TheRPGSite

http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2008/jul/28/church-shooting-police-find-manifesto-suspects-car/

Contrary to what you might think, though, there are reports that the guy was also generally anti-Christian.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/28/national/main4298321_page2.shtml

QuoteKaren Massey, who lived two houses from Adkisson's home, told the Knoxville News Sentinel of a lengthy conversation she had with Adkisson a couple years ago after she told him her daughter had just graduated from Johnson Bible College. She said she ended up having to explain to him that she was a Christian.

"He almost turned angry," she told the newspaper. "He seemed to get angry at that. He said that everything in the Bible contradicts itself if you read it."

Massey said Adkisson talked frequently about his parents, who "made him go to church all his life. ... He acted like he was forced to do that."

Hush, you're disturbing his insightful commentary.

Heh.

Extremely tragic. Of course, his politics were just an excuse; though certainly the more extreme partisan end of the right-wing talk show/writers circuit can be nearly criminally irresponsible in their depictions of liberals.
You see some of the same in the extreme end of left-wing pundits too, but in the states they tend to be far less commonly read or listened to.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;229101Contrary to what you might think, though, there are reports that the guy was also generally anti-Christian.

If he went after Unitarians, I think it makes more sense that he did so because he was anti-liberal than anti-Christian.  If he was a right-wing nut, then he was a right-wing nut and deserves to be convicted for first degree murder and I don't see a lot of defense of him on right-wing message boards.  

The real hero here is Greg McKendry, who according to accounts put himself in front of the shooter to protect others and likely saved several other people at the expense of his own life.

Oh, yes, I didn't mean to suggest he went after Unitarians because he hated Christians. At this stage it sure looks like he was a "right-wing nut". It's just that, contrary to popular perceptions (which I don't think are entirely unjustified) there was apparently in his case no correlation between anti-liberal attitudes and an attachment to traditional religion.

Quote from: RPGPundit;229103certainly the more extreme partisan end of the right-wing talk show/writers circuit can be nearly criminally irresponsible in their depictions of liberals.
You see some of the same in the extreme end of left-wing pundits too, but in the states they tend to be far less commonly read or listened to.

I agree on both points.  In parts of continental Europe it's not that unusual to see the 'respectable' Left whipping up violent hate that can result in murder, as with the killing of Theo Van Gogh.  In the US such incitement seems to be consigned to the fringes of the Left, albeit those fringes can be influential (Rev Wright's influence on Obama, say).  Conversely some commentators on the US Right can be guilty of dehumanising 'Liberals' as badly as any Leftist dehumanises 'the Rightwing' - one effect of which is that many US conservatives seem to be left unable to distinguish between regular social democrats and genuine Hard Left Maoist types.

Quote from: RPGPundit;229103Extremely tragic. Of course, his politics were just an excuse; though certainly the more extreme partisan end of the right-wing talk show/writers circuit can be nearly criminally irresponsible in their depictions of liberals.
You see some of the same in the extreme end of left-wing pundits too, but in the states they tend to be far less commonly read or listened to.

RPGPundit

I think you'd have to work pretty hard to find the left equivalent of Coulter.

Even Michael Moore, the most noxious liberal windbag with any sort of actual media platform from which to reach people, is nothing compared to the sort of hatred spewed on a regular basis by the masses of right wing commentators.

Hell, even that idiot with his "little eichmans" crap wasn't being half as nasty as Michelle Malkin on a good day.

Also, and this may just be my bias showing, I find the targets of leftists hate -- the rich, powerful and elitist who dehumanize those whose shouders they ride on -- much less sympathetic than the targets of right wing hate: the poor, the disenfranchised, minorities, gays, women, immigrants, etc.  That alone makes right wing hate seem infinitely nastier.

Conservative political pundits did not pull the trigger on a shotgun that killed 2 and injured 5 in a Knoxville church.

A crazy named Adkinson pulled that trigger.

Trying to blame this tragedy on conservative political pundits makes as much sense as Patricia Pulling blaming the "satanic" influence of Dungeons & Dragons for the suicide of her son.

That analogy would be much more accurate if D&D had chapters and rulebooks devoted to how much better suicide is compared to living.

Funny. If these right-wing pundits wanted this to happen, wou;dn't they be crowing from the rooftops, or their golden microphones?

Let ya know after 3pm today.

Quote from: shewolf;229212Funny. If these right-wing pundits wanted this to happen, wou;dn't they be crowing from the rooftops, or their golden microphones?

Let ya know after 3pm today.

Gonna be listening to the radio shows, eh?

Like I can talk - I'll be doing the same thing while I prep for an RPG session later today. (New players, new campaign, I'm nervous as hell)


- Ed C.

Quote from: Axiomatic;229156I think you'd have to work pretty hard to find the left equivalent of Coulter.

Leftist assassins like the Black Panthers have killed a lot of people, but I agree that in the USA you don't generally see leftist demagogues with the breadth of Coulter's platform.  They're usually confined to racial or political minority groups.

Quote from: Axiomatic;229156I think you'd have to work pretty hard to find the left equivalent of Coulter.

Michael Moore?

Al Franken?


- Ed

I must say, I am curious to see what any of them comment on this.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Axiomatic;229156I think you'd have to work pretty hard to find the left equivalent of Coulter.

Then I don't think you understand Coulter.  She's intentionally adopting the attitude and tactics of the nutty left to espouse right-wing viewpoints.

Quote from: John Morrow;229352Then I don't think you understand Coulter.  She's intentionally adopting the attitude and tactics of the nutty left to espouse right-wing viewpoints.

Convoluted, but quite clever, piece of doublethink, John Morrow!

Here is the most telling juxtaposition of paragraphs in that article:

QuoteAdkisson, 58, of Powell wrote a four-page letter in which he stated his "hatred of the liberal movement," Owen said. "Liberals in general, as well as gays."

Adkisson said he also was frustrated about not being able to obtain a job, Owen said.

Quote from: Jackalope;229171Even Michael Moore, the most noxious liberal windbag with any sort of actual media platform from which to reach people, is nothing compared to the sort of hatred spewed on a regular basis by the masses of right wing commentators.

How much time do you spend listening to right-wing commentators or do you simply trust the characterizations provided to you by the likes of FAIR and MoveOn.org?  Can you give me some specific examples of the sort of hatred you are talking about?

Quote from: Jackalope;229171Hell, even that idiot with his "little eichmans" crap wasn't being half as nasty as Michelle Malkin on a good day.

So what exactly has Michelle Malkin said that's comparable to saying that the victims of 9/11 deserved their fate because they were "little Eichmanns"?  I'm sure you have plenty of examples in mind so please be specific.

Quote from: Jackalope;229171Also, and this may just be my bias showing, I find the targets of leftists hate -- the rich, powerful and elitist who dehumanize those whose shouders they ride on -- much less sympathetic than the targets of right wing hate: the poor, the disenfranchised, minorities, gays, women, immigrants, etc.  That alone makes right wing hate seem infinitely nastier.

Yes, it's your bias showing.

Quote from: walkerp;229356Convoluted, but quite clever, piece of doublethink, John Morrow!

You've never actually heard Coulter explain her schtick, have you?  She's reflecting back to the left how the far left looks to the right.

This is going to go badly. Starting with the thread title.

I'm not as etreme as John - but boy does Jackalope have his description wrong or screwed up . The "left" or the "right" doesn't hate anybody. The EXTREME left or right might, but the average rightwing or leftwing person is not a 'hater'. They may be confused, embarasseds or disappointed by stuff the other side does  - but they don't hate.

Extremists (of either side) are the ones who hate.


- Ed C.



(HECK, Camile Paglia, a liberal feminist lesbian and Rush Limbaugh are buddies for  pity's sake)

Hey Morrow do us a favor before you snap and delete all the RPG references from your computer.

Quote from: RockViper;229412Hey Morrow do us a favor before you snap and delete all the RPG references from your computer.

What makes you think I'm any more likely to "snap" than you are or anyone else here is?

Quote from: RockViper;229412Hey Morrow do us a favor before you snap and delete all the RPG references from your computer.

I think that goes for everyone ;)

Quote from: John Morrow;229418What makes you think I'm any more likely to "snap" than you are or anyone else here is?

You tend to foam at the mouth from time to time, which is really bad for your blood pressure btw.

Quote from: RockViper;229423You tend to foam at the mouth from time to time, which is really bad for your blood pressure btw.

My blood pressure is generally 120/80 so you can take it off of your list of things to worry about.

Yeah...Mr. Morrow is the only one who foams at the mouth around here...

We tend to see those positions with which we agree, no matter how vociferously debated, as less "foaming at the mouth" than those with which we disagree.

Human nature...

Y'know, every time I see the thread title I think something completely different from what it actually is saying.  See: On some websites 'snaps' are links to interesting bits on other sites or somesuch... so I see the thread title as

'Right wing lunatics' on RPGSite 'shout outs'...

Not: 'Nutjob guns motherfuckers down...

Quote from: John Morrow;229426My blood pressure is generally 120/80 so you can take it off of your list of things to worry about.

In that case carry on.

Didn't hear anything today on right-wing orders...um, radio. I could listen to Mark Levin, but I'm tired, and have a lot of shit to do tomorrow. Including gaming :D

Quote from: S'mon;229242Leftist assassins like the Black Panthers have killed a lot of people, but I agree that in the USA you don't generally see leftist demagogues with the breadth of Coulter's platform.  They're usually confined to racial or political minority groups.

Really?  Like who?  Anything more recent state side?  I'd been under the impression that Van Gough was killed by Muslim extremists, by the way.

Those guys are a bit far from the political left, last I checked.

Or are you one of those insane fuckfaces that think the left is in league with radical Islam to destroy democracy while summoning Cthullu or something?

It's a tragedy that innocent people were killed by some fucked-up loser.

As for the rest, I expected to see Morrow saying, "well, they were liberals, they had it comin'!" but he tactfully avoided the actual topic of the thread, so there you go.

So, apart from my disappointment,

*yawn*

The guy wasn't left wing or right wing. He was wingNUT or possibly had a screw loose.

By-the-way, LOVED the fact that members of that congregation tackled him after the initial first seconds of shock.

- Ed C.

Quote from: NotYourMonkey;229612Really?  Like who?  Anything more recent state side?  I'd been under the impression that Van Gough was killed by Muslim extremists, by the way.

Those guys are a bit far from the political left, last I checked.

Or are you one of those insane fuckfaces that think the left is in league with radical Islam to destroy democracy while summoning Cthullu or something?

Did I say Van Gogh?  Oops, I meant Pim Fortuyn.  Van Gogh was killed by an Islamist assassin, Fortuyn by a Leftist assassin.  The Islamists and stormtrooper Leftists in Europe are currently on the same side.   I believe that's true to some extent in the US too, but maybe not so consistently so, because most of the US Left is a lot less anti-Semitic than in Europe.  So eg the SPLC designates Nation of Islam as a hate group on their website, albeit somewhat apologetically.

As to "the left is in league with radical Islam to destroy democracy summoning Cthullu" - parts of the European Left are certainly in league with radical Islam.  The UK political party Respect was formed to combine the organisational skills of the Socialist Workers Party (revolutionary Marxists) with the street power of the Islamists.  It seems to have disintegrated now though due to the obnoxious nature of its leader, ex Labour MP George Galloway, whose personal beliefs seem more Ba'athist (secular fascist) than Marxist or Islamist.  In some countries of continental Europe (Holland, Denmark, Walloon Belgium) the alliance is a lot more 'mainstream'.

Most of the American Left (ie the Democratic party) or British Left (the Labour party) certainly are not in league with the Islamists, any more than George Bush and his Republicans are.  It happens that my own local Labour MP Sadiq Khan is pro-Islamist and good friends with an Al Qaeda website guy accused of heading an AQ network in the US, but that's unusual.  Khan himself is Muslim but not an Islamist, his own political roots are revolutionary Marxist.  Most Muslim Labour MPs though are from an older generation and not pro-Islamist, indeed one in Glasgow (Scotland) had to resign due to the amount of death threats he was getting after helping get some Muslim thugs who'd murdered a boy in Glasgow (a race-hate murder) extradited from Pakistan, as I recall.

Quote from: John Morrow;229367So what exactly has Michelle Malkin said that's comparable to saying that the victims of 9/11 deserved their fate because they were "little Eichmanns"?  I'm sure you have plenty of examples in mind so please be specific.

I don't normally read or listen to these people, but certainly my impression of Malkin is that while she's certainly anti-Leftist, she doesn't spew venom the way Coulter does.

Quote from: John Morrow;229367How much time do you spend listening to right-wing commentators or do you simply trust the characterizations provided to you by the likes of FAIR and MoveOn.org?  Can you give me some specific examples of the sort of hatred you are talking about?

"I think the government should be spying on all Arabs, engaging in torture as a televised spectator sport, dropping daisy cutters wantonly throughout the Middle East and sending liberals to Guantanamo." -Ann Coulter, her column, December 21, 2005

"They're [Democrats] always accusing us of repressing their speech. I say let's do it. Let's repress them. Frankly, I'm not a big fan of the First Amendment." -Ann Coulter, U of Florida Speech, Oct 20, 2005

(on muslims) "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity." -Ann Coulter, Her column, September 12, 2001

"So for those of you who haven't read any of my five best-selling books: Liberals are driven by Satan and lie constantly." -Ann Coulter, June 6, 2006, column

""To fight only the al-Qaeda scum is to miss the terrorist network operating within our own borders... Who are these traitors? Every rotten radical left-winger in this country, that's who."" -Michael Savage, Savage Nation, 2003

"I'll tell you who should be tortured and killed at Guantanamo: every filthy Democrat in the U.S. Congress."
-Sean Hannity, Hannity and Colmes, June 15, 2005

"You know, look, if I could strangle these people and not go to hell and get executed, I would, but I can't."
-Bill O'Reilly, the Radio Factor, Sept 27, 2007

RPGPundit

This is why I lurve the Internet. It allows small penised morally retarded sociopaths like RockViper and Kyle Aaron to use a tragic incident to push their petty agendas of beating up on John Morrow since he doesn't share their views. Way to go fucktards! Make sure you both laugh heartily at those zingers posted while masturbating your egos!

I am sorry you are too stupid to understand things for yourself, and have to be spoon fed the explanations given by the neoconservative talk show hosts.

Quote from: RockViper;229744I am sorry

Yes RockViper, you are sorry. Because if you weren't so myopic in your pursuit of your own agenda you might have realised that I live in Knoxville, TN. It thus might have occurred to your sorry blind ass that you don't need to be "spoon fed the explanations given by the neoconservative talk show hosts" when you can travel a short distance and walk into the church where the shooting happened and see the damage to the pews from the shotgun pellets themselves or simply talk to the victims who are still alive and come to your own conclusions.

I'm wondering if it is even possible for you to pull your head out of your ass on this subject, because it looks like you are really channelling Patricia Pulling here in your pursuit of an agenda. Good luck with that!

It sucks those people got shot and I feel for their families, and the only agenda I am pushing is that these talk show hosts (pundits/whatever) need to take a look at their handiwork, spewing hate, disharmony and distrust only leads to violence. I am sure that if the shooting had taken place at a reproductive health clinic or peace rally they would be rather pleased with the results.

Apparently this church just was not christian/conservative enough for this guy.

Yes...but the guy going off like that has nothing to do with radio show hosts.

He's just a nut.
The only one to blame is him.


- Ed

Quote from: jeff37923;229730This is why I lurve the Internet.

Well, I did say it was a tragedy. Only I, Pundit and yourself expressed any regret or remorse at the event. The rest just jumped in with their politics. Let he who is without sin, and all that.

That said, what else are we to do? Must we wring our hands in agonised silence over every tragic death in the world? Perhaps we can all post such stories all day, to make sure we cover all the senseless suffering in the world? Our days would be busy indeed.

That does not mean we should be callously indifferent to such things; but it does mean that you cannot expect what you consider to be an appropriate response each and every time. When someone close to me was seriously injured and then later died in a violent incident, I did not expect to see it discussed on Tangency, not with compassion nor with politics. We're limited in our compassion and understanding. It's the monkeysphere (http://www.cracked.com/article_14990_what-monkeysphere.html), baby.

My first thought wehen hearing the news was : I hope the folks that are part of my company are okay. Each week I talk to people that live in that area that work for the same group that I do.
  Just hoped they were alright.


- Ed C.

Quote from: S'mon;229656snip a lot of silliness

I think you might want to adjust your tinfoil.  Seems to be cutting off circulation.

Quote from: NotYourMonkey;229785I think you might want to adjust your tinfoil.  Seems to be cutting off circulation.

Nice.

I love this - when Coulter does it, its virulent hate speech, when Pundy does it, its Gonzo.

Puhleeeze.

I wouldn't vote either of them into office, Werekoala :)

Please, werekoala. I've never advocated killing anyone for their RPG-related ideologies.  I've only ever suggested they should be brutally beaten with blunt objects.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Werekoala;229891I love this - when Coulter does it, its virulent hate speech, when Pundy does it, its Gonzo.

Puhleeeze.

I endorse this.

Quote from: Koltar;229768Yes...but the guy going off like that has nothing to do with radio show hosts.

He's just a nut.
The only one to blame is him.

And this. The guy was a fucking loser that lost his mind. He killed those unfortunate people like he could have kille whoever else. Let's not attribute politics to madness, it makes a disservice to us. I refuse to consider this a political action.

I am sorry for the victims and their families. Everything else is bollocks.

Quote from: Imperator;229910And this. The guy was a fucking loser that lost his mind. He killed those unfortunate people like he could have kille whoever else. Let's not attribute politics to madness, it makes a disservice to us. I refuse to consider this a political action.

I agree.

But would we be saying the same thing if the killer were a young Moslem unemployed male paying lipservice to his own particular ideology?

When your guys go nuts and kill people, it's their vile ideology. When our guys go nuts and kill people, it's just some nutter, or "a few bad apples" or whatever.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;229916I agree.

But would we be saying the same thing if the killer were a young Moslem unemployed male paying lipservice to his own particular ideology?

When your guys go nuts and kill people, it's their vile ideology. When our guys go nuts and kill people, it's just some nutter, or "a few bad apples" or whatever.

Nice attempt to distract and try to shift things.


The guy was screwed up , had nothing to do with his politics or religion.
And again YAY! for the Unitarian Universalists who tackled him...and maybe saved a few lives in doing that.


- Ed C.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;229916When your guys go nuts and kill people, it's their vile ideology. When our guys go nuts and kill people, it's just some nutter, or "a few bad apples" or whatever.

When the vile ideology tells you to actually go out and kill innocent people, then I think it deserves some blame when people act on it.  Yes, I think the Turner Diaries are a vile piece of work and deserve some blame for Timothy McVeigh and other incidents.  Yes, I think sects of Islam that preach violence against infidels deserve some blame when people act on those ideas and commit acts of violence against infidels.  I'm at a loss, however, to see how anything in books or radio shows by mainstream conservatives like most of those mentioned (I don't consider Michael Savage mainstream) could be interpreted as a call to go out an murder innocent people, particularly those in a church.

You're both wrong.

I maintain that politics has nothing to do with this dramatic and tragic event.


 At this point, not a lot of facts are known about this event ...other than the congregation of that church seems to be a nice group of people that has a few heroes amongst them and several that know emergency procedures very well.

Here is an article from one of the TV stations local to that area with timelines related to that event.:
http://www.wbir.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=61322&catid=2

Interesting bits from Thats article and news account:

QuoteShe then grabbed her baby and blocked the doorway to the quiet room in case the man were to attempt to get into the quiet room. She heard another gunshot or two, and then heard several men tackling the shooter right outside the quiet room door. One of the men was her husband, Jamie Parkey.

....and from that same woman's point of view:

QuoteShe says she was tremendously impressed with the calm, effective way that church members with medical training responded to the needs of the gunshot victims, treating them at the scene until help arrived.

One of the church's leaders was interviewed:

QuoteDr. John Bohstedt spoke to WBIR's John Becker about the shooting. Several eyewitnesses told WBIR that Bohstedt helped tackle the shooter, and hold him until police arrived. Bohstedt declined to comment on his own actions with regard to the suspect.

Bohstedt's granddaughter was performing in the musical "Annie," that children were performing at the front of the sanctuary when the shooting began.

"This was a day the church was looking forward to for a long time and it turned into a nightmare," Bohstedt said.  Bohstedt said  the gunman had no connection to the church that he knows of, and he has no clue as to a motive.

"Just another crazy, random church shooting," added an emotional Bohstedt.

- Ed C.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;229916I agree.

But would we be saying the same thing if the killer were a young Moslem unemployed male paying lipservice to his own particular ideology?

When your guys go nuts and kill people, it's their vile ideology. When our guys go nuts and kill people, it's just some nutter, or "a few bad apples" or whatever.

Yep. I would say the exact same. And I don't understand what do you mean by your guys and our guys, sorry.

To be fair, it does sound like this guy would not have needed much, at the place his brain was in.

For him, it was right wing ideology that gave him a scapegoat.  No matter what  subculture informed his world view, if it had an enemy, he'd have gone after it.

It seems as things have developed they have found a "manifesto" that pretty much seems to have blamed liberals, religion, and gays for everything wrong in America and his life.  It sounds like he was looking for some place where he could go after all of them at once.  :emot-saddowns:

Why didn't he just go to The Apple Store then?

Quote from: Werekoala;229891I love this - when Coulter does it, its virulent hate speech, when Pundy does it, its Gonzo.

Puhleeeze.

If by "hate speech" you mean "should be banned and the speaker jailed", which is the definition here in Europe, then no I don't think Coulter has committed the crime of hate speech.  If you mean "demonstrating hate", yes she clearly has a lot of hate.  So does RPGPundit.  :)

Quote from: Aos;230013Why didn't he just go to The Apple Store then?

Adkinson's ex-wife, who had to take out Restraining Orders against him after the divorce for threats and stalking, was a member of that Unitarian church's congregation. So in this warped fuck's mind, that was just added sauce for the goose when he chose his target.

And yeah, I would lay the blame where it belongs if the perpetrators and victims were different.

Quote from: John MorrowI'm at a loss, however, to see how anything in books or radio shows by mainstream conservatives like most of those mentioned (I don't consider Michael Savage mainstream) could be interpreted as a call to go out an murder innocent people, particularly those in a church.

I'd like to make a note on this particular Radio Shock Jock, Michael Savage, because as someone who has listened to him and other conservative radio pundits I completely agree that this guy is a hatemongering piece of shit. Michael Savage does try to live the hate speech stereotype that is ill-fittingly applied to all conservative radio. Every credible conservative radio talk show host has publicly denounced this guy in an effort to police their own. He's been dropped from several syndication deals, including being dropped from local Knoxville radio as of a year and a half ago, because of his radical stance on conservative issues.

But even with this bad apple's wacky bizarro screeds being considered as a contributing factor, its really tough to demonstrate that the responsibility for this crime is at the feet of conservative pundits and not Adkinson himself.

I've seen too much political opportunism attached to this event since it happened and it has definitely gotten on my last nerve.

I was just joking, btw, Jeff. Perhaps in bad taste, but the thread had devolved to the point that it didn't matter anymore.

I like Spike's re-interpretation of the thread title.

But I think it should read as cookies.  Like ginger snaps.

Quote from: Aos;230013Why didn't he just go to The Apple Store then?

lol!

Though you have fallen temporarily under the spell of encount4rdization, Aos, I'm glad to see you haven't entirely lost your touch!

Quote from: Aos;230036I was just joking, btw, Jeff. Perhaps in bad taste, but the thread had devolved to the point that it didn't matter anymore.

Sorry Aos, my sense of humor has been crippled around this subject. Honestly, my bad.

Hey we're all cool and what not; no need to apologize.

People giving, and gently turning down, apologies?

We have truly lost our way.

It's terrible that this sort of thing continues to happen on a daily basis. I feel for the families of the victims. Some folks I knew were at Virginia Tech, so I empathize.

As to this thread: He left a note saying he wanted to kill Liberals. Fucked-up-crazy or not, this makes it political.

Also when I first read the title I was thinking, "Ginger cookies in the shape of Bill O'Reilly? Grrrrross."

Quote from: jswa;230069As to this thread: He left a note saying he wanted to kill Liberals. Fucked-up-crazy or not, this makes it political.

No it doesn't.

It makes it yet one more angry guy blaming somebody else for his probllems. If anything it likely had more to do with the fact that his ex-wifw was a one-time member member of that church.


- Ed C.

Quote from: Koltar;230073No it doesn't.

It makes it yet one more angry guy blaming somebody else for his probllems.


- Ed C.

Sanest words I've read for a while. It pisses me off no end when people blame religion or whatever for violence; why it is so hard to admit that these things are only a pretext? Martians could watch the Crusades from Mars not understanding a thing about Jesus Christ or Mohammed and it would still make sense - just as ant or chimpanzee groups fight each other ruthlessly without disagreeing on ideology.

Quote from: jeff37923;230032I'd like to make a note on this particular Radio Shock Jock, Michael Savage, because as someone who has listened to him and other conservative radio pundits I completely agree that this guy is a hatemongering piece of shit. Michael Savage does try to live the hate speech stereotype that is ill-fittingly applied to all conservative radio. Every credible conservative radio talk show host has publicly denounced this guy in an effort to police their own. He's been dropped from several syndication deals, including being dropped from local Knoxville radio as of a year and a half ago, because of his radical stance on conservative issues.

I tried to think of a terse way to summarize why I was excluding him but couldn't do it justice.  I think you did a fine job there.  Other conservative talk show hosts openly mock him and few conservatives seem to take him seriously.

Quote from: jeff37923;230032But even with this bad apple's wacky bizarro screeds being considered as a contributing factor, its really tough to demonstrate that the responsibility for this crime is at the feet of conservative pundits and not Adkinson himself.

If someone could draw a clear line between what a conservative talk show host said as a clear and serious incitement to violence of the sort found in the material I mentioned earlier (Turner Diaries, radical Islam), then I think it would be fair to hold the conservative talk show host responsible for it.  I'm familiar enough with Hannity, O'Reilly, and Limbaugh that I doubt you'll find anything like that in their books.  I can't speak for Savage because I'm not familiar enough with his show or writings to know what he wouldn't or wouldn't say and know that he's said enough stupid things that I can't rule it out in his case the way I can for the others.

Oh, and I'm still waiting for some specific examples of the "hatred spewed on a regular basis by the masses of right wing commentators" that's supposed to be so horrible.

John,

 You are really missing the point.

 Read my last two posts.

No politics to argue about here.


- Ed

Quote from: The_Shadow;230074Sanest words I've read for a while. It pisses me off no end when people blame religion or whatever for violence; why it is so hard to admit that these things are only a pretext?

Whether it's a pretext or not, I think it's silly to claim that words and ideas don't move people to do things.  I don't think that people should be responsible for every nut who take their words or ideas to a murderous extreme but I do think it's reasonable to expect people not to explicitly incite the murder of innocents or cheer those who murder innocents and call them heroes or martyrs.

Quote from: John Morrow;230088Whether it's a pretext or not, I think it's silly to claim that words and ideas don't move people to do things.  I don't think that people should be responsible for every nut who take their words or ideas to a murderous extreme but I do think it's reasonable to expect people not to explicitly incite the murder of innocents or cheer those who murder innocents and call them heroes or martyrs.

I wouldn't claim that people are not moved to do things by words. But I think the content of those words is not all that important. Evolutionary biology is the key here. Turn the volume off, and it makes sense still. The hypothetical Martian observer doesn't know whether the people are being exhorted in the name of Christ, the Homeland or Bimetallism, but the strings are being pulled, in the service of imperatives which most individuals cannot enunciate but which are related to our deepest biological natures. Killing is a part of those drives, and murder and war persist because they have or are felt to have real benefits (in evolutionary terms) for the killers.

But I don't expect most people to agree with me; chronic detachment has never been a popular option...

I think that the real issue regarding all these conservative talk show hosts, John, is that none of them are really very worth defending. These guys aren't William F. Buckley, they really do very little other than to give conservatism a very bad rep.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;230122I think that the real issue regarding all these conservative talk show hosts, John, is that none of them are really very worth defending. These guys aren't William F. Buckley, they really do very little other than to give conservatism a very bad rep.

They all give conservatism a very bad rep with whom, exactly?  And the reason why I asked for specific examples of the "hatred spewed on a regular basis by the masses of right wing commentators" is that I think their bad rep is more a product of how other people characterize them than what they actually say.  Have you ever read a book by any of them or spent any significant amount of time listening to them yourself?

Quote from: John Morrow;230079I tried to think of a terse way to summarize why I was excluding him but couldn't do it justice.  I think you did a fine job there.  Other conservative talk show hosts openly mock him and few conservatives seem to take him seriously.

I've heard (more than once) that he might well be a plant - someone intentionally trying to discredit conservatives by going far overboard to present himself as such. I've listened to him a few times (well, 10-15 minutes at a stretch, from time to time, just long enough to get home after work), and to be honest, sometimes I wonder.

That said, I really like Michael Medved - why? Because sometimes he makes my blood pressure rise, which tells me he might well be on to something. Rush is just what he presents himself to be; an entertainer, and sometimes I enjoy him. Glenn Beck IS just an entertainer, so I enjoy listening because he succeeds - he entertains me. That's about it for my "regular" listening, considering I can't listen at work anymore. :)

Back when I COULD listen at work - Neal Boortz was my main man.

Quote from: John Morrow;229367How much time do you spend listening to right-wing commentators or do you simply trust the characterizations provided to you by the likes of FAIR and MoveOn.org?  Can you give me some specific examples of the sort of hatred you are talking about?

I've read both of Rush Limbaugh's first two books, about a quarter of Coulter's book "Treason" (truly disturbing woman, that Coulter), seen a dozen episodes of the No Spin Zone, listened to countless hours of various right-wing talkshow hosts while driving around the country (I've logged a lot of hours driving back and forth across Arizona, Utah, Nevada, Montana, Idaho and Wyoming, and the right wing crap spouters annoy me less than the pontificating preacher idiots).  And I used to read American Spectator.

I don't really pay much attention to FAIR or MoveOn.  I get most of my news from NPR, Time and Newsweek.  Sometimes the local papers, including the alternative rags.  And then I read a lot of outsider history and deep leftist stuff, the kind of things one finds at anarchist bookstores.

I don't need other people to tell me that these people are idiots and windbags.  I was reading Rush Limbaugh's first book, I was maybe 18 at the time, and I got to the part where he claimed there were more trees in America than when it was founded as evidence of how overblown and exaggerated the environmental movement is.  Of course, he was counting trees in the original 13 colonies versus trees in modern deforested American including Alaska.  Cheating dirtbag.

Ann Coulter, in the opening paragraph of her book, makes the claim that all liberals are born to become liberals, cannot help be anything but liberals, and are all traitors by their very nature.  Traitors are, of course, punished by death.  She doesn't mention this, but it's implied in the charge.  If she had made the same claim about Jews she'd be called a Nazi -- and keep in mind, she claims liberalism was congential trait, thus she posits that liberals are a race of people.

And then there's these professional assholes, Michael Savage, Sean Hannity, etc. who I've caught here and there -- not so much now that I don't have cable -- and while I forget the specifics, their spewings were transparent as could be, and they are small minded hateful men.  Asswipes in short.

QuoteSo what exactly has Michelle Malkin said that's comparable to saying that the victims of 9/11 deserved their fate because they were "little Eichmanns"?  I'm sure you have plenty of examples in mind so please be specific.

She wrote a poorly researched and high racist book justifying the internment of Japanese-Americans in WW2 on the grounds of race alone.  And Churchhill never said they deserved their fate, he said that nobody should b surprised they were selected as targets.

Quote from: Jackalope;230155She wrote a poorly researched and high racist book justifying the internment of Japanese-Americans in WW2 on the grounds of race alone.  

I'm sure if I were Chinese I'd feel similarly.

Quote from: S'mon;230162I'm sure if I were Chinese I'd feel similarly.

She's Phillipino, but that really doesn't make a difference.  Imprisoning Americans because of their country of origin is at war with our own is unjustifiable.  Doing it selectively -- not to Italians and Germans -- doubly so.

Holy cow, Jackalope - you really do believe the Hype, doncha?

Again - Gonzo... racist.... Gonzo... sexist... Gonzo... nuts... can you not tell the difference?

Heh - nevermind.

Quote from: Jackalope;230166She's Phillipino, but that really doesn't make a difference.  Imprisoning Americans because of their country of origin is at war with our own is unjustifiable.  Doing it selectively -- not to Italians and Germans -- doubly so.

OK - "If I were Philippino..."

I don't know enough about the internment policy to know if it was obviously wildly excessive in the conditions of 1941.   Certainly the Japanese government expected assistance from ethnic Japanese on the west coast of the USA, and there was a credible threat of invasion after Pearl Harbor, say if the US carrier fleet had been sunk at Midway, which was certainly possible.  The Japanese were in a position where they started strong but didn't have the industrial capacity to win a long naval war with the US, so it would have been logical to attack the US west coast shipyards, given the opportunity.  

The Nazis expected assistance from German-Americans too, but with Britain in the way the German surface fleet never posed a credible threat to the US east coast.  But I expect you're probably right that the policy was racist and not really justified by the small threat actually posed by Japanese nationals.

Edit: Re Italians, I don't think there was ever a significant pro-Fascist element among Italian-Americans.  Italy as a State was a pretty recent phenomenon and there wasn't the kind of trans-Italian loyalty among emigrants that the Nazis and Imperial Japanese govts could try to appeal to. Also my impression is that many Italian-Americans had roots in poorer parts of Italy like Sicily, whereas Fascist support was focused in better off areas and in the lower-middle to middle classes.  German National Socialism started as a working-class movement, Italian Fascism had lower-class street fighters but was much more middle class in its origins.

Quote from: Werekoala;230171Holy cow, Jackalope - you really do believe the Hype, doncha?

Again - Gonzo... racist.... Gonzo... sexist... Gonzo... nuts... can you not tell the difference?

Heh - nevermind.

What the fuck are you babbling about?

Is this the "Oh, they only spew hatred as a joke!" defense?

Not funny!

Quote from: Jackalope;230155Ann Coulter, in the opening paragraph of her book, makes the claim that all liberals are born to become liberals, cannot help be anything but liberals, and are all traitors by their very nature.  Traitors are, of course, punished by death.  She doesn't mention this, but it's implied in the charge.  

OK, two things here. The statement (which I bet you are misremembering) that all liberals are born to be liberals is pretty obviously gonzo - no matter how you slice it and reads more like comedy than anything else. Saying that Ann Coulter didn't mention liberals being killed as traitors but that it is implied means that you are the one who interpreted that statement to mean something other than what she said.

Quote from: jeff37923;230238OK, two things here. The statement (which I bet you are misremembering) that all liberals are born to be liberals is pretty obviously gonzo - no matter how you slice it and reads more like comedy than anything else.

Actually, it reads exactly like the fascist propagandists from before WW2.  it's not "gonzo," it's not "funny," it's fucking scary.  She is spouting the exact same things, about the exact same people, that the Nazis did before they seized control.

And seriously dude, if that books reads as comedy to you, and not the sick ravings of a diseased mind, then you have serious issues.

You know, the guys at Stormfront publish humor books to.  Books full of jokes about killing niggers and jews.  Us normal people recognize that finding humor in overt, violent racism is a sign of a sick and unhealthy mind.

Likewise, us normal healthy people recognize that finding humor in demonizing and castigating a broad section of the population as traitors, and generally acting like a Nazi cunt, to be humor of the "troubled mind" variety.

Seriously, would you think I was "funny" if i railed all day and all night about how you're a sick fucking pervert who ought to be locked away in a jail for the rest of your life, with no trial, and sodomized repeatedly by bears.

Would you find it funny were I to call for liberals to rise up and shoot a fascist for freedom, kill your local Republican?  What if I sold millions of books doing it?

Would you accept it as just being "gonzo?"

Sorry dude, "gonzo" explains how your PC ends up fighting Dwarf Vader, a small armored dwarf with a flaming sword and mental powers, on Barsoom while the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles protect your back from the Legion of Zombie Playboy Bunnies.  That's gonzo.  Spewing hatred and vitirol and calling it a "a joke" is just played out, and nobody with any intelligence falls for it.

QuoteSaying that Ann Coulter didn't mention liberals being killed as traitors but that it is implied means that you are the one who interpreted that statement to mean something other than what she said.

A traitor is a type of criminal.  The specific crime of treason is punishable by death in pretty much every country.  I didn't make up the implication.

And no, I'm not misremembering it.  I remember at the time rewriting the paragraph and replacing the word liberal with Jew.  All of the statements still made perfect sense, because she was talking about liberals as a race and not as people with common ideas, and when i posted the modified comments to several political discussion boards and asked people to identify the source, the majority assumed it was the opening to Mein Kamf.

That's how powerful the hatred screams out of Coulter's writing.

No worse than railing about how about half the population is what, spoiled, can't handle the environment here, and isn't fit for the table?

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity." Anne Coulter.

"While the form of treachery varies slightly from case to case, liberals always manage to take the position that most undermines American security."
Anne Coulter

"Whether they are defending the Soviet Union or bleating for Saddam Hussein, liberals are always against America. They are either traitors or idiots, and on the matter of America's self-preservation, the difference is irrelevant."
Anne Coulter

"These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by griefparrazies. I have never seen people enjoying their husband's deaths so much."

Anne Coulter on 9/11 widows who have been critical of the Bush administration

"My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building." Anne Coulter

"We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed too. Otherwise they will turn out to be outright traitors."
Anne Coulter

"My libertarian friends are probably getting a little upset now but I think that's because they never appreciate the benefits of local fascism."-Anne Coulter (OK, not really hate, but definitely a bit psychotic)

""Liberals hate America, they hate "flag-wavers," they hate abortion opponents, they hate all religions except Islam (post 9/11). Even Islamic terrorists don't hate America like liberals do. They don't have the energy. If they had that much energy, they'd have indoor plumbing by now."
Anne Coulter

"I think the government should be spying on all Arabs, engaging in torture as a televised spectator sport, dropping daisy cutters wantonly throughout the Middle East and sending liberals to Guantanamo."
Anne Coulter

"[Anti-war Democrats] know that the American people support defending America, unlike them. Their real feelings are coming out as much as they can right now, which is that they're desperately dying to provide aid and support to al-Qaeda."
Anne Coulter

And that is just the Anne Coulter ones.  I have work to do, so it may be a bit before I find lots of hatred and such for liberals just this side of advocating violence from other figures.

Quote from: shewolf;230347No worse than railing about how about half the population is what, spoiled, can't handle the environment here, and isn't fit for the table?

Actually shewolf, saying that liberal minded people are born enemies of their home nations, and that the security of a country depends on suppressing and intimidating that segment of the population into going along with an war-mongering government set up for the benefit of elites is significantly worse than saying girls suck at D&D, or saying that girls can't hack it unmoderated male-dominated forums.

I mean really, they aren't even in the same league as statements go.

But, you're a girl, I really shouldn't expect rational analogies from you...

I'm still trying to understand how come you can possibly - well, how anyone can possibly - believe that Coulter is being dead serious with what she writes. Guess I must not have that particular genetic predisposition.

Quote from: Werekoala;230447I'm still trying to understand how come you can possibly - well, how anyone can possibly - believe that Coulter is being dead serious with what she writes. Guess I must not have that particular genetic predisposition.

I don't think she's being dead serious.  I think she thinks she's writing comedy gold.

I just think her sense of humor would be best described as sociopathic and misanthropic to the point of revulsion.

This is how to write right wing style humor:  

Start with two pages of poorly researched and shoddily attributed statistics that shows that outside of the most white collar of white collar crimes, the majority of people who are imprisioned for criminal acts are minorities.  Never mentioned the catch-and-release policy for white petty offenders, never mentioned the institutional aspects of racism that contribute to this.)

Then say "I can't help but notice that the majority of criminals in America are black.  Maybe if white people took it upon themselves to start practicing their lynching skills again, with mannequins and dummies of course, that might help motivate the black community to address these issues.  No, but seriously, something needs to be done." follow that with three pages of poorly researched and shoddily attributed research proving the criminality of the African-American community.  Discuss rap music in negative terms. Then start a new chapter, a lengthy diatribe against guilt-ridden white liberal who want everyone else to suffer for their racism.

When accused of being a disgusting racist and advocating lynching, say "Clearly I was joking, how anyone could take a comment that extreme as anything but a joke, obviously you're just looking for reasons to get upset."

That's how you tell a right-wing joke.

Quote from: Werekoala;230447I'm still trying to understand how come you can possibly - well, how anyone can possibly - believe that Coulter is being dead serious with what she writes.

Given the degree to which she rails, there's wide latitude for venality between "dead serious" and "naw, really, I'm just an entertainer".  Does she have to be dead serious to be wretched?

!i!

Not at all - I'm not defending her. I'm just wondering why the double standard.

Quote from: Werekoala;230533Not at all - I'm not defending her. I'm just wondering why the double standard.

Because it supports the agenda. Honestly, I don't think Coulter needs any defending because she is making money off of how offended she makes liberals with her humor. Every complaint about her going too far sells more books and gets her on more talk shows. Guys like Jackalope and  NotYourMonkey are her more than willing advertising campaign.

Quote from: Werekoala;230533Not at all - I'm not defending her. I'm just wondering why the double standard.

What double standard?

I remember, waaaaaaaay back in the foggy mists of time (early 90s), when Ice-T released a track called "Cop Killer."

The right wing went apeshit.

Ice-T talked about the fact that the song was fictional -- that it wasn't him, that it was a story told in the first person.    He wasn't a cop-killer, nor was he advocating cop-killing.  These were the words of the character he was portraying in the story told by the song.

The right wing didn't accept that explanation, continued to go apeshit, and got the man booted from Warner Brothers records.


How is that any different than Coulter's fans (note, it's never Coulter herself, only her fans) saying that it's comedy, not meant to be taken literally?


Why should the Left give the benefit of the doubt that the Right continually fails to give, time and time again?

Something to think about.

Quote from: NotYourMonkey;230382"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity." Anne Coulter.

Guess I better be careful.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Jackalope;230397Actually shewolf, saying that liberal minded people are born enemies of their home nations, and that the security of a country depends on suppressing and intimidating that segment of the population into going along with an war-mongering government set up for the benefit of elites is significantly worse than saying girls suck at D&D, or saying that girls can't hack it unmoderated male-dominated forums.

