From Laurie:
"Again from K. Drum How Should We Talk About Racism?
Maybe John would have something to say about Trump if I didn't keep bringing up the idea that racism is the basis of Trump's support. Should liberals shy away from identifying racism where they see it? I do agree with Drum that it would be less objectionable to label Trump rather than his supporters as racist, though the most extreme supporters should definitely be described as racist."
"Again from K. Drum How Should We Talk About Racism?
Maybe John would have something to say about Trump if I didn't keep bringing up the idea that racism is the basis of Trump's support. Should liberals shy away from identifying racism where they see it? I do agree with Drum that it would be less objectionable to label Trump rather than his supporters as racist, though the most extreme supporters should definitely be described as racist."
80 comments:
Sorry for being AWOL... I am swamped at work, I am supposed to use 12 hours of PTO before 6/30/16 and I spent the weekend prepping the cabin/toys so my family and those of my sisters can use them next week... Sometimes it is hard to be very mechanically capable workaholic. The good news I am exhausted at night and sleep well.
As for the article... Personally I think Liberals are just unrealistic and illogical.
They want to increase the wages for employees with low academic capabilities and skills. Yet they are fine with an open border where 400,000+ illegals come across the border without background checks. And they want to give the 11 million who are here taking the jobs from our poor to stay.
They want a free society where LGBT folks can live openly. Yet they want to encourage more Muslims who are often very strongly opposed to that life style to come here.
Then of course there is the point where many of them complain about Racism, as they openly complain about White people being unfair to minorities...
Personally I think Liberals are just fine with a declining America.
I mean they it seems they think:
- Teachers / Admin Personnel should be paid more when many kids are left behind.
- They think irresponsible parents should get checks to subsidize their choices.
- They think America should allow and pardon border jumpers and visa over stayers.
- We should accept every immigrant or refugee, regardless of their skills, knowledge, wealth, beliefs, etc.
- Employers should pay employees more regardless of their skills, knowledge, wealth, beliefs, etc.
Now a practical logical person would want:
- Teachers / Admin Personnel should be paid more for challenging classrooms and for results.
- Irresponsible Parents should be dissuaded from having kids.
- Only legal immigrants should allowed into the country, and preferable mostly those who support American values and can help our tolerant society grow and become stronger.
- Low skill/ Low academics / Low effort personnel should be pushed to improve to help our society thrive.
Please note that Race never even entered into my comment.
And yet I can almost bet that somehow Liberals will find a way to make it about Race.
"They want a free society where LGBT folks can live openly. Yet they want to encourage more Muslims who are often very strongly opposed to that life style to come here."
It ain't Muslims who are pushing the anti-LGBT political agenda in this country.
"Personally I think Liberals are just fine with a declining America."
Get over yourself.
Do you know of any Muslim groups who are pro-LGBT?
I am thinking they are a bit like the Catholics and Baptists...
Do you disagree with any these?
I mean they it seems they think:
- Teachers / Admin Personnel should be paid more even when many kids are left behind.
- They think irresponsible parents should get checks to subsidize their choices.
- They think America should allow and pardon border jumpers and visa over stayers.
- We should accept every immigrant or refugee, regardless of their skills, knowledge, wealth, beliefs, etc.
- Employers should pay employees more regardless of their skills, knowledge, wealth, beliefs, etc.
How do these support a smarter, more capable, more successful USA?
I'm not arguing for the billionth time against your made up strawmen.
And yet Liberals continue to charge Racism when there are very logical non-Race related criteria to drive the beliefs and actions of many Conservatives.
And often it is the Liberals who want to make Race based policies...
Whenever you hear people going out of their way to say "it's not about the money", it's almost always about the money.
The same applies to other topics as well.
Two things: 1) Liberals cry "racism" because they do not have any rational way to defend their nonsense, or even to understand how people might very sensibly come to a conclusion/position different from theirs. Example: one can disagree with Obama's policies for reasons other than that he is [half] black. 2) "Racism" is at its root a prejudice-- an unreasoned belief that all members of a race are inferior to one's own- and the cure for that is exposure to members of the race that do not fit the stereotype. Therefore, if exposure to members of that category of people has been rather uniformly unpleasant, it is not racism at all, but simple discernment and "risk management."
