Al Sharpton is a decent man [Archive] - Page 2

What Exit?

11-02-2005, 08:31 AM

I just don't know, man. I think he wanted the riot. That's my reading of the man. From observing him for twenty years.
He's a great speaker. I've seen him in person a time or three.

But there's something deep in his eyes that I do not like.

It's nothing to do with the color of his skin. It's something in the man that makes me think he's crazy as a shithouse rattler. You know who else I think is crazy in the same way? Jack Thompson, the guy who got Public Enemy cited for obscenity, who claimed Janet Reno was a lesbian. (beyond all reason... look it up, man was obsessive), the man who made the fuss about Cop Killer (That was a metal song, man), the man who wants Grand Theft Auto banned.

Donald Wildmon, by the way, is a slightly different kind of crazy. He's the kind of quiet, self-assured crazy who'll cut your head off... for your own good.

If you think Rev Al wanted a riot to occur, than I fully understand why you would hate him. I don’t think he expected a riot, but I cannot prove this and I cannot condemn people for hating him that believe otherwise.
…Can you understand that if I don’t think he knew he was setting such an event in motion, that I can credit him for the good he tries to accomplish? There are still so many racial issues in this country that even a flawed person like Rev Al does help by keeping attention on racial issues. I know he was a careless speaker in the past and I know he was involved in a wrongful cry of rape by Police officers.
…I also recall an incident where the NYPD was trying to write off the killing of a young black man as another drug related incident. The young “Black Man” in question was an Honor student and preparing for college. They got the wrong kid because he didn’t know who was threatening him and he ran. They shot even though they were not endangered. Al championed this one and the Police involved were proved wrong. Wrong to shoot and wrong to cover up the reasons for the shooting.

I happen to think we all have unexamined racist tendencies. It is simply human nature. Some of us have come to grips with it. …snip…

…I know I still have many racist attitudes to overcome. I do think in terms of Jewish and Asian people in general care more about education than Blacks and Hispanics. I don’t really understand why more immigrants don’t seem to stress speaking American English well and I dislike having a poor English speaker on Cash Registers. I get a fear reaction when I come in contact with young black men that are dressed like Gangsta rappers.
…I still take extra pride in the accomplishments of Italian Americans. These are things I grew up with and I have to use my rational side to overcome my knee jerk side.
…I am not sure is this is racism of some other –ism, I loathe the collective French attitudes and consider them the worst allies any nation could ever have. I do think they should not have spent 55 years showing disdain for the USA and I think it is strange that the Italians received the Allied forces coming through their country as heroes and rescuers and the French were much more mixed in reaction.
…So I definitely have racist attitudes and I work to overcome them and not pass them on to my kids. My mother was far less racist than my Grandfather. My great Uncle Frank was an embarrassment to the entire family to such a degree that he even made my grandfather mellow. …At my Father’s knee I heard crap like, Martin Luther spoke well, but the minute he moved on the Blacks just rioted and destroyed everything. There is a lot of residual racism to overcome. I am as guilty as anyone else.
… I also think it is a 2 way street. I am an Italian from NJ. Here's a question I have actually gotten from a black man in the Navy and similar questions from both an Indian and some White southerners. So is your family in the Mafia? He just assumed that if I am of Italian descent and from NY/NJ I probably had some mob ties. People also assume I must be Catholic; I couldn’t possibly be rational enough to question the Church and be agnostic or Atheist. There is a lot of racism out there.

Bob Loblaw

11-02-2005, 09:37 AM

Mr. Moto

11-02-2005, 09:42 AM

John Corrado

11-02-2005, 09:59 AM

So why will you all listen to me, even though I've called those who won't listen to Sharpton racists? (Which according to some leads to my being a racist.) But Sharpton, who has called others racists, not SDMB posters, won't get the time of day? Is it because I am perceived as white? (Yes, I'm white.)

Who's listening to you? I don't see a single person you've actually convinced of anything.

The only people I see here engaged in conversation are the ones trying to prove to you that you're an idiot.

If Sharpton came in here and spouted his anti-Semitism, he'd be treated in the same way.

What Exit?

11-02-2005, 10:09 AM

John F

11-02-2005, 10:22 AM

Is it because I am perceived as white? (Yes, I'm white.)

White?????

Racist!

I'm with Good Egg this is all a joke. Denial that it is looks like an Andy Kaufman/Tony Clifton routine to me.

Bob Loblaw

11-02-2005, 12:13 PM

White?????

Racist!

I'm with Good Egg this is all a joke. Denial that it is looks like an Andy Kaufman/Tony Clifton routine to me.

Are ya goofin' on Elvis
Hey baby,
Are you havin' fun?

Would you believe
They put a man on the moon
Man on the moon...

Bob Loblaw

11-02-2005, 12:14 PM

You have about as much credibility as Sharpton, from what I can see. Make of that what you will.

I wish I had that much credibility. Or half his speaking talent.

Bob Loblaw

11-02-2005, 12:19 PM

Who's listening to you? I don't see a single person you've actually convinced of anything.

The only people I see here engaged in conversation are the ones trying to prove to you that you're an idiot.

If Sharpton came in here and spouted his anti-Semitism, he'd be treated in the same way.

You are responding to me, and that implies listening. So I haven't convinced you, but you have considered what I have to say. Please give Sharpton that same consideration, after you've called him an anti-Semitic idiot. And why would anybody bother to try to prove I'm an idiot? If that suits you, I certainly don't deny it. I may have my pride, but thinking of myself as Wile E. Coyote, super-genius, isn't my sin.