I mean really, they aren't even in the same league as statements go.

But, you're a girl, I really shouldn't expect rational analogies from you...

You know, from anyone else I'd consider that last line tongue-in-cheek; in your case, that's far from certain.  Watch it.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Jackalope;230397But, you're a girl, I really shouldn't expect rational analogies from you...

This statement is like the Big Bang of Retardation, in all its moronic glory.

Quote from: Jackalope;230155I don't need other people to tell me that these people are idiots and windbags.

Some of them are idiots and most of them are windbags.  That doesn't put them in the same category as saying that the victims of 9/11 deserved their fate because they were all little Eichmanns.  

Quote from: Jackalope;230155I was reading Rush Limbaugh's first book, I was maybe 18 at the time, and I got to the part where he claimed there were more trees in America than when it was founded as evidence of how overblown and exaggerated the environmental movement is.  Of course, he was counting trees in the original 13 colonies versus trees in modern deforested American including Alaska.  Cheating dirtbag.

I've yet to hear that explanation for this claim.  The normal argument is to point out that the U.S. Statistical Abstracts say that forests covered 850 million acres in the late 1700s and 730 million acres by 1992.  While that makes Limbaugh's claim wrong, it also makes talk of "deforested America" a bit absurd, too.

Of course there are people who argue that North America was less forested than assumed in the figures mentioned above because of frequent burnings by Native Americans (for discussions of such burnings, see here (http://www.californiachaparral.com/enativeamericans.html), here (http://westinstenv.org/histwl/2008/01/07/indians-fire-and-the-land-in-the-pacific-northwest/), here (http://home.flash.net/~falline/ocrPrimeval.htm), and here (http://www.fs.fed.us/ne/newtown_square/publications/technical_reports/pdfs/2000/274%20papers/kay274.pdf).)  The diseases that effectively wiped out many groups of Native Americans changed the landscape before the Europeans entered it in numbers by reducing the impact of the Native Americans on the forests.  

Another factor that modified the North American climate were beavers.  There may have been hundreds of millions of them before the European trappers got to them.  Again, the landscape was changed from what it was before the Europeans entered in numbers because of the destruction from small numbers of trappers before them.

So while official figures say that Limbaugh is wrong. I don't think his claim is necessarily absurd because the idea of a pristine forested North America before Europeans is wrong, between the Native Americans burning forests and beavers flooding them.  

But for the sake of argument, I'll assume Limbaugh was definitely wrong here.  This type of problem a pretty common problem with Limbaugh and a fair critique of him.  His main purpose among conservatives is that he summarizes and simplifies arguments from more scholarly or journalistic sources like The Wall Street Journal or National Review but in the process of summarizing and simplifying, he sometimes mangles things or gets the details wrong.  But his overall point is still generally correct, as it is here.  America has not been "deforested" and the situation is getting better and not worse.  I don't think he's intentionally lying so much as mangling the details and oversimplifying.  And, yes, I think it's fair to expect him to be more careful given his influence.

Quote from: Jackalope;230155Ann Coulter, in the opening paragraph of her book, makes the claim that all liberals are born to become liberals, cannot help be anything but liberals, and are all traitors by their very nature.  Traitors are, of course, punished by death.  She doesn't mention this, but it's implied in the charge.  If she had made the same claim about Jews she'd be called a Nazi -- and keep in mind, she claims liberalism was congential trait, thus she posits that liberals are a race of people.

Coulter, like Savage, is an exceptional case and I'll address her with her quotes.

Quote from: Jackalope;230155And then there's these professional assholes, Michael Savage, Sean Hannity, etc. who I've caught here and there -- not so much now that I don't have cable -- and while I forget the specifics, their spewings were transparent as could be, and they are small minded hateful men.  Asswipes in short.

While I think that characterization may be fair for Savage, I don't think it's true at all about Hannity.  I don't get the feeling that Hannity or Limbaugh really hate anyone, nor do most of the other right-wing talk show hosts.  In fact, Hannity was a guest on another program this morning (the guy subbing for Imus) and the guy took a personal swipe at Susan Estrich, who is subbing for Alan Colmes and Hannity wouldn't go along with it.

Quote from: Jackalope;230155She wrote a poorly researched and high racist book justifying the internment of Japanese-Americans in WW2 on the grounds of race alone.  And Churchhill never said they deserved their fate, he said that nobody should b surprised they were selected as targets.

While you can argue that she wrote a poorly researched book that ignored the racism involved in the internment, her argument was that they were not interned because of their race, which would be a strange argument to make if she was defending their internment on race alone.  She was arguing that it wasn't based on race but a legitimate national security concern, which is where people argue that she ignored evidence of racial motivation.  

That said, the critiques of her book argue that people with names like "Gehrig" weren't interned because they were German but that's not entirely true.  As my father describes it, all of the (German) butchers disappeared in Jersey City when WW2 started because they had been members of the American Bund.  In fact, a total of around 15,000 Germans were interned in the United States.  So it's not true that no Europeans were targeted.  But that also doesn't mean that there wasn't significant racism targeted at the Japanese nor does it mean that it played no role in their internment.

That was an extremely even handed post John. Well said.

Quote from: Jackalope;230166She's Phillipino, but that really doesn't make a difference.  Imprisoning Americans because of their country of origin is at war with our own is unjustifiable.  Doing it selectively -- not to Italians and Germans -- doubly so.

You are essentially committing a Limbaughism here -- oversimplifying and leaving out some details.  They did do it to quite a few Germans who were involved in the American Bund.  No, it wasn't in the numbers or percentages with which they interned Japanese Americans but it did happen because they were Germans who might have ties to Germany.  It's also important to note that the internment was not universal.  But Malkin's argument was not simply that they should have been interned because they were Japanese but because she felt the evidence supported the argument that they posed a very real security threat to the United States.  What's she's guilty of, in short, is arguing for the sacrifice of an essential liberty for a little temporary security that Franklin talked about and she should know better.  But her sin is more one of overblown nationalism than racism.

Taking a swipe at Susan Estrich???!!?

Thats just wrong.

She's one of the most reasonable liberals that ever shows up on TV. Got a decent sense of humor. Couple of years ago I found her voice and accent really annoying - but she grew on me because she genuinely makes an honest effort to be friends with those that disagrees with. Plus, I stsrted to notice that she had the sense of humor of decent person.

Not only that, but this shows that Hannity has class for defending her.

I remember reading somewhere that back in the early to mid-80s it was possible to disagree with someone's politics but still be friends with them and invite them to parties and the like.

Be nice to get back to that kind of mood.

......as in "You know I think you're totally WRONG about " X____" issue/topic , but here have a drink . The first round is on me."


Back on thread topic: That guy was a nut, what he did bhad nothing to do with politics.


- Ed C.

Quote from: Jackalope;230334Actually, it reads exactly like the fascist propagandists from before WW2.  it's not "gonzo," it's not "funny," it's fucking scary.  She is spouting the exact same things, about the exact same people, that the Nazis did before they seized control.

She's purposely trying to freak the left out.  She's pushing your buttons on purpose in saying things like that.

Quote from: Jackalope;230334You know, the guys at Stormfront publish humor books to.  Books full of jokes about killing niggers and jews.  Us normal people recognize that finding humor in overt, violent racism is a sign of a sick and unhealthy mind.

The problem is that she's not talking about a race but about political beliefs and you are dutifully frothing at the mouth over it and abusing the term racism to condemn it.  You're reacting exactly like she wants you to.

Quote from: Jackalope;230334Seriously, would you think I was "funny" if i railed all day and all night about how you're a sick fucking pervert who ought to be locked away in a jail for the rest of your life, with no trial, and sodomized repeatedly by bears.

I don't particularly find it funny.  I do find some humor in how her opponents react to her, though.  

Quote from: Jackalope;230334Would you find it funny were I to call for liberals to rise up and shoot a fascist for freedom, kill your local Republican?  What if I sold millions of books doing it?

How do you feel about Bill Ayers who was involved in a group that tried to murder the family of a New York State Supreme Court Justice (http://www.city-journal.org/2008/eon0430jm.html) and bomb a dance on a military base, was never prosecuted, and wrote and sold his memoir about his life as a fugitive and doesn't seem terribly repentant about it?  As bad as Coulter, worse than Coulter, or not as bad as Coulter?

Quote from: NotYourMonkey;230382"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity." Anne Coulter.

This quote has a very distinct purpose to it.  She's essentially parroting the party line of radical Muslims who would like to take over the West and convert everyone to Islam.  When people go through great lengths to condemn this quote as horrific (and it is pretty awful) but refuse to condemn radical Muslims who express similar sentiments, it's proving the point she's trying to demonstrate.  If people don't take radical Muslims at their word that they want to convert or kill you, why do they take Coulter seriously?

Frankly, I think the 9/11 widows were milking their husbands' deaths for political purposes and deserved to be called on it.

Quote from: NotYourMonkey;230382"My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building." Anne Coulter

This line clearly crosses the line and is indefensible.  This is in the same league as the Little Eichmann's line.  That's probably the reason she said it -- to get people who defended Ward Churchill to hypocritically condemn her for making the same sort of comment.  But I don't think that's a good excuse for saying it especially because it does actually wish death upon innocent people.

Quote from: NotYourMonkey;230382"I think the government should be spying on all Arabs, engaging in torture as a televised spectator sport, dropping daisy cutters wantonly throughout the Middle East and sending liberals to Guantanamo."
Anne Coulter

I don't think this is defensible either, though I suspect her motive was similar to the forced conversion quote.

The bottom line is that she's running at the mouth purposely to sound like she thinks her opponents and enemies sound.  I think this approach is more harmful than helpful but I think it only plays into her point to not get that.

Quote from: NotYourMonkey;230382And that is just the Anne Coulter ones.  I have work to do, so it may be a bit before I find lots of hatred and such for liberals just this side of advocating violence from other figures.

Yes, I'm sure you can find shocking Ann Coulter and Michael Savage quotes.    What about Hannity, Limbaugh, or O'Reilly?

Quote from: John Morrow;230615Some of them are idiots and most of them are windbags.  That doesn't put them in the same category as saying that the victims of 9/11 deserved their fate because they were all little Eichmanns.

And again, Ward Churchhill never said that they deserved their fate.

Plus, what the fuck does ward Churchhill have to do with Ann Coulter?  Is Ward Churchill a liberal commentator?  Does Ward Churchhill spend a lot of time on TV, in the public eye, speaking for and representing the left in the public debate?  Um, why, no, no he's not.  He's a super far left idiot with a position at a shitty little school who once got in the news for making an insensitive (but not entirely wrong) comment.  There's a HUGE difference between Ward Churchill writing an essay on "the natural propensity of chickens" that got noted in the media once, and Ann Coulter speaking on behalf of the right wing for over a decade now.

There is absolute no reason why I should have to defend Ward Churchill, except that you are pathetically desperate to change the subject.  He's irrelevant to this conversation.  He doesn't speak for liberals, he isn't presented as speaking for liberals by anyone EXCEPT right wingers

When fucking James Carville calls the 9/11 victims "little eichmans," we can talk.  

QuoteI've yet to hear that explanation for this claim.  The normal argument is to point out that the U.S. Statistical Abstracts say that forests covered 850 million acres in the late 1700s and 730 million acres by 1992.  While that makes Limbaugh's claim wrong, it also makes talk of "deforested America" a bit absurd, too.

Well, that's how he got the figure.

QuoteOf course there are people who argue that North America was less forested than...

I have photos of Seattle from when my grandmother was a kid.  The entire area in the photo, with the exception of one hourse, is thick, deep forest.  Now it's Capitol Hill, and one of the most populated neighborhoods in Seattle.  In my own lifetime, I've watched the amount of greenspace around Seattle shrink as the city expanded, and watched large tracts of former forest turn into clearcuts for development.

By the time Europeans arrived in America, they had developed timber intensive  construction and manufacturing technologies that require a lot of wood (even the word lumber originates in the 1700s, according to a source I was reading earlier today).

Trying to pretend that massive deforestation didn't follow European advancement is ridiculous.  What's the point?  We all know that the Europeans built far more and far larger wooden structures than the natives.  We know that it was Europeans that initiated the lumber trade.  We know the Europeans used clear-cut farming techniques.  We know that European farming techniques produced more food and thus higher populations and this combined with the greater need for wood to fuel the more developed technologies lead to a much higher wood usage index.

QuoteAnother factor that modified the North American climate were beavers.  There may have been hundreds of millions of them before the European trappers got to them.  Again, the landscape was changed from what it was before the Europeans entered in numbers because of the destruction from small numbers of trappers before them.

So what, the beavers all got killed by trappers, and then the forests overgrew?  Do....do you have any idea how incredibly stupid that sounds?  I dunno, my step-mother was the curator of education at a zoo, and I grew up around biologists, and love critters of the pacific northwest, of which the beaver is a fine and prominent representative.  And the notion that you would blame poor lowly mr. beaver when there is US to consider is pretty fucking ridiculous.

QuoteSo while official figures say that Limbaugh is wrong. I don't think his claim is necessarily absurd because the idea of a pristine forested North America before Europeans is wrong, between the Native Americans burning forests and beavers flooding them.

Yeah, that so has nothing at all to do with the concerns that he was attempting to refute.  Pristine or not, there was more forest even 100 years ago, and the lack of forest leads to serious watershed and erosion issues that  need to be addressed, not ignored.  And his argument was essentially "There are more trees now then there were then, so obviously these treehuggers are just Chicken Littles."

meanwhile, in the real world, we here in Washington were just dealing with a battle between land developers and farmers.  The developers wanted to clear cut an entire hillside to make apartment complex overlooking a quaint little farming community.  Said community was concerned that it might not seem so quaint once they strip the hill of its natural watershed and the flooding and mudslides begin -- which is exactly what has happened every other time developers have done this in Washington.

QuoteBut for the sake of argument, I'll assume Limbaugh was definitely wrong here.  This type of problem a pretty common problem with Limbaugh and a fair critique of him.  His main purpose among conservatives is that he summarizes and simplifies arguments from more scholarly or journalistic sources like The Wall Street Journal or National Review but in the process of summarizing and simplifying, he sometimes mangles things or gets the details wrong.

Yeah, he's a windbag.  A lying, hypocritical, chickenhawk, racist windbag.

QuoteBut his overall point is still generally correct, as it is here.  America has not been "deforested" and the situation is getting better and not worse.

Two things:

1. If the situation is getting better, it is BECAUSE of the very people Limbaugh attacks as being the real problem.

2. That's fucking idiotic John.  I mean seriously, you are in utter and absolute denial of reality here.

QuoteI don't think he's intentionally lying so much as mangling the details and oversimplifying.  And, yes, I think it's fair to expect him to be more careful given his influence.

:rolleye:

QuoteWhile I think that characterization may be fair for Savage, I don't think it's true at all about Hannity.  I don't get the feeling that Hannity or Limbaugh really hate anyone, nor do most of the other right-wing talk show hosts.  In fact, Hannity was a guest on another program this morning (the guy subbing for Imus) and the guy took a personal swipe at Susan Estrich, who is subbing for Alan Colmes and Hannity wouldn't go along with it.

The few times I've watched Hannity, I've never been able to watch for more than a few minutes.  He's such an unhumorous blowhard, and his arguments are so full of very obvious and simple logical errors that I find him to be a detriment to the overall public debate.

QuoteWhile you can argue that she wrote a poorly researched book that ignored the racism involved in the internment, her argument was that they were not interned because of their race, which would be a strange argument to make if she was defending their internment on race alone.  She was arguing that it wasn't based on race but a legitimate national security concern, which is where people argue that she ignored evidence of racial motivation.

The American policy of interring tens of thousands of Japanese-Americans was a racist policy.  Attempting to justify the policy at this point is de facto racist apology. End of discussion.

Quote from: John Morrow;230629She's purposely trying to freak the left out.  She's pushing your buttons on purpose in saying things like that.

Is that supposed to make it okay?

There are a lot of people in this country with the power to act on the dictum to terrorize liberals and make them afraid to speak out.  It's exactly that sort of language that mobilized the brownshirts that help the Nazis seize power and...terrorize and silence the German left.

You say that she's pushing my buttons and it's "funny," but the point you are completely missing, the point you are dancing around, is that kind of hate spewing also pushes the buttons of people like Jim David Adkisson, and now two people are dead.  Hah hah hah!  Funny fucking jokes!

QuoteHow do you feel about Bill Ayers who was involved in a group that tried to murder the family of a New York State Supreme Court Justice (http://www.city-journal.org/2008/eon0430jm.html) and bomb a dance on a military base, was never prosecuted, and wrote and sold his memoir about his life as a fugitive and doesn't seem terribly repentant about it?  As bad as Coulter, worse than Coulter, or not as bad as Coulter?

Hello Red Herring!

Quote from: Jackalope;230660Is that supposed to make it okay?

No, I don't think it's OK.  I'm explaining why she does what she does, not saying that I agree with it.

Quote from: Jackalope;230660There are a lot of people in this country with the power to act on the dictum to terrorize liberals and make them afraid to speak out.  It's exactly that sort of language that mobilized the brownshirts that help the Nazis seize power and...terrorize and silence the German left.

Perhaps you missed the part earlier in this thread when I acknowledged that the things pundits say can motivate people to act.  That said, I think you are fooling yourself if you don't think there are places in this country where conservatives are afraid to speak out.

Quote from: Jackalope;230660You say that she's pushing my buttons and it's "funny," but the point you are completely missing, the point you are dancing around, is that kind of hate spewing also pushes the buttons of people like Jim David Adkisson, and now two people are dead.  Hah hah hah!  Funny fucking jokes!

As I've said earlier in the thread, if it can be shown that the words of a particular conservative commentator provoked those murders, I'd have no problem holding the commentator responsible for the incitement.  But what's your solution and where to you draw the line?  Should we ban all hateful speech or only the hateful speech you don't agree with, since you seem to dish out quite of bit of your own?

You complain about the left calling liberals traitors yet you have no problem casually calling conservatives racists and murderers without making any distinction between who you are talking about.  You talk about liberals being terrorized and afraid to speak out and ignore that it's conservatives like Mark Steyn and people like Oriana Fallaci who are being dragged into courts and tribunals over what they've said in Canada and Europe and conservatives who feel afraid to speak out in liberal bastions of the US.  Your concern seems less about general principles like human rights, decency, and free speech but that you don't like being on the receiving end.  

Quote from: Jackalope;230660Hello Red Herring!

No, I didn't think you'd have the guts to answer the question.  You only answer the easy ones, right?

Quote from: Jackalope;230656And again, Ward Churchhill never said that they deserved their fate.

Sure he did:

   As for those in the World Trade Center, well, really, let's get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break. They formed a technocratic corps at the very heart of America's global financial empire, the "mighty engine of profit" to which the military dimension of U.S. policy has always been enslaved and they did so both willingly and knowingly.

So why is he claiming that the people in the World Trade Center weren't innocent?  Are you really that dense?

Quote from: Jackalope;230656Plus, what the fuck does ward Churchhill have to do with Ann Coulter?  Is Ward Churchill a liberal commentator?  Does Ward Churchhill spend a lot of time on TV, in the public eye, speaking for and representing the left in the public debate?  Um, why, no, no he's not.

You are ignoring that the right and left speak through different venues and mediums.  The left does pretty horribly on talk radio but they also dominate the politics on college campuses and in movies.  Need I remind you that Gabriel Range made a movie called Death Of A President that was premiered at the Toronto Film Festival about the assassination of George W. Bush, a sitting President.  Couldn't that give a left-wing Bush hater ideas about killing the President?  Or how about Alec Baldwin on Late Night with Conan O'Brien during the Clinton impeachment saying:

   If we were living in another country, what we, all of us together, would go down to Washington and stone Henry Hyde to death, stone him to death, stone him to death!  Then we would go to their house and we'd kill the family, kill the children.

I can also give you some hateful quotes from Air America if you really want but that would miss the point, which is that there is plenty of hate spewing from the left, too, but because of your own biases, you either don't notice it or think it's justified.

Quote from: Jackalope;230656He's a super far left idiot with a position at a shitty little school who once got in the news for making an insensitive (but not entirely wrong) comment.

So you agree with him that the people in the World Trade Center were not innocent victims?  Either you are an innocent victim or you aren't.

Quote from: Jackalope;230656There's a HUGE difference between Ward Churchill writing an essay on "the natural propensity of chickens" that got noted in the media once, and Ann Coulter speaking on behalf of the right wing for over a decade now.

You'll notice that Ann Coulter was let go from National Review for her forced conversion crack and you'll also notice that she doesn't have her own talk show.  There are reasons for that.  And if you consider that there are people with ideas like Ward Churchill's on almost every campus and that they have significant influence over students by virtue of required attendance and grading, the influence is not as disparate as you want to suggest.  

Quote from: Jackalope;230656There is absolute no reason why I should have to defend Ward Churchill, except that you are pathetically desperate to change the subject.  He's irrelevant to this conversation.  He doesn't speak for liberals, he isn't presented as speaking for liberals by anyone EXCEPT right wingers

If there is no reason why you should have to defend him, then why did you offer a qualified defense of his views ("not entirely wrong")?  

What's funny here is that you are upset that conservatives claim Churchill speaks for liberals yet you have no problem standing on the other side and claiming that Ann Coulter speaks for conservatives.  She doesn't.  Nor does Michael Savage.  Even Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity have their critics on the right and most conservatives don't even consider Bill O'Reilly a real conservative.  So if you think it's unfair that every asinine thing that someone on the left says gets hung around the necks of all liberals, then maybe you shouldn't be so quick to hang every asinine thing that someone on the right says around the necks of all conservatives.

Quote from: Jackalope;230656Well, that's how he got the figure.

Source?  I'm curious because that's not what the anti-Limbaugh sites that I looked at said.

Quote from: Jackalope;230656I have photos of Seattle from when my grandmother was a kid.  The entire area in the photo, with the exception of one hourse, is thick, deep forest.

Was your grandmother a kid when Native Americans ran the area?  I suspect you didn't even look at the links I offered so, here, let me quote one (http://westinstenv.org/histwl/2008/01/07/indians-fire-and-the-land-in-the-pacific-northwest/) for you that will explain the point you are obviously missing:

   [A]nthropologist Jay Miller went into the Methow Valley [north-central Washington] with a van load of [Methow Indian] elders, some of whom had not been there for fifty years. When we had gone through about half the valley, a woman started to cry. I thought it was because she was homesick, but, after a time, she sobbed, 'When my people lived here, we took good care of all this land. We burned it over every fall to make it like a park. Now it is a jungle. Every Methow I talked to after that confirmed the regular program of burning.

...and...

   Like the rest of the Americas, the environment of the Pacific Northwest was not pristine when Europeans first encountered it. It was actively managed and shaped by the hand of its native inhabitants. The primary tool of this indigenous, non-agricultural environmental management was fire. Native Americans used fire purposefully and in patterns that reflected a traditional ecological knowledge that was both broad and deep.

Throughout the pre-White Pacific Northwest, Indian cultures used fire in different yet internally consistent ways. In the "interior valleys province," between the Coast and Cascade ranges, repeated firing maintained open prairie lands where the native peoples' most important wild plant foods grew. In the Columbia Basin, regular firing held back the growth of sagebrush and promoted the growth of bunchgrasses and forbs. Anthropogenic burning kept the understories of the ponderosa pine forests open and extended into higher elevation, dry eastern forests where fire use was spottier. Along the Cascade crest, Indian-caused fires maintained mountain huckleberry patches, and in the upper Fraser highlands it promoted the growth of important root crops. Along the wet coastline, burning was less common, though locally intense, and mostly associated with the regeneration of various species of wild berries.

Quote from: Jackalope;230656Now it's Capitol Hill, and one of the most populated neighborhoods in Seattle.  In my own lifetime, I've watched the amount of greenspace around Seattle shrink as the city expanded, and watched large tracts of former forest turn into clearcuts for development.

How old were the trees that were clearcut?  What was that foliage in that area like 300-400 years ago, before the Native Americans largely died out?

Quote from: Jackalope;230656By the time Europeans arrived in America, they had developed timber intensive  construction and manufacturing technologies that require a lot of wood (even the word lumber originates in the 1700s, according to a source I was reading earlier today).

You seem to assume that the Native Americans didn't destroy forests because they didn't have lumber.  They weren't logging them.  They were burning them to create pastures.  The net result is the same, grasslands rather than forests.  Go back and follow the links I provided earlier for more details or do your own Google searches if you want.

Quote from: Jackalope;230656Trying to pretend that massive deforestation didn't follow European advancement is ridiculous.  What's the point?  We all know that the Europeans built far more and far larger wooden structures than the natives.  We know that it was Europeans that initiated the lumber trade.  We know the Europeans used clear-cut farming techniques.  We know that European farming techniques produced more food and thus higher populations and this combined with the greater need for wood to fuel the more developed technologies lead to a much higher wood usage index.

So you don't think regular burnings of woodlands can cause massive deforestation?  No, the Native Americans weren't cutting the trees down and using the lumber to build with.  They were burning the forests down regularly to create grasslands and prairies for game and so that other plants would grow.  The trees are just as gone if they are burned as if they are cut.  And of course plenty of trees have been killed in the Cascades by volcanoes, too.  

Quote from: Jackalope;230656So what, the beavers all got killed by trappers, and then the forests overgrew?

Yes.

Quote from: Jackalope;230656Do....do you have any idea how incredibly stupid that sounds?

Only to someone who doesn't have a clue about how widespread beavers were or what their impact was on the environment.

Quote from: Jackalope;230656I dunno, my step-mother was the curator of education at a zoo, and I grew up around biologists, and love critters of the pacific northwest, of which the beaver is a fine and prominent representative.  And the notion that you would blame poor lowly mr. beaver when there is US to consider is pretty fucking ridiculous.

Because as many as 400 million beavers who constantly gnaw down saplings and flood acres of lands with their dams couldn't possibly do as much damage to trees as 350 million human beings, right?  Of course the elimination of those dams changed a lot of ecosystems, too.  The question is one of what you want to consider "normal" for North America.  

Quote from: Jackalope;230656Yeah, that so has nothing at all to do with the concerns that he was attempting to refute.  Pristine or not, there was more forest even 100 years ago, and the lack of forest leads to serious watershed and erosion issues that  need to be addressed, not ignored.  And his argument was essentially "There are more trees now then there were then, so obviously these treehuggers are just Chicken Littles."

The point you are missing is that the environment today isn't the environment of 100 years ago and that environment wasn't the environment of 400 years ago.  Further, erosion and watershed issues also happen naturally.  Remember, you live below a volcano that periodically erupts and sends massive lahars tearing down to the ocean destroying almost everything in their wake.  You seem to want a static environment and the environment isn't static.

Quote from: Jackalope;230656meanwhile, in the real world, we here in Washington were just dealing with a battle between land developers and farmers.  The developers wanted to clear cut an entire hillside to make apartment complex overlooking a quaint little farming community.  Said community was concerned that it might not seem so quaint once they strip the hill of its natural watershed and the flooding and mudslides begin -- which is exactly what has happened every other time developers have done this in Washington.

This is all a problem because people don't want the land to change.  That the farmers don't want their farms to be flooded or covered in mud is a personal and economic issue rather than an environmental one.  When the lahars and ash clouds come pouring down on them, as they inevitably will at some point on much of Washington State, it will all be moot, won't it?  

Quote from: Jackalope;230656Yeah, he's a windbag.  A lying, hypocritical, chickenhawk, racist windbag.

He's a windbag.  He's been hypocritical on a few issues but no more than most other people are.  Chickenhawk?  So should we institute a system like Starship Troopers where only those who serve in the military get a vote or voice?  Racist?  Hardly, though he's certainly politically incorrect.  James Golden (his right-hand man Bo Snerdly) is black, he lets Walter Williams (black economist) guest host is program, and his last wedding was performed by Clarence Thomas (with James Carville in attendance) which would all be pretty strange behavior for a racist.

Quote from: Jackalope;2306561. If the situation is getting better, it is BECAUSE of the very people Limbaugh attacks as being the real problem.

You are certain of that?

Quote from: Jackalope;2306562. That's fucking idiotic John.  I mean seriously, you are in utter and absolute denial of reality here.

No, the problem is that you are looking at local changes that you don't like and (A) assume that the way things were 50 years ago is the way they were 500 years ago (not true) and (B) that the rest of America is following the same trends your area is.

Quote from: Jackalope;230656The few times I've watched Hannity, I've never been able to watch for more than a few minutes.  He's such an unhumorous blowhard, and his arguments are so full of very obvious and simple logical errors that I find him to be a detriment to the overall public debate.

That doesn't make him a hater or a bigot.  If you want to call right-wing talk show hosts blowhards, uninformed, or wrong, that's fine.  But that's not what you are doing.  How is casually tossing around charges of racism any better than casually tossing around charges of treason?

Quote from: Jackalope;230656The American policy of interring tens of thousands of Japanese-Americans was a racist policy.  Attempting to justify the policy at this point is de facto racist apology. End of discussion.

In various threads about Robert E. Howard, people have tried to excuse the racism in his work in various ways (often saying that he was a product of his time and wasn't so bad) despite the fact that it's pretty clear from sentiments that he expressed in private letters that he held some pretty vile racist views, even by the standards of his day.  Should I assume that everyone who tries to stick up for Howard are racists or are defending racism or would that be unfair?

John, you're fucking insane, and I'm done talking to you.

Quote from: Jackalope;230833John, you're fucking insane, and I'm done talking to you.

You really don't want to answer that Ayers question, do you?

Actually CU is not that shitty or little. I went there and then got into a top ten graduate school for my discipline. It ranks in the top 100 schools at around #70 in the US. Certainly, it's no Harvard, but it's not a shit school either.

Quote from: John Morrow;230629How do you feel about Bill Ayers who was involved in a group that tried to murder the family of a New York State Supreme Court Justice (http://www.city-journal.org/2008/eon0430jm.html) and bomb a dance on a military base, was never prosecuted, and wrote and sold his memoir about his life as a fugitive and doesn't seem terribly repentant about it?  As bad as Coulter, worse than Coulter, or not as bad as Coulter?

He's worse than Coulter.  The people who praise him and look up to him, are comparable to Coulter.  IMO.

I dunno, I am definitely not a left-winger, but Coulter freaks me out.  Hell, sometimes I think she's actually right about stuff.  After 9/11 the US would have done a lot better with a Jacksonian smash-some-heads-together response, not this Wilsonian "All Arabs want Freedom, and we'll prove it if we have to kill a million of 'em" approach which has killed far more people, both middle-Eastern and American.    Now, she went well beyond smash-some-heads-together, and many on the Right can't seem to distinguish between Jacksonian righteous vengeance and hyper-Wilsonian Perpetual Global War for Perpertual Freedom, but she did have half a point there.  That doesn't excuse her kill-the-Liberals rhetoric.  For one thing, she and a big chunk of the US Right can't seem to distinguish between moderate liberals and the Maoists.  All that crap about the 'extreme leftist' Hillary Clinton meant they took way too long to notice Obama actually did have some dubious connections.

It was worth reading the entirety of John's posts just to see Jackalope get totally owned.

His casually dismissal of the beavers was rather funny to me as I'm the environmental compliance pika for my organization and one of the things we learned in the class for that was that the parent organization was involved in a massive war against the local beavers... both tearing out their dams that were destroying the local ecology (including the salmon spawning streams) and shooting the buggers to keep the population in check.

Of course, its somewhat laughable for anyone in western washington to bitch about massive deforestation.  If you've ever been here you'll understand why its silly.

Of course, its also silly for anyone in Nebraska to claim that (not that anyone did...) as the only trees in that state were planted by europeans as part of the Arbor Day Foundation (which has its origins in... you guessed it... Nebraska).

There was an anecdote about a New England state (New Hampshire?) that is massively forested, almost impenetrably at some points, something about the difficulty of getting to a crashed plane, whatever... and they revealed in the news story that 100 years ago the entire state was one big farmland... the forests are new.

Of course: the US spends a great deal of money fighting bursh fires nation wide, and wildfires that burn 'billions' of dollars every couple years... but if we left those damn brush fires alone (controlled burns, such as I used to see in North Carolina are a costly way of getting the same result...) the wildfires would be far more managable....

Spending money to create a means of spending even more money.... go us...

Quote from: Jackalope;230833John, you're fucking insane, and I'm done talking to you.

No, he's often times annoying, not insane.

In this instance, however, I loved watching John Morrow go to work on you.


- Ed C.

Quote from: Spike;230875It was worth reading the entirety of John's posts just to see Jackalope get totally owned.

A bunch of red herring arguments hardly constitutes getting "owned."

I'm tried of arguing with idiots like John Morrow.  I'm tired of dealing with the bullshit assumptions that underlie their stupid pathetically predictable arguments.

John Morrow's argument rests on the assumption the the following analogy is valid:


or:


This is a ridiculous analogy.  There is absolute no reason to engage in conversation with someone so facile and disingenous as to make these sorts of analogies.

Neither Ward Churchhill or Bill Ayers is a pundit, neither of them is trotted out by the left establishment to act as a spokesperson.   Most liberals haven't even heard of these men.   In fact, I -- a nominal liberal -- only know of these two men because of the attention conservatives have brought to them.  I know of Ann Coulter because of the attention conservatives have brought to her.

This is the very definition of a red herring (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi).  It's an attempt to deflect criticism of major spokesperson of the right wing by pointing at fringe leftists who aren't being promoted as spokespeople for anyone.

The entire thing about beavers and deforestation is another red herring.  It's just a way of avoiding the actual issue I raised:  Rush Limbaugh is a disingenuous manipulator of facts who distorts reality to serve his agenda.

This kind of crap is exactly why I have no respect for right-wingers.

Actually Jack, by that standard, you are using Ann Coulter as a Red Herring.

See, whenever John or any other conservative makes a reasonable post, you go right back to Ann Coulter, quote some egregious shit, then hype it up to actually make it even worse, then you do your little happy dance and hoot like a monkey declaring victory.

Which is why no one here (a mostly liberal site at that...) has any respect for you.

Quote from: Spike;230983Actually Jack, by that standard, you are using Ann Coulter as a Red Herring.

See, whenever John or any other conservative makes a reasonable post, you go right back to Ann Coulter, quote some egregious shit, then hype it up to actually make it even worse, then you do your little happy dance and hoot like a monkey declaring victory.

I have never mentioned Ann Coulter before this thread, which is ostensibly about right wing commentators, and thus would make her a fair topic of conversation.  I'm not even the one who brought her up.

You are an idiot, Spike.  A complete and total idiot.  No wonder you're a right-winger.

(And I actually agree with right-wingers when they make reasonable posts, even when many liberals don't.  For example, I don't think gleichman is an idiot or a racist simply because he is concerned about immigration, and while I ultimately disagree with him, I don't think he is entirely off-base in his concerns.  I've also agree with Morrow on several occasions, I jut think that right now he is being an utter douchebag by trying to equate Coulter and Ayers, as if they were remotely analogous.)

I'll give you that Ayers and Coulter aren't in the same league. Coulter never once tried or succeeded in killing anyone.

Nor is she as crazy as Farrakhan.

Quote from: Jackalope;230987I have never mentioned Ann Coulter before this thread, which is ostensibly about right wing commentators, and thus would make her a fair topic of conversation.  I'm not even the one who brought her up.

Yet you repeatedly return to her like a junkie looking for his next fix in this very thread.   Nice attempt to deflect criticism, however. You may have a glorious career ahead of you in politics one day, if you ever learn when to shut your mouth.

QuoteYou are an idiot, Spike.  A complete and total idiot.  No wonder you're a right-winger.

Aw... I was hoping you'd threaten to hit me again. I was all set to PM you my address too....  I guess I'll have to make do with insults and mischaracterization.  

Quote(And I actually agree with right-wingers when they make reasonable posts, even when many liberals don't.  For example, I don't think gleichman is an idiot or a racist simply because he is concerned about immigration, and while I ultimately disagree with him, I don't think he is entirely off-base in his concerns.  I've also agree with Morrow on several occasions, I jut think that right now he is being an utter douchebag by trying to equate Coulter and Ayers, as if they were remotely analogous.)

You know... if you really want to type out a paragraph explaining how 'some of my friends are....X' you don't need to put it into paranthesis.   As Shewolf pointed out, Ayers is a murderer, Coulter just talks. They aren't analogous, true.

As you seem to think that they aren't analogous because Coulter is a Conservative Pundit and Ayers is just some shmuck who votes liberal... let me enlighten you, you simpering fool you. Ayers was quite the newsmaker recently as he is a promanent supporter of Barrack Obama, and was being lauded by the DNC and several liberal instituitions... I believe he's been since sidelined as it became something of an embarrassment when his 'credentials' as a terrorist, retired or not, started being brought up.  

Ayers donates, gives speeches and writes books on behalf of liberal causes and politicians.  What, precisely, makes him different in this regard from Ann Coulter other than you like his politics?

Spike is a right-winger?

 Spike?


Huh.

 Never knew that.


- Ed C.

Quote from: shewolf;230989I'll give you that Ayers and Coulter aren't in the same league.

More importantly, they aren't in the same career.  Bill Ayers hasn't made thousands of television appearances of liberal media outlets to represent the liberal viewpoint.  Bill Ayers is not a prominent public figure.  Defending Ann Coulter's outrageous behavior by pointing to Bill Ayers is a red herring, a digression and diversion away from the actual topic: Ann Coulter.

If Spike started a thread about Bill Ayers, demanding to know how liberals could tolerate him, and I entered that conversation and demanded that Spike defend Adolph Hitler -- who was a right-winger and far worse than Bill Ayers by any measure -- before I would acknowledge any criticism of Bill Ayers, that would clearly be a red herring argument.  Yet this is all right-wingers ever do when one of their own is criticized: point to someone on the left that is not remotely analogous, and demand that the liberal questioning their right wing wunderkind defend that person first.  it's such irrational bullshit, and yet it's all right-wingers seem to be able to offer.

Like you, bringing up Farrakhan, as if Louis Farrakhan is representative of liberals.  I mean what the fuck?

There are plenty of left/liberal analogues to Ann Coulter:  Al Franklin comes immediately to mind.  James Carville is another.  Of course, none of them comes close to spewing the sort of hate-filled invective that Coulter spews, so right-wingers don't point to these actual analogs, they point to fringe weirdos like Ward Churchill and people like Bill Ayers who aren't prominent, aren't representative, and don't purport to speak for the liberal establishment.

There are lots of dangerous left-wing loons out there. The main difference, as I said before, is that in the United States far less people listen to them than they do to the dangerous right-wing loons.

RPGPundit

Seriously though, intelligent and rational people should be able to make a strong distinction between:

a) A person who engaged in revolutionary guerrilla terrorism against military and political representatives of government that was flagrantly abusing the human rights of large numbers of citizens and engaging in criminal violation of its own constitution and isn't fully repentent...

b) A person making outrageous and hate-filled public statements that could enflame unwarranted violence against innocent people for attention, ratings and money who isn't remotely repetent.

This is a ludicrous.

Quote from: Jackalope;231033Defending Ann Coulter's outrageous behavior by pointing to Bill Ayers is a red herring, a digression and diversion away from the actual topic: Ann Coulter.

The problem is that I'm not really defending Ann Coulter.  As I've said several times, some of the things she says cross the line and are inexcusable.  You, on the other hand, have tried to downplay what Ward Churchill said and refuse to state without qualifications that he was wrong.  You also refuse to condemn Ayers, which is simple enough to do.

Quote from: Jackalope;231033If Spike started a thread about Bill Ayers, demanding to know how liberals could tolerate him, and I entered that conversation and demanded that Spike defend Adolph Hitler -- who was a right-winger and far worse than Bill Ayers by any measure -- before I would acknowledge any criticism of Bill Ayers, that would clearly be a red herring argument.

If you asked me if Hitler was worse than, better than, or about the same as Bill Ayers, I'd have no problem telling you that Hitler was worse.  Why is that so hard for you?

Quote from: Jackalope;231033There are plenty of left/liberal analogues to Ann Coulter:  Al Franklin comes immediately to mind.  James Carville is another.  Of course, none of them comes close to spewing the sort of hate-filled invective that Coulter spews, so right-wingers don't point to these actual analogs, they point to fringe weirdos like Ward Churchill and people like Bill Ayers who aren't prominent, aren't representative, and don't purport to speak for the liberal establishment.

There is plenty of hate-filled invective on the left directed at all sorts of groups that they consider enemies including the religious right, Republicans, businessmen, and so on but if I gave you examples, I'm sure you'd tell me that it wasn't hate-filled invective but reasonable and warranted political commentary, so what's the point, especially when you can't even bring yourself to condemn Ward Churchill or Bill Ayers?

Quote from: Jackalope;231038Seriously though, intelligent and rational people should be able to make a strong distinction between:

a) A person who engaged in revolutionary guerrilla terrorism against military and political representatives of government that was flagrantly abusing the human rights of large numbers of citizens and engaging in criminal violation of its own constitution and isn't fully repentent...

b) A person making outrageous and hate-filled public statements that could enflame unwarranted violence against innocent people for attention, ratings and money who isn't remotely repetent.

And by simply saying that you think Bill Ayers is worse than Ann Coulter, you will demonstrate that you are an intelligent and rational person who can make a strong distinction between the two.  What's so hard about that?

Quote from: John Morrow;231061The problem is that I'm not really defending Ann Coulter.  As I've said several times, some of the things she says cross the line and are inexcusable.  You, on the other hand, have tried to downplay what Ward Churchill said and refuse to state without qualifications that he was wrong.  You also refuse to condemn Ayers, which is simple enough to do.

...but it's entirely irrelevant.  One does not have to jump through hoops to make criticisms of Ann Coulter.  One does not have to disavow Bill Ayers to make criticisms of Ann Coulter.

QuoteThere is plenty of hate-filled invective on the left directed at all sorts of groups that they consider enemies including the religious right, Republicans, businessmen, and so on but if I gave you examples, I'm sure you'd tell me that it wasn't hate-filled invective but reasonable and warranted political commentary, so what's the point, especially when you can't even bring yourself to condemn Ward Churchill or Bill Ayers?

Stop playing tit-for-tat you fucking jackass.  Stop polarizing the discussion with this fucking bullshit.  You seem like a reasonable person sometimes John.  Try acting like it now.

Quote from: John Morrow;231063And by simply saying that you think Bill Ayers is worse than Ann Coulter, you will demonstrate that you are an intelligent and rational person who can make a strong distinction between the two.  What's so hard about that?