As for those who think Trump is a racist: "An idea is not responsible for the people who believe in it." The same for candidates.
"Example: one can disagree with Obama's policies for reasons other than that he is [half] black."
Yes. One CAN. But reality is quite different. Obama has been the subject of immense insult, greater than any president in my lifetime. All of the economic indicators that most people rely on have improved significantly over his term. The Affordable Care Act is quite successful. He has achieved great things for this country, yet is met with cruelty. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's an ignorant racist.
"As for those who think Trump is a racist: "An idea is not responsible for the people who believe in it." The same for candidates."
Not sure of the relevance, but I may not be understanding the quote. Trump is responsible for his own racism, sexism, and xenophobia.
Joel
"An idea is not responsible for the people who believe in it."
Perhaps not, but it sure tells you a lot about the idea and the person who came up with it.
Racist Red Cross
Joel / Sean,
Now you both strongly disagree with the White Religious Right when it comes to how many of them behave when it comes LGBT rights.
Does this mean are Racist, Xenophobic, etc?
Now I strongly disagree with people who choose to illegally violate the US borders.
Does that mean I am Racist, Xenophobic, etc?
Rationale? Thoughts?
Or I am very against Parents who are incapable, irresponsible, immature and/or lacking resources having and raising kids while collecting money from hard working tax payers to do so...
Does that mean I am Racist, Xenophobic, Sexist, etc?
Rationale? Thoughts?
Just a reminder...
racism
: poor treatment of or violence against people because of their race
: the belief that some races of people are better than others
xenophobia
: fear or hatred of strangers or foreigners
And let's not forget another favorite label that is used by Liberals to describe those who believe differently than themselves.
bigot
: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
Here is an interesting read. LGBT in Islam
And a very interesting graph
Ironic article...
"Yes. One CAN. But reality is quite different. Obama has been the subject of immense insult, greater than any president in my lifetime. All of the economic indicators that most people rely on have improved significantly over his term. The Affordable Care Act is quite successful. He has achieved great things for this country, yet is met with cruelty. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's an ignorant racist." -- Joel
Joel, thank you for proving my point, in spades, and that isn't a racist slur. I disagree with your "reality." And because of that, the reality that I believe in you call "racist." How about "Bush lied, people died"? Was that a racist slur? Any doubt that the black prosecutor in the Freddie Gray case is pursuing a racist agenda?
'I disagree with your "reality."'
Disagreeing with something doesn't make it any less real. For instance, the religious 'right' doesn't agree with homosexuality.
'How about "Bush lied, people died"?'
A statement of fact.
"Any doubt that the black prosecutor in the Freddie Gray case is pursuing a racist agenda?"
I haven't looked at the case in any meaningful way and don't have the information to make any sort of statement about it.
President Obama has taken criticism that has been not race-based. He has also taken criticism that is race-based. He also has taken criticism that is dressed up as not race-based, but actually is (like FOX News's infamous "terrorist fist jab") because the black President is being held to a different standard.
"Any doubt that the black prosecutor in the Freddie Gray case is pursuing a racist agenda? "
Aren't the defendants in the case evenly split between black and white police officers? What makes the "agenda" of seeking justice for someone killed while in police custody racist in and of itself?
Joel, (I assume)
"Disagreeing with something doesn't make it any less real." Yes, it does, if your "reality" is based on your opinion. My opinion is just as real as yours, and I have the advantage of being based in fact. I measure Obama's economy by labor force participation rate, average family income, economic growth, deficits, the national debt, and AVERAGE unemployment. They're all bad. I don't care who the president is, it's bad. That he promises (and keeps lying) that the economy is good is another black mark against him.
"For instance, the religious 'right' doesn't agree with homosexuality." Again wrong. We disagree that it is a healthy or desirable lifestyle, which is largely a religious opinion but not necessarily a prejudice. It can also be held by non-religious people, informed by factual evidence of various sorts.
"How about 'Bush lied, people died'?
A statement of fact."
