lincoln Memorial.

There were blacks at the Stonewall.
There were blacks at Harvey Milk's funeral and the Twinkie Riots.

The fight for equality must be a united front, because if anyone is unequal then no one is equal. We shouldn't be fighting each other but ALONGSIDE each other.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

73. Yes, I know all of that. It wasn't a point that I was making to single out the LGBT

community. I did have a larger point.

[Pab Sungenis]

75. I didn't say you singled us out.

I'm adding to your comments and emphasizing that we all need to be pulling together here. There's no reason we should be divided.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

91. Jesus! I simply was using an example. That's all. Nothing else.

We're on the same side for goodness sake!

[Pab Sungenis]

95. ...and that's what I'm trying to say to you!

See how defensive we've all been getting? I back you up, you come at me as if I was accusing you of meaning the opposite of what I was saying. I reassure you again, you snap.

Your example was valid, and I was backing it up. We agree on this. As you said, and I've been trying to convey, we are on the same side.

[jpgray]

62. Would Democratic leaders' opposition to gay marriage be classed as progressive bigotry?

It is a curious standard for bigotry if harsh criticism of a president is bigotry, while the relegation of an entire minority to second-class status is not bigotry. If that's the case, harshly criticizing a president for opposing equal rights is bigotry, or can be? That seems odd as well.

[wndycty]

67. That is why I said "us" and used bigotry instead of racism

So that people could look at this through their own prism.

There are things you may see as homophobic that I don't and may never, but I would think its wrong for me to marginalize you for feeling the way you do.

Just because I don't feel that folks who are supportive of LGBT rights, but against gay marriage are homophobic, doesn't mean that you are not entitled to see it differently. (I am for it by the way)

So hopefully by using "us" in quotes and not naming a particularly type of bigotry some folks will see this issue through their own prism.

[TheKentuckian]

80. Your prism is a vision where if white liberals (and by extension all liberals, including blacks)

criticize Barack Obama then they are racist and that should not be given credibility because it is generally absurd even if the exception occurs.

I have no doubt that some percentage of liberals that are tough on the President are that way because they are bigots but the new litmus test is a piece of self serving and ugly excuse to subdue criticism of the President because no matter what the charge is laid in a blanket fashion, essentially if you don't use Bill Clinton as your yardstick to judge Obama and you are liberal (and for the time being, white) then you are a racist.

How the fuck is that not goofy bullshit? I'll grant some folks fitting that definition are racists but twisting that into a blanket accusation is a problem as is twisting blowback from that into the charge that people are saying that Dr. Harris-Perry stated that all white liberals are racist which is just stacking bullshit on a phantom foundation.

I'll go a step further and say you guys are very cognizant of what is going on and are pushing it for purely political purposes to insulate Obama from criticism and steer the dialog more to your liking. I find the tactic abhorrent and I find it smacks of organization and formulated talking points, which indicates (but certainly does not prove) OFA involvement.

This is also an evolution of a much less smattering of essentially the same points now given clarity and organization.

[wndycty]

81. Oh so now you are telling me what my prism is? That is mighty white of you. . .

. . .seriously, where the fuck do you get off telling me what my fucking prism is. I wouldn't dare tell you what the fuck your prism is.

[These Eyes]

84. Oh, for crying out loud...

Show me where ANYONE posted that ALL white democrats are racist. Did you even bother to read MHP's article or any of the related OPs yourself or did you just read the responses in the threads and believe that a blanket accusation of racism was indeed made? Has this foolishness become imprinted in your mind and you just can't let it go? Now you're accusing people of using this as some type of political strategy.

Unbelievable.

[Mr Deltoid]

89. The longer it goes

The worse it will get. Eventually the Mods will be forced to put a halt to it.

[wndycty]

98. So rather than have a constructive conversation on bigotry (all of it, not just racism). . .

. . .you'd rather disrupt threads and get them locked?

[EffieBlack]

99. That seems to be the m.o.

Jump into every thread on the issue, disrupt every attempt at rational conversation, twist things that people say, throw around obnoxious accusations, and then offer the deteriorated discussion as proof that conversations about race are divisive.

Fortunately, they are so transparent that most logical people can see right through it.

[wndycty]

101. Exactly

:kick:

[Pab Sungenis]

94. The song is true.

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

Everyone is a little intolerant of those that are different. We're raised that way. The question is how we react when those thoughts enter our mind.

[TheKentuckian]

102. I never said anyone said all and yes, I think it is political tactic.

I defined how the charge is a blanket one, simply a smaller blanket than the fake "all white liberals" one this effort willfully conflates with any other form of blanket accusation like if you don't measure Obama by Clinton then you are a racist (currently if you are white and liberal).

[Pab Sungenis]

96. Some people are still shell-shocked from 2008.

Even though the worst that the official campaigns used was veiled racism (and that mainly from Palin), out on the street there was a lot of racist opposition to Obama. Those of us who worked the campaign and pounded the pavement saw a lot of it.

It was so disgusting and in some areas so prevalent that it became very easy to slide into the fallacy that ALL opposition to the President was because of his skin tone. Then for that to morph into all disagreement must be racist.

On the other side, this kind of overreaction feeds into overreactions from those who don't agree completely with Obama's policies and want to see some of them change. It gets very easy (if wrong) to assume that some people who defend the President are only defending him because he's black, and after some of those people implying that we oppose the President's policies because we're racist that the accusers are racist against us.

[treestar]

111. No, it is not just criticism

But the constant OTT nature of the criticism. The sneering at "the list" of his accomplishments, as if it's wrong to give him any credit for anything. You know very well there are DUers who never find anything he does to be proper.

[treestar]

110. If the President is opposed to gay marriage I would say

that is bigotry on his part on that issue. But then he overcame that to do quite a bit for equality in spite of that.

[These Eyes]

82. K&R

[Bobbie Jo]

92. Apparently

Some forms of bigotry are more equal and righteous than others.

Clearly demonstrated here over the last several days.

Interesting post.

[EffieBlack]

93. Certain forms of bigotry are not more equal or righteous than the others

To some folks, they do not exist at all since, according to them, it is absolutely impossible for any liberal/progressive to harbor any bigotry, prejudice or racism. If one claims to be a liberal or progressive, by definition, nothing they say, do or think could be in any way bigoted, prejudiced or racist.

Moreover, the liberal/progressive mantle confers upon all who wear it absolute immunity from any accusation of bigotry, prejudice or racism, gives them absolute right to be outraged, offended and horrified that someone might think otherwise, along with the unfettered right to attack, accuse and castigate anyone who has the temerity to suggest that they may be wrong.

Because, as we all know, the only bigots or racists in the liberal/progressive community are those of us who suggest that some white liberals may fall into that category. Everyone else is as pure as the driven snow.

Ironic, ain't it?

[AtomicKitten]

100. Admitting to its existence on the left is the first step.

K&R

[Honeycombe8]

103. You didn't explain or give examples of what you're talking about.

What you may consider bigotry may not be something that someone else considers bigotry.

[wndycty]

114. I don't need to, I want you to look at it through your own prism. . .

. . .and understand that we all have our own prisms. You may see something as bigoted that I don't, does that not make it bigoted?

[treestar]

106. Rec

You've distilled it to its essence.

[Name removed]

115. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

116. Deleted message

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