I don't think Bill Ayers is worse than Ann Coulter.  I don't think Bill Ayers is comparable to Ann Coulter.  I personally think that given the direction that the government was progressively moving during the time that the Weathermen radicalized and became violent, their actions are more comparable to the Jeiwsh terrorism (such as the Stern Gang, which is very comparable) in Palestian before the creation of the state of Israel.  or the terrorism committed by the American Revolutionary Army before and throughout the American Revolutionary War.

You know what?  I also think the Molly Maguires were more justified in their use of violence than the Pinkertons, and I think the Black Panthers were more justified in their use of violence than the Klu Klux Klan, and that the United Mine Workers of America was more justified in its use of violence at the Battle of Blair Mountain than the US Government.

None of that has fuck-all to do with Ann Coulter and what is wrong with her, and turning a critique of Ann Coulter's particular form of hate-as-entertainment  into a digression on the relative legitimacy of the radical movements of the sixties, and how guilty participants in those groups should feel is really fucking ridiculous.

It's a RED HERRING.

From this page (http://www.nwf.org/nationalwildlife/article.cfm?articleId=926&issueId=68):

   Other than humans, beavers have done more to shape and reshape the North American landscape than any other mammals. At one time or another, the estimated 200 million beavers that once lived in the continental United States probably modified almost every watershed in the country. In building their dams and turning forestlands into fertile valleys and wetlands, the big rodents have created habitat for hundreds of other species. One 1990 U.S. Forest Service study, for example, found that beaver ponds in central Idaho support three times more songbirds than adjacent stream areas with no beaver ponds.

Another site claimed the 400 million figure that I mentioned earlier, which may include all of North America.  Still, bear in mind that the human population of the United States did not top 200 million until around 1970 and that the current beaver population is only around 10 million.

Quote from: John Morrow;231079From this page (http://www.nwf.org/nationalwildlife/article.cfm?articleId=926&issueId=68):

   Other than humans, beavers have done more to shape and reshape the North American landscape than any other mammals. At one time or another, the estimated 200 million beavers that once lived in the continental United States probably modified almost every watershed in the country. In building their dams and turning forestlands into fertile valleys and wetlands, the big rodents have created habitat for hundreds of other species. One 1990 U.S. Forest Service study, for example, found that beaver ponds in central Idaho support three times more songbirds than adjacent stream areas with no beaver ponds.

Another site claimed the 400 million figure that I mentioned earlier, which may include all of North America.  Still, bear in mind that the human population of the United States did not top 200 million until around 1970 and that the current beaver population is only around 10 million.

Which has fuck all to do with anything John.  exactly what point are you trying to refute with this?

I say Rush Limbaugh used a gross distortion of fact to discredit environmentalists, as an example of a general trend towards gross dishonesty and general lack of credibility, you rebut the point by saying beavers have a major impact on watersheds.  

:huhsign:

There is no fucking logic there.  
There is a big fat RED HERRING though.

Quote from: Jackalope;231073I don't think Bill Ayers is worse than Ann Coulter.  I don't think Bill Ayers is comparable to Ann Coulter.  I personally think that given the direction that the government was progressively moving during the time that the Weathermen radicalized and became violent, their actions are more comparable to the Jeiwsh terrorism (such as the Stern Gang, which is very comparable) in Palestian before the creation of the state of Israel.  or the terrorism committed by the American Revolutionary Army before and throughout the American Revolutionary War.

Then I don't think you have the moral standing to criticize Ann Coulter or the people on the right who excuse her because you are clearly willing to excuse worse from your side of the political fence.

Quote from: Jackalope;231073None of that has fuck-all to do with Ann Coulter and what is wrong with her, and turning a critique of Ann Coulter's particular form of hate-as-entertainment  into a digression on the relative legitimacy of the radical movements of the sixties, and how guilty participants in those groups should feel is really fucking ridiculous.

It has everything to do with your criticism of Ann Coulter because it reveals that your problem with her is not that you disapprove of someone demonizing or provoking attacks on their political opponents as a general principle but that you simply don't like it when it's done against your side.  Your problem with Coulter isn't her tactics (because you are willing to excuse far worse) but her politics.

Damn, someone is onsessed with seafood around here....


Also....

 WOW, talk abiut your thread drift.

This will be interesting because I think Morrow has more stamina than Jackalope does .


 Popcorn anyone?



- Ed C.

Quote from: Jackalope;231080Which has fuck all to do with anything John.  exactly what point are you trying to refute with this?

This:

   So what, the beavers all got killed by trappers, and then the forests overgrew? Do....do you have any idea how incredibly stupid that sounds? I dunno, my step-mother was the curator of education at a zoo, and I grew up around biologists, and love critters of the pacific northwest, of which the beaver is a fine and prominent representative. And the notion that you would blame poor lowly mr. beaver when there is US to consider is pretty fucking ridiculous.

Since you clearly don't have a clue about beavers and their impact on the environment, I figured I'd offer you one.

Quote from: Jackalope;231080I say Rush Limbaugh used a gross distortion of fact to discredit environmentalists, as an example of a general trend towards gross dishonesty and general lack of credibility, you rebut the point by saying beavers have a major impact on watersheds.

No.  I said that beavers had a major impact on forestation.  I even highlighted "turning forestlands into fertile valleys and wetlands" so you wouldn't miss it.  I guess gross distortions, gross dishonestly, and a general lack of credibility are bad for Limbaugh but just fine for you, right?

Here, let me spell it out for you.  My point is that Rush Limbaugh's statement was not necessarily a gross distortion of the facts and there may be some truth to it, since estimates of the pre-European forestation of the continental United States is just that, an "estimate", that may not be taking the impact that Native Americans and beavers had on the forestation of various parts of the United States before the Europeans arrived into account.  I don't know what Limbaugh's source was.  You claimed he was talking only about the original 13 colonies and I asked you for a source for that claim, since I couldn't find one.

And, yes, when environmentalists exaggerate and lie, they deserve to be discredited every bit as much as Limbaugh does when he exaggerates or lies.  Again, your outrage seems to be less about the moral principles involved (exaggerations and lies) and more about politics and whether you agree with them or not.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;229149Oh, yes, I didn't mean to suggest he went after Unitarians because he hated Christians. At this stage it sure looks like he was a "right-wing nut". It's just that, contrary to popular perceptions (which I don't think are entirely unjustified) there was apparently in his case no correlation between anti-liberal attitudes and an attachment to traditional religion.

So he was just bitter and clinging to guns...

Quote from: John Morrow;231081Then I don't think you have the moral standing to criticize Ann Coulter or the people on the right who excuse her because you are clearly willing to excuse worse from your side of the political fence.

And you have successfully turned this into an entirely different discussion.  Good job of deflecting there, you disingenuous fuckwit.

I don't consider Bill Ayers and the Weathermen to be on "my side of the fence" John, that's why I think it's ridiculous that you bring him up.  I think it is exactly these sort of bullshit polarizing tactics that drag political discussions down.

Just because someone is one your left doesn't mean they are in the same group as everyone else to the left of you.

QuoteIt has everything to do with your criticism of Ann Coulter because it reveals that your problem with her is not that you disapprove of someone demonizing or provoking attacks on their political opponents as a general principle but that you simply don't like it when it's done against your side.  Your problem with Coulter isn't her tactics (because you are willing to excuse far worse) but her politics.

Bullshit!  That is total bullshit.  You are entirely ignoring that my criticism of Coulter do not apply to Ayers at all!  Ayers and Coulter are not even in the same realm, and you are using ayers to carefully avoid actually addressing the real criticisms of Coulter.

FUCKWIT!

Quote from: John Morrow;231090Here, let me spell it out for you.  My point is that Rush Limbaugh's statement was not necessarily a gross distortion of the facts and there may be some truth to it, since estimates of the pre-European forestation of the continental United States is just that, an "estimate", that may not be taking the impact that Native Americans and beavers had on the forestation of various parts of the United States before the Europeans arrived into account.

Yeah, I get it John, you are offering a post hoc justification for Limbaugh's comments that doesn't actually justify his comments, even though you don't know what he was talking about.  You are a disingenuous fuckwit, a lying mendicant and pestiferous sophist and apologist. Since I don't actually own a copy of The Way Things Ought to Be and can't put his full comment into context, why don't we drop this.

Quote from: Jackalope;231101I don't consider Bill Ayers and the Weathermen to be on "my side of the fence" John, that's why I think it's ridiculous that you bring him up.  I think it is exactly these sort of bullshit polarizing tactics that drag political discussions down.

If you don't have any sympathy for his politics, then why are you understanding about what he did yet condemn Coulter for doing a lot less?

Quote from: Jackalope;231101Just because someone is one your left doesn't mean they are in the same group as everyone else to the left of you.

But it does seem to mean that you are willing to step up and defend them or excuse them, which is exactly what you are complaining people on the right do with Coulter, Limbaugh, and others.  

Quote from: Jackalope;231101Bullshit!  That is total bullshit.  You are entirely ignoring that my criticism of Coulter do not apply to Ayers at all!  Ayers and Coulter are not even in the same realm, and you are using ayers to carefully avoid actually addressing the real criticisms of Coulter.

Your complaint about Ann Coulter was:

   Ann Coulter, in the opening paragraph of her book, makes the claim that all liberals are born to become liberals, cannot help be anything but liberals, and are all traitors by their very nature. Traitors are, of course, punished by death. She doesn't mention this, but it's implied in the charge. If she had made the same claim about Jews she'd be called a Nazi -- and keep in mind, she claims liberalism was congential trait, thus she posits that liberals are a race of people.

In other words, you are upset because you feel she's arguing that liberals deserve to die because they are a danger to America.  But when I offer you an example of a liberal who actually did try to murder his political opponents and their innocent families, you compare him to the "American Revolutionary Army".  What that tells me is that your problem isn't with the idea of people murdering their political opponents but with you being on the receiving end of it.  You think it's just fine to murder innocent people for politics as long as you agree with the cause.

Quote from: Jackalope;231105Yeah, I get it John, you are offering a post hoc justification for Limbaugh's comments that doesn't actually justify his comments, even though you don't know what he was talking about.

There are plenty of sites that address Limbaugh's claim about forests, which they quote as, "Do you know we have more acreage of forest land in the United States today than we did at the time the constitution was written," and attribute to his radio show on 02/18/94.  I suspect the complaint comes from FAIR's "That's the Way Things Aren't", which I've read by the way.  

Given that I don't have a source on where Limbaugh's claim came from, my point is that there might be a legitimate reason behind that claim.  I asked you for your source for the 13 colonies explanation, since none of the other anti-Limbaugh sites that I found mention that as an explanation, and you couldn't provide it.  

Quote from: Jackalope;231105You are a disingenuous fuckwit, a lying mendicant and pestiferous sophist and apologist. Since I don't actually own a copy of The Way Things Ought to Be and can't put his full comment into context, why don't we drop this.

You raised the issue, not me.  Don't start whining just because it's not going your way.

Quote from: John Morrow;231108If you don't have any sympathy for his politics, then why are you understanding about what he did yet condemn Coulter for doing a lot less?

Because I am more sympathetic to misguided idealists than opportunistic demagogues.  Because, at the end of the day, I find for-profit demagoguery on behalf of the ruling elite that is occurring right now far more troublesome to democracy than I find the actions of one misguided and widely discredited revolutionary group from thirty years ago.

See, I get what Bill Ayers thought he was doing.  He thought he was fighting a  fascist government that was murdering people, both at home and abroad, for unconscionable reasons.  Was he right?  Hard to say.

Ultimately, I think he was wrong, not because the government wasn't what he thoiught it was (it was), but because I think the key to achieving progressive goals is peaceful resistance and civil disobedience, but I can understand how Ayers -- watching the government shoot protestors, turn dogs on them, spy on them -- could come to believe that violence was the answer.

But what is Coulter doing?  If she's serious, she's insane.  My mother -- a dyed in the wool liberal -- may be a bit daft in her politics, but she's hardly a traitor.  She shouldn't be considered a valid target, but she could have easily been in that church -- she goes to a very liberal Episcopalian church.  But Coulter would have you believe that because my mom is going to vote for Obama, and voted for Clinton, that she should be Guatamno?

Or is she joking?  If she's joking, that's deplorable.  That's calling for violence against others for...a joke?  Calling for violence because you genuinely believe that real freedom is at stake is one thing

But it does seem to mean that you are willing to step up and defend them or excuse them, which is exactly what you are complaining people on the right do with Coulter, Limbaugh, and others.  

QuoteIn other words, you are upset because you feel she's arguing that liberals deserve to die because they are a danger to America.  But when I offer you an example of a liberal who actually did try to murder his political opponents and their innocent families, you compare him to the "American Revolutionary Army".  What that tells me is that your problem isn't with the idea of people murdering their political opponents but with you being on the receiving end of it.  You think it's just fine to murder innocent people for politics as long as you agree with the cause.

This is so facile it defies credibility.

What this tells you is that I sympathetic to revolutionary groups operating from idealistic (if confused) motives, and not sympathetic to fascist shills who take a corporate paycheck to rail against harmless working class folk like my mom.

But you're right John, at the end of the day, my problem isn't with people murdering their political enemies, because at the end of the day I'm a realist and I know that tree of liberty is soaked in an awful lot of innocent people's blood.

But keep it up John, keep pretending that a confused revolutionary is the exact same thing as a demagogic hate-monger.  Keep pretending the there is no difference between the violence used by the oppressed against the oppressor and the violence used by the oppressor against the oppressed.

All you are illustrating is how completely out of whack your own moral compass is.

Quote from: RPGPundit;231036There are lots of dangerous left-wing loons out there. The main difference, as I said before, is that in the United States far less people listen to them than they do to the dangerous right-wing loons.

I think it's a reasonable argument that the left-wing loons have a similar degree of influence overall (perhaps greater in some ways), but through the University system, not talk radio.

Quote from: Jackalope;231073I don't think Bill Ayers is worse than Ann Coulter.  I don't think Bill Ayers is comparable to Ann Coulter.  I personally think that given the direction that the government was progressively moving during the time that the Weathermen radicalized and became violent, their actions are more comparable to the Jeiwsh terrorism (such as the Stern Gang, which is very comparable) in Palestian before the creation of the state of Israel.  or the terrorism committed by the American Revolutionary Army before and throughout the American Revolutionary War.

You know what?  I also think the Molly Maguires were more justified in their use of violence than the Pinkertons, and I think the Black Panthers were more justified in their use of violence than the Klu Klux Klan, and that the United Mine Workers of America was more justified in its use of violence at the Battle of Blair Mountain than the US Government.

None of that has fuck-all to do with Ann Coulter and what is wrong with her, and turning a critique of Ann Coulter's particular form of hate-as-entertainment  into a digression on the relative legitimacy of the radical movements of the sixties, and how guilty participants in those groups should feel is really fucking ridiculous.

It's a RED HERRING.

You shouldn't be calling yourself a 'liberal'.  You give liberalism a bad name, and you give types like Coulter the ammunition to paint all liberals as Weatherman-supporting, Black Panther-supporting, revolutionary Marxists (ie 'traitors').

Quote from: S'mon;231123You shouldn't be calling yourself a 'liberal'.  You give liberalism a bad name, and you give types like Coulter the ammunition to paint all liberals as Weatherman-supporting, Black Panther-supporting, revolutionary Marxists (ie 'traitors').

That's fucking idiotic.

You know what REALLY lets types like Coulter paint all liberals as Weatherman-supporting, Black Panther-supporting, revolutionary Marxists (ie 'traitors')?  

The unmitigated stupidity of the right-wing.

Quote from: Jackalope;231128That's fucking idiotic.

You know what REALLY lets types like Coulter paint all liberals as Weatherman-supporting, Black Panther-supporting, revolutionary Marxists (ie 'traitors')?  

The unmitigated stupidity of the right-wing.

LOL :p

Wikipedia tells us (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation#United_States) of the USA and its forests - and checks elsewhere online and in my own book collection more or less match this - that,
   Prior to the arrival of European-Americans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European-Americans) about one half of the United States land area was forest [...] For the next 300 years land was cleared, mostly for agriculture at a rate that matched the rate of population growth. For every person added to the population, one to two hectares of land was cultivated. This trend continued until the 1920s when the amount of crop land stabilized in spite of continued population growth. As abandoned farm land reverted to forest the amount of forest land increased from 1952 reaching a peak in 1963 of 3,080,000 km² (762 million acres). Since 1963 there has been a steady decrease of forest area with the exception of some gains from 1997. Gains in forest land have resulted from conversions from crop land and pastures at a higher rate than loss of forest to development. [...] Other qualitative issues have been identified such as the continued loss of old-growth forest, the increased fragmentation of forest lands, and the increased urbanization of forest land.
And searching around elsewhere I find a current concern of environmentalists is that while trees are being planted in the US, it's monocultures for plantation, rather than polycultures which will be left as they are. Your mixed forest has a lot more biodiversity and can store a lot more carbon than a bunch of pines in nice straight rows destined for paper pulp... Plus the forests are getting fragmented. 100 forests of 1 square mile each are a different thing to 1 forest of 100 square miles, they've much less biodiversity and resilience against natural threats.

The beaver stuff is a load of old bollocks.

I dunno what that has to do with some right-wing loon murdering people, though. This seems like some stupid competition of, "your extremists are crazier than our extremists", which is of course bollocks.

US domestic politics is a bit silly, really. I hope you guys get to become a proper democracy again soon, with most people voting and none of their votes being "mislaid", more than two factions of the same party to choose from, and so on.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;231180I dunno what that has to do with some right-wing loon murdering people, though. This seems like some stupid competition of, "your extremists are crazier than our extremists", which is of course bollocks.

Seems to me that with the US being a lot more right-wing than Europe (or Australia) it's possible that in America the right-wing extremists could be crazier while in Europe & Oz the left-wing extremists are crazier.  I've seen Hillary Clinton called a 'left wing extremist' when she seems to be somewhere to the right of David Cameron (leader of the UK Conservatives).

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;231180I dunno what that has to do with some right-wing loon murdering people, though. This seems like some stupid competition of, "your extremists are crazier than our extremists", which is of course bollocks.

.

Not quite. Rather: Jackalope is painting all conservatives with the same brush because there is one extremist that looks really bad while refusing to admit that the same level, or worse, extremism is found on the liberal side.  

Quite frankly, I could care less who's extremists are worse. Jackalopes 'my shit don't stink' attitude is fun for a larf though.

Quote from: Spike;231239Not quite. Rather: Jackalope is painting all conservatives with the same brush because there is one extremist that looks really bad while refusing to admit that the same level, or worse, extremism is found on the liberal side.

Yeah, except for the part where that isn't what happened.  I was talking about a handful of conservative pundits, the spokesmen (and women) of the right who regularly pollute the airwaves with spurious, irrational, contrafactual, and hatefull bile.  I was mentioning them because this dude, this obviously sick and mentally unwell man, latched onto their hatred and bile and now several completely innocent church-goers are dead.

Comparing leftist extremists who commit terrorism to right wing pundits who promote hatred as a form of entertainment is total bollocks. Yes, the left has it's share of whackos.  If you wnat to draw comparisons between violent left-wing extremists and violent right-wing extremists, we can (there was the guy who tried to blow up the Olympics for example, and all those abortion clinics).

But Coulter, Hannity, Limbuagh, et al. are not murderers, they are not criminals, and really, they are not extremists.  They are paid entertainers who promote hatred, sow discord, and encourage polarization for ratings and profit.

So trying to justify the tone and substance of the average right-wing media personality by pointing to fringe whackos and former fringe whackos on the left is ludicrous.  It's comparing apples and oranges.  I really can't believe that people can make these arguments and not feel stupid presenting them.

So: Now you are complaining that liberals, as a general rule, are crappy entertainers. Got it.

Quote from: Spike;231283So: Now you are complaining that liberals, as a general rule, are crappy entertainers. Got it.

Are you mentally challenged, or just pathetically disingenuous and intellectually dishonest in the extreme?  Pick one, because you're clearly a stupid fuckwit of some sort, I'm just wondering if it's a congenital thing, or if you think you're being funny?

Lets review, shall we: You've responded to just about every single post against you by insulting the poster and shouting, often quite agressively (bold, giant, red text? Check!) that it was a red herring.  That is to say you  have not once made a serious attempt to rebutt even a single point.

What makes you think I actually care what you have to say at this point? I'm just here because I can bear bait you endlessly and not have to worry that one of us will get banned and be unable to play anymore.  You never had any relevance, your comments are willfully ignorant, you show all the political and philosophical sophistication of a spoiled child. You have continually set yourself up as a laughing stock, each time with the plantive cries of 'pay attention to me, I'm special'... just because someone calls you special doesn't mean its a compliment, you know.

Just to throw something back into your face: you know all that stuff you were saying about women in that other thread? Yeah, thats you, buddy.  

You're cute when you try to act all rational and shit.

Quote from: Spike;231309Lets review, shall we: You've responded to just about every single post against you by insulting the poster and shouting, often quite agressively (bold, giant, red text? Check!) that it was a red herring.  That is to say you  have not once made a serious attempt to rebutt even a single point.

That is simply not the case.  I explained exactly why it's a red herring.  Also, pointing out that an argument is a red herring is an actual, real, honest-to-god, serious rebuttal of an argument.

QuoteWhat makes you think I actually care what you have to say at this point? I'm just here because I can bear bait you endlessly and not have to worry that one of us will get banned and be unable to play anymore.  You never had any relevance, your comments are willfully ignorant, you show all the political and philosophical sophistication of a spoiled child. You have continually set yourself up as a laughing stock, each time with the plantive cries of 'pay attention to me, I'm special'... just because someone calls you special doesn't mean its a compliment, you know.

This is nothing but a ridiculous personal attack, made simply to avoid acknowledging my point.  Which you haven't rebutted at all.  Instead, you have just admitted that you are being intentionally obtuse and disingenuous for no reason other than to provoke a reaction from me. Do you know what that is Spike?  That's an admission that you have no real argument, and are just here to waste time.

QuoteJust to throw something back into your face: you know all that stuff you were saying about women in that other thread? Yeah, thats you, buddy.  

You're cute when you try to act all rational and shit.

Seeing as you've yet to make the attempt to be rational, I can't say the same about you.

I'm sick and fucking tired of Whiny, bleeding heart, Commie Pinko liberals, and I fucking hate what the Nazi NeoCon bible thumping douchebag conservatives have done to the Republicans.
 
I propose death squads for both groups.

Quote from: Jackalope;231117Because I am more sympathetic to misguided idealists than opportunistic demagogues.

The problem is that you think there is a sharp line between the two and are making assumptions about which is which that are not necessarily correct.  

Quote from: Jackalope;231117Because, at the end of the day, I find for-profit demagoguery on behalf of the ruling elite that is occurring right now far more troublesome to democracy than I find the actions of one misguided and widely discredited revolutionary group from thirty years ago.

What makes you think that the right-wing talk show hosts are doing what they are doing simply for profit or on behalf of some ruling elite?  What makes you think that they aren't ever bit as sincere about what they say and believe as Bill Ayers and that their motives aren't as good as his?  You say that you've spend a lot of time listening to and reading books by right-wing talk show hosts but there seems to be a lot you are missing.  

As fir Ayers, he doesn't seem to have suffered all that much for his cause.  After all, the reason why Barack Obama held a fund raiser in Ayers house was that it was a very nice house in a very nice neighborhood.  Should I use his economic comfort and the money he made off of writing a book about being a fugitive as evidence that his revolutionary activity was also ultimately for-profit demagoguery?

Quote from: Jackalope;231117See, I get what Bill Ayers thought he was doing.  He thought he was fighting a  fascist government that was murdering people, both at home and abroad, for unconscionable reasons.  Was he right?  Hard to say.

And that's exactly the problem.  You are sympathetic to Ayers so you give him a pass.  What you fail to consider is that many if not most of the right wing pundits that you are calling for-profit demagogues believe that they are fighting cultural and governmental trends that will ruin the country and (especially in the case of their resistance to pragmatic and effective military and national security measures) may get thousands of more Americans killed.  

And it's not simply the ruling elite that they are worried that America will be ruined for.  The Iraqi people will pay the biggest cost for failure in Japan.  Working class and middle class Americans are who have been murdered by terrorists.  And it's the poor who have been trapped in generation after generation of poverty by a welfare system that has incentives that make people dependent on the government and destroy the nuclear family.  Conservatives do care about poor people and the middle class.  They simply don't think that the best way to help them is to follow in the path of the barbarians that sacked Rome, redistributing wealth from rich to poor but destroying the means to create wealth and the capacity to maintain a high standard of living in the process.

I presume you think all of that is just demagoguery designed to fool poor people into preserving the lifestyle of the ruling elite but class mobility is a big part of the conservative message and more than a few of those "for-profit demagogues" started from fairly humble beginnings and made their own opportunities.

In many ways, the conservative message mirrors the argument about games that make sure that every choice the players have is fun and that the player-characters can never fail unless the players want them to versus games that require the players to work for their success and make meaningful choices.  The right wants equality of opportunity and objective rules while the left wants equality of outcome.  And wanting equality of outcome is no more noble nor an ideal solution for real life than it is in role-playing design, for much the same reasons.  But in role-playing, there is no cost to encouraging players to not be concerned about the consequences of their choices because things will always turn out for them in the end but in the real world, there is a very clear cost to encouraging people to not consider the consequences and costs of their actions.

Quote from: Jackalope;231117Ultimately, I think he was wrong, not because the government wasn't what he thoiught it was (it was), but because I think the key to achieving progressive goals is peaceful resistance and civil disobedience, but I can understand how Ayers -- watching the government shoot protestors, turn dogs on them, spy on them -- could come to believe that violence was the answer.

And if conservatives believe that liberals and the government are what they claim they are, then can't you also detach yourself enough from your own political biases to understand how they might come to believe that provocative oratory is the answer?  And can't you even find yourself understanding Timothy McVeigh?  Didn't he fancy himself a revolutionary?  Didn't Charlie Manson?

Quote from: Jackalope;231117But what is Coulter doing?  If she's serious, she's insane.

No.  She simply believes that liberals are ruining the country.  You'll find the same claims coming out of the left, particularly involving the religious right (A Handmaid's Tale, anyone?).  Is she any less sane claiming that liberals are going to destroy America than liberals are believing conservatives are going to bring about a theocracy?  That's the paranoia that democracy causes in people at both ends of the political spectrum.  If you wind up in the minority and the other side gains full control, the extremes on both sides imagine them destroying America, turning it into the worst examples they can draw from out of history.

Quote from: Jackalope;231117My mother -- a dyed in the wool liberal -- may be a bit daft in her politics, but she's hardly a traitor.  She shouldn't be considered a valid target, but she could have easily been in that church -- she goes to a very liberal Episcopalian church.  But Coulter would have you believe that because my mom is going to vote for Obama, and voted for Clinton, that she should be Guatamno?

And plenty of conservatives that I know as well as plenty of right-wing pundits are hardly racists or shills for the ruling elite nor are they indifferent to the suffering of the poor, yet that's what you and others characterize them as.  Perhaps you haven't noticed the environmental terrorism from groups like ELF or the Unibomber.  Do you really think that will all of the talk of destroying the planet coming out of the environmentalist movement that it couldn't create a new generation of Ted Kaczynskis and Bill Ayers?  How about the churches burned in Norway as a result of anti-Christian bigotry connected to black metal music?  All good clean fun?  Shouldn't everyone be toning down the rhetoric and the talk about this group or that ruining the world?

Of courswe you don't much like the idea of your mother being the target of some crazed follower of Ann Coulter but is your mother any less deserving of death than the innocent victims (and potential victims) of the Weather Underground or those killed on 9/11?  Had your mother died in an act of terrorism, how would you feel if someone told you that she wasn't really innocent and deserved her fate?  Would any political beliefs justify that for you?

Again, your problem here seems to be more personal than a matter of principle.  So long as the bomb or gun is pointed at an innocent person that you don't know, you are less troubled by it than if it's pointed at an innocent person that you do know.  You don't mind Churchill calling 3,000 strangers "little Eichmanns" but I suspect you would be mighty annoyed if your mother were dead in a terrorist incident and some loony college professor said the same about her.  You don't might Bill Ayers and/or his friends firebombing someone's house with children inside or blowing up a military dance because you can't imagine yourself or someone you love being the target of the attempt.

Quote from: Jackalope;231117Or is she joking?  If she's joking, that's deplorable.  That's calling for violence against others for...a joke?  Calling for violence because you genuinely believe that real freedom is at stake is one thing

What makes you think that she doesn't genuinely believe that real freedom is at stake?  And does that really make a difference?

Quote from: Jackalope;231117But it does seem to mean that you are willing to step up and defend them or excuse them, which is exactly what you are complaining people on the right do with Coulter, Limbaugh, and others.

I'm not defending Coulter.  What I'd like is you to be consistent in your application of morality.  I agree that when Coulter says things that sound an awful lot like a justification to murder innocent people that it's reckless, over the line, and she should be held responsible for it if someone acts on it.  What I'm complaining about is that you are painting all right-wing pundits with the same brush whether they deserve it or not (e.g., calling Rush Limbaugh a racist -- on what grounds exactly?) and I'm explaining why people on the right do find Coulter funny, make excuses for her, or give her a pass without themselves being evil or really wanting to harm innocent people.  They are simply a lot like you.  They can see where she's coming from, has some sympathy for her cause, and excuse her extremism because she's basically one of them, just like you've shown sympathy for and made excuses for Bill Ayers and Ward Churchill.  The people defending Coulter are simply a lot like you.  If making excuses for Ann Coulter makes them bad people, then making excuses for Bill Ayes and Ward Churchill makes you a bad person.  

Quote from: Jackalope;231117This is so facile it defies credibility.

Most of the other people here seem to have no trouble following along.

Quote from: Jackalope;231117What this tells you is that I sympathetic to revolutionary groups operating from idealistic (if confused) motives, and not sympathetic to fascist shills who take a corporate paycheck to rail against harmless working class folk like my mom.

No, what it tells me is that you are so blinded by your own political biases that you can't imagine that the opposition considers themselves just as idealistic and considers your side just as fascist as you consider them.  And if you think the paycheck and money makes a difference, I'd suggest taking a look at how Bill Ayers lives and how much Michael Moore, Al Frankin, and other left-wing pundits make shilling their politics to working class folks who they never actually seem to help.  And while I doubt she's intentionally targeting working class liberals like your mother, viewing your mother as a naive yet harmful tool of the left is really little different than the way you've been characterizing the right or how Obama characterized working class voters who vote Republican by calling them bitter, paranoid, superstitious, and xenophobic.  It's all an attempt to explain why poor people would be stupid enough to vote against their own best interests, which both left and right think that they serve.

Quote from: Jackalope;231117But you're right John, at the end of the day, my problem isn't with people murdering their political enemies, because at the end of the day I'm a realist and I know that tree of liberty is soaked in an awful lot of innocent people's blood.

Looking at history, you'll notice that the blood of revolutions rarely waters the tree of liberty and that America was lucky to have leaders who valued liberty rather than power.  Few countries are lucky enough to have a George Washington and more often than not, revolutions wind up producing a Robespierre, Napoleon, Stalin, Mao, or Pol Pot which is why it's silly to romanticize them.  If egalitarian democratic governments sprang forth like dandelions from the ashes of toppled despots, then wouldn't Iraq be a paradise by now?

Quote from: Jackalope;231117But keep it up John, keep pretending that a confused revolutionary is the exact same thing as a demagogic hate-monger.  Keep pretending the there is no difference between the violence used by the oppressed against the oppressor and the violence used by the oppressor against the oppressed.

What I can see that you can't is that Coulter and other right wing pundits believe that their cause is every bit as noble as Ayers believes his cause was and if you can excuse Ayers as being "confused" or mistaken, then you should excuse them as well.  But because of your own political bias, you simply can't imagine how anyone could reconcile right-wing politics with caring for the working class or poor.  As such, I suspect you make the same mistake that many liberals make and assume that poor and working class people who vote Republican are simply too stupid to know what's good for them.

Quote from: Jackalope;231117All you are illustrating is how completely out of whack your own moral compass is.

When I start making excuses for right-wing murderers like the guy who shot up this church and when I start defending people who claim that Timothy McVeigh's victims deserved their fate because they worked for the government is the day that my moral compass will be as out of whack as yours is.  There is no excuse for the buy who murdered two people in the church.  There is no excuse for what Timothy McVeigh did.  There is no excuse for what the Weather Underground did.  There is no excuse for what Ward Churchill said.  There is no excuse for Ann Coulter wishing that Timothy McVeigh had targeted the New York Times building.  The politics behind it or their intent is irrelevant.

Quote from: Jackalope;231128That's fucking idiotic.

You know what REALLY lets types like Coulter paint all liberals as Weatherman-supporting, Black Panther-supporting, revolutionary Marxists (ie 'traitors')?

Uh, dude, you've been defending Ward Churchill, The Weathermen, and the Black Panthers because as a liberal you have sympathy for their cause.  That makes you a walking talking case study of Ann Coulter's stereotype.  It's no wonder you take her rhetoric personally.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;231180Wikipedia tells us (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation#United_States) of the USA and its forests - and checks elsewhere online and in my own book collection more or less match this - that,

The problem is that when I looked at those figures, including graphs that I found that break the forestation acreage down by region, those estimates seem to be based on the assumption that the forestation that was present when Europeans settled in a particular region was the natural forestation before Europeans arrived in North America.  The point about the Native Americans and the beavers is that there was a significant change in the landscape of North America caused by the widespread death of Native Americans through European diseases that preceded European settlement and by the destruction of beavers at the hands of a small number of European hunters that preceded European settlement and I think the evidence suggests that the forestation acreage increased before European settlers arrived and it's difficult to imagine how it couldn't have.  Estimates of how much of North America was forested are a lot like estimates of how many Native Americans there were before Europeans arrived.  There is a lot of guessing involved because nobody was keeping records.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;231180And searching around elsewhere I find a current concern of environmentalists is that while trees are being planted in the US, it's monocultures for plantation, rather than polycultures which will be left as they are. Your mixed forest has a lot more biodiversity and can store a lot more carbon than a bunch of pines in nice straight rows destined for paper pulp... Plus the forests are getting fragmented. 100 forests of 1 square mile each are a different thing to 1 forest of 100 square miles, they've much less biodiversity and resilience against natural threats.

That's a legitimate line of argument but it doesn't invalidate what Limbaugh said.  And if you look at the quotes about Native American forest burnings and beaver landscape modification, you'll find quotes talking about, "open forests or forest in a mosaic with prairie patches," which is exactly the sort of "fragmentation" that environmentalists are arguing is abnormal and harmful.  Again, the question goes back to what you want to consider normal for the United States.  Were the centuries of burnings by Native Americans a natural part of the United States ecosystem?  Were the watersheds damed up by beavers?

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;231180The beaver stuff is a load of old bollocks.

I've provided my sources, Kyle, and I can provide plenty more.  The last site I quoted was the National Wildlife Federation.  I suppose you want to argue that they are right-wing shills for the logging industry, right?  Anyone who knows anything about Native Americans and beavers knows that both had a substantial impact on the environment of the United States before European settlers arrived and that both worked to reduce the amount of land that would otherwise be covered in forests.

I know talking about Native Americans and beavers deforesting North America sounds absurd, which is why I've explained the point in detail with sources.  Do you need more sources?

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;231180I dunno what that has to do with some right-wing loon murdering people, though. This seems like some stupid competition of, "your extremists are crazier than our extremists", which is of course bollocks.

If you'll notice, I started this thread saying that right-wing extremists should be held accountable if they provoke violence and didn't automatically let the right off of the hook for this guy.  My problem is with the idea that the right is uniquely or significantly more dangerous than the left in this regard.  Extremists who wish death upon innocents, argue that innocents are valid targets for murder, and who provoke violence in the name of politics are a problem regardless of which side they are on.  Once you start making excuses for the extremists on your side, don't feign surprise when the other side does the same thing.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;231180US domestic politics is a bit silly, really. I hope you guys get to become a proper democracy again soon, with most people voting and none of their votes being "mislaid", more than two factions of the same party to choose from, and so on.

The reason why the American system isn't changing is that most people are really pretty happy with it and how things are run.  Those people don't get involved in animated political discussions on the Internet so it's easy to miss them.

Quote from: John Morrow;231322What makes you think that the right-wing talk show hosts are doing what they are doing simply for profit or on behalf of some ruling elite?  What makes you think that they aren't ever bit as sincere about what they say and believe as Bill Ayers and that their motives aren't as good as his?  You say that you've spend a lot of time listening to and reading books by right-wing talk show hosts but there seems to be a lot you are missing.
...
No.  She simply believes that liberals are ruining the country.  You'll find the same claims coming out of the left, particularly involving the religious right (A Handmaid's Tale, anyone?).  Is she any less sane claiming that liberals are going to destroy America than liberals are believing conservatives are going to bring about a theocracy?  That's the paranoia that democracy causes in people at both ends of the political spectrum.  If you wind up in the minority and the other side gains full control, the extremes on both sides imagine them destroying America, turning it into the worst examples they can draw from out of history.
...
What makes you think that she doesn't genuinely believe that real freedom is at stake?  And does that really make a difference?
...
I'm not defending Coulter.

Quote from: John Morrow;229352Then I don't think you understand Coulter.  She's intentionally adopting the attitude and tactics of the nutty left to espouse right-wing viewpoints.

Shut the fuck up, you duplicitous, disingenuous, lying sack of weasel shit.

Quote from: John Morrow;231329The reason why the American system isn't changing is that most people are really pretty happy with it and how things are run.  Those people don't get involved in animated political discussions on the Internet so it's easy to miss them.

There's a difference between "happy with" and "is apathetic about" or or "has given up on" or "has too much day-to-day shit to worry about to think about the big picture".

I mean, just look at the voter figures. Surely one measure of people's faith in a system is their participation in it? Would you say people were happy with a local school if most people didn't enroll their kids there, even though there was no other school? If people are happy with the system, why don't they participate in it? It's only a piece of paper every couple of years. That's not "happy", that's "indifferent". Passive.

Talking to Americans, seems like the Supreme Court-decided Presidential election, plus the utter federal failure to save or rebuild the poor parts of an entire US city, these have made a lot of people essentially give up on their federal government. "Who gives a shit. Let's go shopping."

Quote from: Jackalope;231334Shut the fuck up, you duplicitous, disingenuous, lying sack of weasel shit.

Small thing: Excessive cussing tends to gradually lessen the impact or shock value of the words used.

Also, in some arguments the person that uses cusswords first or repetitively is probably the loser of the argument or has gotten too emotional about it.


- Ed C.

Quote from: Jackalope;231269If you wnat to draw comparisons between violent left-wing extremists and violent right-wing extremists, we can (there was the guy who tried to blow up the Olympics for example, and all those abortion clinics).

You'll notice that Eric Rudolph is in jail (where he belongs), no mainstream right-wing pundits, writers, or politicians defend him, and he's not holding fundraisers in his house for John McCain.  You'll also note that I'm not excusing his behavior or saying that I find his behavior understandable.

Quote from: Jackalope;231269But Coulter, Hannity, Limbuagh, et al. are not murderers, they are not criminals, and really, they are not extremists.  They are paid entertainers who promote hatred, sow discord, and encourage polarization for ratings and profit.

Because you believe that they don't really believe in what they are saying, right?  Apparently you don't know much about Rush Limbaugh's early history or where he got his political beliefs from.  Let's put it this way, he was quite a failure before he became a success and his right wing views came before the ratings and profits.

Quote from: Jackalope;231269So trying to justify the tone and substance of the average right-wing media personality by pointing to fringe whackos and former fringe whackos on the left is ludicrous.  It's comparing apples and oranges.  I really can't believe that people can make these arguments and not feel stupid presenting them.

Arguing that right-wing pundits are not sincere in their beliefs because they are well paid to express them but left-wing radicals who fight for the working class yet aren't from the working class nor do they live working class lives are sincere in their beliefs is a byproduct of the biased lens through which you look at them.

Quote from: Jackalope;231334Shut the fuck up, you duplicitous, disingenuous, lying sack of weasel shit.

Perhaps you should ask your therapist why this discussion is pushing your buttons.

You do grasp the distinction between explaining and defending, right?

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;231336Talking to Americans, seems like the Supreme Court-decided Presidential election, plus the utter federal failure to save or rebuild the poor parts of an entire US city, these have made a lot of people essentially give up on their federal government. "Who gives a shit. Let's go shopping."

And I would argue that any American that believes the Supreme Court decided the 2000 election or that the problems with the poor parts of American cities are caused by too little Federal attention or spending or is the fault of Republicans doesn't really grasp either issue very well.

The Supreme Court decision that stopped the selective recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court was a 7-2 decision, not a 5-4 decision, that such a selective recount was unconstitutional.  Here is how Wikipedia summarizes it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore):

   In a per curiam decision, by a 7-2 vote, the Court in Bush v. Gore held that the Florida Supreme Court's method for recounting ballots was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. By a 5-4 vote, the Court held that no alternative method could be established within the time limits set by the State of Florida. Three of the concurring justices also asserted that the Florida Supreme Court had violated Article II, § 1, cl. 2 of the Constitution, by misinterpreting Florida election law that had been enacted by the Florida Legislature.

(Those famed "conservatives" Breyer and Souter were the other 2 justices who agreed that the Florida Supreme Court's recount method was unconstitutional.)

The claim is that the US Supreme Court's conservatives were biased in favor of Bush but it ignores the bias shown by the liberals on the Florida Supreme Court for Gore (cherry-picking the recounts, the bit declared unconstitutional, to try to give Gore a win).  The decision was to stop the continued recounting (and I have little doubt it would have gone on again and again until the "right" answer was generated -- a Gore win of course) and to let the current count stand.  That count is was decided the election and of the many recounts using various criteria carried out by the press after the decision, Bush won in almost every case.  And more importantly, if the US Supreme Court had let the Florida Supreme Court decision stand and there had been no shenanigans or additional recounts, Bush still would have won (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/media/media_watch/jan-june01/recount_4-3.html):

   In the first full study of Florida's ballots since the election ended, The Miami Herald and USA Today reported George W. Bush would have widened his 537-vote victory to a 1,665-vote margin if the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court would have been allowed to continue, using standards that would have allowed even faintly dimpled "undervotes" -- ballots the voter has noticeably indented but had not punched all the way through -- to be counted.