No, a lie popularized by those suffering from BDS (a form of prejudice). Any clear reading of Bush's exact quote refutes any such notion. And if you are going to say, in support of your Big Lie, that there were no WMDs, we'll have that argument because the proof is otherwise.
Remember, racism and bigotry are based in an UNREASONED opinion and applied to an entire class of people. Unless you want to claim 1 black President constitutes a class, you can't possibly claim racism is at fault.
"Bush lied, people died" A statement of fact.
Please prove that Bush lied.
"Lie: a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood. "
"Please prove that Bush lied."
Here's one example: the story of Hussein Kamel.
Certainly the overall case for war -- presenting only the cherry-picked parts of the intelligence that they liked and ignoring and downplaying the evidence that went in the other direction was clearly done with intent to deceive. The intelligence on WMD was nowhere enar as certain as the Bush Administration made it out to be.
"... was clearly done with intent to deceive."
So, anytime there is a scintilla of evidence contrary to our conclusions, we are lying-- intending to deceive-- to say that the evidence convinces us otherwise? Must public policy be "beyond a reasonable doubt" or even based on "the preponderance of evidence"? Would that it were.
"presenting only the cherry-picked parts of the intelligence that they liked and ignoring and downplaying the evidence that went in the other direction was clearly done with intent to deceive"
I always have to wonder how many lies we tell around here?
We all look at the news, facts, data, evidence, history, etc and come up with totally different conclusions. Are we lying?
How much of the following is me lying?
Personally I think Liberals are just fine with a declining America.
I mean they it seems they think:
- Teachers / Admin Personnel should be paid more when many kids are left behind.
- They think irresponsible parents should get checks to subsidize their choices.
- They think America should allow and pardon border jumpers and visa over stayers.
- We should accept every immigrant or refugee, regardless of their skills, knowledge, wealth, beliefs, etc.
- Employers should pay employees more regardless of their skills, knowledge, wealth, beliefs, etc.
Now a practical logical person would want:
- Teachers / Admin Personnel should be paid more for challenging classrooms and for results.
- Irresponsible Parents should be dissuaded from having kids.
- Only legal immigrants should allowed into the country, and preferable mostly those who support American values and can help our tolerant society grow and become stronger.
- Low skill/ Low academics / Low effort personnel should be pushed to improve to help our society thrive.
"Lie: a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood. "
"Irresponsible Parents should be dissuaded from having kids."
Isn't that racist?
"So, anytime there is a scintilla of evidence contrary to our conclusions, we are lying"
No, but in this case it wasn't like the evidence was lopsided one way or another. Based on the evidence, you could argue the point either way. But that wasn't the case we were given. Donald Rumsfeld, when asked about it, said point-blank "We know where they are." We were told they had them, and they were prepared to use them. No nuance at all.
So, John, you're just going to skip over the evidence presented that the Bush Administration did in fact lie and change the subject to something else? You're the one who requested the sources.
"How much of the following is me lying?"
Much of you posted in the screed that followed this sentence was at the very least dishonest and disrespectful. You say "liberals are just fine with a declining America" without defining what you think "declining" represents and why you think liberals prefer decline. I would suggest that liberals have a different vision for America that you don't like. You ascribe positions to liberals that are stereotypes at best, and seriously divorced from reality at worst. That's why I have refuse to substantively engage with that post and will continue to do so. You don't get to tell me what I think and then ask me to defend it. Feel free to argue against your own strawman, that's what you like to do best anyway.
"We disagree that it is a healthy or desirable lifestyle, which is largely a religious opinion but not necessarily a prejudice. It can also be held by non-religious people, informed by factual evidence of various sorts."
Dare I ask what nonsense you believe provides factual evidence?
"Remember, racism and bigotry are based in an UNREASONED opinion and applied to an entire class of people. Unless you want to claim 1 black President constitutes a class, you can't possibly claim racism is at fault."
ROFL. If you don't want to acknowledge the racism on display against our President, fine, but that's tortuous logic, at best.
Joel
"Irresponsible Parents should be dissuaded from having kids." G2A "Isn't that racist?" Jerry
Many people here would say that it is even though I in no way imply race in the statement... :-)
To me it seems it must be them who believe Race is somehow related to Irresponsible vs Responsible Parenting...