So the Supreme Court didn't decide the election.  They stopped the circus that the Florida Supreme Court was engaged in to find a way to make Gore win the election.  If you don't buy that then let me ask you this.  If Gore had won under the selective recount plan ordered by the Florida Supreme Court, would people be complaining that the Florida Supreme Court had decided the election?

If you want to shift the discussion to voter fraud and irregularities in the Florida vote, I'd be happy to talk about how Democrats steal elections and may have tried to steal the 2000 election, but of course the mainstream media isn't interested in the voter fraud that occurs so frequently and overtly in Democrat controlled cities that people openly joke about it ("Vote early and vote often.", "The dead vote.", and the old standby, "Late reporting.").

So if the 2000 election disheartened people, you can blame the mainstream media and Gore sycophants who simply can't accept that Bush really did win Florida and Gore wasn't entitled to win.

As for the US cities, the Federal government can fix what's wrong with them.  If anything, it caused what's wrong with them by destroying the black family.  The Klan couldn't have come up with a better plan to condemn most African Americans to poverty than the federal welfare programs that has pushed the unwed birth rate to 90% in some American cities and produces 30 year-old grandmothers and has young black men claiming that criminal behavior and thuggery is part of their "culture".  "Civil rights" groups have also made it all but impossible to separate out the bad guys and gangs from poor people by overturning laws prohibiting loitering, vagrancy, and keeping criminals out of public housing projects.

Of course US cities have been rebuilding the poor parts of cities (here is an article from 2000 about New Jersey (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B07E4D9113EF930A25751C0A9669C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all)) and moving poor people into suburbs and other neighborhoods.  As this article (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200807/memphis-crime) that I referenced a while back points out, the pilot program that was selective in who was chosen worked pretty well but the mass market version has been simply moving the same problems around.  It also illustrates that if you simply move all of the people (or put them in different houses), that's not going to improve things for the poor people unless you take the opportunity to weed out those who don't want to be helped and the criminals and thugs.  The solution to helping poor people it to permit government to exclude the criminals and thugs and keep them away from the nice people and people who really want to be helped but guess who fights those ideas (hint: not the poor people themselves and not Republicans)?

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;231336the utter federal failure to save or rebuild the poor parts of an entire US city, these have made a lot of people essentially give up on their federal government. "Who gives a shit. Let's go shopping."

A lot of Americans don't think it's the federal government's job to do that - which as a Brit I had difficulty understanding.

Quote from: John Morrow;231361And I would argue that any American that believes the Supreme Court decided the 2000 election or that the problems with the poor parts of American cities are caused by too little Federal attention or spending or is the fault of Republicans doesn't really grasp either issue very well.

"If you disagree with me, it's just because you're ignorant. If you were well-educated then you'd agree with me."

Yeah, rightyo. There's not really much anyone can say to that, since if they demonstrate knowledge of the situation and still disagree with you, you can just say, "ah, but you didn't read the right things." And so it goes.

By the way, by "rebuilding poor parts" of cities I meant specifically New Orleans. The well-off part's being rebuilt, the poor (black) part is being left to rot. Which is ironic given that many of the poor people were held at gunpoint to prevent their leaving. Hold 'em in when they want to leave, hold 'em out when they want to return.

Quote from: S'monA lot of Americans don't think it's the federal government's job to do that - which as a Brit I had difficulty understanding.

I had difficulty understanding it as a human being. Federal, state, local, whatever - someone has to rebuild the fucking thing. Preferably they don't cut funding to the programmes which protect the city from disasters so that it's not destroyed in the first place, but if you do fuck it up and it's destroyed, well then rebuild it. That's what we pay taxes for in democratic countries, not to spend hundreds of billions destroying another country, but to spend tens of billions rebuilding our own.

Less time ought to be spent inciting extremists to murder people, and more time building wealth and social justice in your own country. The USA has really declined from what it was. You used to have people like Jefferson, Lincoln, Rosa Parks, MLK, Eisenhower - people who believed in something and helped make it happen. Now you get people like Anne Coulter and Michael Moore. Sad stuff. Back in the 1930s and the 1890s in both Depressions you had people marching on city hall, shooting landlords trying to evict them. Back in the 1950s you had blacks marching for their human rights. Even in the 1970s you had a President, all he did was have some secret agents snoop through the rival party's offices and people were ready to hang the fucker. Now you've got another Depression coming, your President lies to the country and leads you into a war of aggression, has his agencies spy on the whole fucking country, detains people without charge or trial for years on end, and... everyone's watching tv.

What the fuck happened to the USA? You really ought to get off your arses. As an Australian looking at the US, it's like having some friend who used to have a great job, a wonderful wife and kid, some hobbies he loved, who contributed to the community and was kind to all - and then he whirls out of control, gets addicted to gambling and pisses it all away, now he's unemployed, divorced, never sees his kid, and occasionally mugs people.

It's fucking sad, is what it is.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;231402"If you disagree with me, it's just because you're ignorant. If you were well-educated then you'd agree with me."

No. My point is that the certainty with which people claim that Gore should have won Florida is not supported by the facts.  It's possible that had the election been perfect and the count had been perfect that Gore would have won.  It's also possible that Bush would have won because there are also irregularities that could have worked against Bush.  The reality is that the election fell within the margin of error such that the margin of victory was smaller than the number of irregularities present in the vote.  

The problem with the claim that the US Supreme Court decided the election (the specific claim that you made) is that even if the US Supreme Court has let the Florida Supreme Court decision stand, the analysis by mainstream US newspapers show that Bush still would have won.  And by almost every other recount criteria tried by people who analyzed the vote after the fact shows that Bush would have won the recounts.  So the only way Gore would have won the recount battle was if the Florida Supreme Court kept allowing recounts shopping for the magic criteria that would allow Gore to win and then stopped the recount when Gore got his win.  How would that have been more fair than what happened?

The only other argument I've seen is that irregularities should have been counted for Gore and that would have put the courts into the business of guessing what the voter really meant as opposed to what's reflected on their ballot.  Can you craft a criteria that gives Gore a win by claiming that some percentage of spoiled ballots belonged to Gore?  Sure.  And you can also craft criteria and percentages that gives Bush the win.  The only way you can get a clear Gore win out of that is if you include all of the claims of lost Gore votes and ignore all of the claims for lost Bush votes.  In other words, if you start from the assumption that Gore was supposed to win.

If your argument is less that Gore should have won and more that US elections should be more precise and controlled, I'll agree with that.  But then your complaint isn't that the US Supreme Court decided the 2000 election (which implies the assumption that they decided it wrongly or against the will of the voters) and the real problem was the irregularities and imprecise voting methods.

The bigger problem for democracy in the US, as I've said in the past, comes from legislative and congressional redistricting, where both parties create "safe districts" where one party or the other is almost guaranteed to win.  That's why there are so few competitive House races.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;231402Yeah, rightyo. There's not really much anyone can say to that, since if they demonstrate knowledge of the situation and still disagree with you, you can just say, "ah, but you didn't read the right things." And so it goes.

No, that's how you actually debate an issue rather than claiming that it's an incontrovertible fact beyond debate.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;231402By the way, by "rebuilding poor parts" of cities I meant specifically New Orleans. The well-off part's being rebuilt, the poor (black) part is being left to rot. Which is ironic given that many of the poor people were held at gunpoint to prevent their leaving. Hold 'em in when they want to leave, hold 'em out when they want to return.

If you meant "New Orleans", then why didn't you say "New Orleans"?

The residents of New Orleans were asked to evacuate before the hurricane arrived.  Do you have a source for the claim that they were held at gunpoint to prevent them from leaving?  And who exactly do you think was holding them in or out and why?

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;231402I had difficulty understanding it as a human being. Federal, state, local, whatever - someone has to rebuild the fucking thing.

Why should anyone rebuild a part of a city that is below sea level and will just be wiped out yet again the next time a major hurricane hits the area?

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;231402Preferably they don't cut funding to the programmes which protect the city from disasters so that it's not destroyed in the first place, but if you do fuck it up and it's destroyed, well then rebuild it. That's what we pay taxes for in democratic countries, not to spend hundreds of billions destroying another country, but to spend tens of billions rebuilding our own.

No, I don't think my tax dollars or anyone else's tax dollars should be spent to make it easier for people to live in a disaster waiting to happen.  The parts of New Orleans that were flooded are already below sea level, they are continuing to sink even lower, and they can't possibly be protected from a direct hit from a large hurricane.  In other parts of the United States, they've been pushing people to move out of flood zones.  Why shouldn't they do the same in New Orleans?

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;231402What the fuck happened to the USA?

In the threads about how awful knife violence is in the UK, plenty of people blamed the press for sowing fear and making things sound far worse than they really are.  I suggest that people apply the same amount of skepticism concerning alarmist stories from the US press about how awful things are here.  As horrible as Katrina was, it killed about 2,500 people if you count the missing.  That pales in comparison to the 15,000 mostly elderly people killed by the 2003 heat wave in France alone.

Quote from: S'mon;231399A lot of Americans don't think it's the federal government's job to do that - which as a Brit I had difficulty understanding.

I do think it's the Federal Governments job to help keep Americans from dying during or after a natural disaster.  I don't think it's the Federal Government's job to keep rebuilding houses that are destroyed during natural disasters in places where those natural disasters are inevitable and will happen again and again.

Unless they're white people, of course. Good white Republicans - their part of the city gets rebuilt. I mean, those poor black people all vote Democrat, anyway, so fuck 'em, right Morrow?

Don't be deliberately obtuse. You know about the bridge incident. You know about a kid taking a bus full of people from the stadium and being turned back by the cops. You know this shit - you just want us to bring it up so you can argue it all point-by-point, quibbling over meaningless details, David Irving-style. Fuck that.

You've got all the classic deliberately blind spots of the fanatic - being pedantic, arguing semantics, your favoured side always has excuses for its misdeeds, your disfavoured side has none. If you'd been born a Sunni you'd be in the Taliban. Let's thank God you were born an American, so all you can do is quibble on the internet.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;231402It's fucking sad, is what it is.

Maybe because its not as bad as you think it is. You don't live here, so how do you know?

Ah, yes, the Intertubes. Then it MUST be true!

Perspective. Have some.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;231460You've got all the classic deliberately blind spots of the fanatic - being pedantic, arguing semantics, your favoured side always has excuses for its misdeeds, your disfavoured side has none. If you'd been born a Sunni you'd be in the Taliban. Let's thank God you were born an American, so all you can do is quibble on the internet.

QFT.

Quote from: Jackalope;231477QFT.

Dance, Monkey, Dance.

"You must know the difference between dissent from the Iraq war and the war on terror and undermining it. And any American that undermines that war, with our soldiers in the field, or undermines the war on terror, with 3,000 dead on 9/11, is a traitor. Everybody got it? Dissent, fine; undermining, you're a traitor. Got it? So, all those clowns over at the liberal radio network, we could incarcerate them immediately. Will you have that done, please? Send over the FBI and just put them in chains, because they, you know, they're undermining everything and they don't care, couldn't care less."

O'Rielly


"They established their patriotic credentials long ago, and are either supportive of the Bush agenda or know when to keep their traps shut."

O'Rielly

"You know, look, if I could strangle these people and not go to hell and get executed, I would, but I can't."

O'Rielly, on his critics.

"Governor, why wouldn't anyone want to say the Pledge of Allegiance, unless they detested their own country or were ignorant of its greatness?"

Sean Hannity

"Is it that you hate this president or that you hate America?"

Sean Hannity

"I'll tell you who should be tortured and killed at Guantanamo: every filthy Democrat in the U.S. Congress."

Sean Hannity

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;231460Unless they're white people, of course. Good white Republicans - their part of the city gets rebuilt. I mean, those poor black people all vote Democrat, anyway, so fuck 'em, right Morrow?

You are aware that both New Orleans and Louisiana were run by Democrats at the time and that New Orleans has a black mayor, right?  Why is President Bush uniquely responsible for the mismanagement of that disaster and it's aftermath?

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;231460Don't be deliberately obtuse. You know about the bridge incident. You know about a kid taking a bus full of people from the stadium and being turned back by the cops. You know this shit - you just want us to bring it up so you can argue it all point-by-point, quibbling over meaningless details, David Irving-style. Fuck that.

Given the paranoid left-wing lens that you apparently view American news through, I like to make sure I know exactly what you are talking about since it sometimes bears little resemblance to the facts.

I presume you mean the Crescent City Connection bridge that was blocked by local police acting on local orders who didn't want New Orleans residents evacuating into their town?  Whether their motive was racism or pragmatism (there is a lawsuit which should help determine that and you can read the other side of that argument here (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/10/3/104356/257) if you are interested in the other side) it had nothing to do with national politics or President Bush and I suppose you find it irrelevant that the Jefferson Parish Sheriff is a Democrat, as is the police chief of Gretna, which was also hit by Katrina.  But don't let the details get in the way of a good indignant rant.  I know details are had for you to deal with.

As for the bus, no, I have no idea what you are talking about but find it difficult to imagine how you'd judge the response of an entire nation on the basis of the behavior of police toward one bus full of people.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;231460You've got all the classic deliberately blind spots of the fanatic - being pedantic, arguing semantics, your favoured side always has excuses for its misdeeds, your disfavoured side has none. If you'd been born a Sunni you'd be in the Taliban. Let's thank God you were born an American, so all you can do is quibble on the internet.

I find it funny that you accuse me of blind spots despite your own selective and partisan perspective on the facts that read like they were ripped from a left-wing conspiracy site.  And as usual, when you are incapable of discussing the details and have to turn instead to pop psychology and name calling.  Why don't you just call me a Nazi and get it over with?

I see you finally found a talking points memo.

Quote from: NotYourMonkey;231528“You must know the difference between dissent from the Iraq war and the war on terror and undermining it. And any American that undermines that war, with our soldiers in the field, or undermines the war on terror, with 3,000 dead on 9/11, is a traitor. Everybody got it? Dissent, fine; undermining, you're a traitor. Got it? So, all those clowns over at the liberal radio network, we could incarcerate them immediately. Will you have that done, please? Send over the FBI and just put them in chains, because they, you know, they're undermining everything and they don't care, couldn't care less.”
O'Rielly

He's (A) talking about a very specific group of people and (B) he's not calling for their death.

Quote from: NotYourMonkey;231528“They established their patriotic credentials long ago, and are either supportive of the Bush agenda or know when to keep their traps shut.”
O'Rielly

That's threatening?

Quote from: NotYourMonkey;231528"You know, look, if I could strangle these people and not go to hell and get executed, I would, but I can't."
O'Rielly, on his critics.

He was talking about specific critics and a specific incident.  You can hear the quote, in context, here (http://mediamatters.org/items/200709270017) (at Media Matters, among the specific critics that he was angry at).  Here is the full quote in context:

First, he starts out by saying, "However, there is a huge problem in this country and I'm going to attack that problem. I'm going to attack it. These people aren't getting away with this. I'm going to go right where they live. Every corrupt media person in this country is on notice, right now. I'm coming after you. And I don't care if it's Bill O'Reilly, Hillary Clinton, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Barack Obama. Anybody smeared by any media from now on, I'm holding them accountable. I'm going to hunt you down. Got that, Lis?"  He's saying that he'll stick up for Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama if they are smeared.  Kinda odd for a person who supposedly hates liberals.

Then he says, "It doesn't matter if you're conservative or liberal. Most Americans are essentially honest people. And what else can they do? You got the radio program unedited on BillOReilly.com. You want to listen to it? There it is."  He's not singling out all liberals and calls most Americans, including liberals, honest people.  Again, an odd quote for someone who supposedly hates liberals.

Finally, what he's angry about are specific people trying to make him sound like a racist (I don't know the details of the specific incident he's talking about) and when he makes the offending quote, he's pretty clearly saying it in jest, the person on with him laughs, and as he says in the quote itself, killing people will send you to Hell and get you executed.

So, no, I don't see that driving a person to kill innocent liberals.  I see that as an angry person running off at the mouth about some specific people concerning a specific incident.

Quote from: NotYourMonkey;231528"Governor, why wouldn't anyone want to say the Pledge of Allegiance, unless they detested their own country or were ignorant of its greatness?"

Sean Hannity

Not a call for violence or death.  In fact, it's a question put to a person he was apparently interviewing at the time so they could speak in their own defense.

Quote from: NotYourMonkey;231528"Is it that you hate this president or that you hate America?"

Sean Hannity

Not a call for violence or death.  Again, it looks like a question posed to a person he was interviewing who likely had a chance to reply in their own defense.

Quote from: NotYourMonkey;231528"I'll tell you who should be tortured and killed at Guantanamo: every filthy Democrat in the U.S. Congress."
Sean Hannity

Do you have a source or a transcript for that quote?  I'd like to see it in context.  (And I find it surprising that if that quote is legit that it's not on Media Matters.)

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;231460Unless they're white people, of course. Good white Republicans - their part of the city gets rebuilt. I mean, those poor black people all vote Democrat, anyway, so fuck 'em, right Morrow?
 
Don't be deliberately obtuse. You know about the bridge incident....

I watched Anderson Cooper interview the sheriff responsible. It was a hoot! CNN built up the racism angle but when the sheriff showed up, he wasn't an oppressive good ol' boy, he was a sunny boy! As in: a salt of the earth Japanese American! Cooper kept to his attack script, trying to draw the guy into the racism story, but the guy kept on denying the accusations with an easy going "nope" and then launching into a dull explanation of a well organized plan. Man, I busted a gut watching that interview unfold.
 
Anyway, no. It wasn't white v.s. black. It was the cozy little town of Plan v.s. the city of No Plan.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;231460Don't be deliberately obtuse. You know about the bridge incident. You know about a kid taking a bus full of people from the stadium and being turned back by the cops. You know this shit - you just want us to bring it up so you can argue it all point-by-point, quibbling over meaningless details, David Irving-style. Fuck that.

Seems someone just got a pont-by-point beat-down and is now angry. :o

Arguing why broad & unsubstantiated claims are better than specific, & actual, claims is amusing if nothing else. I suppose it is better to tug at heartstrings and political bias versus the much harder task of providing evidence for a claim.

Evidence?  In an internet debate?

Surely you jest!

Quote from: KenHR;235157Evidence?  In an internet debate?

Surely you jest!

Calling it a "debate" certainly is! :D

Quote from: CavScout;235118I suppose it is better to tug at heartstrings and political bias versus the much harder task of providing evidence for a claim.

I suspect by the time this news (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/13/us/nationalspecial/13activist.html) reaches Kyle, it will become a story of institutional racism and Federal mismanagement.

Quote from: John Morrow;231545not Anne Coulter quote responses.

I think calling people traitors (when treason does carry the death penalty) because they disagree or speak out against government policies is at least cutting it reeeeeeallll fine.

Also, framing questions as "so, do you hate America or do you just hate America?" is pretty damned irresponsible as well.  You might have noticed that lots of folks take patriotism pretty seriously, and that poking at people's patriotism is a wonderful way to go right to the emotions on a person or issue.

True, it is not "lets hang 'em all right now!" but it at least walks up close to "who will rid me of this meddlesome priest?".

EDIT: Hey, CavScout!  Are you able to do more than just say "The Liberals Did It!" over here?

Quote from: NotYourMonkey;235504I think calling people traitors (when treason does carry the death penalty) because they disagree or speak out against government policies is at least cutting it reeeeeeallll fine.

After decades of Conservatives being called racist, fascist, etc (I've been called both on this board so much I've lost count), I'm finding it hard to fault Coulter for returning fire.

Now if you could get some people here to stop labelling me like that, I'll stand with you and agree that Coulter is over the line. As is, I'm happy to see the mud going the other direction for a change.

Quote from: gleichman;235506After decades of Conservatives being called racist, fascist, etc (I've been called both on this board so much I've lost count), I'm finding it hard to fault Coulter for returning fire.

So Coulter's response to "Conservatives being called racist, fascist, etc" is to release a fascist screed against the left?

Wow, way to prove people wrong!!!!

Liberals: "All you conservatives are racists."
Conservative: "I am so sick of you niggers calling us racist, you're just a bunch of jungle-bunny fuckers!"

Jackalope, NotYourMonkey, Kyle Aaron, all three of you were called out by me when this incident in my city happened that you all were using a tragic event to push an agenda of liberal hate. You three pushed that agenda regardless of the information presented (that the shooter had an ex-wife who went to the church, that the shooter had a history of violent mental problems, etc.) because it was more important to get the message out that this was all the fault of those you do not like politically.

So, its been over two weeks now, we got it. The three of you redefine the term "fuckwit". Congrats.

Quote from: jeff37923;235554Jackalope, NotYourMonkey, Kyle Aaron, all three of you were called out by me when this incident in my city happened that you all were using a tragic event to push an agenda of liberal hate. You three pushed that agenda regardless of the information presented (that the shooter had an ex-wife who went to the church, that the shooter had a history of violent mental problems, etc.) because it was more important to get the message out that this was all the fault of those you do not like politically.

So, its been over two weeks now, we got it. The three of you redefine the term "fuckwit". Congrats.

I'm a liberal and I agree.

Yep, you two got it right.....I remember saying at least twice in early part of the thread that this event had nothing to do with politics.
 Think I gave up on the discussion half a page after that.

Sometimes politics has no connection to an event.


- Ed C.

Nicely said Jeff.

Quote from: jeff37923;235554Jackalope, NotYourMonkey, Kyle Aaron, all three of you were called out by me when this incident in my city happened that you all were using a tragic event to push an agenda of liberal hate. You three pushed that agenda regardless of the information presented (that the shooter had an ex-wife who went to the church, that the shooter had a history of violent mental problems, etc.) because it was more important to get the message out that this was all the fault of those you do not like politically.

So, its been over two weeks now, we got it. The three of you redefine the term "fuckwit". Congrats.

Winner.

Quote from: jeff37923;235554Jackalope, NotYourMonkey, Kyle Aaron, all three of you were called out by me when this incident in my city happened that you all were using a tragic event to push an agenda of liberal hate. You three pushed that agenda regardless of the information presented (that the shooter had an ex-wife who went to the church, that the shooter had a history of violent mental problems, etc.) because it was more important to get the message out that this was all the fault of those you do not like politically.

So, its been over two weeks now, we got it. The three of you redefine the term "fuckwit". Congrats.

One of the bright things about people who push that sort of agenda is that over time they become known for what they are.

Nicely said jeff37923

Quote from: Koltar;235573Yep, you two got it right.....I remember saying at least twice in early part of the thread that this event had nothing to do with politics.

A syllogism inspired by this post:

Kolter said this event had nothing to do with politics.
Koltar is a complete idiot.
Therefore this event may have had something to do with politics.

Quote from: jeff37923Jackalope, NotYourMonkey, Kyle Aaron, all three of you were called out by me when this incident in my city happened that you all were using a tragic event to push an agenda of liberal hate. You three pushed that agenda regardless of the information presented (that the shooter had an ex-wife who went to the church, that the shooter had a history of violent mental problems, etc.) because it was more important to get the message out that this was all the fault of those you do not like politically.

You can take your little guilt trip and stick where the sun don't shine, son.

The very fact that you describe it as an "agenda of liberal hate" tells me that you don't want this to be about politics because you share this fuckwit murderer's politics.  Suck it up, nancyboy.  Your side spews hatred and calls on the righteous and moral to strike down their enemies.  That it takes a little but more than Ann Coulter -- poor mental health and bitter divorce -- to provoke violence isn't exactly a free pass on the hate-spewing that contributed to it.

You think Adkisson is the only right wing fuckwit bitter because his wife won't touch his dick anymore, and ready to blame liberals, gays, jews, and blacks for all his life's problems?  He's not, and your precious pundits are happy to make millions fueling those feelings of rage.

When you can prove that immersing himself in right-wing propoganda that promotes the worldview that all liberals are evil traitors out to destroy America  had NOTHING to do with him shooting up a liberal church and ranting about gay marriage, etc. then maybe I'll feel bad for pointing out that the right-wing hate machine is designed entirely to appeal to bitter, useless fucksticks like Adkisson.

Seriously Jeff, either explain how a four page letter ranting about the liberal movement, blacks and gays had NOTHING to do with the books full of ranting about the liberal movement, blacks and gays that he had in his car, or shut the fuck up.

I will not be made to feel guilty because some ignorant piece of shit redneck fuckwad doesn't want to look in the fucking mirror.

Quote from: Jackalope;235947A syllogism inspired by this post:

Kolter said this event had nothing to do with politics.
Koltar is a complete idiot.
Therefore this event may have had something to do with politics.



You can take your little guilt trip and stick where the sun don't shine, son.

The very fact that you describe it as an "agenda of liberal hate" tells me that you don't want this to be about politics because you share this fuckwit murderer's politics.  Suck it up, nancyboy.  Your side spews hatred and calls on the righteous and moral to strike down their enemies.  That it takes a little but more than Ann Coulter -- poor mental health and bitter divorce -- to provoke violence isn't exactly a free pass on the hate-spewing that contributed to it.

You think Adkisson is the only right wing fuckwit bitter because his wife won't touch his dick anymore, and ready to blame liberals, gays, jews, and blacks for all his life's problems?  He's not, and your precious pundits are happy to make millions fueling those feelings of rage.

When you can prove that immersing himself in right-wing propoganda that promotes the worldview that all liberals are evil traitors out to destroy America  had NOTHING to do with him shooting up a liberal church and ranting about gay marriage, etc. then maybe I'll feel bad for pointing out that the right-wing hate machine is designed entirely to appeal to bitter, useless fucksticks like Adkisson.

Seriously Jeff, either explain how a four page letter ranting about the liberal movement, blacks and gays had NOTHING to do with the books full of ranting about the liberal movement, blacks and gays that he had in his car, or shut the fuck up.

I will not be made to feel guilty because some ignorant piece of shit redneck fuckwad doesn't want to look in the fucking mirror.

Righteous lefty bigotry, righteously bitching about some other perceived bigotry. Priceless.

Quote from: CavScout;235979Righteous lefty bigotry, righteously bitching about some other perceived bigotry. Priceless.

Right-wing sophistry equating intolerance of the intolerance with general intolerance.

Liberal: "I hate people who target minority groups for victimization simply to gain power.  Anyone who supports that kind of behavior is seriously messed-up."
Right Wing Sophists: "See the liberal agenda of hate!  Bigots, all of them!"

The ability of right-wingers to delude themselves is truly amazing.

People arguing politics (on either side) as if they were fans of football teams is even more so!

Quote from: Jackalope;236062Right-wing sophistry equating intolerance of the intolerance with general intolerance.

Liberal: "I hate people who target minority groups for victimization simply to gain power.  Anyone who supports that kind of behavior is seriously messed-up."
Right Wing Sophists: "See the liberal agenda of hate!  Bigots, all of them!"

The ability of right-wingers to delude themselves is truly amazing.

I hate people who target minority groups for for victimization simply to gain power too. That's why I hate most Democrats.

Quote from: Jackalope;236062Right-wing sophistry equating intolerance of the intolerance with general intolerance.

Liberal: "I hate people who target minority groups for victimization simply to gain power.  Anyone who supports that kind of behavior is seriously messed-up."
Right Wing Sophists: "See the liberal agenda of hate!  Bigots, all of them!"

The ability of right-wingers to delude themselves is truly amazing.

Must be awsome to declare your intolerance the "good kind" and go on your merry way. It's kind of funny... I've never seen bigots actually think "their way" was wrong. They've all got excuses for why theirs is "right". Yours is no different.

Quote from: Werekoala;236078I hate people who target minority groups for for victimization simply to gain power too. That's why I hate most Democrats.

Jesus man, you righties sure come up with some truly lunatic shit.

Make me laugh.  Provide evidence of how the current, modern Democratic Party targets minority groups for victimization.  +100,000 points if you define extremely wealthy white men as a minority.

And do you right-wingers know any mode of argument OTHER than the Ad Hominem Tu Quoque?

Quote from: CavScout;236080Must be awsome to declare your intolerance the "good kind" and go on your merry way. It's kind of funny... I've never seen bigots actually think "their way" was wrong. They've all got excuses for why theirs is "right". Yours is no different.

Dude, it's is TOTALLY awesome.  I won't play Neville Chamberlain just because you'd prefer people ignore the right's slow drift towards fascism in the last few decades.  You're not going to convince me that looking the other way and politely ignoring imperialism, racism, sexism and homophobia as public policy is sound or wise.  No appeasement!

And you can take your moral relativism and shove it up your ass.  There is a meaningful difference between the righteous hatred good people feel for intolerance directed at the weak by the strong, and the hatred that weak members of majority groups direct at minority groups.  A normal person's hatred for Ku Klux Klan members is not comparable to that Klan member's hatred of blacks, no matter how much sophistry you engage in.

Quote from: Jackalope;236115Dude, it's is TOTALLY awesome.  I won't play Neville Chamberlain just because you'd prefer people ignore the right's slow drift towards fascism in the last few decades.  You're not going to convince me that looking the other way and politely ignoring imperialism, racism, sexism and homophobia as public policy is sound or wise.  No appeasement!

And you can take your moral relativism and shove it up your ass.  There is a meaningful difference between the righteous hatred good people feel for intolerance directed at the weak by the strong, and the hatred that weak members of majority groups direct at minority groups.  A normal person's hatred for Ku Klux Klan members is not comparable to that Klan member's hatred of blacks, no matter how much sophistry you engage in.

You are so cute! If you weren't so friggin full of shit you'd almost be tolerable.

You should have tossed in a Nazi reference for effect. I mean, really lay it on.

Quote from: Jackalope;236112Jesus man, you righties sure come up with some truly lunatic shit.

Make me laugh.  Provide evidence of how the current, modern Democratic Party targets minority groups for victimization.  +100,000 points if you define extremely wealthy white men as a minority.

And do you right-wingers know any mode of argument OTHER than the Ad Hominem Tu Quoque?

So you OK with "victimization" as long as it is not a minority group?

PS: The 'modern' Democratic Party victimizes minorities by proclaiming themselves the saviors of all minority woes and then promptly forgetting about them when in power.

I so glad the Democratic Party has advanced minorities in the government by placing them in real places of power, like the Supreme Court or Secretary of State... oh... what's that? Oh, really? Shit, that was the evil Republican Party.....

Quote from: Werekoala;236078I hate people who target minority groups for for victimization simply to gain power too. That's why I hate most Democrats.

This is germane to the ongoing discussion in droog's Rolling Stone class article thread.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: CavScout;236125You are so cute! If you weren't so friggin full of shit you'd almost be tolerable.

You should have tossed in a Nazi reference for effect. I mean, really lay it on.

:duh:

Neville Chamberlain, Prime Minister of England, followed a policy of appeasement that allowed the Nazis to conquer a large swath of Europe before any organized resistance began.  If I won't be Neville Chamberlain, then I am creating analogy, which is:


So I did in fact toss in a Nazi reference and compare my opponents to Nazis, however they (THAT'S YOU DUMMY) were too slow to recognize it.

What does all of this mean?

YOU ARE DUMB.

Quote from: CavScout;236131So you OK with "victimization" as long as it is not a minority group?

I don't know.  Have you stopped fucking your mother?

QuotePS: The 'modern' Democratic Party victimizes minorities by proclaiming themselves the saviors of all minority woes and then promptly forgetting about them when in power.

Comedy gold!

Quote from: Jackalope;236148:duh:

Neville Chamberlain, Prime Minister of England, followed a policy of appeasement that allowed the Nazis to conquer a large swath of Europe before any organized resistance began.  If I won't be Neville Chamberlain, then I am creating analogy, which is:

not-Jackalope:Right-Wingers::Neville Chamberlain:German National Socialists

So I did in fact toss in a Nazi reference and compare my opponents to Nazis, however they (THAT'S YOU DUMMY) were too slow to recognize it.

What does all of this mean?

YOU ARE DUMB.

Going all "six degrees of separation" on me now, aren't ya?

Quote from: Jackalope;236149I don't know.  Have you stopped fucking your mother?

Comedy gold!

Poor Jackie... he has run out of real responses. Come here, let me give you a hug.:hmm:

Quote from: CavScout;236150Going all "six degrees of separation" on me now, aren't ya?

No, that's one degree of separation.  Jesus, how dumb are you?

QuotePoor Jackie... he has run out of real responses. Come here, let me give you a hug.

I can only work with what you give me.  If you gave me a real response, then we could have a real conversation.  But since you made an argument, and won't support it, there's not much i can do.

Unless you seriously think that this is an argument:

QuotePS: The 'modern' Democratic Party victimizes minorities by proclaiming themselves the saviors of all minority woes and then promptly forgetting about them when in power.

That's utterly cynical, and not remotely accurate.

QuoteI so glad the Democratic Party has advanced minorities in the government by placing them in real places of power, like the Supreme Court or Secretary of State... oh... what's that? Oh, really? Shit, that was the evil Republican Party.....

This is really hilarious.  I will grant you Clarence Thomas and Condaleeza Rice, who I'm sure you were thinking of, and even Sandra Day O'Connor (Reagan appointee).  But I counter with Janet Reno, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Joycelyn Elders, and dozens of others.  Ptthhppt.

More importantly:
43 African-Americans in Congress.  ALL DEMOCRATS.
26 Hispanics in Congress. TWENTY DEMOCRATS.
6 Asian-Americans in Congress.  FOUR DEMOCRATS.
82 women in Congress.  FIFTY FOUR DEMOCRATS.

You know why those disparities exist?  because the DNC has minority leadership recruitment and training programs, while the Republicans rely on tokenism and the rare crazy ass self-hating black man like Alan Watts.

And look at the nominees each party put up on the way to selecting a canidate.  

Republicans: The whole spectrum from deeply religious white men to not so religious white men!  They went with...the white guy!

Democrats: We had white men and white women, black men and black women, and after it came down to a black man versus a white woman, we went with the black guy.

And Democrats are somehow the party of racism and white privilege?

Get fucking real!

Yes, very possibly intersting - but it had nothing to do with the original topic - that was the sad event of one man going nuts with a gun in a church.

An event that had nothing to do with politics.

Also, I'd like to piint the good thing that happened that day: Several members of that church's congreagation tackled the shooter to the ground, possibly saving other lives in doing so.

That may be a more interesting story - but the press doesn't talk about that much.

There are likely heroes all around us who never get acknowledged.

That also has nothing to do with politics.

Sorry Jackie,(and a few others on here) some things in the world probably have no connection to politics. (right or left)


- Ed C.

Quote from: Koltar;236160Yes, very possibly intersting - but it had nothing to do with the original topic - that was the sad event of one man going nuts with a gun in a church.

An event that had nothing to do with politics.

He had political motivations.  That means it had to do with politics.  You can't handwave that way in the interest of everyone just getting along, or commiserating.  Refusing to examine WHY it happens only ensures it happens AGAIN.

EDIT: It's easy to say this guy just "went nuts."  But that doesn't mean anything.  That's a sop, something to make you stop asking "Why?"  There is so much more to this than "Some guy went nuts.  It's sad."

What that guy did isn't nuts at all.  It makes perfect sense if you accept the worldview promoted in the books Adkisson was reading.  That's the problem here.  He didn't "just go nuts."  He was bitter, angry and depressed, which leads to poor judgement and clouded thinking.  The books became fuel for that fire, and they shaped that anger and rage, and took advantage of that clouded judgment, and that's why he shot up a church after writing a screed about liberals and gays, rather than just shoot his ex-wife then himself like most bitter, angry and suicidally depressed guys do.

Quote from: Jackalope;236112Jesus man, you righties sure come up with some truly lunatic shit.

Make me laugh.  Provide evidence of how the current, modern Democratic Party targets minority groups for victimization.  +100,000 points if you define extremely wealthy white men as a minority.

And do you right-wingers know any mode of argument OTHER than the Ad Hominem Tu Quoque?

The Democrats have been fighting the War on Poverty, for example, for the last 40 years. There have been decades of Democrat controlled congresses and many Democrat Presidents in that time. When are we going to win THAT war?

The real question is, why don't you fuckers WANT to win the war?

Ah, yes, because then you'd lose your base.

Victimization benefits the Democrats far more than the Republicans, friend.

Quote from: Werekoala;236181The Democrats have been fighting the War on Poverty, for example, for the last 40 years. There have been decades of Democrat controlled congresses and many Democrat Presidents in that time. When are we going to win THAT war?

"The assumption that spending more of the taxpayers' money will make things better has survived all kinds of evidence that it has made things worse. The black family—which survived slavery, discrimination, poverty, wars, and depressions—began to come apart as the federal government moved in with its well-financed programs to 'help.'" - Thomas Sowell, Is Reality Optional? and Other Essays

Quote from: Werekoala;236181The Democrats have been fighting the War on Poverty, for example, for the last 40 years. There have been decades of Democrat controlled congresses and many Democrat Presidents in that time. When are we going to win THAT war?

The real question is, why don't you fuckers WANT to win the war?

Ah, yes, because then you'd lose your base.

Victimization benefits the Democrats far more than the Republicans, friend.

First of all, you're changing the argument.  You're not supporting your original point.  You claimed that the Democrats target minority groups for for victimization simply to gain power.

This argument you are presenting now directly contradicts your previous argument.  If victimization of minorities (gay, female, colored) by the majority (straight, male, white) benefits the Democrats far more than the Republicans by forming a voting bloc that will support Democrats, it's because Democrats pander to those victimized, and promise them some sort of relief, not because the Democrats target them for victimization.

Now, you are claiming that Democrats don't deliver on this relief because then they would lose their base.  That also doesn't support your claim that Democrats target minority groups for for victimization simply to gain power.  It would support the claim that Democrats pander to victimized minority groups simply to gain power, if you could prove it was true.

Your suggestion that Democrats have not won the "War on Poverty" because they "don't want to" is...well, frankly, it's hilarious.  Allow me to offer some alternate possibilities:

• Solving poverty is not easy, and demanding success on a limited timetable may not be reasonable.
• The war on poverty may require an initial experimental period in which we explore and discover effective tactics.
• Republicans keep fucking up all the Democrats good ideas (re: Nixon's changes to the welfare system that helped create generational poverty and destroy family structures).
• Republicans keep running up massive debts on stupid military bullshit, slashing funding to effective social programs.
• Republicans fight Democrat efforts tooth and nail.

Keep the comedy coming.

Quote from: Jackalope;236156That's utterly cynical, and not remotely accurate.

Hardly. It is the party who had the "first black President". Of course he was a white guy...

Quote from: Jackalope;236156More importantly:
43 African-Americans in Congress.  ALL DEMOCRATS.
26 Hispanics in Congress. TWENTY DEMOCRATS.
6 Asian-Americans in Congress.  FOUR DEMOCRATS.
82 women in Congress.  FIFTY FOUR DEMOCRATS.

You know why those disparities exist?  because the DNC has minority leadership recruitment and training programs, while the Republicans rely on tokenism and the rare crazy ass self-hating black man like Alan Watts.

It's called gerrymandering.

Oh, and isn't it nice that when there is a black Republican (or whatever minority) they are "self-hating".

QuoteAnd look at the nominees each party put up on the way to selecting a canidate.  

Republicans: The whole spectrum from deeply religious white men to not so religious white men!  They went with...the white guy!

Democrats: We had white men and white women, black men and black women, and after it came down to a black man versus a white woman, we went with the black guy.

And Democrats are somehow the party of racism and white privilege?

Get fucking real!

I can't wait for the lecture on how whites voting for a white candidate is racism and blacks voting for a black candidate is not.

I can only imagine the brick you would shit if McCain pulled 90+% of whites... but ahh, the Democratic motto... "It's only racism when the other guy does it!"

Quote from: CavScout;236194It's called gerrymandering.

Uh, no, that doesn't explain it at all.

QuoteOh, and isn't it nice that when there is a black Republican (or whatever minority) they are "self-hating".

Pretty much.  Ask a black person.  Assuming you know any black people, which I doubt you do.  Clarence Thomas?  Uncle Tom.  Condaleeza Rice?  House nigger.  Alan Watts?  Crazy self-hating negro.

QuoteI can't wait for the lecture on how whites voting for a white candidate is racism and blacks voting for a black candidate is not.

Suddenly all Democrats are black?

QuoteI can only imagine the brick you would shit if McCain pulled 90+% of whites... but ahh, the Democratic motto... "It's only racism when the other guy does it!"

No, it's only racism when white people do it.  Racism is power + privilege.  I mean, okay, technically black people can be racist given a broad enough definition of racism.  But black racism is of trivial importance.  It simply doesn't have the same effect as white racism.  That's why it doesn't matter if all black people always only vote for the black guy, but it does matter if all white people only vote for white guys.

Maybe in a few generations when demographics are very different black racism will matter, but at this moment in history, black racism is just an excuse that white supremacists use to justify their own white racism.

I mean seriously, right now, if everyone voted on racial lines, white people would still dominate damn near everything.  So who cares if blacks, who make up about 12% of the population, are completely and totally racist.  Only people it hurts is them.  It ain't going to freeze any white people into a permanent underclass.

I totally support afrocentrism.  You know why?  Because afrocentrism can't hurt me.

Quote from: CavScout;236192Hardly. It is the party who had the "first black President". Of course he was a white guy...

What?

Did you just say Barack Obama is a white guy?

Quote from: Jackalope;236190Allow me to offer some alternate possibilities:

• Solving poverty is not easy, and demanding success on a limited timetable may not be reasonable.
• The war on poverty may require an initial experimental period in which we explore and discover effective tactics.
• Republicans keep fucking up all the Democrats good ideas (re: Nixon's changes to the welfare system that helped create generational poverty and destroy family structures).
• Republicans keep running up massive debts on stupid military bullshit, slashing funding to effective social programs.
• Republicans fight Democrat efforts tooth and nail.

• Poverty for a section of the population is a natural, continually reproduced outcome of capitalism and the Democrats, as part of the ruling class, have as little interest in tackling the underlying causes as the Republicans.

Quote from: droog;236203

• Poverty for a section of the population is a natural, continually reproduced outcome of capitalism and the Democrats, as part of the ruling class, have as little interest in tackling the underlying causes as the Republicans.

Quite possible.  But rather cynical.

Quote from: Jackalope;236206Quite possible. But rather cynical.

You call it cynicism; I call it objectivity.

Quote from: Jackalope;236202What?

Did you just say Barack Obama is a white guy?

Do you work hard at being so dense?

Quote from: CavScout;236619Do you work hard at being so dense?