My guidelines are pretty quantifiable:
- Do you have an income that allows you to feed, cloth, house, etc your family?
- Are you responsible, mature and capable enough prepare children for Kindergarten and support them during their school years?
Sean,
Let's go back to the definition...
"Lie: a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood."
The reality is that as long as I believe it is the truth... Apparently it can not be a lie.
My opinion is that Bush truly believed everything he said.
"Dare I ask what nonsense you believe provides factual evidence?"
Here is a simple one. Sexually active gay men can not give blood because of the risk it poses to the blood supply...
Now would you please provide factual evidence that being accepting of the LGBT lifestyle is good for our society...
"My opinion is that Bush truly believed everything he said."
As the old saying goes, denial ain't just a river in Egypt.
"Here is a simple one. Sexually active gay men can not give blood because of the risk it poses to the blood supply..."
A priest who had sex with a man in 1978 but has been celibate since would be banned under this policy, yet a prostitute would not be turned away.
And you think it's simple.
The AMA opposes the ban.
Try again.
Joel
Pardon me, my source had old and bad information and I had forgotten about the change in policy.
My point still stands, generally, that a woman could have sex with a hundred men in the past month and not be banned from giving blood.
Do they defer people who have cheated on their spouses? No? Another strike against the policy.
It is entirely false that monogamous gay men are at a higher risk than the general population, yet they are banned.
It is decidedly NOT simple, but you are free to think it is.
Joel
I happily live in the gray zone where there are few if any heroes or villains. It is people like yourself who like simple.
You asked for one fact. That is what I provided.
" If you don't want to acknowledge the racism on display against our President, fine, "
Thank you for allowing me to hold an opinion. But I wonder if you understand you have again proven that opinion correct. That is, you believe criticism of Obama IS racist, with no allowance that it may NOT be. Put it another way: Do you suppose that all of those who prided themselves on electing "the first black president" do so for [reverse] racist reasons?
"You asked for one fact. That is what I provided."
I asked for factual evidence to support an opinion that a "homosexual lifestyle" is not a healthy or desirable lifestyle. You provided evidence of a policy based on illogical conclusions.
Straight men are more likely to be pedophiles. Do you agree that they should be banned from teaching elementary and secondary children?
And I don't think I need to remind anyone here just how ignorant and stupid someone sounds when they call homosexuality a 'lifestyle'. Good Lord.
Joel
"But I wonder if you understand you have again proven that opinion correct. That is, you believe criticism of Obama IS racist, with no allowance that it may NOT be."
You are the one who has claimed that criticism of President Obama CANNOT be racist. As I said, feel free to think that. But it's utterly false.
Joel
Joel,
I think some racist people are critical of Obama.
However I think the vast majority of people who are critical of him, his actions and his beliefs just dislike him/them.
Can you accept this view?
Joel,
Please feel free to disagree with the FDA. I unfortunately can not give blood until Sept because I was in India for 2 days...
"they call homosexuality a 'lifestyle'"
Please show us some factual science to prove it is otherwise...
"Please show us some factual science to prove it is otherwise..."
No. Learn to listen to your fellow humans.
Joel
"However I think the vast majority of people who are critical of him, his actions and his beliefs just dislike him/them."
If this is true, they need to be louder than the racists. Hasn't happened yet.
Joel
Are we talking about any particular criticism of Obama? If so, it is impossible that EVERY such criticism is racist. You therefore cannot say that it all is. Yet it is possible to say that some charges of racism are false without saying they all are. Where you think the percentages lie is a matter of opinion. And let me ask: those who believe that criticism of Obama is racist base that conclusion on what evidence?
"You therefore cannot say that it all is."
And I don't believe I have done so.
But we need look no further than the birther nonsense to see the racist roots of the opposition to President Obama.
Joel
Wait a minute... the "birther nonsense" had nothing whatsoever to do with the man's race. It had to do with his "country of origin" and, while we're not supposed to discriminate on that basis, the President is Constitutionally required to be native-born. It is anything BUT nonsense to ask the question. Remember the "birther nonsense" surrounding Ted Cruz? Was THAT racist?