Wow, you're one to talk.

Were you referring to Bill Clinton?

Quote from: Jackalope;236201Pretty much.  Ask a black person.  Assuming you know any black people, which I doubt you do.  Clarence Thomas?  Uncle Tom.  Condaleeza Rice?  House nigger.  Alan Watts?  Crazy self-hating .......

Reading over this whole thread  -that passage is one of the most offensive things I've seen posted by anyone on here.

Apparently, according to Jackalope, blacks aren't allowed to have a variety of thoughts and philosophies . Also, I believe he blended two politicians together - J.C. Watts and Alan

J.C. Watts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J.C._Watts

Alan Keyes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan_Keyes

Those two seperate individuals may be who Jacka was trying to think of....

- Ed C.

Quote from: Koltar;236639Reading over this whole thread  -that passage is one of the most offensive things I've seen posted by anyone on here.

That's because you're painfully white.  I am actually quoting my friend Alyce's dad Vernon.  Who is black, and lived through the civil rights era (he's like 60+, maybe 70+).  And he's FUNNY.  He's the guy who explain to me how to tell when old black guys hate you, and why nobody ever messed with me when I was walking alone in an all black neighborhood late at night, and about the slave-owning blacks that aren't really black, and lots of other shit white people don't usually know about.

[quote[Apparently, according to Jackalope, blacks aren't allowed to have a variety of thoughts and philosophies .[/quote]

Dude, being "allowed" has fuck-all to do with it.  Do you know what an Uncle Tom is?  It's a black guy who gets ahead by siding with Whitey, at the expense of other black people.  It's a black person who rejects the idea of black solidarity.  Black people can reject the idea of black solidarity, but they shouldn't be too surprised when the black community calls them out on it, and thinks less of them.  Black solidarity is the ultimately the only thing that black people to oppose white supremacy.  So you know, fuck Alan Keyes for being a shill for the Republicans so they can pretend they don't hate black people.

QuoteAlso, I believe he blended two politicians together - J.C. Watts and Alan  Keyes

I think I mixed up Alan Keyes and Alan Watts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Watts).  Which is really funny, if you know who Alan Watts is.

J.C. Watts is one of the only two African-American Republicans to ever serve in the U.S. House of Representatives since the civil rights era (compared to 90 African-American Democrats), and has been fairly critical of the way the GOP treats African-Americans.  Even he seems to recognize that he's a token to be trotted out by the GOp to prove they are inclusive.

Quote from: Jackalope;236664Dude, being "allowed" has fuck-all to do with it.  Do you know what an Uncle Tom is?  It's a black guy who gets ahead by siding with Whitey, at the expense of other black people.  It's a black person who rejects the idea of black solidarity.  Black people can reject the idea of black solidarity, but they shouldn't be too surprised when the black community calls them out on it, and thinks less of them.  Black solidarity is the ultimately the only thing that black people to oppose white supremacy.  So you know, fuck Alan Keyes for being a shill for the Republicans so they can pretend they don't hate black people.

Careful Jackalope. Don't make the mistake of assuming all blacks (in this instance) exist in the same social/political/economic reality or that discrimination is indeed systemic or pervasive enough to affect all within the minority or indeed that the will to rise above one's "situation" and the empathy felt towards a certain ideology seen best to reflect this "will" is indicative of selling out. Separate the personalities and realpolitik from the ideology. You seem to be making the same argument as Werekoala, that the Dems remain in power solely on the vitimization of minority groups. In other words either you're both right or both wrong. I try to stay out of US domestic discussions but what you wrote applies across the board.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Jackalope;236664That's because you're painfully white.

Bigotry must be awesome when you are on the left.

This just isn't fun when he is this ignorant and stupid about some things.

A big part of freedom - is the freedom NOT to feel forced to agree with the crowd because you'd be thought of as "not fill in the blank line enough"
Whether its 'black enough', Conservative enough, liberal enough , or as stupid as 'white enough'.

I don't see the racism thing because I see blacks as the same race as I am - Human. (Stow the klingon jokes for at least 1 thread - okay guys?)

The first young woman I ever fell in love with was black . (This was in the '80s before the popular culture was using the phrase African-American) The High school I went to was 80% black. They didn't all think the same on every issue or topic that got argurewd about or discussed. Heck, back then Rap music was a new thing...most of us were into Prince & the Revolution, The Time, and Tina Turner. (It was when MTV first hit it big)

Tossing around the phrase 'Uncle Tom' is pretty damn rude, just because a person didn't wind up agreeing with a popular opinion or the majority opinion of the group that everyone else identifies him with - doesn't mean they sold out or 'sided with whitey'.
 It Just means that they came different conclusion..

Oh and I've only known one person named "whitey" - he was a marine veteran, then later a tough swimming and basketball coach. Got his nickname when his hair turned white in his 20s.


Irony is the recent crap on the recent pages of this thread have nothing to do with the OP topic.

Hey Jackie, grow up a little. Just cuz someone has a different opinion than you it doesn't mean they sold out, are evil, or are stupid. Just means they think differently - but they might be perfectly alright to game with and invite to lunch sometime.


- Ed C.

Koltar's actually talking some sense for once. The idea that every minority is exemplary or paradigmatic is not a good path to go down.

Jackie's not totally off though. Solidarity can be important for achieving specific political goals, and in a society as racially divided as America, it's understandable that minorities would band together to exert political power to overcome those divides.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;236886Koltar's actually talking some sense for once. The idea that every minority is exemplary or paradigmatic is not a good path to go down.

Absolutely.  Painting everyone of a certain cultural background with the same brush is...hmm...kind of racist?

I don't think Jackalope meant to be malicious, of course.  But it's the same kind of well-meaning stereotyping that has led many people to seriously say that I must be a "more spiritual" person because of my Korean heritage.  Because there's not a chance that Asians are, you know, human beings like any other.  I don't even know how to respond to shit like that.

I do know that I'd not take kindly to someone who doesn't have any first-hand familiarity with the social and cultural issues faced by myself and those who share my heritage telling me what I'm supposed to believe or how I'm supposed to act.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;236886Jackie's not totally off though. Solidarity can be important for achieving specific political goals, and in a society as racially divided as America, it's understandable that minorities would band together to exert political power to overcome those divides.

You don't close a divide by digging it deeper.

Quote from: Koltar;236813This just isn't fun when he is this ignorant and stupid about some things.

A big part of freedom - is the freedom NOT to feel forced to agree with the crowd because you'd be thought of as "not fill in the blank line enough"
Whether its 'black enough', Conservative enough, liberal enough , or as stupid as 'white enough'.

I don't see the racism thing because I see blacks as the same race as I am - Human. (Stow the klingon jokes for at least 1 thread - okay guys?)

That's great Ed, but being colorblind in a society that isn't colorblind is a total cop-out.  Not seeing the difference between black and white is a GREAT way of not noticing the massive injustices still perpetuated on the black minority by white supremacy.

QuoteThe first young woman I ever fell in love with was black . (This was in the '80s before the popular culture was using the phrase African-American) The High school I went to was 80% black. They didn't all think the same on every issue or topic that got argurewd about or discussed. Heck, back then Rap music was a new thing...most of us were into Prince & the Revolution, The Time, and Tina Turner. (It was when MTV first hit it big)

And yet, despite being around all these black people, you never managed to develop any sort of appreciation for black culture, or any awareness of black politics?

You know what?  I think you're a big lying ass.

QuoteTossing around the phrase 'Uncle Tom' is pretty damn rude, just because a person didn't wind up agreeing with a popular opinion or the majority opinion of the group that everyone else identifies him with - doesn't mean they sold out or 'sided with whitey'.

Of course it's rude.  It's also rude to point to the couple of token blacks in the lily white Republican machine to deflect criticism of the racist policies and practices of the GOP.

Quote from: KenHR;236930Absolutely.  Painting everyone of a certain cultural background with the same brush is...hmm...kind of racist?

I don't think Jackalope meant to be malicious, of course.  But it's the same kind of well-meaning stereotyping that has led many people to seriously say that I must be a "more spiritual" person because of my Korean heritage.  Because there's not a chance that Asians are, you know, human beings like any other.  I don't even know how to respond to shit like that.

I do know that I'd not take kindly to someone who doesn't have any first-hand familiarity with the social and cultural issues faced by myself and those who share my heritage telling me what I'm supposed to believe or how I'm supposed to act.

See, you'll never me see me talking about Korean-American interests, because I don't know anything about that.  I mean, I know that there is a lot of historical beef between Koreans and the Japanese, but I don't even know what that's about or how important that is.

But I'm pretty well versed in afrocentrism.  I know what the issue are in the black community, I know who is and who isn't in the black community (Colin Powell is in, Condaleeza Rice is borderline, Alan Keyes is right the fuck out), and I actively confront my own white privilege -- unlike the colorblind polyannas who simply pretend race isn't an issue for them, and therefore isn't an issue for society.

Quote from: Jackalope;237246... I know who is and who isn't in the black community...

Must be nice to have folks telling blacks who is and who ain't "black enough" to be in their "community".

Quote from: John Morrow;237224You don't close a divide by digging it deeper.

Solidarity esp amongst minorities is not digging it deeper.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David R;237323Solidarity esp amongst minorities is not digging it deeper.

Can you give me an example or two of where you think it turned out well?

Quote from: John Morrow;237342Can you give me an example or two of where you think it turned out well?

If you got a point about how solidarity makes the divide deeper make it. I do in fact have a couple of examples dealing with my country in particular both in the past and present and yours, but I'd rather not do this dance and be drawn by you into tangential discussions.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David R;237361If you got a point about how solidarity makes the divide deeper make it.

By definition, if you have a split by two different groups- solidarity on both sides will do nothing to bring them together.

Solidarity by one side, without solidarity by the other on the other can indeed do something. Destroy the side that lacks solidarity if it comes to open warfare.

Or it can ghettoize the side with Solidarity forever.

Quote from: gleichman;237363By definition, if you have a split by two different groups- solidarity on both sides will do nothing to bring them together.

Not necessarily. Communication with an honest intent to coeixsts together is the main prerequiste.

QuoteSolidarity by one side, without solidarity by the other on the other can indeed do something. Destroy the side that lacks solidarity if it comes to open warfare.

The only way to overcome divide and rule is well not to allow youself to be divided.

QuoteOr it can ghettoize the side with Solidarity forever.

Maybe. But the benefits gained from solidarity is worth this risk.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David R;237381Not necessarily. Communication with an honest intent to coeixsts together is the main prerequiste.

Solidarity with one's side automatically forbids communication. Communication leads to understanding, understanding leads to compromise and agreement, compromise breaks solidarity.

Quote from: David R;237381The only way to overcome divide and rule is well not to allow youself to be divided.

And thus continue the battle endless- or until one side is defeated by pure force. This is the solidarity of Macom X.

Quote from: David R;237381Maybe. But the benefits gained from solidarity is worth this risk.

If the benefits you seek are effectively that of warfare- yes.

OR both sides could actually talk to each other, have lunch together, let their respective youth date each other if they want to, got to the inevitable inter-marrying....and in a few years...

 Hey - look no divide any more.

They realized they were basically the same race and that humanity fights amongst itself for some really silly reasons.


- Ed C.

Quote from: Koltar;237395OR both sides could actually talk to each other, have lunch together, let their respective youth date each other if they want to, got to the inevitable inter-marrying....and in a few years...

That's not much like Solidarity now is it?

I think in large measure, David R is mistaking an early phase of conflict resolution for the end state. It helps greatly to have Solidarity in order to bring the other side to the table where exchanges across the divide can take place. But in the end if anything is to be gained other than complete rejection of the other- Solidarity must break.

Quote from: Koltar;237395They realized they were basically the same race and that humanity fights amongst itself for some really silly reasons.

I found in my study of history that humanity fights for quite rational reasons. Ones that they may often hide behind more silly ones such as race.

Quote from: CavScout;237318Must be nice to have folks telling blacks who is and who ain't "black enough" to be in their "community".

Hey, it has worked for Jesse Jackson - you know, that other voice of "solidarity".

Quote from: gleichman;237390Solidarity with one's side automatically forbids communication. Communication leads to understanding, understanding leads to compromise and agreement, compromise breaks solidarity.

Only if one narrowly defines solidarity as you have done. In no way does solidarity automatically forbid communication with the other. You are very right that communication leads to understanding which is exactly why some people don't want to understand communities esp those who seem unified in their aspirations.

QuoteThis is the solidarity of Macoml X.

You forget that of Nelson Mandela or Martin Luther King.

QuoteIf the benefits you seek are effectively that of warfare- yes.

Not at all. You were the one who defined the conflict this way. The benefits I hope minorities would seek are those of acceptance as equals in whatever community they are in.

QuoteI think in large measure, David R is mistaking an early phase of conflict resolution for the end state. It helps greatly to have Solidarity in order to bring the other side to the table where exchanges across the divide can take place. But in the end if anything is to be gained other than complete rejection of the other- Solidarity must break

Not really. For some reason you define solidarity in a very narrow manner relating it or you seem to think I'm only relating it to conflict resolution - this is no doubt an important aspect but there's so much more. However I do agree that once parity has been achieved between the two groups the only way to move forward is as one. Solidarity than becomes obsolete.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: jeff37923;237440Hey, it has worked for Jesse Jackson - you know, that other voice of "solidarity".

Believe me, I know it occurs. I was being highly sarcastic. One has to chuckle at those who "champion racial equality" all the while redefining which peoples of that race really qualify to be considered part of that race.

Jackie talks about some guy he knows - I know 2 women. My former boss who's in her 30s - HATES being called African-american. She was born here, not africa, and hasn't visited africa. She also was a conservative who lived in the inner city.

Mrs Grinton, God rest her, was the most wonderful woman. She'd be 90 now, and was the most conservative person I've ever talked to. Very active in her community, she set up a school for saturday for kids who had trouble learning. ALL kids. I worked there tutoring kids in math and reading every Saturday.

They blamed the loss of the father in the black household for problems with gangs and the like. Which they blamed on social programs that encouraged single-parent households.

Quote from: David R;237452You forget that of Nelson Mandela or Martin Luther King.

I don't recall either of them making the major plank of their push the concept of a person "not really being black enough". Indeed, their appeals and their success was in moving beyond the black experience and making their push to the common values of the common man.

As me defining solidarity in very narrow manner, I would suggest that I'm defining it as it functions in practice. Perhaps you should pick a different word that means what you're attempting to communicate.

Quote from: gleichman;237494I don't recall either of them making the major plank of their push the concept of a person "not really being black enough". Indeed, their appeals and their success was in moving beyond the black experience and making their push to the common values of the common man.

You are using him because he is one of the more provocative examples of the many diverse voices in a minority community. Minorities benefit from a diverse range of voices, some of them extremely divisive. I would argue that the success of Nelson and King were making the black experience part of the common values of the common man.

QuoteAs me defining solidarity in very narrow manner, I would suggest that I'm defining it as it functions in practice. Perhaps you should pick a different word that means what you're attempting to communicate.

My definition is fine. Solidarity encompases a whole range of practices.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David R;237502I would argue that the success of Nelson and King were making the black experience part of the common values of the common man.

That is not by any stretch Solidarity as it relates to this thread's direction which was concerned with people of a group outcasting other members of their group for not being that group.

You're being dishonest here. Either defend the practice- or reject it.

Quote from: David R;237502My definition is fine. Solidarity encompases a whole range of practices.

Your definiton is a dodge. Nothing more.

Quote from: Koltar;237395OR both sides could actually talk to each other, have lunch together, let their respective youth date each other if they want to, got to the inevitable inter-marrying....and in a few years...

...there will be no more black people, because we will have bred them out of existence and absorbed them into the white majority.  You've discovered a final solution!

What you're talking about Koltar, whether you realize it or not, is a very white supremacist position.  You're essentially asserting that the minority black community can be easily absorbed into the white majority through interbreeding, but since you haven't stopped to ever examine your own white privilege, you can't see how these sort of statements look to the black community.

You're talking about the friendly face of genocide.  Basically what you';re saying can be taken as "We don't have to put the blacks in concentration camps, we can just breed 'em out of existence."

Quote from: David R;237452Not at all. You were the one who defined the conflict this way. The benefits I hope minorities would seek are those of acceptance as equals in whatever community they are in.

And not just acceptance as equals, but acceptance as equals on their own terms.  Acceptance as equals as black people, not acceptance as equals on white terms -- where you are equal if you act white.

That's the point of solidarity.  A black person (singular) can gain acceptance in the white community by acting white, by denying their heritage and embracing the cultural norms of white people.  But that isn't the same as black people gaining acceptance.

What black people want is to be accepted as equals in total, to have their culture and their history valued in the same way that white culture and white history is valued.  They don't want equality at the cost of sacrificing black culture.  It's not real equality if a black person has to pretend to like country-western and denigrate hip-hop to be accepted.

That's what solidarity is all about.  It's about forming a united front against white supremacy and asserting that it is not sufficient for a few token African-Americans to succeed while the majority of the black community languishes in poverty resulting from generations of racism, while black culture is denigrated and demeaned, etc.

Quote from: shewolf;237485They blamed the loss of the father in the black household for problems with gangs and the like. Which they blamed on social programs that encouraged single-parent households.

:confused:
What was the logic there?  What were the social programs that encouraged single-parent households?

Quote from: Jackalope;237537And not just acceptance as equals, but acceptance as equals on their own terms.  Acceptance as equals as black people, not acceptance as equals on white terms -- where you are equal if you act white.

How about simplifying that even further??

Instead of using phrases like 'acceptance on white terms or black terms' - what about acceptance on Human terms?

How about everyone is equal to act humanly toward each other ? (or humanely for grammar sticklers)

It makes more sense to use terminology that brings people together instead of terms and slurs that tear them apart.


- Ed C.

The conversation about solidarity on this thread right now is really too abstract to be meaningful. Everyone is asserting stuff about it without bothering to do more than occasionally mention a name or something, without showing how their hypotheses relate to conceptions on the ground.

What solidarity does is organise a group of people into acting in concert without suppressing differences in belief between them. For example, Solidarity in Poland collected a number of different anti-communist but pro-labour groups together. All groups would strike simultaneously so that the government was faced with a problem that it couldn't solve simply by clubbing people in this factory, or that dockyard. If they did, the other strikers would hold out longer, and as the government went to deal with them, the original strikers would reform and restrike.

No one would stop striking until every striking group's demands had been met. These demands were that the original striker's demands be met, but a secondary strike could be used to bring up grievances the workers had that hadn't been severe enough to make them walk out beforehand.

That's an example of solidarity (little-s) in action, a very successful one, since it ended up being one of the major motivators for the collapse of the soviet system in Poland.

Quote from: Koltar;237572How about simplifying that even further??

Instead of using phrases like 'acceptance on white terms or black terms' - what about acceptance on Human terms?

Because the Federation does not yet exist fanboy, and when you say "Human terms" you don't realize it but you are actually talking about "White European terms."  When you simplify things like that, you unintentionally 'whitewash' many important issues.

Quote from: Jackalope;237604Because the Federation does not yet exist fanboy, and when you say "Human terms" you don't realize it but you are actually talking about "White European terms."  When you simplify things like that, you unintentionally 'whitewash' many important issues.

...and you are full of misconceptions.

I've never thought in white european terms.

If you lack a Clue - please stop by Ohio and the store I work at and I can sell you a copy.


- Ed C.

Quote from: Jackalope;237527...there will be no more black people, because we will have bred them out of existence and absorbed them into the white majority.  You've discovered a final solution!

What you're talking about Koltar, whether you realize it or not, is a very white supremacist position.  You're essentially asserting that the minority black community can be easily absorbed into the white majority through interbreeding, but since you haven't stopped to ever examine your own white privilege, you can't see how these sort of statements look to the black community.

You're talking about the friendly face of genocide.  Basically what you';re saying can be taken as "We don't have to put the blacks in concentration camps, we can just breed 'em out of existence."

This is pure comedy gold.

"We will wage genocide against the lesser races by interbreeding with them until all our genes are a mix of all races!!"

Sounds really white supremecist that does.

Jeff, you're right - funny thing is Jackalope has it backwards.
Genetically speaking the darker genes tend to win out.
If he really was truthful about what I was saying - then I am advocating a planet with MORE blacks or dark skinned ethinc groups. (and the subtle disappearance of whites)

- Ed C.

Quote from: Koltar;237606...and you are full of misconceptions.

I've never thought in white european terms.

Yeah dude, you have.  We all do.  All the time.  You're speaking in English, raised in America, in the American education system.  You've been indoctrinated in white supremacy your entire life, and it is so pervassive and so all encompassing that you can't even see it.  It's the air you breathe.

The only reason you can think something as asinine as "I've never thought in white european terms." is that you are so completely insulated in white privilege that you don't even know what those words mean.

Quote from: Jackalope;237527...there will be no more black people, because we will have bred them out of existence and absorbed them into the white majority.  You've discovered a final solution!

This is like the Big Bang of Retardation. Seriously. It's so retarded that words fail me. Amazing.

Quote from: jeff37923;237609This is pure comedy gold.

"We will wage genocide against the lesser races by interbreeding with them until all our genes are a mix of all races!!"

Sounds really white supremecist that does.

That's because you foolishly believe that white supremacy is that nonsense that Neo-Nazis preach, that christian identity crap.  That's not white supremacy, that's a bunch of fascist losers who have recognized that being white is the only thing they have going for them in the world.

White supremacy has very little to do with genetic purity.  Nothing to do with it, really.  Fuck, anyone with a half-pint of knowledge can tell you that race and genetics have fuck-all to do with each other.  White supremacy is about cultural domination.  It's about worldview and how history is depicted, and what defines scientific progress, and how race is determined and viewed.

Here's an example of real white supremacy:  African-Americans created jazz -- it is a artifact of American Black culture -- and the vast majority of jazz musicians are African-Americans raised in the black community.  Yet, the top-selling jazz artist of all time are white.  Mega-selling jazz artists like Kenny G and John Tesh are not just white, they act white.  They're giant waspy WASPs.  That's white supremacy in action: the black community creates something, white people copy it, and make millions while the black artist remain poor.  Things have improved since the 50's -- everything is better this side of the civil rights struggle -- when black musicians invented rock and roll an watched it get completely stolen by mega-successful white artists like Elvis Presley.

But still,  look at what happen to rap, a post-civil rights struggle creation of the black community: an positive, organic music movement totally commodified by the white supremacist MTV into a racially loaded package of stereotypes of urban black men sold to white suburban boys.

That is white supremacy.  That is what black people are scared of.  They're scared of being swallowed whole by Eminem and John Tesh, and disappearing, the entire history and culture they developed in the face of overwhelming oppression and slavery disappearing and becoming nothing but a footnote in white eurocentric history books.

Quote from: Koltar;237615Jeff, you're right - funny thing is Jackalope has it backwards.
Genetically speaking the darker genes tend to win out.
If he really was truthful about what I was saying - then I am advocating a planet with MORE blacks or dark skinned ethinc groups. (and the subtle disappearance of whites)

Oh you are SUCH an idiot.

Dark skin has fuck-all to do with it.

Quote from: Jackalope;237631That's because you foolishly believe that white supremacy is that nonsense that Neo-Nazis preach, that christian identity crap.  That's not white supremacy, that's a bunch of fascist losers who have recognized that being white is the only thing they have going for them in the world.

White supremacy has very little to do with genetic purity.  Nothing to do with it, really.  Fuck, anyone with a half-pint of knowledge can tell you that race and genetics have fuck-all to do with each other.  White supremacy is about cultural domination.  It's about worldview and how history is depicted, and what defines scientific progress, and how race is determined and viewed.

Here's an example of real white supremacy:  African-Americans created jazz -- it is a artifact of American Black culture -- and the vast majority of jazz musicians are African-Americans raised in the black community.  Yet, the top-selling jazz artist of all time are white.  Mega-selling jazz artists like Kenny G and John Tesh are not just white, they act white.  They're giant waspy WASPs.  That's white supremacy in action: the black community creates something, white people copy it, and make millions while the black artist remain poor.  Things have improved since the 50's -- everything is better this side of the civil rights struggle -- when black musicians invented rock and roll an watched it get completely stolen by mega-successful white artists like Elvis Presley.

But still,  look at what happen to rap, a post-civil rights struggle creation of the black community: an positive, organic music movement totally commodified by the white supremacist MTV into a racially loaded package of stereotypes of urban black men sold to white suburban boys.

That is white supremacy.  That is what black people are scared of.  They're scared of being swallowed whole by Eminem and John Tesh, and disappearing, the entire history and culture they developed in the face of overwhelming oppression and slavery disappearing and becoming nothing but a footnote in white eurocentric history books.

Remember a few pages back when I said that you had redefined the term "fuckwit"? Jackalope, you are doing nothing but proving that the label "fuckwit" really does encompass all that you are.

Quote from: jeff37923;237635Remember a few pages back when I said that you had redefined the term "fuckwit"? Jackalope, you are doing nothing but proving that the label "fuckwit" really does encompass all that you are.

Whatever man.  Insult me all you like, doesn't make you any less ignorant and unprepared for the conversation.

It's okay, you're a white guy, you're just exercising your privilege to not care.

In fact, looking over the "white privilege checklist", I see you are currently enjoying the following items from that (far from all inclusive) list:

22. I can remain oblivious of the language and customs of persons of color who constitute the world's majority without feeling in my culture any penalty for such oblivion.

30. If I declare there is a racial issue at hand, or there isn't a racial issue at hand, my race will lend me more credibility for either position than a person of color will have.

31. I can choose to ignore developments in minority writing and minority activist programs, or disparage them, or learn from them, but in any case, I can find ways to be more or less protected from negative consequences of any of these choices.

32. My culture gives me little fear about ignoring the perspectives and powers of people of other races.

Woo hoo!  I'd say you were a racist, but you'd take it the wrong way, since you don't know what that word means either.

Quote from: gleichman;237506That is not by any stretch Solidarity as it relates to this thread's direction which was concerned with people of a group outcasting other members of their group for not being that group.

You're being dishonest here. Either defend the practice- or reject it.

No it's you who are being dishonest as usual I might add. I did reject the practice in the very next post after Jackalope first made it, as a matter of fact. My responses here have been to what you have been saying about solidarity in general - which is kind of the problem as Pseudoephedrine points.

QuoteYour definiton is a dodge. Nothing more.

Nah, I have not even given one yet.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David R;237653Nah, I have not even given one yet.

Then we've been talking about nothing. And you've just been tossing hot air without cause or reason.

Quote from: gleichman;237663Then we've been talking about nothing. And you've just been tossing hot air without cause or reason.

No he didn't!  Did he really just accuse someone else of tossing hot air without cause or reason?  Really?

:rotfl:

Quote from: gleichman;237663Then we've been talking about nothing. And you've just been tossing hot air without cause or reason.

I got to admit Gleichman, you take being disingenous to new heights. I asked Morrow if he had a point to make about solidarity and you jump in (no surprise) rushing to define the concept. I respond to your comments and as usual you try to shift the discussion when you feel things are not going your way.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David R;237673I got to admit Gleichman, you take being disingenous to new heights. I asked Morrow if he had a point to make about solidarity and you jump in (no surprise) rushing to define the concept. I respond to your comments and as usual you try to shift the discussion when you feel things are not going your way.

It could not have gone anyplace but my way. After all you kept redefining the word to mean whatever you wanted- until it grew to include the opposing side I was giving.

In the end, you agreed with me.

Quote from: gleichman;237674It could not have gone anyplace but my way. After all you kept redefining the word to mean whatever you wanted- until it grew to include the opposing side I was giving.

As I said, I didn't define anything.

QuoteIn the end, you agreed with me.

Actually it was in the very beginning.

I realize the conversation became a bit much for you when I argued that the black experience become part of the common shared values and you tried to shift back to Jackalope's post without realizing that I had already commented on it.  I can only assume that you agree with me on the points I made that you didn't quote.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David R;237676I realize the conversation became a bit much for you when I argued that the black experience become part of the common shared values and you tried to shift back to Jackalope's post without realizing that I had already commented on it.  I can only assume that you agree with me on the points I made that you didn't quote.

Jackalopes is on my ignore list. I haven't read any of his posts in a very long time.

And I have no idea what you've said now. Words don't have the same meaning for us. For all I know you've been talking about pies.

Quote from: gleichman;237678Jackalopes is on my ignore list. I haven't read any of his posts in a very long time.

And yet you seem aware of the context that Jackalope used the term solidarity in. How odd....

QuoteAnd I have no idea what you've said now. Words don't have the same meaning for us. For all I know you've been talking about pies.

Oh you seem to understand well enough when it suits you. Communication man,  sometimes it leads to understanding...dangerous thing that.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David R;237685And yet you seem aware of the context that Jackalope used the term solidarity in. How odd....

I knew the general flow of the conversation from others, and the way you used the term *seemed* clear orginally.

But if you wish to call me a liar, there's little I can do about it. It would be in line with someone who tosses out foolish sayings and then changes the meaning of words when called on it.

Quote from: David R;237685Oh you seem to understand well enough when it suits you.

I'll remember that understanding you is effectively impossible in the future.

Quote from: gleichman;237693I knew the general flow of the conversation from others, and the way you used the term *seemed* clear orginally.

This seems reasonable except this last part esp since I had already made my point about Jackalope's casual dismissal of black folks who go against the so-called mainstream thought of their community. I reckon' you didn't read that. As for how I used the term "originally", I don't know I was merely responding to how you defined the term.

QuoteBut if you wish to call me a liar, there's little I can do about it. It would be in line with someone who tosses out foolish sayings and then changes the meaning of words when called on it.

Implying things about people is your game not mine. But you have used this tactic before and will again, no doubt.

QuoteI'll remember that understanding you is effectively impossible in the future.

Others have no problem understanding me. I just hope that this means our conversation is at an end. I will remember not to engage with you in the future.

Regards,
David R

In for a penny , in for a ...you know the rest....
(In other words, this thread has already derailed into the Twilight Zone.)


Normally I find David R. very easy to read and understandable - this thread included.
 Even when he & I disagree.
 Tho this time his viewpoint and mine seem pretty close to each other or overlapping.


- Ed C.

Quote from: David R;237698This seems reasonable except this last part esp since I had already made my point about Jackalope's casual dismissal of black folks who go against the so-called mainstream thought of their community. I reckon' you didn't read that.

No, I did not go that far back in the thread.

Quote from: David R;237698Others have no problem understanding me.

I imagine John did, that's why he asked for examples that you wouldn't provide. He was wiser on this point, likely because he fell for this trap of yours before having spent more time here than I.

Quote from: David R;237698I just hope that this means our conversation is at an end. I will remember not to engage with you in the future.

God I hope so. But somehow I doubt it.

Quote from: gleichman;237701No, I did not go that far back in the thread

You should.

QuoteI imagine John did, that's why he asked for examples that you wouldn't provide. He was wiser on this point, likely because he fell for this trap of yours before having spent more time here than I.

You have lurked here long enough to know Morrow always ask for examples and I gave my reasons as to why I'd rather he make his point than argue over my examples. You took up the offer, I have no idea why.

QuoteGod I hope so. But somehow I doubt it.

Do you want to have the last word after this or should I ?

Koltar. I appreciate the kind words.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David R;237705You should.

No point now.

Quote from: David R;237705You have lurked here long enough to know Morrow always ask for examples

A wise policy.

Quote from: David R;237705and I gave my reasons as to why I'd rather he make his point than argue over my examples. You took up the offer, I have no idea why.

Because by the standard meaning of the words used, it was a stupid statement. Fixed positions do not bridge gulfs. Which you went on to admit.

So as far as I'm concerned, I did what I wanted. And you claimed it meant that all along. Shrug, whatever.

Quote from: David R;237705Do you want to have the last word after this or should I ?

I don't really care.

Quote from: gleichman;237710No point now.

Agreed. It is something you should have done before you decided to shoot your mouth off.

QuoteA wise policy.

A shrewd tactic.

QuoteBecause by the standard meaning of the words used, it was a stupid statement. Fixed positions do not bridge gulfs. Which you went on to admit

Actually no , it was much more than this. But hey whatever....

QuoteSo as far as I'm concerned, I did what I wanted. And you claimed it meant that all along. Shrug, whatever.

I have no idea what you mean. I now know how you feel.

QuoteI don't really care.

Sure you do.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Jackalope;237618Yeah dude, you have.  We all do.  All the time.  You're speaking in English, raised in America, in the American education system.  You've been indoctrinated in white supremacy your entire life, and it is so pervassive and so all encompassing that you can't even see it.  It's the air you breathe.

The important point that you seem to be missing is that the ancestors of most white Americans didn't speak English and didn't have the culture that they have today.  You don't seem to realize that the Irish, Italians, and Eastern Europeans were once considered "not white" by other Europeans.  That you can talk about white culture as a monolithic thing is the product of the ancestors of all of those privileged white Americans sacrificing their language and their culture to assimilate so that their children could have those privileges.

Quote from: John Morrow;237732The important point that you seem to be missing is that the ancestors of most white Americans didn't speak English and didn't have the culture that they have today.  You don't seem to realize that the Irish, Italians, and Eastern Europeans were once considered "not white" by other Europeans.  That you can talk about white culture as a monolithic thing is the product of the ancestors of all of those privileged white Americans sacrificing their language and their culture to assimilate so that their children could have those privileges.

By "other Europeans" you mean White Anglo-Saxon Protestants.

I'm not missing that point at all.  Though I would point out that your use of "sacrificing" is quite misleading, as it implies the act was entirely voluntary.

In fact, being an Italian-American whose remaining connection to his heritage consists of some family recipes and few pieces of Catholic kitsch, I can really sympathize with an afrocentric position.  I would fight to have equality without assimilation to, if it weren't too late for Italian-Americans. If I could go back in time, I would totally tell my grandmother that assimilating isn't worth it, and that she should teach my mom Italian and English.

And you know what?  As an Italian-American I do occasionally get that little reminder from the white supremacist majority that I'm not really white, just acceptably white.

Last night I ran an adventure I wrote myself for my group.  It was set in the Italian countryside, and the NPCs had names like Matteo, Gaetan and Emesto.  The local noble was il Patrizio Acerbo.  One of my players -- a WASP -- asked me why there were so many wops in the adventure.  He was kidding with me.  Just joking around.  

When I set adventures in the English countryside, nobody ever asks me why all the limeys?  Nobody even notices.

Throughout the rest of the night, I heard mafia jokes and Super Mario jokes, because to non-Italian-Americans that is the sum total of the influence of Italian-Americans in America: the Mafia & Mario.  Oh, and Joey Tribiani and every other stereotypical Guido in the media.

And I smiled and nodded, but at the same time I was thinking "That's my heritage you're spitting on guys.  That's the town my great-great-great grandmother came from."  And of course I didn't say anything, because the WASP majority has decided that it's not okay to call me a wop, but it is okay to limit consideration of Italian culture to the celebration of a group of Sicilian thugs, and a handful of pasta dishes (which you all fucking butcher), and thus I am "oversensitive" if I demand that these white guys show a little respect for my heritage when I share it with them.

It annoys the hell out of me that the more I disown my Italian heritage, the more I benefit from white privilege.  That's more than a little fucked-up.

Quote from: gleichman;235506After decades of Conservatives being called racist, fascist

While it sucks to be called a racist, and I'm sure it sucks to be called a fascist, neither one of those labels carry the death penalty in the states.  For what it is worth, I think words have meaning.  I think that you should only be calling someone racist if they are racist.  Likewise with fascists and fascism.

As for Jeff Buncha Numbers with the Cthulu rogue avatar, I pretty much already said what I thought what this guys problem was, and that it sounded like pretty much anything could have set him off.  I pretty much disagreed that conservative pundits are harmless sweetness and light.  If you think that makes me a fuckwit, then perhaps you need to eat a bowl of dicks.

Quote from: Jackalope;237765By "other Europeans" you mean White Anglo-Saxon Protestants.

I'm not missing that point at all.  Though I would point out that your use of "sacrificing" is quite misleading, as it implies the act was entirely voluntary.

In fact, being an Italian-American whose remaining connection to his heritage consis....blah, blah , and blippity-blah-blah

So, you've just now admitted that you're not either black or African-American and the crap you've spewed for the last 6 pages of this thread we can pretty much ignore?

Gotcha.

You're a phony spitting out crap you've read other "angry young men" say or write.


Not only are you full of crap - but when you use cuss words, you just don't do it that well.  You're like that kid in that so-so movie I, Robot that was played by Shia LeBeouf - you're trying to be something ypou're not , and I bet most people find you pretty forgettable in daily life.

- Ed C.

Quote from: David R;237361If you got a point about how solidarity makes the divide deeper make it.

The sort of solidarity that Jackalope was talking about is the sort of solidarity that's coercive and treats people who don't conform as race traitors.  Is that the sort of solidarity you are talking about?  If not, then we are talking about two different sorts of things.  

In my experience, however, it's not a big leap from the idea of solidarity to the idea of circling the wagons and covering for the bad elements of the group.  If you want a non-racial example that should be obvious, I offer the solidarity of police officers that is sometimes referred to as the "blue wall of silence" such that police officers often feel obliged to ignore the abuses of other police officers and even cover up for them, rather than breaking their solidarity.

Quote from: Koltar;237776So, you've just now admitted that you're not either black or African-American and the crap you've spewed for the last 6 pages of this thread we can pretty much ignore?

When did I ever claim to be African-American?

And no, the fact that I'm white doesn't invalidate my comments.

You're going to ignore my comments because not ignoring them would require something of you, you'd have to make an effort, and looking at your fat ass and seeing your non-confrontational bellyrubbing ways, it's pretty obvious you're not the "make an effort" type.  Especially not an intellectual effort.

You're going to ignore my comments because as a white male in a white male supremacist culture, that's one of your privileges.  You get to ignore any ideas about race that make you uncomfortable, or challenge your belief that you are a good person.  You get to call them crap, and make up excuses why you don't have to listen, and nothing will happen to you.  You won't have to worry that ignoring these ideas might have consequences.

And I'll bet dollars to donuts that you won't even read that.  Your fat eyes will slide over it and the words will bounce off your fathead and utterly fail to penetrate.  I might as well preach the gospel at a flock of birds.

Quote from: Jackalope;237801When did I ever claim to be African-American?

And no, the fact that I'm white doesn't invalidate my comments.

Yeah - we get it. You're Kirk Lazarus, the dude pretending to be a dude thats another dude.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=-XHsmRVYU-A

 Ri-i-i-ght.


- Ed

Quote from: NotYourMonkey;237767While it sucks to be called a racist, and I'm sure it sucks to be called a fascist, neither one of those labels carry the death penalty in the states.

Nor apparently does treason these days.

Quote from: Jackalope;237765By "other Europeans" you mean White Anglo-Saxon Protestants.

The Germans and Scots, too.  And don't forget that the Protestant Scots-Irish were careful to differentiate themselves from the Southern Irish Catholics, just as my Italian ancestors were careful to point out that they were from Northern Italy and not the South.

Quote from: Jackalope;237765I'm not missing that point at all.  Though I would point out that your use of "sacrificing" is quite misleading, as it implies the act was entirely voluntary.

In many cases, it was, or a matter of indifference.  As I've mentioned elsewhere, there were immigrants who very much wanted their children to be Americans because they didn't have the romanticized view of the "Old Country" and left it for a reason.  As my grandfather put it, if he had loved his native country so much, he would have stayed there.  They also grasped something that their privileged descendants don't grasp which is that the privilege comes from that assimilation.  That's why plenty of immigrants embrace assimilation.  They value the privilege more than the sentimentality of clinging to the trappings of their native culture.

Quote from: Jackalope;237765In fact, being an Italian-American whose remaining connection to his heritage consists of some family recipes and few pieces of Catholic kitsch, I can really sympathize with an afrocentric position.  I would fight to have equality without assimilation to, if it weren't too late for Italian-Americans. If I could go back in time, I would totally tell my grandmother that assimilating isn't worth it, and that she should teach my mom Italian and English.

Why?  And why stop there?  Why not set your time machine back a few centuries more and implore your ancestors to spurn Christianity and stick with the Roman gods, instead?

Quote from: Jackalope;237765And you know what?  As an Italian-American I do occasionally get that little reminder from the white supremacist majority that I'm not really white, just acceptably white.

It depends on the ethnicity of who you are with.  Spend time in Irish-Catholic circles and many think the English are the devils.  And there is plenty of Scottish and German schtick out there, too.  Heck, have you ever been to Bush Gardens in Williamsburg where English, Scottish, German, Irish, Italian, and French culture are all presented in kitsch form?

Quote from: Jackalope;237765When I set adventures in the English countryside, nobody ever asks me why all the limeys?  Nobody even notices.

Then you aren't doing it right. ;)

Quote from: Jackalope;237765And I smiled and nodded, but at the same time I was thinking "That's my heritage you're spitting on guys.  That's the town my great-great-great grandmother came from."

And that's the heritage that your family left behind when they decided to go to America.  Have you ever talked to your relatives that left?  Do you know for sure why they left or how they felt about the place?  

Quote from: Jackalope;237765It annoys the hell out of me that the more I disown my Italian heritage, the more I benefit from white privilege.  That's more than a little fucked-up.

No, that's just the way it works.  Why do Settembrini and Alnag and others here post here in English even though it's not their native language?

Quote from: David R;237452You forget that of Nelson Mandela or Martin Luther King.

Regards,
David R

I won't speak as to Mandela, as I'm not familiar with his rhetoric so much as his results, but Dr. King did not preach Solidarity of all Blacks hanging together.

QuoteI have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood

.

Quoteone day right there in Alabama little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.

Solidarity, yes, but not as you've chosen to define it in this thread, David.

Which is why Malcom X was brought up as the exemplar of your definition and not Dr. King.

I've always kind of liked King.
 Wish he was qouted in completeness more often.

Thanks Spike!

Black kids and white kids holding hands and playing together. Just the sort of thing I was referring to a few pages back.


- Ed C.

Quote from: John Morrow;237799The sort of solidarity that Jackalope was talking about is the sort of solidarity that's coercive and treats people who don't conform as race traitors.  Is that the sort of solidarity you are talking about?  If not, then we are talking about two different sorts of things.  

Then we are talking about different things.

QuoteIn my experience, however, it's not a big leap from the idea of solidarity to the idea of circling the wagons and covering for the bad elements of the group.

This of course sometimes happens but I see more to be gained from solidarity. For instance in your police force example, there's also the aspect of brotherhood and in times of trouble the idea of cops helping out - often times without pay and on a purely voluntary basis - each other regardless of the state they operate becomes evident. We can see this for example during Katrina and other emergencies. This also happens fairly often in my country.

QuoteSpike wrote:
Solidarity, yes, but not as you've chosen to define it in this thread, David.
Which is why Malcom X was brought up as the exemplar of your definition and not Dr. King.

Spike I didn't define anything. If you look back at the thread I was responding to Gliechman's general comments, his rather general definition of "solidarity" - "By definition, if you have two split...."" - I also said "I would argue that the success of Nelson and King were making the black experience part of the common values of the common man" which may give you an idea of what I think solidarity involves and is capable of achieving.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: John Morrow;237817Bullshit

Do you have a point John, or are you just doing your normal "change the subject to something else" bullshit?

Because really dude, fuck off and die.  You're a waste of time.

Quote from: John Morrow;237817That's why plenty of immigrants embrace assimilation.  They value the privilege more than the sentimentality of clinging to the trappings of their native culture.

The most interesting thing that I encountered in a required Diversity training at a one of the largest US companies was the push back against diversity in favor of assimilation- by the immigrants in the class.

Quote from: Jackalope;237835Because really dude, fuck off and die.  You're a waste of time.

Do us all a favor and follow your own advice.

Quote from: Spike;237819Solidarity, yes, but not as you've chosen to define it in this thread, David.

Which is why Malcom X was brought up as the exemplar of your definition and not Dr. King.

I see that I wasn't the only one who thought David said what he said. Guess I wasn't so far out in left field as he'd like to think.

Quote from: KoltarI've always kind of liked King.
Wish he was qouted in completeness more often.

Happy to oblige.

QuoteWe know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct-action campaign that was "well timed" in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word "Wait!" It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This "Wait" has almost always meant 'Never." We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that "justice too long delayed is justice denied."

We have waited for more than 340 years for our constitutional and God-given rights. The nations of Asia and Africa are moving with jetlike speed toward gaining political independence, but we still creep at horse-and-buggy pace toward gaining a cup of coffee at a lunch counter. Perhaps it is easy for those who have never felt the stinging dark of segregation to say, "Wait." But when you have seen vicious mobs lynch your mothers and fathers at will and drown your sisters and brothers at whim; when you have seen hate-filled policemen curse, kick and even kill your black brothers and sisters; when you see the vast majority of your twenty million Negro brothers smothering in an airtight cage of poverty in the midst of an affluent society; when you suddenly find your tongue twisted and your speech stammering as you seek to explain to your six-year-old daughter why she can't go to the public amusement park that has just been advertised on television, and see tears welling up in her eyes when she is told that Funtown is closed to colored children, and see ominous clouds of inferiority beginning to form in her little mental sky, and see her beginning to distort her personality by developing an unconscious bitterness toward white people; when you have to concoct an answer for a five-year-old son who is asking: "Daddy, why do white people treat colored people so mean?"; when you take a cross-county drive and find it necessary to sleep night after night in the uncomfortable corners of your automobile because no motel will accept you; when you are humiliated day in and day out by nagging signs reading "white" and "colored"; when your first name becomes "nigger," your middle name becomes "boy" (however old you are) and your last name becomes "John," and your wife and mother are never given the respected title "Mrs."; when you are harried by day and haunted by night by the fact that you are a Negro, living constantly at tiptoe stance, never quite knowing what to expect next, and are plagued with inner fears and outer resentments; when you no forever fighting a degenerating sense of "nobodiness" then you will understand why we find it difficult to wait. There comes a time when the cup of endurance runs over, and men are no longer willing to be plunged into the abyss of despair. I hope, sirs, you can understand our legitimate and unavoidable impatience.

You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court's decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may won ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there fire two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the Brat to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all".

................................................................
I had also hoped that the white moderate would reject the myth concerning time in relation to the struggle for freedom. I have just received a letter from a white brother in Texas. He writes: "An Christians know that the colored people will receive equal rights eventually, but it is possible that you are in too great a religious hurry. It has taken Christianity almost two thousand years to accomplish what it has. The teachings of Christ take time to come to earth." Such an attitude stems from a tragic misconception of time, from the strangely rational notion that there is something in the very flow of time that will inevitably cure all ills. Actually, time itself is neutral; it can be used either destructively or constructively. More and more I feel that the people of ill will have used time much more effectively than have the people of good will. We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the hateful words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people. Human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability; it comes through the tireless efforts of men willing to be coworkers with God, and without this 'hard work, time itself becomes an ally of the forces of social stagnation. We must use time creatively, in the knowledge that the time is always ripe to do right. Now is the time to make real the promise of democracy and transform our pending national elegy into a creative psalm of brotherhood. Now is the time to lift our national policy from the quicksand of racial injustice to the solid rock of human dignity.

Quote from: gleichman;237813Nor apparently does treason these days.

?????

Quote from: NotYourMonkey;238091?????

Yeah I didn't get that, either.

Quote from: NotYourMonkey;238091?????

Check out how often treason has been applied as a actual legal charge, and how often from there sentence is carried out. Notice the dates for those few cases you do find.

It's effectively a toothless law.

Whenever I heard conservatives talk about how minorities should be more patient, and wait for the rest of society to catch up and accept them, to not rock the boat and provoke a hostile response, I recall that speech, and I know that what they mean is "Wait, wait forever, wait until there is no more time, wait for a day that won't come.  Wait!"

You hear that a lot in the debate on gay marriage.  That insidious blame directed at gays for kicking a hornet's nest of homophobia, and the plea to just wait until society is ready to accept them.  Wait over there, in the closet, where no one can see you.

We'll call when we're ready...

Quote from: gleichman;238102Check out how often treason has been applied as a actual legal charge, and how often from there sentence is carried out. Notice the dates for those few cases you do find.

It's effectively a toothless law.

Can you explain what you really mean? Treason is used by many and generally way too loosely. Treason is specifically defined in the Constitution and has a very difficult requirement for conviction.

It is much easier to convict one of espionage over treason.

Quote from: CavScout;238129Can you explain what you really mean? Treason is used by many and generally way too loosely. Treason is specifically defined in the Constitution and has a very difficult requirement for conviction.

It is much easier to convict one of espionage over treason.

Exactly.

Thus the term is almost never used in the legal sense any more than calling someone's idea "insane" is using that term in the legal sense. Given that, I think it's flatly foolish to say that I'm calling for the death of someone because I've called their actions treasonist.

Quote from: gleichman;238143Exactly.

Thus the term is almost never used in the legal sense any more than calling someone's idea "insane" is using that term in the legal sense. Given that, I think it's flatly foolish to say that I'm calling for the death of someone because I've called their actions treasonist.

While I agree the term is used too often for too many things not actually treason, I am not sure I can get on board the idea that it's ok to use it liberally because others do.

Quote from: CavScout;238282While I agree the term is used too often for too many things not actually treason, I am not sure I can get on board the idea that it's ok to use it liberally because others do.

I generally find that in it's more common meaning, it's a more accurate adjective then the liberal insults of racist or facist.

Quote from: gleichman;238290I generally find that in it's more common meaning, it's a more accurate adjective then the liberal insults of racist or facist.

I suppose. I just feel that diluting the words by using them inappropriately makes the appropriate uses less impactful. :emot-words:

Quote from: CavScout;238294I suppose. I just feel that diluting the words by using them inappropriately makes the appropriate uses less impactful. :emot-words:

I would agree.

But that has already been done to such an extent by the Left, that I feel no requirement to hold treason as a special case.

Quote from: gleichman;238298I would agree.

But that has already been done to such an extent by the Left, that I feel no requirement to hold treason as a special case.

Stooping to someone else's level is not a way to win in these matters. In any case, I am no fan of the left, but there are those on the right who misuse words in a similar vain.

Quote from: CavScout;238337Stooping to someone else's level is not a way to win in these matters.

Neither is rolling over and letting them win.

And again, I consider the use of the term currently accurate in any case.

The above conversation is one of the most hysterically hypocritical things I've ever read.

Quote from: Jackalope;238345The above conversation is one of the most hysterically hypocritical things I've ever read.

Congrats... you didn't call someone a racist this time.

Quote from: CavScout;238346Congrats... you didn't call someone a racist this time.

I haven't, to my recollection, called anyone racist.

Pointing out that your a bunch of ignorant white guys who can't see past your own privileged position isn't the same as calling you racist.

I seriously doubt any of the users here is actively and intentionally racist.  Most of you are just hopelessly white.

Quote from: Jackalope;238349I haven't, to my recollection, called anyone racist.

Pointing out that your a bunch of ignorant white guys who can't see past your own privileged position isn't the same as calling you racist.

I seriously doubt any of the users here is actively and intentionally racist.  Most of you are just hopelessly white.

Call me odd, but I go with defining people by their skin color as being racist, especially when it's "you don't get it because your X color".

But I am sure your retort will be something along the lines of, "you're white and hence you can't see the racism"....

Quote from: CavScout;238353Call me odd, but I go with defining people by their skin color as being racist, especially when it's "you don't get it because your X color".

Being aware of the realities of race is not the same thing as being racist.  Being "colorblind" -- or more likely, feigning being colorblind -- in a racist society is far more racist than recognizing that race has an impact on how people live in the real world, right now, outside your door, and outside the world of pure reason and logical argument.

Look man, I'm not saying you don't get it because of the color of your skin.  That's missing the point.  I'm saying you don't get it because the color of your skin puts you in a privileged position in our society, and you have to make a real effort to see things from a different perspective.  You aren't making that effort.  The reason you don't have to make that effort is because the rest of society won't treat you differently if you don't make that effort.

And again, race isn't genetics.  Race isn't just about the color of your skin.  Race is about culture, history, art, music, life experience and a lot of other things that have jack to do with genetics.

You're not white because of your skin color.  You're white because of your mindset, because of how you see the world, how you interact with it.  You're white because society perceives you as white, treats you as white, and you can't help but become white.

Let me give you an example.  My parents run their own small business.  They have had two employees working for them constantly since 1996.  One of those employees is my friend Bradie, the other was originally me.  Then it was my friend Lucas, then my friend Chris.  Chris left a few months ago, and my parents hired a guy named Robert to replace him.  Robert, unlike myself, Lucas and Chris, is black.  Robert is a pretty professionally looking guy.  he's clean-cut, well mannered, polite and dress well.  Lucas was the same.  I have long shaggy hair, slouch, glower at people, dress like a homeless "Nam vet, and my arms are covered in socially questionable tattoos.  Chris is like me, but more so, with facial piercing, self-applied satanic tattoos, and a penchant for wearing all black.  He's big on death metal bands, and can usually be found wearing a Cannibal Corpse or other black metal t-shirt.  Chris and I are anti-social miscreants, and we look the part.

When Robert took the deposits to the bank, the bank called my step-dad to confirm that he was supposed to have the money.  They never called when Chris and I brought the deposits.

When Robert went to Office Depot to pick up supplies with a company check, they called my step-dad.  They never called when Chris and I brought them company checks.

When Robert stopped by a supplier to pick up a ready load of parts, the supplier called my step-dad to confirm that Robert was supposed to pick them up.    They never called when Chris and I made pick-ups.

When the guy who delivers our shipping supplies saw Robert coming out to meet him, he stayed in his truck.  When Chris and I would come out to meet him, he'd get out and help us unload the truck and carry stuff in.

When the rare customer stops by to pick up an order (which my step-dad hates, as its a mail order company) they never speak to Robert.  They always said "Hi" to Chris and I.

Now Robert, he takes it all in stride, with good grace and humor.  What else is he going to do?  It's a white world, and he's not white.  He has to put up with it all the time if he wants to participate in the mainstream economy.

You and I, we don't have to deal with the same never ending stream of crap that Robert has to deal with, because we're white.  That doesn't mean we don't have to deal with crap, it just means that we don't have to deal with THAT crap.  Robert has to deal with all of the same crap we do, plus THAT crap.

So, you know, pretending to be colorblind, or demanding that liberals act as if the world was in fact colorblind when it is in fact not, that doesn't accomplish anything except make you blind to the fact that the world around you is racist.

So if we're white... we're racist by default, even if we don't think we are, because we've got some magical leg-up endowed upon us by ... well, whatever "Society" is, even if we're not especially well-off or have positions of authority or anything that might allow us to lord our racist tendencies over others? And we can never be truly colorblind, the best we can ever hope to achieve is to pretend to be so? And this must be true because ...your anecdotal evidence says so?

(looks through smiley list)

We need more choices.

Quote from: Werekoala;238401So if we're white... we're racist by default, even if we don't think we are, because we've got some magical leg-up endowed upon us by ... well, whatever "Society" is, even if we're not especially well-off or have positions of authority or anything that might allow us to lord our racist tendencies over others? And we can never be truly colorblind, the best we can ever hope to achieve is to pretend to be so? And this must be true because ...your anecdotal evidence says so?

(looks through smiley list)

We need more choices.

You see, he is not saying all whites are racists, he just saying their not not racist. See, he hasn't called anyone a racist!

Quote from: CavScout;238403You see, he is not saying all whites are racists, he just saying their not not racist. See, he hasn't called anyone a racist!

At least he has more behind his claims of racism than say Kyle Aaron does. It's stupid beyond belief (i.e. everyone is racist if they know it or not), but at least he has something...

Quote from: Werekoala;238401So if we're white... we're racist by default, even if we don't think we are, because we've got some magical leg-up endowed upon us by ... well, whatever "Society" is, even if we're not especially well-off or have positions of authority or anything that might allow us to lord our racist tendencies over others?

Well, basically, yes.  White privilege isn't something you do, it's something you benefit from.  It's small little things, things you would barely notice unless you were really trying to pay attention.  White privilege isn't about money, or power, or prestige.  White privilege is being able to turn on the television and see people like you in positions of power and responsibility.  White privilege is knowing that if you send your children to a public school, they will learn that people like them created civilization.  

White privilege is being able to arrange your activities so that you will never have to experience feelings of rejection owing to your race, and not having it serve as a cap on your income potential.  Try getting rich in America without ever dealing with white people.  Much, much harder than getting rich in America without ever dealing with black people who reject white people.  Which is pretty easy.

Look, white privilege exists.  The only way to start to confront its existence and deal with it is to acknowledge it exists.  If acknowledging white privilege exists causes you to feel guilty for being white, then you're doing it wrong.  White privilege is not something to feel guilty about, it's something to be aware of, so that you can check yourself when you are participating in it.

QuoteAnd we can never be truly colorblind, the best we can ever hope to achieve is to pretend to be so? And this must be true because ...your anecdotal evidence says so?

No, I never said we could never live in a colorblind society where race is irrelevant (the "Federation").  I'm just saying that we aren't currently living there, and we aren't going to get there by ignoring the ongoing effects of racism, both historical and contemporary.

Quote from: Jackalope;238435No, I never said we could never live in a colorblind society where race is irrelevant (the "Federation").  I'm just saying that we aren't currently living there, and we aren't going to get there by ignoring the ongoing effects of racism, both historical and contemporary.

I'm not talking about the entirety of society, but as an individual. Can, for example, myself, be colorblind and live as such? Being an entitled white male and all.

Quote from: Werekoala;238438I'm not talking about the entirety of society, but as an individual. Can, for example, myself, be colorblind and live as such? Being an entitled white male and all.

Sure, because you are an entitled white male, you can afford to be colorblind.

If you were black, then you could not choose to be colorblind.  If you were black, you would have to be aware of it, and aware of white people.  Otherwise, you might find yourself out of a job, in jail, or worse.

The problem is that if you, as an entitled white male, choose to be color blind in a white supremacist society, then you aren't going to see the racism around you.  And if you don't see it, you won't do anything about it.  And if enough white people join in with you and do nothing then the effects of historical racism will just continue on, and we will never live in a colorblind society.

It's one of those "if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem" things.

Quote from: Jackalope;238443Sure, because you are an entitled white male, you can afford to be colorblind.

If you were black, then you could not choose to be colorblind.  If you were black, you would have to be aware of it, and aware of white people.  Otherwise, you might find yourself out of a job, in jail, or worse.

The problem is that if you, as an entitled white male, choose to be color blind in a white supremacist society, then you aren't going to see the racism around you.  And if you don't see it, you won't do anything about it.  And if enough white people join in with you and do nothing then the effects of historical racism will just continue on, and we will never live in a colorblind society.

It's one of those "if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem" things.

So...
A) If you are white and colorblind you are racist.
B) Only a non-racist would be colorblind, whites can't be non-racist.
C) See A.

Quote from: CavScout;238458So...
A) If you are white and colorblind you are racist.
B) Only a non-racist would be colorblind, whites can't be non-racist.
C) See A.

No douchebag, you're getting it all wrong.

If you are white and "colorblind" and living in a racist society, you are helping to perpetuate racism.  It really helps if you don't think of racism as being an individual flaw, but rather a broad trend in society.  See dude, someone who really isn't racist, someone who actually wants to end racism, isn't going to pretend that race isn't an issue, doesn't affect people, and doesn't need to be addressed.

People who are genuinely not racist don't pretend that being colorbind when you live in a racist society is an effective way of combating racism.  Combating racism requires taking action, affirmative action

Just stop being so fucking defensive.  There are worse things in the world that recognizing that you too may be a little bit racist.  I swear to god, between liberals and their fucking white guilt, and conservative and their "I don't see color (and thus don't notice the massive injustices all around me)" bullshit, fucking nothing changes.

I guess this means every time my BIL goes on about niggers, and I tell him that talking that way is wrong, I'm still a racist. And when I defend the right of someone who's white to mix with someone not white, I'm still a racist.

*shakes head* I can't understand the crazy.

Quote from: shewolf;238491*shakes head* I can't understand the crazy.

Its ok, sugar, you can't help it. Its just who you are.

Quote from: shewolf;238491I guess this means every time my BIL goes on about niggers, and I tell him that talking that way is wrong, I'm still a racist. And when I defend the right of someone who's white to mix with someone not white, I'm still a racist.

*shakes head* I can't understand the crazy.

Honestly, it's because you're not trying to understand.  You're trying to not understand, and you can frankly go fuck yourself.

I'm happy to explain it to you, but fuck you if you think I'm going to beat my head against willful ignorance.

Pearls before swine, etc. etc.

Quote from: shewolf;238491I guess this means every time my BIL goes on about niggers, and I tell him that talking that way is wrong, I'm still a racist. And when I defend the right of someone who's white to mix with someone not white, I'm still a racist.

*shakes head* I can't understand the crazy.

You closet racist! :p

Quote from: Jackalope;238487No douchebag, you're getting it all wrong.

It appears everyone but you is "getting it all wrong"; but you live in jack's world, so us being wrong is us being right.

Quote from: CavScout;238403You see, he is not saying all whites are racists, he just saying their not not racist. See, he hasn't called anyone a racist!

The problem that Jackalope describes is legitimate and many white people are, in fact, blind to the extra little hassles that black people frequently encounter simply for being black or don't believe that things like that actually happen (they do).  The problem is that his analysis of the problem is simplistic and his solution is unproductive and probably even detrimental to solving the problem.

Quote from: John Morrow;238698The problem that Jackalope describes is legitimate and many white people are, in fact, blind to the extra little hassles that black people frequently encounter simply for being black or don't believe that things like that actually happen (they do).  The problem is that his analysis of the problem is simplistic and his solution is unproductive and probably even detrimental to solving the problem.

My analysis of the problem is simplistic because I'm trying to explain it to a pack of anxious baboons.

I did not offer a solution, and given the pollyanna spin you put on white supremacy, I seriously doubt you've got anything remotely resembling a solution.

I actually talked to my mom yesterday about your "sacrificing" language and culture to assimilate comment. My mom laughed pretty hard at that one.  Then she told me about how my grandmother used to get locked in a closet for hours for speaking Italian with her friends.  Not by her parents. Oh no.  It was the school that did that.

Quote from: Jackalope;238723My analysis of the problem is simplistic because I'm trying to explain it to a pack of anxious baboons.

I did not offer a solution, and given the pollyanna spin you put on white supremacy, I seriously doubt you've got anything remotely resembling a solution.

I actually talked to my mom yesterday about your "sacrificing" language and culture to assimilate comment. My mom laughed pretty hard at that one.  Then she told me about how my grandmother used to get locked in a closet for hours for speaking Italian with her friends.  Not by her parents. Oh no.  It was the school that did that.

Dude, you talk to your mom about the internet flames you get involved in? Move your computer to the basement. Then you only have to talk to her when you want to leave the house.

Quote from: CavScout;238750Dude, you talk to your mom about the internet flames you get involved in? Move your computer to the basement. Then you only have to talk to her when you want to leave the house.

Dude, you think your mom's proper place is on her knees.

Quote from: Jackalope;238755Dude, you think your mom's proper place is on her knees.

You have something against prostitutes?

Quote from: Jackalope;238723My analysis of the problem is simplistic because I'm trying to explain it to a pack of anxious baboons.

You've obviously never heard the one about attracting flies with honey rather than vinegar, have you?

Quote from: Jackalope;238723I did not offer a solution, and given the pollyanna spin you put on white supremacy, I seriously doubt you've got anything remotely resembling a solution.

What's the solution?  Look at the successes instead of the failures.  They do exist. (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/01/nyregion/01census.html)

Quote from: Jackalope;238723I actually talked to my mom yesterday about your "sacrificing" language and culture to assimilate comment. My mom laughed pretty hard at that one.  Then she told me about how my grandmother used to get locked in a closet for hours for speaking Italian with her friends.  Not by her parents. Oh no.  It was the school that did that.

I'm sure that happened, too.  It certainly happened to the Welsh (as well as the Scots and Irish to some degree), even before they came to the United States.  I'm sure there were also kids bullied into it by other kids.  But there were also immigrants who wanted their children to be Americans and learn English and, in fact, many still do (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C01E4DA163AF937A25754C0A9629C8B63&fta=y):

   The foes of bilingual education, at least as practiced in New York, are not Eurocentric nativists but Spanish-speaking immigrants who struggled to reach the United States and struggle still at low-wage jobs to stay here so that their children can acquire and rise with an American education, very much including fluency in English.

Quote from: CavScout;238759You have something against prostitutes?

You're saying your mom is a prostitute?

So you are, therefore, a whoreson?  Not very often you get to throw out those Shakespearean insults.

Quote from: John Morrow;238762What's the solution?  Look at the successes instead of the failures.  They do exist. (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/01/nyregion/01census.html)

From the article:
"In Queens, the median income among black households, nearing $52,000 a year, has surpassed that of whites in 2005, an analysis of new census data shows."  <- Notice that the median income of white households in Queens is not given.

"But Queens is unique not only because it is home to about two million people, but also because both blacks and whites there make more than the national median income, about $46,000." <- But obviously it isn't much lower than $52k, as it's above $46k.

"Southeast Queens, especially, had a heavy influx of West Indian folks in the late 80's and early 90's," said Mr. Veron, who, like his 31-year-old wife, was born on the island of Jamaica. "Those individuals came here to pursue an opportunity, and part of that opportunity was an education," he said. "A large percentage are college graduates. We're now maturing and reaching the peak of our earning capacity."  <- Also, this is a black immigrant community, rather than a slave-descended community.

"Median income among blacks in Manhattan was $28,116, compared with $86,494 among whites, the widest gap of any large county in the country."  <-- SUCCESS!

Seriously John, go take your cocksmock spin doctoring elsewhere.

Quote from: Jackalope;238817<- Also, this is a black immigrant community, rather than a slave-descended community.

So you think that the ancestors of all of those Caribbean blacks immigrated there willingly?  Maybe you think they took a vacation cruise to Jamaica and forgot to get back on the cruise ship heading back to Africa?  

Quote from: Jackalope;238817<-- SUCCESS!

Success at what?  Missing the forest because of the trees?

Quote from: Jackalope;238810You're saying your mom is a prostitute?

So you are, therefore, a whoreson?  Not very often you get to throw out those Shakespearean insults.

Would it bother you?

I don't hate you becaue you a manwhore.

Quote from: John Morrow;238822So you think that the ancestors of all of those Caribbean blacks immigrated there willingly?  Maybe you think they took a vacation cruise to Jamaica and forgot to get back on the cruise ship heading back to Africa?

No, I think the people most likely to successfully immigrate from Jamaica to America are going to be be members of the middle and upper class of Jamaica, which means they probably immigrated here with money (as would be evidenced by the large numbers of them who went to college).

But yeah, whatever John.  Go on and pretend that Jamaican immigrants and native African-Americans are coming from the same history.  That they are both post-African diaspora populations is about the sole extent of their commonality.

QuoteSuccess at what?  Missing the forest because of the trees?

That was sarcasm John.  You linked to the article as an example of success (success at what, I'm still not sure).  You found one area in the country where, due to the presence of a large immigrant group, the average income is a couple of thousand dollars higher, while ignoring that the same area is right next to a community where the disparity is not only reverse but the gulf separating the two groups is not a few thousand dollars, but tens of thousands of dollar.s

You're also ignoring that black households had the lowest median income in 2004 ($30,134) among race groups, while the median income for non-Hispanic white households was $48,977.  Where is your success now?

And yes, you are missing the forest because of the trees.  Or more accurately, because of the one, single tree.  The forest is on fire and you're pointing at the one tree not burning and claiming that there is no fire.

You are, as I've pointed out several times already, a disingenuous cocksmock and no one should talk to you.  You should be thwapped on the nose with a rolled up newspaper.

Quote from: CavScout;238882Would it bother you?

No, I've just never had anyone attempt to bust on me by calling their own mother a whore.  It's an internet first!

How much does your mom charge?

Quote from: Jackalope;238909No, I've just never had anyone attempt to bust on me by calling their own mother a whore.  It's an internet first!

How much does your mom charge?

Wouldn't matter for you; she requires a minimal penile size, slightly larger than a gnat, so you couldn't get an appointment anyways.

You know what I like about you, Jackalope ? You really sound like a character from a Neil Labute film/play...his original stuff. This is a good thing as far as I'm concerned.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David R;238941You know what I like about you, Jackalope ? You really sound like a character from a Neil Labute film/play...his original stuff. This is a good thing as far as I'm concerned.

Just as long as I don't remind you of The Wicker Man.

Quote from: CavScout;238933Wouldn't matter for you; she requires a minimal penile size, slightly larger than a gnat, so you couldn't get an appointment anyways.

Wow.  I'm going to have be more forgiving of you in the future.

I can't even imagine the sort of deep trauma that being raised by a prostitute who discussed things so frankly with her own son would do.  You must have the most amazingly fucked up relationships with women.

Seriously man, get therapy.  You've had a rough life.

Quote from: Jackalope;238976Just as long as I don't remind you of The Wicker Man.

Yeah I don't know why he (Labute)  would even touch this one...I mean surely the original (1973) should have made him realize that there is darkness in the universe even he should not fuck with. I mean Possession I could make a decent defense....but his version of The Wicker Man.....anyways I'll leave you with your little chat with Cavscout...

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Jackalope;238977Wow.  I'm going to have be more forgiving of you in the future.

I can't even imagine the sort of deep trauma that being raised by a prostitute who discussed things so frankly with her own son would do.  You must have the most amazingly fucked up relationships with women.

Seriously man, get therapy.  You've had a rough life.

Aren't you the one discussing your Internet diatribes with your mom?

Quote from: Jackalope;238908No, I think the people most likely to successfully immigrate from Jamaica to America are going to be be members of the middle and upper class of Jamaica, which means they probably immigrated here with money (as would be evidenced by the large numbers of them who went to college).

I think you are confusing your assumptions with reality.  One of the Jamaican women that I once worked with came from an incredibly poor and disadvantaged family.  Her mother came to the United States via the immigration lottery.  She was working as a computer consultant.  Do you know why she did well in school?  She and the other black Caribbean kids in her neighborhood didn't want to be like the African American kids that she grew up among in the Bronx.  Given your comments, I suspect you haven't talked to many Caribbean blacks, have you?

Quote from: Jackalope;238908But yeah, whatever John.  Go on and pretend that Jamaican immigrants and native African-Americans are coming from the same history.  That they are both post-African diaspora populations is about the sole extent of their commonality.

Both populations are also, for the most part, descendants of slaves and have ancestors from the same part of Africa.  So the issue isn't simply race or a history of slavery.  So what unfair advantage do you think immigrant Jamaican blacks had that African Americans are lacking or what disadvantage do you think African Americans have that Jamaicans don't have that the African Americans can't overcome?

Quote from: Jackalope;238908That was sarcasm John.  You linked to the article as an example of success (success at what, I'm still not sure).  You found one area in the country where, due to the presence of a large immigrant group, the average income is a couple of thousand dollars higher, while ignoring that the same area is right next to a community where the disparity is not only reverse but the gulf separating the two groups is not a few thousand dollars, but tens of thousands of dollar.

I'm not ignoring the other community.  It's critical to the point being made.

Quote from: Jackalope;238908You're also ignoring that black households had the lowest median income in 2004 ($30,134) among race groups, while the median income for non-Hispanic white households was $48,977.  Where is your success now?

Look at the other demographic factors other than race that include education and whether their parents were married or not.  For example: (http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/censr-25.pdf)

   The median income of Black families ($33,300) was lower than that of all families ($50,000).

   Black married-couple families had an annual median income of $50,700, more than double the median income of Black families maintained by women with no husband present and 73 percent higher than the median income of Black families maintained by men with no wife present.

   In 1999, the median income for Black married-couple families ($50,700) was nearly $7,000 less than the median income for all married-couple families ($57,300).

There is still a disparity for married couple families but not nearly as bad as all families (67% vs. 88% in 1999).   Education is another factor.  Growing up in a single parent family is another.  Try comparing apples and apples.  How much of the disparity is because of race and racism?  And how much of it is really the legacy of slavery and discrimination?

The out-of-wedlock birthrate among blacks during the Great Depression was 19%.  It was 17% in 1950, 26% in 1965, and 39% in 1970.  It was as high as 80% in 2006.  This is despite the widespread availability of birth control and abortion and despite the passage of civil rights legislation and Supreme Court decisions in the 1950s and 1960s to end legal discrimination against blacks.  So what went wrong or do you think this isn't a problem?

Quote from: Jackalope;238908And yes, you are missing the forest because of the trees.  Or more accurately, because of the one, single tree.  The forest is on fire and you're pointing at the one tree not burning and claiming that there is no fire.

I'm not the one looking at only one variable and ignoring the others.  You are.  Remember, earlier in this thread I pointed out that you weren't lying about your examples of low-level racial discrimination.  Yes, discrimination exists but it's not an insurmountable barrier to success any more

Quote from: Jackalope;238908You are, as I've pointed out several times already, a disingenuous cocksmock and no one should talk to you.  You should be thwapped on the nose with a rolled up newspaper.

I don't really care all that much what you think.  My goal isn't to convince you that you are wrong (I think you are too stubborn or stupid for that).  My goal is to hand you the rope so you can hang yourself.  Thanks for playing.

Quote from: CavScout;238989Aren't you the one discussing your Internet diatribes with your mom?

Wait, is that supposed to be comparable in some sense to discussing the size of cock your mom likes to ride when she's "at work"?  Because dude, really, those are not comparable things.

And in answer to your question, no I was not.  I mentioned John's fairly reasonable (though misleading) comment to my mom, knowing that it would prompt her to talk about my late grandmother, who I never really got to know.  Because I like hearing stories about my family.  It gives me a sense of place in history to know about the people who played a significant role in me being where I am.

See, that's what normal families talk about.  Family history, maybe some politics and current events, life. Mothers and sons don't generally discuss the size of cocks the mom favors, even in passing.  It's generally considered taboo.

Really man, seek therapy.  You've been damaged.

Quote from: John Morrow;238990I don't really care all that much what you think.  My goal isn't to convince you that you are wrong (I think you are too stubborn or stupid for that).  My goal is to hand you the rope so you can hang yourself.  Thanks for playing.

And thank you for admitting that you are a disingenuous fuckstick.

disingenuous adj.  
   1. Not straightforward or candid; insincere or calculating: "an ambitious, disingenuous, philistine, and hypocritical operator, who ... exemplified ... the most disagreeable traits of his time" (David Cannadine).

fuckstick n.
   1. A penis.
   2. A buffoon, moron, jerk-off, or idiot.

Quote from: Jackalope;239000And thank you for admitting that you are a disingenuous fuckstick.

And thank you for confirming that you are incapable of arguing the issues and, instead, prefer to engage in personal attacks.  All noise and bluster and no substance.  Sort of like a fart.

You know, its really a shame Jackie got banned from TBP; he'd fit in perfectly in Tangency.

Quote from: Werekoala;239007You know, its really a shame Jackie got banned from TBP; he'd fit in perfectly in Tangency.

I think we should make him our mascot. Every site needs its nutcase.

Edit: But man isn't he a hateful little critter.

Even though you are, in fact, a disingenuous cretin that has no point and is spewing racist drivel, I'll respond anyways.

Quote from: John Morrow;238990I think you are confusing your assumptions with reality.  One of the Jamaican women that I once worked with came from an incredibly poor and disadvantaged family.  Her mother came to the United States via the immigration lottery.  She was working as a computer consultant.  Do you know why she did well in school?  She and the other black Caribbean kids in her neighborhood didn't want to be like the African American kids that she grew up among in the Bronx.  Given your comments, I suspect you haven't talked to many Caribbean blacks, have you?

No John, having grown up in Seattle (you know, the Pacific Northwest), I haven't gotten to know many people from the Caribbean, black or otherwise.  There isn't a significant Caribbean presence up here.  

But you're little example makes it clear that Caribbean immigrants with no connection to (American) black culture aren't appreciative of it, and don't want to participate in it.  I'm honestly not surprised the Caribbean immigrants, much like African immigrants, don't want to assimilate into black America.  There's not much to be gained by assimilating into a semi-permanent underclass.

QuoteBoth populations are also, for the most part, descendants of slaves and have ancestors from the same part of Africa.  So the issue isn't simply race or a history of slavery.  So what unfair advantage do you think immigrant Jamaican blacks had that African Americans are lacking or what disadvantage do you think African Americans have that Jamaicans don't have that the African Americans can't overcome?

First of all, that they are an immigrant group, and thus more motivated to assimilate (being primarily composed of people willing to abandon their native land and culture), they come from nation where their race doesn't make them second class citizens,  

QuoteI'm not ignoring the other community.  It's critical to the point being made.

And from here on out comes the racist drivel.  You wanted to give me rope to hang myself with?  Such an apt metaphor for someone about to spout the white supremacist party line:

QuoteLook at the other demographic factors other than race that include education and whether their parents were married or not.  For example: (http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/censr-25.pdf)

   The median income of Black families ($33,300) was lower than that of all families ($50,000).

   Black married-couple families had an annual median income of $50,700, more than double the median income of Black families maintained by women with no husband present and 73 percent higher than the median income of Black families maintained by men with no wife present.

   In 1999, the median income for Black married-couple families ($50,700) was nearly $7,000 less than the median income for all married-couple families ($57,300).

There is still a disparity for married couple families but not nearly as bad as all families (67% vs. 88% in 1999).   Education is another factor.  Growing up in a single parent family is another.  Try comparing apples and apples.  How much of the disparity is because of race and racism?  And how much of it is really the legacy of slavery and discrimination?

All of it John, ALL OF IT.  Do you want to know why so many black Americans succumb to drugs and the lure of criminality?  Why so many black children are born out of wedlock to nominally educated mothers with no ability to even imagine better lives for themselves?

Because we live in a culture that hates black people.  HATES them.  And they, not us, have to live at the burning edge of that hate, and no shit, it is killing them.  You want to know why the black community is in shambles?  Because we have been stomping on them for 400 years!

And even in the post-civil rights era, we kept kicking them.  Over and over.  When the generation that grew up post-Jim Crow started coming of age, started dreaming of a future where they could be on equal footing  

I know exactly what the Black Panthers started out as -- an internal community building effort for politically motivated African-Americans, so they could build something out the CRAP we left for them following 400 years of robbing them blind.  And I've read the fucking FBI reports John, I know exactly what we did to them.  I know exactly how Hoover decided that breakfast programs for black kids so they could pay attention to something other than rumbling stomachs in schools were some fucking communist plot, and stomped and stomped and stomped on them til they radicalized enough to wipe them off the face of the earth.

I know how Nixon changed the welfare system to create perpetual poverty, and I know exactly why he did it.  So a generation later FUCKSTICK RACISTS SHITWEASELS like you could come along and blame black people for not bouncing back immediately from generations and generations of oppression.

You know who is successful in the black community?  You know who is coming close to parity with the white community?  Black people who attend black churches with preachers like Jeremiah Wright.  Black people who know that black people can't trust whitey because of fuckholes like you, with your goddamn model minorities and you're fucking context free statistics.  Black people who know they have to stand together and make their own thing, and pray to god that whitey doesn't come knock it all over again.

Quote from: gleichman;239008I think we should make him our mascot. Every site needs its nutcase.

Edit: But man isn't he a hateful little critter.

I just wonder what its like staggering though life filled with the kind of bile and resentment he seems to be infused with. Its pathetic, really. Still, it seems he hates his own race to the point of nearly wanting to kill them (assuming he's ONE OF US, of course). I mean after all, 86 thousands words of vile blather and he hasn't made one constructive suggestion for fixing the perceived problem he has with society. Still, imagine what he could do if he directed his energies elsewhere.

Probably safer this way, really.

Quote from: Werekoala;239014Probably safer this way, really.

If the world was like he thinks it is, he would given AIDS by the Govt or something, and then he'd be safely out of the way.

But it's not, not even close. So let us hope that he's all talk and no walk with all that bile.

Quote from: Jackalope;238997Wait, is that supposed to be comparable in some sense to discussing the size of cock your mom likes to ride when she's "at work"?  Because dude, really, those are not comparable things.

And in answer to your question, no I was not.  I mentioned John's fairly reasonable (though misleading) comment to my mom, knowing that it would prompt her to talk about my late grandmother, who I never really got to know.  Because I like hearing stories about my family.  It gives me a sense of place in history to know about the people who played a significant role in me being where I am.

See, that's what normal families talk about.  Family history, maybe some politics and current events, life. Mothers and sons don't generally discuss the size of cocks the mom favors, even in passing.  It's generally considered taboo.

Really man, seek therapy.  You've been damaged.

You actually think it's normal to talk to "mom" about your internet rants? I guess if you have to get permission to use the computer it's ok... again, may I suggest moving yourself to the basement. You know, out of sight, out of mind.

Quote from: CavScout;239018You actually think it's normal to talk to "mom" about your internet rants?

I think its a lot more normal than talking to your mother about the sort of dick she likes to ride.

Quote from: Jackalope;239033I think its a lot more normal than talking to your mother about the sort of dick she likes to ride.

See you fail to see the difference. One is real (that would be you telling mom how you told off some racist folks on a rpg website) and the other is sarcastic response to the third grade 'your mom jokes' you and your partner like to toss around.

Quote from: Jackalope;239011No John, having grown up in Seattle (you know, the Pacific Northwest), I haven't gotten to know many people from the Caribbean, black or otherwise.  There isn't a significant Caribbean presence up here.

Given that you live in one of the whitest parts of America, I suspect your overall experience with diversity within the African American population is limited.

Quote from: Jackalope;239011But you're little example makes it clear that Caribbean immigrants with no connection to (American) black culture aren't appreciative of it, and don't want to participate in it.

In many cases, that's correct.

Quote from: Jackalope;239011I'm honestly not surprised the Caribbean immigrants, much like African immigrants, don't want to assimilate into black America.  There's not much to be gained by assimilating into a semi-permanent underclass.

So then what's to be gained by remaining in and sustaining the culture that Caribbean and African immigrants resist assimilating into if it makes them part of a semi-permanent underclass?

Quote from: Jackalope;239011First of all, that they are an immigrant group, and thus more motivated to assimilate (being primarily composed of people willing to abandon their native land and culture), they come from nation where their race doesn't make them second class citizens,

So now you are claiming that assimilation into the majority American culture is a matter of motivation?

Quote from: Jackalope;239011And from here on out comes the racist drivel.  You wanted to give me rope to hang myself with?  Such an apt metaphor for someone about to spout the white supremacist party line:

Ah, so I'm a racist now.

Quote from: Jackalope;239011All of it John, ALL OF IT.  Do you want to know why so many black Americans succumb to drugs and the lure of criminality?  Why so many black children are born out of wedlock to nominally educated mothers with no ability to even imagine better lives for themselves?

"The black family, which had survived centuries of slavery and discrimination, began rapidly disintegrating in the liberal welfare state that subsidized unwed pregnancy and changed welfare from an emergency rescue to a way of life. (http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3864)" - Thomas Sowell

Go ahead.  Call Thomas Sowell an "Uncle Tom", white boy.

Quote from: Jackalope;239011Because we live in a culture that hates black people.  HATES them.  And they, not us, have to live at the burning edge of that hate, and no shit, it is killing them.  You want to know why the black community is in shambles?  Because we have been stomping on them for 400 years!

I fully acknowledge that centuries of slavery followed by nearly a century of institutional racism did a number on black people and their culture but the problem is that schmucks like you want to enshrine and celebrate that damage by confusing it with legitimate black heritage and culture.  You ignore (or simply aren't aware of) the fact that the high out-of-wedlock birthrate, high incarceration rates, high unemployment rate, and poor academic performance that currently plague African American communities are recent phenomena that started in the 1960s after the passage of Civil Rights laws.

Quote from: Jackalope;239011And even in the post-civil rights era, we kept kicking them.  Over and over.  When the generation that grew up post-Jim Crow started coming of age, started dreaming of a future where they could be on equal footing

Are you arguing that there was essentially no change in the level of discrimination that black people had to endure before and after the Civil Rights era?

Quote from: Jackalope;239011I know exactly what the Black Panthers started out as -- an internal community building effort for politically motivated African-Americans, so they could build something out the CRAP we left for them following 400 years of robbing them blind.  And I've read the fucking FBI reports John, I know exactly what we did to them.  I know exactly how Hoover decided that breakfast programs for black kids so they could pay attention to something other than rumbling stomachs in schools were some fucking communist plot, and stomped and stomped and stomped on them til they radicalized enough to wipe them off the face of the earth.

Of course the members' use of Marx, Lenin, and Mao and their talk about a socialist revolution had nothing to do with those FBI suspicions, right?  And all of the people that they killed over time, the majority of whom were black, were because the FBI made them do it?  