Maybe it is because Cruz is Cuban?
Why is it that Liberals are so OBSESSED with RACE? :-)
I personally could not care about Race and yet for Liberals it is...
"Race this", Race that", ....
Laurie,
You planted this topic... Where are your thoughts?
So is the NBA the most Racist organization in the world since it's player demographics are so out of whack with our national demographics?
So is the Nursing profession the most sexist profession since their demographics are so out of whack with our national demographics?
Of course NOT... There are simply other factors that are causal...
Going back to the initial article... I have to wonder if Kevin is just pointing fingers at the "Racist Conservative Politicians / Media"? Or if he is aiming also at all the "Racist Liberal Politicians / Media" who use Race as a weapon.
"People are people. To some extent, we're all prisoners of the environments we were raised in and the trials we've been through over the course of our lives. That might call for empathy and understanding as much as it calls for censure. But one thing it doesn't excuse is politicians and media personalities who very much know better but cynically appeal to racial sentiment anyway, either for ratings or for votes. Calling out these folks for appealing to racism—or even just tolerating it—is almost certainly useful. It might not happen fast, but eventually they can be embarrassed into cutting it out. It sure is taking a long time, though."
"Wait a minute... the "birther nonsense" had nothing whatsoever to do with the man's race."
LOL. I never imagined you to be so naïve.
Joel
"I unfortunately can not give blood until Sept because I was in India for 2 days..."
Aha! Factual proof that people who engage in international travel are harmful to society. Cancel all passports immediately! We must not let that lifestyle impact our communities!
"LOL. I never imagined you to be so naïve." -- Joel
Yes, your characterizations of me are indeed the product of a healthy imagination.
Of course, you could attempt to disprove my statements using facts and logic, but since your opinion is based entirely on your prejudices about other people's motivations, it isn't likely. And that's the whole problem here, isn't it? We cannot have a sensible conversation about "race" (assuming one is needed or desirable at all) because we have a whole industry, a political and cultural juggernaut of victim-hood and grievance-mongering, that prohibits any common sense discussion by automatically assigning terrible motivations to anyone who tries.
Were it not for these race-baiters and race-hustlers profiting from this divisiveness, I think people would work it out for themselves.
Sean,
I agree whole heartedly that there are risks to our society when people travel internationally. Especially with the zika virus right now...
However there are off setting benefits to the travel. In my case it support 1,000+ people to employed in Eden Prairie, which helps support the Twin Cities community.
Now as I asked Joel early... What is the off setting benefit to our society of openly allowing / encouraging LGBT relationships?
Please remember that I am not arguing for either position. I am just clarifying that there are 2 positions.
"What is the off setting benefit to our society of openly allowing / encouraging LGBT relationships?"
Benefits aren't required as allowing LGBT folks to marry is indeed required by the Constitution of the United States. But since you asked, encouraging LGBT folks into monogamous relationships with full legal status have similar advantages as heterosexual marriage in terms of economic stability and public health.
"LGBT folks to marry is indeed required by the Constitution"
Please remember that this was determined by 1 justice... I would not want to bet on it standing if societal morals shift back to a more Conservative view.
However I do like the benefit of marriage argument, though that applies to all families.
My question was more specific... "What is the off setting benefit to our society of openly allowing / encouraging LGBT relationships?" Be they monogamous or one night stands...
Remember where this silliness started...
"We disagree that it is a healthy or desirable lifestyle, which is largely a religious opinion but not necessarily a prejudice. It can also be held by non-religious people, informed by factual evidence of various sorts." Jerry
"Dare I ask what nonsense you believe provides factual evidence?" Joel
Let us talk about the "benefit of marriage" argument. The ONLY way to create a gay married family is by first breaking up at least one two-parent family, which we should all agree is the best way to raise children and perpetuate the society. Government recognition and benefits should encourage such pairings as the benefit to society they are. And BTW, every time one of these "families" forms, by breaking up another, it puts the lie to that "born that way" argument.
"The ONLY way to create a gay married family is by first breaking up at least one two-parent family..."
This is going to need some explanation, because it is illogical. Gay married families ARE two-parent families.