Quote from: Jackalope;239011I know how Nixon changed the welfare system to create perpetual poverty, and I know exactly why he did it.  So a generation later FUCKSTICK RACISTS SHITWEASELS like you could come along and blame black people for not bouncing back immediately from generations and generations of oppression.

OK.  I'll bite.  Exactly how did Richard Nixon change the welfare system to create perpetual poverty?  And what makes you think that Nixon's changes to the welfare program were a deliberate plot rather than the byproduct of political compromises (http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/10/04/specials/moynihan-income.html)?

Quote from: Jackalope;239011You know who is successful in the black community?  You know who is coming close to parity with the white community?  Black people who attend black churches with preachers like Jeremiah Wright.  Black people who know that black people can't trust whitey because of fuckholes like you, with your goddamn model minorities and you're fucking context free statistics.  Black people who know they have to stand together and make their own thing, and pray to god that whitey doesn't come knock it all over again.

Do you have any evidence to back up that claim or am I going to get some more personal anecdotes from the lily white Pacific Northwest?

Quote from: John Morrow;239056So then what's to be gained by remaining in and sustaining the culture that Caribbean and African immigrants resist assimilating into if it makes them part of a semi-permanent underclass?

Because, unlike immigrants, black Americans are the only representatives of what is commonly called Black Culture.

Assimilation into the white American culture on white terms means that absolute annihilation of black culture.  I know you, a racist jackass, find it easy to dismiss all of black culture with a hand wave and feel comfortable with blaming black people for the negative consequences of not succumbing to the white supremacist majority's pressure to assimilate, but considering every decent form of music invented in the last 100 years originated in black culture, and considering the amazing art and literature created by black writers and artists, I can understand why black people are desirous of equality on their terms.

Also, given the history of this country, I think it's perfectly reasonable for black Americans to be fundamentally distrustful of white America.  What reasons have we given them to trust us?

QuoteSo now you are claiming that assimilation into the majority American culture is a matter of motivation?

Partially.  What, are you going to say it isn't?  Don't be obtuse John.  You know that someone who leaves their land of origin and comes to a new land seeking different opportunities is fundamentally more motivated to assimilate than someone who grows up inside a fundamentally hostile culture that constantly reminds them they aren't wanted.

QuoteAh, so I'm a racist now.

No, I'm sure you've been a racist for a really long time.

QuoteGo ahead.  Call Thomas Sowell an "Uncle Tom", white boy.

Dude, Thomas Sowell practically defines the term Uncle Tom.  You look up Uncle Tom in a dictionary and you will find a picture of Thomas Sowell.

Seriously, the only reason conservatives pay attention to Thomas Sowell is because he makes reasonable sounding arguments that happen to support white racist ends.  He has a national platform solely because the media would rather give a voice to black man who will speak out against affirmative action than to a black man who will speak for it.

Now tell me your opinion of Al Sharpton.  Why doesn't everyone chime in with their opinions of Al Sharpton.

QuoteI fully acknowledge that centuries of slavery followed by nearly a century of institutional racism did a number on black people and their culture but the problem is that schmucks like you want to enshrine and celebrate that damage by confusing it with legitimate black heritage and culture.

No.  You made that up.  You are ascribing false motives to me.

QuoteYou ignore (or simply aren't aware of) the fact that the high out-of-wedlock birthrate, high incarceration rates, high unemployment rate, and poor academic performance that currently plague African American communities are recent phenomena that started in the 1960s after the passage of Civil Rights laws.

Bull.  Total fucking bull.

Goddamn are you full of shit.

QuoteAre you arguing that there was essentially no change in the level of discrimination that black people had to endure before and after the Civil Rights era?

No.

QuoteOf course the members' use of Marx, Lenin, and Mao and their talk about a socialist revolution had nothing to do with those FBI suspicions, right?  And all of the people that they killed over time, the majority of whom were black, were because the FBI made them do it?

Have you stopped beating your wife John?

QuoteDo you have any evidence to back up that claim or am I going to get some more personal anecdotes from the lily white Pacific Northwest?

Says the guy who worked with a consultant from the Caribbean once, and is thus an expert.

Quote from: CavScout;239041See you fail to see the difference. One is real (that would be you telling mom how you told off some racist folks on a rpg website) and the other is sarcastic response to the third grade 'your mom jokes' you and your partner like to toss around.

I never told my mom that I told off some racist folks on an rpg website.

That's your spin on an event you didn't witness.  You've misrepresented John's comment (which was very even tempered) as a "flame," you've flat out fabricated new elements to the story, and what you are describing as less and less to do with reality with each new post.

Also, I didn't make any "your mom" jokes.  You just started talking about how your mom is a whore, and I expressed surprise and concern.  I didn't realize you were joking.  I mean, you seem like the sort of person who would have a whore for a mother.  So you know, it seemed plausible.

This is like a Twilight Zone version of a Boondocks episode.

Quote from: Jackalope;239098I never told my mom that I told off some racist folks on an rpg website.

That's your spin on an event you didn't witness.  You've misrepresented John's comment (which was very even tempered) as a "flame," you've flat out fabricated new elements to the story, and what you are describing as less and less to do with reality with each new post.

Also, I didn't make any "your mom" jokes.  You just started talking about how your mom is a whore, and I expressed surprise and concern.  I didn't realize you were joking.  I mean, you seem like the sort of person who would have a whore for a mother.  So you know, it seemed plausible.

I'd suggest turning off the computer, turning around and asking your mom to expain it to you. Obviously you don't get it.

Quote from: Jackalope;239096Because, unlike immigrants, black Americans are the only representatives of what is commonly called Black Culture.

And where did this "Black Culture" comes from?

Quote from: Jackalope;239096Assimilation into the white American culture on white terms means that absolute annihilation of black culture.  I know you, a racist jackass, find it easy to dismiss all of black culture with a hand wave and feel comfortable with blaming black people for the negative consequences of not succumbing to the white supremacist majority's pressure to assimilate, but considering every decent form of music invented in the last 100 years originated in black culture, and considering the amazing art and literature created by black writers and artists, I can understand why black people are desirous of equality on their terms.

So you are willing to have black people endure another century of poverty and underclass status because you are afraid if they assimilate, they'll stop making good music and art to entertain your white ass?  Wow, you've managed to reduced the value of black people in the United States to a minstral show and you are willing to condemn them to another century of poverty to keep it going.  It's a small price to pay to keep white people entertained, right?

Quote from: Jackalope;239096Also, given the history of this country, I think it's perfectly reasonable for black Americans to be fundamentally distrustful of white America.  What reasons have we given them to trust us?

They don't have to trust white people.  They can observe what successful black people and minorities are doing to succeed.

Quote from: Jackalope;239096Partially.  What, are you going to say it isn't?  Don't be obtuse John.  You know that someone who leaves their land of origin and comes to a new land seeking different opportunities is fundamentally more motivated to assimilate than someone who grows up inside a fundamentally hostile culture that constantly reminds them they aren't wanted.

Sure, but then who is holding who back?  That's the problem.  Some (not all) of what people consider "Black Culture" are byproducts of discrimination and poverty and, as such, some of those elements act to perpetuate discrimination and poverty.  Living up to the stereotypes of racist whites doesn't hurt racist whites.  It gives them exactly what they want—a justification for their racism.

Quote from: Jackalope;239096No, I'm sure you've been a racist for a really long time.

Yet your minstral show perception of black culture isn't racist at all, right?

Quote from: Jackalope;239096Seriously, the only reason conservatives pay attention to Thomas Sowell is because he makes reasonable sounding arguments that happen to support white racist ends.  He has a national platform solely because the media would rather give a voice to black man who will speak out against affirmative action than to a black man who will speak for it.

Have you ever actually read Sowell's arguments? (http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/3491596.html)

Quote from: Jackalope;239096Now tell me your opinion of Al Sharpton.  Why doesn't everyone chime in with their opinions of Al Sharpton.

I live in the New York City area where he's most active.  How detailed do you want me to get?  The quick summary is that I think he does more harm than good.  You can thank him for the fact that New York City has a Republican mayor.

Quote from: Jackalope;239096No.  You made that up.  You are ascribing false motives to me.

Uh, you just confirmed it again in this reply.  Your motive is to keep the minstral show going at the expense of economic advancement and assimilation.  

Quote from: Jackalope;239096Bull.  Total fucking bull.

The out-of-wedlock birth rate for black went from under 20% through the Great Depression (about 17% in 1940) and the 1950s to around 24% in 1960 and is now somewhere near 70% or more.  What do you think is going on there?

Quote from: Jackalope;239096Have you stopped beating your wife John?

So I take it you don't have a reasonable explanation for why you think their revolutionary communist rhetoric had no bearing on the FBI's concerns about their motives.

Quote from: Jackalope;239096Says the guy who worked with a consultant from the Caribbean once, and is thus an expert.

It was a woman and, no, that's not all I'm relying on.

Cav, John,
 Look talking with him about that is going to be like trying to convince a brick wall to pass you the salt - its going to be a pointless and frustrating exercise in mega-futility.

You might as well put him on ignore and let him spout off to an empty room.


- Ed C.

Quote from: Koltar;239217Cav, John,
 Look talking with him about that is going to be like trying to convince a brick wall to pass you the salt - its going to be a pointless and frustrating exercise in mega-futility.

You might as well put him on ignore and let him spout off to an empty room.

John's patience is unto a legend.

Quote from: John Morrow;239214And where did this "Black Culture" comes from?

I'm done with this conversation.  You've reached the point where you're just arguing with straw-men and being such a useless racist prick that I honestly would rather beat your face in with a rock than continue talking to you.  You are human slime, and you should die.  You are just offensive, vile and evil.

Pricks like you make the world a worse place, and your participation in this world is of no benefit to anyone.  You are the worst sort of crap there is, a monster whose sole purpose in life is to cover the tracks and obfuscate the actions of other monsters.  You are a morally retarded cretin, a clever little monkey that has discovered he can use words to make anything he wants true, and you use it in the most disgusting and despicable ways.  

I find talking to you to be so frustrating and disturbing that it leaves me uncomfortable for hours after I'm done.  You are evil, and when I talk to you I know exactly what Nietzsche meant when he said "And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you."

I know why guys like you are the way you are.  I know why you are so precise and cutting in your comments, and why you always present everything so carefully and in such a constructed manner.  You have to keep your emotions out of these conversations, because if you showed them then people would recognize you for the absolute sociopathic fuck that you are.  They would see that you are a soulless, hate-filled monster that wants to spread evil solely to derive pleasure from the suffering of others.

You, John Morrow, are not fit to live with human beings.

Also, this...

Quote from: JackalopeSays the guy who worked with a consultant from the Caribbean once,c

Quote from: John Morrow;239214It was a woman and, no, that's not all I'm relying on.

...is a perfect example of why talking to idiots like you is so damn frustrating.

You are the guy in my statement.  That is the only way the sentence can be read that makes sense.  By assuming that the guy is the woman you were talking about -- the computer consultant -- then you read the sentence like this:

Quote from: John's Inability to Read With ComprehensionSays the consultant from the Caribbean who worked with a consultant from the Caribbean once, and is thus an expert.

There is a vast gulf between how smart you are, and how smart you think you are.  You are clever John, but you aren't very intelligent.

Quote from: Jackalope;239248I'm done with this conversation.

We can only hope!

Quote from: CavScout;239253We can only hope!

Is there any we can convince him to be done with more than just that one conversation?

Quote from: Jackalope;239249..is a perfect example of why talking to idiots like you is so damn frustrating.

I think you are easily frustrated.  The misunderstanding (my fault) was irrelevant to my reply but, par for the course, you focus on the irrelevant bits out of proportion to their importance to the conversation.

Quote from: Jackalope;239249There is a vast gulf between how smart you are, and how smart you think you are.  You are clever John, but you aren't very intelligent.

You should really talk to your therapist about that projection problem you have.

Quote from: John Morrow;239271You should really talk to your therapist about that projection problem you have.

He can probably save the money and just talk to mom about it. It seems she is up to speed on these threads anyway.

QuoteThe out-of-wedlock birth rate for black went from under 20% through the Great Depression (about 17% in 1940) and the 1950s to around 24% in 1960 and is now somewhere near 70% or more. What do you think is going on there?

I don't know, but it seems that it's happening to white people as well. Perhaps you need to actually show a causal link instead of insinuating.

Quote from: droog;239274I don't know, but it seems that it's happening to white people as well. Perhaps you need to actually show a causal link instead of insinuating.

You are correct, and it causes similar problems for white people.  One of the single biggest indicators for poverty in the United States is female headed single-parent household with children.  That's the causal link I'm insinuating.  What makes it a particularly acute problem for the African American community is that something like 70% of children born in that community are born to an unmarried mother, which means it has a much larger impact on that community.  My main point is that it's not an integral part of "black culture" or heritage and it's something that's going to have to change before things get better.

Still no evidence for the assertion that welfare causes family problems.

Quote from: Jackalope;239248I'm done with this conversation.  You've reached the point where you're just arguing with straw-men and being such a useless racist prick that I honestly would rather beat your face in with a rock than continue talking to you.  You are human slime, and you should die.  You are just offensive, vile and evil.

Earlier in this thread, you wrote:

Quote from: Jackalope;229171Even Michael Moore, the most noxious liberal windbag with any sort of actual media platform from which to reach people, is nothing compared to the sort of hatred spewed on a regular basis by the masses of right wing commentators.

So, how does the hatred that you regularly spew out rate?  Or like a good little moral relativist, are you exempt from your own rules and judgement?

Quote from: Jackalope;239248Pricks like you make the world a worse place, and your participation in this world is of no benefit to anyone.

I think my family, friends, and employers would disagree with that.  What do you contribute to the world?

Quote from: Jackalope;239248You are the worst sort of crap there is, a monster whose sole purpose in life is to cover the tracks and obfuscate the actions of other monsters.  You are a morally retarded cretin, a clever little monkey that has discovered he can use words to make anything he wants true, and you use it in the most disgusting and despicable ways.

In other words, you are angry because I'm making you look like an idiot and you don't know how to get yourself out of it, so like a cornered animal, you're just going to lash out in anger and call me names instead.  And rather than admit that your problem may have to do with your inability to address substance, you frame it all as an issue of style and tricks.  Basically, you want to be a victim who has no responsibility for his failure.  

Quote from: Jackalope;239248I find talking to you to be so frustrating and disturbing that it leaves me uncomfortable for hours after I'm done.  You are evil, and when I talk to you I know exactly what Nietzsche meant when he said "And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you."

In other words, you have never really had your opinions challenged and aren't used to talking to people who don't think exactly like you do.  And since you admit to having arms covered with "socially questionable tattoos" and describe yourself as an "anti-social miscreant" and say that you "glower at people" and "look the part", you apparently have no problem making other people feel uncomfortable but don't seem to like it much yourself.

Quote from: Jackalope;239248I know why guys like you are the way you are.  I know why you are so precise and cutting in your comments, and why you always present everything so carefully and in such a constructed manner.  You have to keep your emotions out of these conversations, because if you showed them then people would recognize you for the absolute sociopathic fuck that you are.  They would see that you are a soulless, hate-filled monster that wants to spread evil solely to derive pleasure from the suffering of others.

In other words, you are also upset that I'm not letting you push my buttons.  So is that your one trick, and if it doesn't work you've got nothing?  Were you a school bully, too?

Quote from: Jackalope;239248You, John Morrow, are not fit to live with human beings.

...says the self-described "anti-social miscreant".  Maybe you should spend some time asking yourself why you are able to dish out the personal insults but lack the emotional maturity to take them and why, despite all of your moaning about the dangers of hate speech, the hate you are spewing now winds up making Ann Coulter look like Miss Manners.

Quote from: John Morrow;239288My main point is that it's not an integral part of "black culture" or heritage and it's something that's going to have to change before things get better.

Who said it was , Jackalope ?

Regards,
David R

Whoah.....

He actually called you Evil??
(speaking toward John Morrow here)

John, you might be annoying, obnoxious and even overly verbose at times - but Evil? nope, you're not that.  (You know those 3 words could describe Kyle Aaron as well -  you two just have very different political frames of reference.)

Just ...wow. Amazingly weird.

I can't think of anyone on here as 'evil'. But now at least for the second time on here I can think of someone that posts here as dense and sociopathic.


- Ed C.

Quote from: droog;239290Still no evidence for the assertion that welfare causes family problems.

The most often mentioned problem was that the welfare programs paid benefits to single mothers but not poor married couples (I believe Jackalope was blaming Nixon for this).  Here are two articles that discuss the issue from the perspective that welfare contributed to the problem:

http://www.davekopel.com/Misc/OpEds/op950420.htm
http://townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2005/10/26/ammunition_for_poverty_pimps

Essentially, the argument is that welfare has made single motherhood a viable lifestyle option for poor women (including poor white women) so that the increase in unwed motherhood ironically corresponded with the widespread availability of both contraception and abortion in the United States such that the incidence of single motherhood increased at the same time that motherhood became an actual choice for women, meaning that women were choosing to become single mothers.

If you think that some other dynamic was at work or have evidence of some other cause, I'd be happy to take a look at it.

ADDED: Another article on the subject here (http://www.city-journal.org/html/12_1_why_we.html).

Quote from: David R;239292Who said it was , Jackalope ?

Given that Jackalope claimed that interracial children are a form of genocide, and he prefers ad hominem attacks to explaining himself in any detail, I'm not really 100% sure what his argument is.  But since he was apparently concerned with the "heritage", I figured I'd address that point.

Quote from: Koltar;239294I can't think of anyone on here as 'evil'.

I'll say it then; Jackie is evil. He is the anthesis of racial understanding; and I find it totally incomprehensible that any individual of any race could be as caustic as he is.

I feel sorry for him. Really.

Quote from: John Morrow;239314Given that Jackalope claimed that interracial children are a form of genocide, and he prefers ad hominem attacks to explaining himself in any detail, I'm not really 100% sure what his argument is.  But since he was apparently concerned with the "heritage", I figured I'd address that point.

Actually he was rubbishing your claim that the black community went downhill after the enactment of the civil rights law.

QuoteJohn Morrow wrote :
You ignore (or simply aren't aware of) the fact that the high out-of-wedlock birthrate, high incarceration rates, high unemployment rate, and poor academic performance that currently plague African American communities are recent phenomena that started in the 1960s after the passage of Civil Rights laws.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Koltar;239294He actually called you Evil??

He thinks I'm evil because I make him uncomfortable and he can't deal with it.  So rather than introspection about why he feels that way or getting a handle on his emotions, he's going to blame me for it.  The bit where he rants about how I'm clever but not intelligent is pretty telling, actually.  

What's absolutely bizarre is that he calls me "a soulless, hate-filled monster" and a sociopath right after telling me he'd like to beat my face in with a rock and that I should die.  Lots of projection going on there.

Quote from: Werekoala;239315I'll say it then; Jackie is evil. He is the anthesis of racial understanding; and I find it totally incomprehensible that any individual of any race could be as caustic as he is.

I feel sorry for him. Really.

Koala, in general I agree with you - its just so far this is just very sociopathic behavior that I think I'm seeing.
If he really crossed the line over into 'evil', I think he would get banned from this forum and any others he was on. He'd be doing stuff so extreme that no one would talk to him at all.

Oh and after certain posts yesterday that were up in the Roleplaying section - I've put him on my ignore list sometime last night. I don't need the heartburn and he was getting boring.

There's more interesting people on here I can read posts from - even including those that I often have disagreements with.


- Ed C.

I'll never put anyone here on my IL; to me, being able to see what they're saying is far more valuable.

But I've been really, REALLY tempted.

Quote from: David R;239316Actually he was rubbishing your claim that the black community went downhill after the enactment of the civil rights law.

His "rubbishing" tends to consist of simply telling me that I'm wrong.  There are arguments that he could have made to dispute the point but didn't.  For example, in some cases the issue was not so much of things going down hill as stalling and some things have remained relatively level.  And of course some things have gotten better.

I do think that Civil Rights legislation was necessary to eliminate legal barriers that created an institutional barrier to progress for African Americans.  My point is that despite these changes which should have lowered barriers and made things better, some things got worse (the out-of-wedlock birth rate, incarceration rate), some things stopped getting better (reduction in poverty), and some things stayed about the same.  But few things got better.  In some cases, it can be argued that Civil Rights changes caused problems (e.g., this article (http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/3563642.html) that discusses the social impact of forced bussing) but in many others, the problems had other causes (e.g., the structure of the welfare system, urban riots, white flight, shifts in attitude, etc.).  But the point is that at a time when things should have been getting better, many things stopped getting better or even got worse.  So why is that?

Quote from: John Morrow;239332His "rubbishing" tends to consist of simply telling me that I'm wrong.

Regardless of his posting style or lack thereoff, he didn't and nobody else implied/said what you stated in my quote of your post, right?    

QuoteSo why is that?

I've said this before that I'd rather not discuss American domestic policies/issues but I sometimes do chime in as I did in this thread when I feel the comment (as Jackalope's earlier comments about race) is of general interest.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David R;239336Regardless of his posting style or lack thereoff, he didn't and nobody else implied/said what you stated in my quote of your post, right?

To my knowledge, nobody in this thread explicitly advocated that view but there are other people who have advocated that view and people that could advocate that view so I felt I should address it.  For example: (http://www.city-journal.org/html/15_3_black_family.html)

   Other black pride–inspired scholars looked at female-headed families and declared them authentically African and therefore a good thing. In a related vein, Carol Stack published All Our Kin, a 1974 HEW-funded study of families in a midwestern ghetto with many multigenerational female households. In an implicit criticism of American individualism, Stack depicted "The Flats," as she dubbed her setting, as a vibrant and cooperative urban village, where mutual aid—including from sons, brothers, and uncles, who provided financial support and strong role models for children—created "a tenacious, active, lifelong network."

The argument that I found in a Google Books result was that American female-headed households are an adaptation of an African loose extended family structure.

John, having read the sorts of things you regularly post to this forum, I've arrived at the conclusion that you've developed a highly rationalised excuse for disliking blacks as a whole (and you share a similar highly rationalised disdain for the impoverished).  Does this make you a racist or a classist?  Why, no, you respond.  You merely post facts culled from the Internet and ask others to draw their own conclusions; you make no definitive statement yourself.  And the "facts" absolve you of any transgression, real or perceived.

!i!

Quote from: Ian Absentia;239343John, having read the sorts of things you regularly post to this forum, I've arrived at the conclusion that you've developed a highly rationalised excuse for disliking blacks as a whole (and you share a similar highly rationalised disdain for the impoverished).  Does this make you a racist or a classist?  Why, no, you respond.  You merely post facts culled from the Internet and ask others to draw their own conclusions; you make no definitive statement yourself.  And the "facts" absolve you of any transgression, real or perceived.

Which is a fancy way of saying he's a disingenuous shitweasel.

Quote from: John Morrow;239338To my knowledge, nobody in this thread explicitly advocated that view but there are other people who have advocated that view and people that could advocate that view so I felt I should address it.

Okay so noone advocated this but you thought a preemptive strike was in order . I've often accused you of taking the discussion down tangential paths so as to muddy the waters. You've given me the perfect example of this.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: John Morrow;239313Essentially, the argument is that welfare has made single motherhood a viable lifestyle option for poor women (including poor white women) so that the increase in unwed motherhood ironically corresponded with the widespread availability of both contraception and abortion in the United States such that the incidence of single motherhood increased at the same time that motherhood became an actual choice for women, meaning that women were choosing to become single mothers.

Well, duh. I know what the argument is, but neither of your articles (read: editorials) prove it in any way apart from a very shonky confusion of correlation with cause.

Their emotive rhetoric is also rather shonky:

QuotePoverty strikes like an opportunistic infection that is most dangerous when the familial immune system has already been weakened.

I think I'm tearing up.

So, you'd be arguing that there should be disincentives for breaking up the family unit, I suppose? Keep people on the straight and narrow and nicely nuclear?

Quote from: droog;239382Well, duh. I know what the argument is, but neither of your articles (read: editorials) prove it in any way apart from a very shonky confusion of correlation with cause.

The problem with any social trend it that it's almost impossible to prove anything from correlation because pristine control groups and repeatability are often not available option.  This article (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0377/is_n125/ai_18798597) is probably closer to what you are looking for.  

Quote from: droog;239382So, you'd be arguing that there should be disincentives for breaking up the family unit, I suppose? Keep people on the straight and narrow and nicely nuclear?

Particularly when there are children, yes.  If society has no interest in keeping family units together, then marriage serves no necessary purpose.

Quote from: Jackalope;239358Which is a fancy way of saying he's a disingenuous shitweasel.

Well, a circumspect way of calling him a crypto-bigot, but yes.

!i!

Quote from: Ian Absentia;239343John, having read the sorts of things you regularly post to this forum, I've arrived at the conclusion that you've developed a highly rationalised excuse for disliking blacks as a whole (and you share a similar highly rationalised disdain for the impoverished).

I suppose that explains why I had a black friend in my wedding party despite explicit disapproval from some of my family members, why I've vacationed with black friends (sharing rooms with them), why I ate lunch nearly every day with a black friend when we worked together, why I've been invited to parties at a black co-worker's house, and so on.  I live in a mixed neighborhood in a town where the schools are roughly 40% white, 30% black, and 30% Asian and my daughters go to daycare center with black children and staff.  I've been surrounded by a half-dozen police cars because they though the black friend in my car suggested a drug deal and perhaps you missed the part earlier in the thread where I supported Jackalope's description of the different treatment that black people receive that white people normally don't notice.  I've also argued with people on right-wing message boards against everything from defenses of racial police profiling to claims that blacks have inferior intelligence.  Do I really need to play these "some of my best friends" are games with you?  Ian, you don't know me, my life, or my friends so stop pretending that you do.

As for hostility toward the impoverish, hardly, unless you consider not wanting them to be perpetually impoverished "hostility".  Do you see some value in preserving poverty and encouraging dependency?

Quote from: Ian Absentia;239343Does this make you a racist or a classist?  Why, no, you respond.  You merely post facts culled from the Internet and ask others to draw their own conclusions; you make no definitive statement yourself.  And the "facts" absolve you of any transgression, real or perceived.

So wanting black people to be fully assimilated into American society just like the various European ethnicities were makes me racist and wanting poor people to rise out of poverty makes me classist?  Of course I suppose it could be worse.  If I was black, you'd be telling me I was an Uncle Tom, right?

Quote from: John Morrow;239423Ian, you don't know me, my life, or my friends so stop pretending that you do.

I'm not pretending that I know anything about your personal life and how you behave with the individuals you know personally.  I'm drawing conclusions regarding exactly how you behave right here on this forum and the philosophies you espouse.  Or, rather, the philosophies you stop short of espousing by rendering your more controversial posts rhetorical by asking "So why is that?"

Make no mistake, John, I imagine that you're a decent fellow to the people you know and like.  But I also think your words here speak for themselves.

!i!

Quote from: John Morrow;239423So wanting black people to be fully assimilated into American society just like the various European ethnicities were makes me racist and wanting poor people to rise out of poverty makes me classist?  Of course I suppose it could be worse.  If I was black, you'd be telling me I was an Uncle Tom, right?

Now you're being accused of being racist huh? Seems to be a very common thing around here.

Currently it appears your trapped by the quote in my Sig. It's not enough to judge men by the character of their souls now to avoid the racist tag. Instead you must grant them special benefits based upon skin color- as long as they're not White.

I long for the day when the label racist means what it should mean once again...

Quote from: David R;239376Okay so noone advocated this but you thought a preemptive strike was in order .

I couldn't tell if Jackalope advocated it or not, though given the extreme nature of what he did advocate (calling intermarriage genocide), it's quite possible he does.  I generally expect educated adults to be willing to explain and clarify their own positions if they are being misrepresented.  I do plenty of that here without resorting to calling people doody-heads or wishing they'd die.

Quote from: David R;239376I've often accused you of taking the discussion down tangential paths so as to muddy the waters. You've given me the perfect example of this.

And this discussion is not a tangent, doesn't make assumptions about my positions, and isn't muddying the waters, right?

By-the-way, it looks like my reference to groups "inter-marrying" set off some of the back-of-forth here.

 If you look back at what I actually said t wasn't about everyone intermarrying. Just that it was possible and should no longer be thought of as a big deal. (Its already gradually happening more and more. I look at those people coupling and those that accept as a decade further along in maturity...most of the time)

 When I referred to King not being quoted completely - I was referring to the "I Have a Dream" speech.
There really is no good reason for humanity to divide itself in such small-minded ways.

- Ed C.

Quote from: John Morrow;239414This article (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0377/is_n125/ai_18798597) is probably closer to what you are looking for.  

The data from that article seems inconclusive, and in any case is dealing with one localised issue. Furthermore, the perceived changes in behaviour seem minimal and would need to be studied over time to see if they revert.

Assuming for a minute that such a policy does work, I'd like to know what effect it would have on population growth. Your next generation of workers may have to come from Mexico.

QuoteParticularly when there are children, yes.  If society has no interest in keeping family units together, then marriage serves no necessary purpose.

If 'society' wants to keep families together, I suggest higher wages so that both parents don't have to work. But marriage already serves no necessary purpose. I can shack up with a woman and be considered her husband in all important legal ways.

I'd also say that there is an ethical problem with your approach. You want to make it harder for people to leave what might be an unhappy partnership.

Quote from: Ian Absentia;239425I'm not pretending that I know anything about your personal life and how you behave with the individuals you know personally.

And of course you think that's entirely unrelated to who I am and what I believe, right?

Quote from: Ian Absentia;239425I'm drawing conclusions regarding exactly how you behave right here on this forum and the philosophies you espouse.  Or, rather, the philosophies you stop short of espousing by rendering your more controversial posts rhetorical by asking "So why is that?"

And what does it tell you that nobody is willing to answer the question?  It's not a difficult question to answer, is it?

And while I think I've provided my answer throughout this entire thread, I'll try to to summarize it for you hear to make it clear.  

While racism creates additional hurdles for African Americans, the institutional and legal racism that existed in previous eras is gone and the successes of black immigrant groups as well as African Americans who assimilate (despite being called "Uncle Toms") suggests that the remaining hurdles are not insurmountable and that the main problem facing African Americans is not one of race but of culture.  If African Americans want to succeed and want to reduce racism, they should reject or change the elements of their prevailing culture that are detrimental to success (e.g., single motherhood, disdain for academic achievement, romanticization of gangs and thugs, etc.) and the easiest way to do that is via assimilation.  

So I think it's legitimate to ask why that's not happening and why so many African Americans still get trapped in poverty.  That brings us back to the point about "solidarity".  

When a culture considers the cultural characteristics of success a matter of selling out, then that culture closes the door to success on itself.  African Americans have the demonstrated capacity and opportunity to succeed and it's more constructive for them to take advantage of those opportunities than to keep doing the same thing and expect different results.

There are plenty of black people who say the same things I'm saying, both in public, in private, and in semi-private (black-dominated media).

Quote from: Ian Absentia;239425Make no mistake, John, I imagine that you're a decent fellow to the people you know and like.  But I also think your words here speak for themselves.

I think you need to take more consideration of the lens through which you look at my words.  Sometimes a question is a question meant to be answered.  Why not try answering it?  Or are you claiming that even asking the question inherently racist?

Quote from: droog;239455The data from that article seems inconclusive, and in any case is dealing with one localised issue. Furthermore, the perceived changes in behaviour seem minimal and would need to be studied over time to see if they revert.

I think the most important part of the article was the interview section where it discussed the findings from the interviews.  That touches on what the people in question are actually saying and thinking.

Quote from: droog;239455Assuming for a minute that such a policy does work, I'd like to know what effect it would have on population growth. Your next generation of workers may have to come from Mexico.

I don't think it would have a huge impact because not all African Americans are on welfare and a woman who doesn't have children as a teenager might have them later in life.  My concern here is reducing poverty and welfare dependency, not lowering the African American birth rate.  

Quote from: droog;239455If 'society' wants to keep families together, I suggest higher wages so that both parents don't have to work.

In the United States, the problem is less a matter of wages than a matter of real estate costs.  What happened is that the cost of housing normalized around two working adults rather than one.  Of course the problem is even worse for a split couple who must maintain two households instead of one.  Much of the problem could be solved simply by reducing the cost of housing or encouraging more people to live together and share costs.  

Quote from: droog;239455But marriage already serves no necessary purpose. I can shack up with a woman and be considered her husband in all important legal ways.

But if you can leave whenever you want it's not the same in all important legal ways.

Quote from: droog;239455I'd also say that there is an ethical problem with your approach. You want to make it harder for people to leave what might be an unhappy partnership.

When children are involved, that is correct.  Your responsibility toward your children does not always mean that you get to do what makes you happy.

Quote from: John Morrow;239056Given that you live in one of the whitest parts of America, I suspect your overall experience with diversity within the African American population is limited.

[...snip...]

Do you have any evidence to back up that claim or am I going to get some more personal anecdotes from the lily white Pacific Northwest?

By the way, John, I know that you were eager to find some ammunition to use against Jackalope, but this is a bullshit rap.  You realise that, while the region-wide distribution of blacks is small, there are neighborhoods in some cities where you can spend the entire day and not see a single white person, right?  Or neighborhoods like mine, where roughly 20% of the population is recently-immigrated East African and you can say hello to them when they're walking to the mosque a couple of blocks away.  Just like neighborhoods in New York or Washington D.C., cities where, despite the higher populations of blacks, you can also spend your entire life in a "lily white" environment.

!i!

Quote from: John Morrow;239442I couldn't tell if Jackalope advocated it or not, though given the extreme nature of what he did advocate (calling intermarriage genocide), it's quite possible he does.

I never called interracial marriage genocide.  This is a fine example of you just making shit up.  I said that when members of the white majority suggest we can end racism by systematically engaging in widespread miscegenation, that it sounds a lot like the majority saying that the majority is strong enough to absorb the minority into itself, thus destroying it.  I said it can sound like genocide to the minority group.

The idea that we can end racism by screwing til were all one color is offensively stupid.  It does nothing to end racism in the here and now, and is generally rooted in tremendous confusion about what race is.  There is a reason why you never hear minorities advocating this view.  It's always white men who advocate this position.

It is entirely possibly that in another 20 to 500 generations, all of mankind will be so interconnected that we'll all be one beautiful shade of mocha.  That doesn't do shit for people suffering under racism oppression right now, nor will it help the next generation, or the generation after that, by which point all the people who advocate it will be dead.

This is why I think it's an utterly bullshit way of "proving" you aren't racist.  It's a plan to end the effects of racism 400 years from now.  I am not impressed.

Quote from: Jackalope;239494It does nothing to end racism in the here and now, and is generally rooted in tremendous confusion about what race is.
[/I]

So what will end racism here and now? Still haven't seen your Final Solution enunciated.

Quote from: John Morrow;239457While racism creates additional hurdles for African Americans, the institutional and legal racism that existed in previous eras is gone...

I question the validity of this claim.  The institutional racism still exists, as many of the institutions are controlled by fundamentally racist people.  Drug enforcement laws in particular target minorities at disproportional rates, and young whites are far more likely to benefit from "catch and release" policing tactics.  White Americans make up 72% of drug users, but African-Americans make up 62% of the people in jail or prison for drug-related crime.

Quote...and the successes of black immigrant groups as well as African Americans who assimilate (despite being called "Uncle Toms") suggests that the remaining hurdles are not insurmountable and that the main problem facing African Americans is not one of race but of culture.

So while you acknowledge that there is some racism holding African-Americans back as a collective whole, you're asserting that it's not a real problem and that what is really holding back black people is themselves.

That's called "blaming the victim."  It's also a classic symptom of white privilege: as a member of the dominant class, you have the option to decided what amount of racism is acceptable.

So, for those following along at home, John is asserting that the current amount of racism is an acceptable amount of racism, and that the victims of that racism have no right to redress of grievances.

And there is a huge difference between being an Uncle Tom and assimilating.  To be an Uncle Tom, you have to be willing to allow yourself to be presented by racist elements of the white supremacy (including crypto-bigots like you) as an example of a model minority person.  

Denzel Washington is highly assimilated, extremely successful, and admired in both the black and white community. No one would ever call Denzel Washington an Uncle Tom.  You know why?  Because what you think the term means, and what the term actually means, are quite different.  You twist the meaning of the term to suit your crypto-bigotry.

QuoteIf African Americans want to succeed and want to reduce racism, they should reject or change the elements of their prevailing culture that are detrimental to success (e.g., single motherhood, disdain for academic achievement, romanticization of gangs and thugs, etc.) and the easiest way to do that is via assimilation.

Not a single element you describe is specific to black culture.   Single mothers and a disdain for academic achievement are by-products of poverty -- barriers in the educational system create disdain for academic institutions, which creates disdain for academic achievement -- and such attitudes are common amongst all impoverished people, black or white.

As for the romanticization of crime and gangs, one only has to look at Hollywood and one can clearly see that this has broad appeal across culture.  How many movies and shows about the mafia get made every year?  What about the success of Johnny Cash?  Or the celebration of Billy the Kid and other robbers and killers of the "Wild West?"  From Dirty Harry to Tony Soprano, white America loves to romanticize crime and antisocial behavior.

Frank Sinatra had strong connections to the Mafia, which was heavily involved in the entertainment industry, but for some reason crypto-bigots want us to believe that Suge Knight invented using the music industry for money laundering.

Such trends as single mothers and poor education are only more prevalent in the black community because poverty is more prevalent in the black community, and that poverty is rooted in racism, not black culture.

Furthermore, you are demanding that the solution to ending black poverty is for black Americans in poverty to somehow assimilate into a majority culture that fundamentally rejects impoverish black Americans.  It's underwear gnome logic.

You talk about the surmountable hurdles of racism in one breath while you erect new hurdles with the next.

QuoteWhen a culture considers the cultural characteristics of success a matter of selling out, then that culture closes the door to success on itself.  African Americans have the demonstrated capacity and opportunity to succeed and it's more constructive for them to take advantage of those opportunities than to keep doing the same thing and expect different results.

Black culture does not consider the characteristics of success a matter of selling out.  That's just your crypto-bigotry shining through.

QuoteI think you need to take more consideration of the lens through which you look at my words.  Sometimes a question is a question meant to be answered.  Why not try answering it?  Or are you claiming that even asking the question inherently racist?

The question is inherently racist.  It is the equivalent of asking "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?"  It's a loaded question, full of hidden and false assumptions that are fundamentally racist.

Man, Jackalope seems like one of those who espouse to be anti-racism but at heart need it. So, they run around making everything racist so that nothing can actually be accomplished. That way they keep their issue and can feel good about themselves all the while doing nothing to actually help erase what they claim they are against.  It’s a way of life, a foundation for them. Without it they have lost their identity. One of those who advocates racism as a potential cure for the racism he claims to see in the here and now.

Quote from: Werekoala;239498So what will end racism here and now? Still haven't seen your Final Solution enunciated.

I don't really know.  I have a bunch of ideas, but then again, I'm not running for office.

There are many steps that we could take to reduce poverty independent of addressing racism.  This would have the consequences of addressing many artifacts of racism, since there is a strong correlation between race and economic status.

Federalizing the school system and basing school funding on population (i.e. number of students) rather than property taxes -- which only ensures that the impoverished children, who need the greatest support, get the worse schools and the least support -- would be a major step forward.  Additional funding for at risk areas is critical, as at risk schools need outreach programs to get parents involved.  Schools need sufficient funding to be proactive in assuring that children are educated.

Decriminalizing drugs and working towards a public health model of drug control would completely alter the racist and discriminatory application of drug laws.  That would go a long ways towards breaking the cycle of criminal behavior that many young men in poverty get trapped in, and thus reduce crime overall.

But those aren't racism specific plans.  Those are poverty programs.

I think the first real step towards addressing historical and institutional racism would be to acknowledge the need for reparations for generations of slavery, and a willingness to bite the bullet and throw a few billion dollars at the problem.

So, on top of the above items, begin by creating a federal agency, a "Department of Affirmative Action," that would direct the distribution of reparations funds.  Create business training programs, and business leadership programs.  Fund scholarships, provide legal assistance, open medical clinics, increase enrollment of African-American police officers and better fund inner-city

Create a bank specifically for lending to African-American entrepreneurs, specifically to fund business enterprises aimed at rebuilding urban cores and creating jobs in areas where economic opportunities are sparse.   I would organize it as something like the Bank of Mondragon and the Mondragon Corporate Collective (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Cooperative_Corporation), except the rule would be that only African-Americans could be owners.

Eventually I think there should be a publicly owned bank that provides such services for everyone, but I've long that it would make sense to introduce such institutions slowly, and introducing them as a form of affirmative action would be an effective way of both addressing historical racism and introducing the concept into the American economic structure on a large scale.

CavScout seems like one of those racist people who needs to accuse everyone who is anti-racist of being racist.  So he runs around twisting everything people say about racism or against racism so that it sounds like anyone who admits racism exists is a racist. That way they don't have to deal with the issue, learn about the issues, and can feel good about themselves all the while doing nothing to actually help erase what they imply they are against by decrying the "racism of anti-racists."  Racism is a way of life, a foundation, for people like CavScout. Without it they have lost their identity. He's one of those who advocates ignoring racism in the here and now, because he -- like fellow white supremacist John Morrow -- believes that there is an acceptable amount of racism, and we have achieved it.

This is, of course, exactly what racists have always believed.  That the current amount of racism is acceptable, and it's victims mere whiners and it opponents merely the sycophants of whiners.

Quote from: John Morrow;239442And this discussion is not a tangent, doesn't make assumptions about my positions, and isn't muddying the waters, right?

This discussion ? Why yes , this is a another example of a tangent of your doing in this case your inability to concede you were wrong about a point without trying to justify it when called out on it.

QuoteI couldn't tell if Jackalope advocated it or not, though given the extreme nature of what he did advocate (calling intermarriage genocide), it's quite possible he does.  I generally expect educated adults to be willing to explain and clarify their own positions if they are being misrepresented.  I do plenty of that here without resorting to calling people doody-heads or wishing they'd die

Well again no, he clearly did not advocate nor anyone else for that matter as you admitted earlier the original point which is at the heart of this little tangent. I think Jackalope explains his point well enough (even though I disagree with many of his conclusions) without having to resort to rhetorical tricks in order to divert the discussion away from the points he makes - this includes trying to raise points which may be raised and then trying to attribute them to him.

It is curious that you consider assimilation a one way street when functional assimilation has been anything but. But carry on believing that it's incumbent on the black community to be the only ones who need to have a hard look at their community. I expect when they finally do (if they aren't doing this already), when they finally achieve the solidarity they once possesed like they did in the days of the civil rights movement the tone of your criticism against their community will no doubt change to something more darker.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Jackalope;239524CavScout seems like one of those racist people who needs to accuse everyone who is anti-racist of being racist.  So he runs around twisting everything people say about racism or against racism so that it sounds like anyone who admits racism exists is a racist. That way they don't have to deal with the issue, learn about the issues, and can feel good about themselves all the while doing nothing to actually help erase what they imply they are against by decrying the "racism of anti-racists."  Racism is a way of life, a foundation, for people like CavScout. Without it they have lost their identity. He's one of those who advocates ignoring racism in the here and now, because he -- like fellow white supremacist John Morrow -- believes that there is an acceptable amount of racism, and we have achieved it.

This is, of course, exactly what racists have always believed.  That the current amount of racism is acceptable, and it's victims mere whiners and it opponents merely the sycophants of whiners.

Let's see Jackie:

• Assign motivations to people based on the race: Check.
• Advocates institutions who's admittance is based on race: Check.
• Claims those with a specific race can't speak to certain issues: Check.
• Actively advocates for segregation based on race: Check.

Yep, you seem to meet the criteria for a racist.

PS: You really do need to go back and edit this post (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=238349&postcount=301).

Quote from: CavScout;239537Let's see Jackie:

• Assign motivations to people based on the race: Check.
• Advocates institutions who's admittance is based on race: Check.
• Claims those with a specific race can't speak to certain issues: Check.
• Actively advocates for segregation based on race: Check.

Yep, you seem to meet the criteria for a racist.

Only because you have a twisted and perverse definition of racist that makes it impossible for anyone to do anything about real racism without being a racist, and are completely twisting my words around to come up with completely unjustifiable conclusions.  The only one of those I have advocated is institutions who's admittance is based on race, the other three claims are spurious bullshit.

What's your solution CavScout?  What would you do about the ongoing effects of historical racism, that is white supremacy.  What do you do about it other than ignore and attack anyone who wants to do something about it?

You have nothing but spite and derision for people who want to make the world better.  You're the racist CavScout, because you desire the continuation of white supremacy, and you are actively working towards that continuation.

I want to end white supremacy, and I recognize that targeted aid to the black community will have to be part of that.  You have no argument against that, except to call me a racist for wanting to combat the effects of white supremacy.

You, like John, are a disingenuous shitweasel.  Like pretty much every right-winger.

Quote from: Jackalope;239551Only because you have a twisted and perverse definition of racist that makes it impossible for anyone to do anything about real racism without being a racist, and are completely twisting my words around to come up with completely unjustifiable conclusions.  The only one of those I have advocated is institutions who's admittance is based on race, the other three claims are spurious bullshit.

What's your solution CavScout?  What would you do about the ongoing effects of historical racism, that is white supremacy.  What do you do about it other than ignore and attack anyone who wants to do something about it?

You have nothing but spite and derision for people who want to make the world better.  You're the racist CavScout, because you desire the continuation of white supremacy, and you are actively working towards that continuation.

I want to end white supremacy, and I recognize that targeted aid to the black community will have to be part of that.  You have no argument against that, except to call me a racist for wanting to combat the effects of white supremacy.

You, like John, are a disingenuous shitweasel.  Like pretty much every right-winger.

You start to stop racism by stopping the categorizing of people based on their skin color. You can't and won't take this step. You are just a racist who likes to pretend they aren't. You don't stop racism by adding more to the pile.

In fact, I have no doubt that you goal is not an end to racism. You need to deepen the divides among the races. Your entire political identity rests on their being racism so you can rail against it. You need it like an addict needs their dope. That’s the danger of the extremist left; they led the downtrodden down a path that locks them into a cycle of misery. All in the name of making sure they are so miserable that they blame the other party and still vote for the slave masters that have actually led them into their chains.

There isn't any white supremacy in the country right now - at least not the way he imagines it.


- Ed

Another giant hole in his arguments is he insistence that correlation implies causation. He'll argue that because white medium income is higher than black medium income that this is proof of white, institutional racism. That this falls apart on just a casual inspection eludes him.

Quote from: Jackalope;239507I question the validity of this claim.  The institutional racism still exists, as many of the institutions are controlled by fundamentally racist people.  Drug enforcement laws in particular target minorities at disproportional rates, and young whites are far more likely to benefit from "catch and release" policing tactics.  White Americans make up 72% of drug users, but African-Americans make up 62% of the people in jail or prison for drug-related crime.

Finally you questioned the validity of a claim and actually backed it up.  Thank you.  I agree the number of black men sent to prison for minor non-violent drug offenses and simple possession is a problem but so is drug addiction.  So, OK, I agree this is an important area where things still need to be changed.  

Quote from: Jackalope;239507So while you acknowledge that there is some racism holding African-Americans back as a collective whole, you're asserting that it's not a real problem and that what is really holding back black people is themselves.

No, I'm not asserting it's not a real problem.  I've already agreed with you that it's a real problem.  I'm asserting that it's not an insurmountable problem, as demonstrated by the individual African Americans who succeed as well as the widespread successes of various black immigrant groups.  The path to success that they follow is pretty predictable and is quite similar to the path to success used by past European immigrants, many of which also had to deal with prejudice and hardships.  

Quote from: Jackalope;239507So, for those following along at home, John is asserting that the current amount of racism is an acceptable amount of racism, and that the victims of that racism have no right to redress of grievances.

Nope.  The victims of racism can certainly seek redress for their grievances and work to continue to reduce racism.  I simply think that there are things that the African American community can do on it's own to help itself without waiting for things to get better around them.

Quote from: Jackalope;239507And there is a huge difference between being an Uncle Tom and assimilating.  To be an Uncle Tom, you have to be willing to allow yourself to be presented by racist elements of the white supremacy (including crypto-bigots like you) as an example of a model minority person.  

See, Ian, you went and taught Jackalope a new word.

So, to what end to "racist elements of the white supremacy" hold up these "Uncle Toms" as an example of a model minority person?

Quote from: Jackalope;239507Denzel Washington is highly assimilated, extremely successful, and admired in both the black and white community. No one would ever call Denzel Washington an Uncle Tom.  You know why?  Because what you think the term means, and what the term actually means, are quite different.  You twist the meaning of the term to suit your crypto-bigotry.

You can find people calling Denzel Washington an Uncle Tom, too, either directly or by implication, via Google.

Quote from: Jackalope;239507Not a single element you describe is specific to black culture.   Single mothers and a disdain for academic achievement are by-products of poverty -- barriers in the educational system create disdain for academic institutions, which creates disdain for academic achievement -- and such attitudes are common amongst all impoverished people, black or white.

OK, so accepting that for the sake of argument, how do you break that cycle?

Quote from: Jackalope;239507As for the romanticization of crime and gangs, one only has to look at Hollywood and one can clearly see that this has broad appeal across culture.  How many movies and shows about the mafia get made every year?  What about the success of Johnny Cash?  Or the celebration of Billy the Kid and other robbers and killers of the "Wild West?"  From Dirty Harry to Tony Soprano, white America loves to romanticize crime and antisocial behavior.

From 1930 through to the mid-1950s, Hollywood more or less followed The Hays Code (http://www.artsreformation.com/a001/hays-code.html) which, as it's first General Principle, stated, "No picture shall be produced that will lower the moral standards of those who see it. Hence the sympathy of the audience should never be thrown to the side of crime, wrongdoing, evil or sin."  

Quote from: Jackalope;239507Such trends as single mothers and poor education are only more prevalent in the black community because poverty is more prevalent in the black community, and that poverty is rooted in racism, not black culture.

Great.  Agreed that they are not black culture.  

Quote from: Jackalope;239507Furthermore, you are demanding that the solution to ending black poverty is for black Americans in poverty to somehow assimilate into a majority culture that fundamentally rejects impoverish black Americans.  It's underwear gnome logic.

I'm not suggesting that they do anything that other groups haven't done and aren't doing now.  Examples of your "underwear gnome logic" happening are not that difficult to find.

Quote from: Jackalope;239507You talk about the surmountable hurdles of racism in one breath while you erect new hurdles with the next.

What hurdles am I erecting?

Quote from: Jackalope;239507Black culture does not consider the characteristics of success a matter of selling out.  That's just your crypto-bigotry shining through.

I'm glad you agree that those are not really parts of black culture.  So what does it take to get African American kids to stay in school and get a good education?  

Quote from: Jackalope;239507The question is inherently racist.  It is the equivalent of asking "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?"  It's a loaded question, full of hidden and false assumptions that are fundamentally racist.

It's not a yes or no question, so it's not a false dichotomy like the wife question.  I asked for an explanation.  I didn't hide my assumptions but stated them clearly before the question, "at a time when things should have been getting better, many things stopped getting better or even got worse."  If you disagree with that assumption, then explain why it's wrong.  For someone obsessed with secret agendas and hidden assumptions, why do you find it so difficult to give straight answers?

Quote from: Jackalope;239522I don't really know.  I have a bunch of ideas, but then again, I'm not running for office.

For the record:

I agree with your idea about funding school systems based on population rather than property taxes, though I'd do it at the state level and not the national level.  In fact, I would go a step further and say that poor school districts should get more money per student if they need to pay higher salaries to attract good teachers and to have additional programs to help students do work at their grade level.

While I don't agree that drugs should be entirely decriminalized, I do think that the sentencing that sends people to prison for simple possession of small amounts of drugs should be changed and that petty and that it probably does more harm than good to throw petty non-violent criminals into prison.

I have no problem with goverment throwing some money at the problem of racism and poverty but I don't want to throw billions of dollars out the window and get nothing in return.  For example, I'd be happy to see the government carry out more Gautreaux programs.

I have no problem with outreach-based affirmative action, training, and mentoring programs.  

Your African-American entrepreneur bank is an interesting idea but I think it should be done with private capital rather than government money.

Quote from: David R;239531This discussion ? Why yes , this is a another example of a tangent of your doing in this case your inability to concede you were wrong about a point without trying to justify it when called out on it.

Uh, huh.  Whatever.

Quote from: David R;239531Well again no, he clearly did not advocate nor anyone else for that matter as you admitted earlier the original point which is at the heart of this little tangent.

Then all he had to say is, "I don't advocate that."  And then?  It's not as if people haven't been making assumptions about what I believe even though I haven't said I believe those things, yourself included.  When do I get my apology and when do you admit you are using rhetorical tricks?  Or are you just going to make excuses and try to justify yourself?  

Quote from: David R;239531I think Jackalope explains his point well enough (even though I disagree with many of his conclusions) without having to resort to rhetorical tricks in order to divert the discussion away from the points he makes - this includes trying to raise points which may be raised and then trying to attribute them to him.

I don't think Jackalope explained himself well enough and, frankly, when he and others here (that means you and Ian) start giving me the benefit of the doubt instead of assuming hidden agendas and unspoken prejudices, maybe I'll be inclined to be more careful about the assumptions I make about you guys.

Quote from: David R;239531It is curious that you consider assimilation a one way street when functional assimilation has been anything but.

Of course it's not a one-way street and white people have adopted all sorts of elements of black culture.  I never claimed it was a one-way street so why are you assuming that I think it is?  Did I say it was?  

Quote from: David R;239531But carry on believing that it's incumbent on the black community to be the only ones who need to have a hard look at their community.

Again, I'm not saying anything that black people aren't saying about their own community, including people that even Jackalope would be hard-pressed to call Uncle Toms.  For example: (http://www.blackamericaweb.com/site.aspx/sayitloud/kane603)

   "How many dictionaries and reference books do you suppose we would collect if we went through a black housing project in New York?" Karim remembers Malcolm asking. "Enough to fill a car trunk or van? Or maybe a suitcase?"
 
Malcolm, sounding suspiciously like one of today's black conservatives many blacks dismiss as Uncle Toms, then told Karim that we "can't blame the white man for the dictionaries black children don't have."

Quote from: David R;239531I expect when they finally do (if they aren't doing this already), when they finally achieve the solidarity they once possesed like they did in the days of the civil rights movement the tone of your criticism against their community will no doubt change to something more darker.

And what kind of solidarity is that, David?  Say what you mean instead of implying it.

Quote from: CavScout;239559You start to stop racism by stopping the categorizing of people based on their skin color. You can't and won't take this step. You are just a racist who likes to pretend they aren't. You don't stop racism by adding more to the pile.

You've never heard of using fire to fight fire?  Again, as I have explained several times already, racism is not simply prejudice or discrimination based on race, racism is the historical and ongoing oppression of people of color by the white supremacist hegemony.  

If the white majority decides to combat historical white supremacist racism with altruistic counter-racism -- reparations -- then this would be a rejection of historical white supremacist racism.

You continuously reduce the conversation down to a simplistic dictionary definition of racism, which only illustrates how woefully incapable of having a rational conversation you are.  You insist on keeping the discussion as idiotic as possible.  That's why you can call me a racist, because you are using a pathetically simple-minded definition of racism that allows you to delude yourself into thinking that I'm as racist as you are, and thus are positions are morally equivalent.

they are not.  I am right, you are a disgusting cretinous shithead.  I am on the side of goodness, light, angels and superheroes, and you are the fucking Penguin.  No, you're Shocker.  Ultimate Shocker.  A complete fucking retard of a bad guy, who has deluded himself into thinking he is as cool as the good guys.

You knwo why there is a liberal bias in media?  because you can't tell stories about good guys who uphold right-wing values, because RIGHT WINGERS ARE FUCKING EVIL.  I really wish you guys would get it through your head.  You are COBRA.  You are Spectre.  You are the Cylons.  Everything bad and evil in literature is a metaphor for you.

QuoteYour entire political identity rests on their being racism so you can rail against it. You need it like an addict needs their dope.

:rotfl:  The funny part if how you're really describing your relationship with the left.  Your entire political identity rests on their being a left so you can rail against it.

You don't care about stopping racism, that's why your only plan is to start by pretending race doesn't matter, effectively blinding ourselves to the consequences of racism.

QuoteThat's the danger of the extremist left; they led the downtrodden down a path that locks them into a cycle of misery. All in the name of making sure they are so miserable that they blame the other party and still vote for the slave masters that have actually led them into their chains.

Your right-wing paranoia is hysterical.  Isn't amazing how the whole world has been moving steadily towards "the left" for the last several hundred years, towards greater enfranchisement, less autocracy, less authoritarianism, less repression and opression, still you conservatives -- you foot-shuffling knuckle-dragging cavemen continue to blame anyone progressive for what...for all the positive changes in your lifetimes.

Conservatives: Upholding racism, sexism, and classism while slowing down progress on human freedom since..well since forever.

You guys SUCK SO MUCH.

Quote from: Jackalope;239588If the white majority decides to combat historical white supremacist racism with altruistic counter-racism -- reparations -- then this would be a rejection of historical white supremacist racism.

And calling people names, hating them, and wishing they'd die is going to encourage this altruistic act how, exactly?

Quote from: Jackalope;239588Isn't amazing how the whole world has been moving steadily towards "the left" for the last several hundred years, towards greater enfranchisement, less autocracy, less authoritarianism, less repression and opression, still you conservatives -- you foot-shuffling knuckle-dragging cavemen continue to blame anyone progressive for what...for all the positive changes in your lifetimes.

Perhaps you missed the 100-170 million corpses produced by governments championed by many on the left during the 20th Century.  I'd rather pass on that form of "positive change", thanks.

Quote from: John Morrow;239582Uh, huh.  Whatever.

:rolleyes:

QuoteThen all he had to say is, "I don't advocate that."  And then?  It's not as if people haven't been making assumptions about what I believe even though I haven't said I believe those things, yourself included.  When do I get my apology and when do you admit you are using rhetorical tricks?  Or are you just going to make excuses and try to justify yourself?  

No he does not have to say that because you don't have to bring it up. Just as I don't expect others to bring up bizzare right wing dogma which has no bearing on the conversation when talking to you and expect you to reject it. It's about sticking to the point. Please show me where I have used any tricks. I don't think you need an apology for any assumptions anyone has made anymore than Jackalope for the things both of you have written.

QuoteI don't think Jackalope explained himself well enough and, frankly, when he and others here (that means you and Ian) start giving me the benefit of the doubt instead of assuming hidden agendas and unspoken prejudices, maybe I'll be inclined to be more careful about the assumptions I make about you guys.

No I won't give you the benefit of the doubt because of your posting style (going on these little detours), previous interactions on OT and  most importantly what you have written. I won't speak for Ian but make any assumption you like about me. I admit I've been in a few brawls on this site but I've always tried to be civil (you have been civil too) and conceded points I thought rational or where I was mistaken.

QuoteOf course it's not a one-way street and white people have adopted all sorts of elements of black culture.  I never claimed it was a one-way street so why are you assuming that I think it is?  Did I say it was?  

Because of all your posts about this subject - assimilation - it never came across even once that you thought it was a two way street. All your energies seemed to be focused on what the black community was doing wrong (or what you perceived as wrong) with brief nods to the fact that yeah, some blacks do suffer some "minor" inconveniences....

QuoteAgain, I'm not saying anything that black people aren't saying about their own community, including people that even Jackalope would be hard-pressed to call Uncle Toms....

Yes and you never seem to link to what they say about white people, those hard comments they have about white folks and what it's like to be black in a white society.

QuoteAnd what kind of solidarity is that, David?  Say what you mean instead of implying it.

The kind that understands that the community is on it's own. That they have to abandon the idea that the society they are living in has any real interest in helping them sort out their problems. That's it's up to them to band together and clean house. Simplistic, yes....but I'm not going to go into any detail about a culture (black) I have no business speaking for. This basic principle has helped many subaltern cultures around this - Asia - region. (Not that I'm using the term subaltern to describe the black experience)

Regards,
David R

Quote from: John Morrow;239575No, I'm not asserting it's not a real problem.  I've already agreed with you that it's a real problem.  I'm asserting that it's not an insurmountable problem, as demonstrated by the individual African Americans who succeed as well as the widespread successes of various black immigrant groups.

Who cares if it's a surmountable problem?  It's a problem that has no right to exist.  The white community, which erects the barriers, does not get to knock them half-way down and then insist the black community climb over and join us on the other side.

QuoteThe path to success that they follow is pretty predictable and is quite similar to the path to success used by past European immigrants, many of which also had to deal with prejudice and hardships.

Except that, you know, they aren't immigrants.  They helped create all the wealth in this country, and did not benefit from it for hundreds of years.  They didn't just show up recently because we got a good thing going here.

QuoteSo, to what end to "racist elements of the white supremacy" hold up these "Uncle Toms" as an example of a model minority person?

So they can claim that black people don't want any form of affirmative action.  So that they can point to racist black people and say "Look, they think it's all black people's fault too."  Just as you've done in this thread.

QuoteOK, so accepting that for the sake of argument, how do you break that cycle?

Outreach programs, intervention, education.  Social engineering.  You know, liberalism.

QuoteFrom 1930 through to the mid-1950s, Hollywood more or less followed The Hays Code (http://www.artsreformation.com/a001/hays-code.html) which, as it's first General Principle, stated, "No picture shall be produced that will lower the moral standards of those who see it. Hence the sympathy of the audience should never be thrown to the side of crime, wrongdoing, evil or sin."

Abuh?  What?  So?  Total non-sequitor John.

QuoteGreat.  Agreed that they are not black culture.

What the fuck.  You were just presenting them as examples of black culture that black Americans need to reject.  You have totally changed your position, you disingenuous fuckstick.

QuoteI'm glad you agree that those are not really parts of black culture.  So what does it take to get African American kids to stay in school and get a good education?

How about we start with decent schools?

QuoteIt's not a yes or no question, so it's not a false dichotomy like the wife question.  I asked for an explanation.  I didn't hide my assumptions but stated them clearly before the question, "at a time when things should have been getting better, many things stopped getting better or even got worse."  If you disagree with that assumption, then explain why it's wrong.  For someone obsessed with secret agendas and hidden assumptions, why do you find it so difficult to give straight answers?

They start off straight, and then you twist them.

QuoteAnd calling people names, hating them, and wishing they'd die is going to encourage this altruistic act how, exactly?

Ah yes, the right-wing hypocrisy.  Right-wing criticism ranges from invective filled ranting to mocking insults, and yet any angry leftist is the total detriment to the cause.

People like you are beyond hope.  You already know the truth, you just won't admit to yourself.   Nothing I could say could convince you, no matter how sweetly I said it.

QuotePerhaps you missed the 100-170 million corpses produced by governments championed by many on the left during the 20th Century. I'd rather pass on that form of "positive change", thanks.

Not who I was talking about dummy.

Quote from: Jackalope;239588You've never heard of using fire to fight fire?  Again, as I have explained several times already, racism is not simply prejudice or discrimination based on race, racism is the historical and ongoing oppression of people of color by the white supremacist hegemony.  

That you advocate racism to combat racism betrays your end goal, which is not the end of racism. In fact, you goal seems to be deep seated, culturally acceptable racism. The only logical conclusion of which is the regression of the last century of racial healing. By driving a highly explosive wedge between the races, you and your ilk hope to maintain mastery of minorities.

Quote from: Jackalope;239588You continuously reduce the conversation down to a simplistic dictionary definition of racism, which only illustrates how woefully incapable of having a rational conversation you are.  You insist on keeping the discussion as idiotic as possible.  That's why you can call me a racist, because you are using a pathetically simple-minded definition of racism that allows you to delude yourself into thinking that I'm as racist as you are, and thus are positions are morally equivalent.

How quaint it must be to be able to espouse racism, as you do, and convince yourself that because you aim it at "whitey" that it's ok. I call you a racist because you seek, and advocate, the segregation of people based on race.

Quote from: Jackalope;239588they are not.  I am right, you are a disgusting cretinous shithead.  I am on the side of goodness, light, angels and superheroes, and you are the fucking Penguin.  No, you're Shocker.  Ultimate Shocker.  A complete fucking retard of a bad guy, who has deluded himself into thinking he is as cool as the good guys.

You are certainly melodramatic. I just have to figure out if you actually believe it or just act it out on the interweb.

Quote from: Jackalope;239588You knwo why there is a liberal bias in media? because you can't tell stories about good guys who uphold right-wing values, because RIGHT WINGERS ARE FUCKING EVIL. I really wish you guys would get it through your head. You are COBRA. You are Spectre. You are the Cylons. Everything bad and evil in literature is a metaphor for you.

You may want to consult a doctor, you appear to be a sociopath.

Quote from: Jackalope;239588The funny part if how you're really describing your relationship with the left. Your entire political identity rests on their being a left so you can rail against it.

You don't care about stopping racism, that's why your only plan is to start by pretending race doesn't matter, effectively blinding ourselves to the consequences of racism.

The is almost funny after you superhero and villains rant. Almost.

Again, you are the one advocating racism as a means to "end" racism.

QuoteYour right-wing paranoia is hysterical. Isn't amazing how the whole world has been moving steadily towards "the left" for the last several hundred years, towards greater enfranchisement, less autocracy, less authoritarianism, less repression and opression, still you conservatives -- you foot-shuffling knuckle-dragging cavemen continue to blame anyone progressive for what...for all the positive changes in your lifetimes.

We've seen the joys of the far left. Fortunately, for most of us, much of the extremist left's experiments died when the Berlin Wall came down. It is certainly telling that you've adopted a caricature of your "enemies" that is chilling reminiscent of how the rabid racist of old would describe their "lessors". I guess it helps you feel better about your racism when you can think of your opponent as something less than human.

Quote from: CavScout;239597Again, you are the one advocating racism as a means to "end" racism.

And as long as you continue to pretend that all forms of racism are equal, then this conversation is pointless.

You're just an idiot. A sick, deluded idiot.

Quote from: Jackalope;239600And as long as you continue to pretend that all forms of racism are equal, then this conversation is pointless.

You're just an idiot. A sick, deluded idiot.

Racism is racism regardless if one is unable to put some grand plan into motion based on those racist beliefs or not. That you actually advocate that some racism is "good racism" betrays less about your intelligence and more about what your true goals are.

The mere suggestion that racism from group X to group Y is actually beneficial because group Y was racist towards group X is certainly interesting in the sense that it lets us all view the dark workings of your mind.

All forms are racism are bad and are caustic to society. Until you realize that you will be branded for what you are. A racial firebomb thrower, more interested in making sure that minorities have a boogey man to hate so that you and the far-left can maintain the shackles of political slavery.

This thread has really gone off-course...so , here is a whacky theory:

There might be some people who are secretly masochists - but they don't have the nerve to ask anyone to actually physically punish them in real life.
So instead they say the most vitriolic things possible - comments and statements so extreme that these people are guaranteed to get angry responses online. they are actually hoping for it. In this way their masochism is satisfied.  Sort of a "sucide by cop" but instead they are hoping for an online text dogpile.

 Jackalope might be one of these sorts of secret masochists. By continuing the arguments and debates with him - we may be helping him to 'get off' as it were.

If true, thats really kind of sad and pathetic.


- Ed C.

Quote from: David R;239594No he does not have to say that because you don't have to bring it up. Just as I don't expect others to bring up bizzare right wing dogma which has no bearing on the conversation when talking to you and expect you to reject it.

Yet in this reply and others, you are filling in what you think I believe based on what I've so far, going far beyond anything I have said.  Either that's fair game or it's not but don't call me on it when you are doing it yourself.  

Quote from: David R;239594No I won't give you the benefit of the doubt because of your posting style (going on these little detours), previous interactions on OT and  most importantly what you have written.

Yet I'm supposed to give the benefit of the doubt to a person who constantly calls me names and espouses some quote radical ideas?

Quote from: David R;239594I won't speak for Ian but make any assumption you like about me. I admit I've been in a few brawls on this site but I've always tried to be civil (you have been civil too) and conceded points I thought rational or where I was mistaken.

I find it rather bizarre not only that I'm the only one you can find fault with in this thread but that you are engaged in exactly the same thing that you were faulting me for doing (making assumptions about what I might believe).

Quote from: David R;239594Because of all your posts about this subject - assimilation - it never came across even once that you thought it was a two way street.

It never came up.  So why didn't you ask instead of making an assumption?

Quote from: David R;239594All your energies seemed to be focused on what the black community was doing wrong (or what you perceived as wrong) with brief nods to the fact that yeah, some blacks do suffer some "minor" inconveniences....

I said that the problems were not insurmountable.  Did I call them "minor inconveniences"?  

Quote from: David R;239594Yes and you never seem to link to what they say about white people, those hard comments they have about white folks and what it's like to be black in a white society.

Perhaps you missed the part where I said, "The problem that Jackalope describes is legitimate and many white people are, in fact, blind to the extra little hassles that black people frequently encounter simply for being black or don't believe that things like that actually happen (they do)."  

As for what it's like to be black in a white society, I think that varies quite a bit from individual to individual.  I've talked to quit a few black friends and coworkers about it.  And if I post articles by black people who downplay the problems of racism or are critical of the black community, they'll simply be dismissed as inauthentic experiences, won't they?

Quote from: David R;239594The kind that understands that the community is on it's own. That they have to abandon the idea that the society they are living in has any real interest in helping them sort out their problems. That's it's up to them to band together and clean house.

What do you mean by "clean house"?  I'm asking rather than going off on a tangent with assumptions.

Quote from: David R;239594Simplistic, yes....but I'm not going to go into any detail about a culture (black) I have no business speaking for. This basic principle has helped many subaltern cultures around this - Asia - region. (Not that I'm using the term subaltern to describe the black experience)

I wouldn't be opposed to that idea if it worked.  I simply have doubts that it will work.

Quote from: CavScout;239601Racism is racism regardless if one is unable to put some grand plan into motion based on those racist beliefs or not. That you actually advocate that some racism is "good racism" betrays less about your intelligence and more about what your true goals are.

Blah blah blah, same shit, different arrangement.

QuoteThe mere suggestion that racism from group X to group Y is actually beneficial because group Y was racist towards group X is certainly interesting in the sense that it lets us all view the dark workings of your mind.

If you're saying I suggested that "racism from blacks to whites is actually beneficial because whites were racist towards black," then you are once again twisting my words and presenting a straw man.

QuoteAll forms are racism are bad and are caustic to society. Until you realize that you will be branded for what you are. A racial firebomb thrower, more interested in making sure that minorities have a boogey man to hate so that you and the far-left can maintain the shackles of political slavery.

Prove it.

Quote from: Koltar;239605This thread has really gone off-course...so , here is a whacky theory:

There might be some people who are secretly masochists - but they don't have the nerve to ask anyone to actually physically punish them in real life.
So instead they say the most vitriolic things possible - comments and statements so extreme that these people are guaranteed to get angry responses online. they are actually hoping for it. In this way their masochism is satisfied.  Sort of a "sucide by cop" but instead they are hoping for an online text dogpile.

 Jackalope might be one of these sorts of secret masochists. By continuing the arguments and debates with him - we may be helping him to 'get off' as it were.

If true, thats really kind of sad and pathetic.

Here's a less wacky theory:  You're an ignorant, intellectually subaverage lump of shit that couldn't think his way out of a paper bag.

All you are doing by participating in this conversation is providing further evidence that right-wingers are fucking idiots.

Quote from: Jackalope;239596Who cares if it's a surmountable problem?  It's a problem that has no right to exist.  The white community, which erects the barriers, does not get to knock them half-way down and then insist the black community climb over and join us on the other side.

The problem is that you are confusing the moral ("has no right to exist") and the practical ("does not get to...").  No, white people shouldn't be racist and create unfair barriers for black people as a moral matter.  But as a practical matter, if white people are as in control as you claim they are, they can put the barriers wherever they want them.  That's the critical failure in your thinking.  What's missing is that in order to get white people to not be racist, you can't just wave your hand and make it so and calling people names and threatening them is not how you get them to like someone and treat them well.  You need to convince them to change.  Sure, you can rely on force but then you'll be trampling all of those good things about liberalism underfoot, won't you?

Quote from: Jackalope;239596Except that, you know, they aren't immigrants.  They helped create all the wealth in this country, and did not benefit from it for hundreds of years.  They didn't just show up recently because we got a good thing going here.

What difference does that make?  Nobody benefits from anything for hundreds of years because nobody lives for hundreds of years.

Quote from: Jackalope;239596So they can claim that black people don't want any form of affirmative action.  So that they can point to racist black people and say "Look, they think it's all black people's fault too."  Just as you've done in this thread.

So it's impossible that other people could want to help black people, too, but just have different opinions about how best to help them?  

Quote from: Jackalope;239596Outreach programs, intervention, education.  Social engineering.  You know, liberalism.

What sort of "social engineering" and who will be in charge of it?

Quote from: Jackalope;239596What the fuck.  You were just presenting them as examples of black culture that black Americans need to reject.  You have totally changed your position, you disingenuous fuckstick.

OK, let me clarify.  Not parts of black culture in the sense that you were talking about when you expressed concern about black people losing their heritage if they assimilate.  Currently part of black culture in the sense that these things are common in the current black community.

Quote from: Jackalope;239596How about we start with decent schools?

Sure.  I agree 100%.

Quote from: Jackalope;239596Ah yes, the right-wing hypocrisy.  Right-wing criticism ranges from invective filled ranting to mocking insults, and yet any angry leftist is the total detriment to the cause.

When have I told you that I want to bash your face in with a brick or that I wish you would die?  When have I spent half of my reply calling you childish names?

Quote from: Jackalope;239596People like you are beyond hope.  You already know the truth, you just won't admit to yourself.   Nothing I could say could convince you, no matter how sweetly I said it.

And that's different from you how, exactly?  Oh, that's right.  You really already know the truth.

Quote from: Jackalope;239596Not who I was talking about dummy.

Of course not.  Things always look better when you ignore the piles of bodies.

Quote from: Jackalope;239612Blah blah blah, same shit, different arrangement.

If you're saying I suggested that "racism from blacks to whites is actually beneficial because whites were racist towards black," then you are once again twisting my words and presenting a straw man.

There is no twisting needed. You freely admit that some racism is fine. You don't dislike racism, you just don't like certain races from doing it.

QuoteProve it.

You don't think, "All forms are racism are bad and are caustic to society"? Well of course not, you actually advocate it for some.

Quote from: Jackalope;239613Here's a less wacky theory:  You're an ignorant, intellectually subaverage lump of shit that couldn't think his way out of a paper bag.

All you are doing by participating in this conversation is providing further evidence that right-wingers are fucking idiots.

You seem to lash out more and more with this line of drivel as you find yourself backed into a intellectually dishonest corner.

Quote from: CavScout;239621You seem to lash out more and more with this line of drivel as you find yourself backed into a intellectually dishonest corner.

Cav, you can be hard to follow sometimes...but you're reasonable. Your above post is pretty on target in this case.

 The funny thing?

 I'm not a right-winger.

I reality-checked with a few people this past week. One or two told me that I'm probably actually a liberal. (Gasp! I'll have to change all my t-shirts and the cards in my wallet)

- Ed

Quote from: John Morrow;239610Yet in this reply and others, you are filling in what you think I believe based on what I've so far, going far beyond anything I have said.  Either that's fair game or it's not but don't call me on it when you are doing it yourself.  

Where ? This little tangent started with me calling you out on a comment you conceded (kinda off) that nobody had really made.

QuoteYet I'm supposed to give the benefit of the doubt to a person who constantly calls me names and espouses some quote radical ideas?

Where have I called you names and said you espouse radical ideas ? Are you talking about Jackalope ? Or are you addressing me, in which case kindly point out where I called you names or said you espouse radical ideas. I admit, I do find what you write troubling but I say so openly.

QuoteI find it rather bizarre not only that I'm the only one you can find fault with in this thread but that you are engaged in exactly the same thing that you were faulting me for doing (making assumptions about what I might believe).

Please show me where I do this ? I think the only assumption I've made about you is the last remark about how I think your " the tone of your criticisms will get darker after solidarity" comment.

QuoteIt never came up.  So why didn't you ask instead of making an assumption?

Why should I have to ? When someone like you goes on everytime in the same way whenever the subject of assimilation is brought up never giving the impression that it is a two way street, it's hardly wrong for someone (like me) to assume that you do not in fact think it's a two way street. If you don't think it's worth mentioning - the fact it's a two way street  -  which is perhaps the most important thing, than this says something about the way how you present your arguments or the way you really think.

QuoteI said that the problems were not insurmountable.  Did I call them "minor inconveniences"?
Perhaps you missed the part where I said, "The problem that Jackalope describes is legitimate and many white people are, in fact, blind to the extra little hassles that black people frequently encounter simply for being black or don't believe that things like that actually happen (they do)."

Well IMO  describing it as "extra little hassles" is the same as minor inconveniences. Or do you consider the part of your conversation with Jackalope about blacks and incarceration "a little extra hassle". Or were you talking about the problems faced by middle and only middle class blacks ?

QuoteAs for what it's like to be black in a white society, I think that varies quite a bit from individual to individual.  I've talked to quit a few black friends and coworkers about it.  And if I post articles by black people who downplay the problems of racism or are critical of the black community, they'll simply be dismissed as inauthentic experiences, won't they?

I believe we have covered this part already....I'm a bit puzzled as to why you would bring it up again. Of course there's a diverse range of thought in the black community. My point was that you never seem to bring up the those opinions by blacks who are critical of the white community. Again If you go back and check my original comment to Jackalope it was to not dismiss these kinds (black opinions which are critical of their own community) of opinions....which seem to be the only ones you know btw.

QuoteWhat do you mean by "clean house"?  I'm asking rather than going off on a tangent with assumptions.

You live in New York if I'm not mistaken. I mean something like this. There are some problems with this but I like what I've been reading so far. This is an example of "cleaning house" (mind you if I'm not mistaken one third of financing comes from the goverment the other two thirds are from private capital - so not exactly totally black financed but a good start) :

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/11/60minutes/main1611936.shtml

QuoteI wouldn't be opposed to that idea if it worked.  I simply have doubts that it will work.

Oh it works....but believe me when I say it's a messy endevour. I would give you specific examples....okay it's more like ongoing processes but the results have been extremely positive, but most of the examples are in the Asian region, so I'll just leave it at that.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Koltar;239627Cav, you can be hard to follow sometimes...but you're reasonable. Your above post is pretty on target in this case.

 The funny thing?

 I'm not a right-winger.

I reality-checked with a few people this past week. One or two told me that I'm probably actually a liberal. (Gasp! I'll have to change all my t-shirts and the cards in my wallet)

- Ed

You'll find that the majority of the right and left share many common positions. It's is the extreme fringes, on both sides, that display the kind of vitriol that Jack does. It's not just a political or philosophical difference to him, he sees himself in a battle where his opponents are not even human beings. That's what makes him dangerous.

It really doesn't matter where you lean on a political spectrum until you become a radical.

Quote from: Koltar;239627Cav, you can be hard to follow sometimes...but you're reasonable. Your above post is pretty on target in this case.

No Ed, you're just a fucking idiot.  You are incapable of cognating the difference between "reasonable" and "appeals to my biases."  Seriously, in the months that I have been here I still ahve yet to see you even make a singlke attempt at presenting anything resembling a coherent, sensible argument.

You just BLATHER.  Nothing you say is backed up by any sort of reasoning, half of what you say simply doesn't make sense, you regularly display gross ignorance of facts

CavScout was not remotely "on target."  If you had half a brain, it would be obvious what he's doing.  He's been twisting and misrepresenting my beliefs so as box me in, and force me to defend myself against utterly spurious accusations.  All in an effort to avoid addressing my actual arguments.

Where, for example, is his evidence that I want to perpetuate racism for all time?  He makes no attempt to demonstrate this from my comments, he simply asserts that it is true.  Yet, in response to Werekoala's request, I laid out some ideas about how to address racism.  All of these ideas were selected for the predictable and immediate results that they create.  Yet CavScout, in total definance of my stated desires, claims I want to perpetuate the existing situation for all time in order to have something to rail against.  There is nothing to support this interpretation!

So when he claims that I "lash out more and more with this line of drivel as {I} find {myself} backed into a intellectually dishonest corner" what he is actually commenting on is the real fact that I tend to lash out more and more when I get frustrated by other people's intellectual dishonesty.

He's being intellectually dishonest, it's pissing me off, and the only reason you agree with his interpretation of reality is that it supports your delusional belief that you aren't a pea-brained idiot.

QuoteThe funny thing?

I'm not a right-winger.

Hard to tell, considering the way you defend right-wing hate literature, attempt to suppress or censor any criticism of the right, play cheerleader to the right-wingers on this board, and constantly praise them for their "reasonableness" when they are being clearly disingenuous.

Ultimately Ed, I have such incredible lack of confidence in your intelligence that I honestly do not believe you are intellectually capable of identifying your own political bias.  You may (quite-by-accident) be correct that you aren't a right-winger though.  You may simply be too stupid to be labeled with an specific ideology.

Congrats Ed, you're now a member of the "Jackass called you stoopid" club. Your t-shirt is in the mail.

Lemmee see if I have this thread straight:

OP: blatent political trolling
Me: cookies!
Jackalope: Semi-coherent rantings that seriously confuse Race and Culture, and demonstrates why we should continute to mock him endlessly.
Walkerp vs Gleichman, part 532
CavScout vs Stormbringer, Part 1421
John Morrow: Long posts, lots of links, makes strong cases for his points
Jackalope: Calls John a poopie head with nothing to say
David R: Points out that John isn't making strong cases for other peoples points, or something
Koltar: Can't we all just get along?
Jackalope: More semi-coherent ramblings, also Koltar is a poppie head with nothing to say
Cavscout: taunts Jackalope and Stormbringer into continuing the thread slinging insults and less and less communicative stuff...

Did I miss anything?

Quote from: Spike;239782Lemmee see if I have this thread straight:

OP: blatent political trolling
Me: cookies!
Jackalope: Semi-coherent rantings that seriously confuse Race and Culture, and demonstrates why we should continute to mock him endlessly.
Walkerp vs Gleichman, part 532
CavScout vs Stormbringer, Part 1421
John Morrow: Long posts, lots of links, makes strong cases for his points
Jackalope: Calls John a poopie head with nothing to say
David R: Points out that John isn't making strong cases for other peoples points, or something
Koltar: Can't we all just get along?
Jackalope: More semi-coherent ramblings, also Koltar is a poppie head with nothing to say
Cavscout: taunts Jackalope and Stormbringer into continuing the thread slinging insults and less and less communicative stuff...

Did I miss anything?

Clearly it should be part 1422.

Nah , Spike it looks like you did a pretty good summation there.

 In that one line - were you saying that Jackalope was calling me a poppie head or a poopie head?  if its the first one , then someone is overestimating my ability to find the really good herbal happy-making drugs.

Not that I wouldn't mind some pain killers right now. (but thats another topic)


- Ed C.

Quote from: John Morrow;239575

Quote from: Jackalope...crypto-bigot...

See, Ian, you went and taught Jackalope a new word.

Nah, not really.  It's like Japanese and the color "green".  They always knew what the color was, they just didn't differentiate it from "blue".

!i!

Quote from: Spike;239782Lemmee see if I have this thread straight:

OP: blatent political trolling
Me: cookies!
Jackalope: Semi-coherent rantings that seriously confuse Race and Culture, and demonstrates why we should continute to mock him endlessly.
Walkerp vs Gleichman, part 532
CavScout vs Stormbringer, Part 1421
John Morrow: Long posts, lots of links, makes strong cases for his points
Jackalope: Calls John a poopie head with nothing to say
David R: Points out that John isn't making strong cases for other peoples points, or something
Koltar: Can't we all just get along?
Jackalope: More semi-coherent ramblings, also Koltar is a poppie head with nothing to say
Cavscout: taunts Jackalope and Stormbringer into continuing the thread slinging insults and less and less communicative stuff...

Did I miss anything?

Yeah, I was in there pretty early on pointing out the fuckwits of the thread and how they've continued to be fuckwits by engaging in the political trolling.

Otherwise you got it in one, particularly the mocking of Jackalope.

Ah... yes, the missing line

Jeff37923: The lone cassandra predicting doom upon all our houses for our sins.


To be inserted somewhere around Cookies!

Quote from: Spike;239919Ah... yes, the missing line

Jeff37923: The lone cassandra predicting doom upon all our houses for our sins.


To be inserted somewhere around Cookies!

Put the line anywhere. It's all Greek to me!