"And BTW, every time one of these "families" forms, by breaking up another, it puts the lie to that "born that way" argument."
What on earth are you talking about?
Joel
Joel,
Jerry is somewhat obsessed with the fact that many LGBT people tried to fit in 40 years ago by getting married and having kids back when being LGBT was unpopular and/or illegal. Then once it became more socially acceptable these "happily married" people would come out the closet, divorce their spouse and break up the family.
Now that the stigma is disappearing I am assuming there will be far fewer of these situations. Young people will come out earlier and form families that match their attraction, instead of trying to smash their square peg into a round hole.
Nothing like keeping up with the times. I'm sure it still happens, but one would think it is quickly disappearing.
Joel
"And BTW, every time one of these "families" forms, by breaking up another, it puts the lie to that "born that way" argument."
John, if you are correct about what jerry means here, it's still not an intrinsically logical statement.
Just because homosexual people entered into heterosexual marriages doesn't mean those people were any less attracted to members of the same sex. Left-handed people for years were forced to become right-handed. It didn't make them less left-handed.
Joel
Joel, your statement makes sense only if orientation and behavior are exclusively tied together. If people born (or raised) with same-sex attraction REQUIRES them to behave only in that way, you have an argument. But if those with that supposedly inborn attraction can BEHAVE as heterosexuals well enough to have children, then one can conclude that gay orientation may not be a choice, but gay behavior IS.
And just as a matter of nomenclature, wouldn't it make more sense to call these folks bisexual?
And, yes, John, I am "obsessed with" facts. What was the subject of this discussion, again?
Jerry,
I am pretty sure you could have sexual relations with a man if the carrots and sticks were appropriate to force that behavior. Would that make you Gay or Bi-sexual?
Sex is just a physical act...
"But if those with that supposedly inborn attraction can BEHAVE as heterosexuals well enough to have children, then one can conclude that gay orientation may not be a choice, but gay behavior IS."
LOL
If a woman is the wage earner and her husband stays at home, have their genders changed?
"And just as a matter of nomenclature, wouldn't it make more sense to call these folks bisexual?"
Only if that's what they consider themselves. IOW, it's not up to you.
Joel
We're not talking about carrots and sticks and force, we're talking about choices. The "physical act" is distinct from the mental condition of "orientation." That's my point.
The relevance to the discussion is that there is a "benefit to society" argument that cuts both ways, and to demonize one side as "bigoted" (or "racist") is simply bigotry in another form, a refusal to allow "common sense" to be heard.
"Only if that's what they consider themselves. IOW, it's not up to you."
You make it sound as if words don't mean anything. If someone has sex with women and with men, are they not by definition bisexual? Or if someone has sex only with women and then stops, and has sex only with men, have they changed their sexual orientation? Isn't that supposed to be impossible?
"We're not talking about carrots and sticks and force, we're talking about choices."
Choices made under the unbearable weight of societal, religious, and familial force.
A gay man in 1950 had precious few options.
'The "physical act" is distinct from the mental condition of "orientation." That's my point.'
Then why do you persist in the delusion that a heterosexually married person cannot be gay?
"If someone has sex with women and with men, are they not by definition bisexual?"
Orientation is about intrinsic attraction and desires. A left-handed person can act right-handed because they are feeling the pressure to do so. They are still left-handed. They may now have some facility in right-handedness, but they may not consider themselves ambidextrous.
"You make it sound as if words don't mean anything."
Words mean what we decide they mean.
Joel
"Words mean what we decide they mean."
That is why we have so many arguments. Words ought to mean what we AGREE they mean. Without defining the terms, discussion and debate are not possible. To me someone who has sex with women and with men is bisexual, yet you claim they are homosexual. Bi=2, homo=1, right?
"To me someone who has sex with women and with men is bisexual, yet you claim they are homosexual. Bi=2, homo=1, right?"
I can't help it if you refuse to work from the correct definition. A bisexual is someone who is attracted to people of both sexes.
Joel
OK, I'll accept that. So the folks in question are having sex with people they are NOT attracted to? I'll separate the physical act from the orientation, but I'm having a lot of trouble believing that the former isn't proof of the latter.
Post a Comment