Miller

11-02-2005, 12:22 PM

Isn't responding to Bob a form of listening?

Well, yes, but only in so far as it provides more ammunition for the mocking.

magellan01

11-02-2005, 12:39 PM

Thomas Sowell is the biggest sellout ever seen.

Can you please explain why you think this is a true statement?

Bob Loblaw

11-02-2005, 12:44 PM

Well, yes, but only in so far as it provides more ammunition for the mocking.

But of your dozen posts in this thread, that's all you've done in response to anyone, is to mock them or try to pick a fight. Tell us what you think.

I'd always heard that the Miller's tale was the best one, so please, treat us to it.

Bob Loblaw

11-02-2005, 12:48 PM

Can you please explain why you think this is a true statement?

Of the 30 or 40 columns of his I've read to date (and I do read them) he is virtually always taking a conservative opinion. He is offered by my local newspaper as their only black columnnist, but 9 out of 10 black people are not conservative. Maybe that's the fault of the paper, the guy certainly has a right to be conservative, but I've never seen him advocate on the side of black people.

Left Hand of Dorkness

11-02-2005, 12:53 PM

Of the 30 or 40 columns of his I've read to date (and I do read them) he is virtually always taking a conservative opinion. He is offered by my local newspaper as their only black columnnist, but 9 out of 10 black people are not conservative. Maybe that's the fault of the paper, the guy certainly has a right to be conservative, but I've never seen him advocate on the side of black people.
You know, the majority of white males in my state vote for Republicans. Does that make me a sellout?

He may be a sellout--that is, it may be that he gave up liberal political advocacy in order to make big bucks shilling for conservatives. If you conclude that based only on his skin color, then you're judging him by race, not as an individual. There's a word to describe such behavior.

I probably disagree with his politics, but I'm not enough of a Klansman to blame him for being a black Republican.

Daniel

Miller

11-02-2005, 12:56 PM

But of your dozen posts in this thread, that's all you've done in response to anyone, is to mock them or try to pick a fight.

Right. What's your point?

Tell us what you think.

Well, mostly I think you're a racist piece of shit with no intellectual integrity. Your comments about Thomas Sowell is ample evidence of the former, and everything else you've ever posted on the SDMB is evidence of the latter.

magellan01

11-02-2005, 01:03 PM

Of the 30 or 40 columns of his I've read to date (and I do read them) he is virtually always taking a conservative opinion. He is offered by my local newspaper as their only black columnnist, but 9 out of 10 black people are not conservative. Maybe that's the fault of the paper, the guy certainly has a right to be conservative, but I've never seen him advocate on the side of black people.

I don't know where to begin. You've read 30 or 40 of his columns and you haven't realized that he is, first and foremost, an economist (Ph.D. University of Chicago) with a strong conservative/libertarian bent? And what makes you think he is not advocating on the side of black people? Because his ideas on how to help black people do not fit in with the ideas of you or Sharpton or Jesse? Do you realize how racist that is? And how disrespectful it is to every black person who has a brain and is of the opinion that they are allowed to use it to form their own thoughts? And you have the nerve to insinuate that others on this board are racist!?! Now if that is the pot calling the kettle black.

Bob Loblaw

11-02-2005, 01:09 PM

Right. What's your point?

Well, mostly I think you're a racist piece of shit with no intellectual integrity. Your comments about Thomas Sowell is ample evidence of the former, and everything else you've ever posted on the SDMB is evidence of the latter.

Do you have something to share with people other than venom? What do you think about racism in this country and why? Ya know, people might be interested.

And while were at it, what have you got against shit? Has shit ever done anything bad to you? Are you under the misimpression that the collection of matter that makes up the poster "Miller" is, in the long term, any different than matter that makes up shit? You and I and everyone else is future worm shit. You have the opportunity to do so original thinking before you go that that state and you've been asked to share your thoughts. Why not?

Left Hand of Dorkness

11-02-2005, 01:11 PM

And while were at it, what have you got against shit? Has shit ever done anything bad to you?
Shit is what a healthy body gets rid of in order to remain healthy. Think on it.

Daniel

Bob Loblaw

11-02-2005, 01:24 PM

I don't know where to begin. You've read 30 or 40 of his columns and you haven't realized that he is, first and foremost, an economist (Ph.D. University of Chicago) with a strong conservative/libertarian bent? And what makes you think he is not advocating on the side of black people? Because his ideas on how to help black people do not fit in with the ideas of you or Sharpton or Jesse? Do you realize how racist that is? And how disrespectful it is to every black person who has a brain and is of the opinion that they are allowed to use it to form their own thoughts? And you have the nerve to insinuate that others on this board are racist!?! Now if that is the pot calling the kettle black.

No, I was not aware he was an economist. My local newspaper presents him as a political commenator. I am aware of basic economic theory, in which a fundamental precept is that people are their own best determiners of what is in their interests. He has his. Black people as a group are the most strongly politically cohesive demographic in the country and have been for years, and not as conservatives. When the local paper has him as the only black commentator, that is unrepresentative. He has every right to be a conservative, but I still consider that to be a sellout to the black people who are struggling and have taken a stand for the rights of black people. I am fully aware that conservatives consider advocating for the rights of black people and for justice for black people as fundamentally racist because it is not color blind, and I think that is a fully disingenuous argument. Oh, and I think that Condi Rice and Clarence Thomas (especially Clarence Thomas) are sellouts too. They do nothing for black people, take advantage of affirmative action programs and then provide cover for the Republican's agenda, which is hostile to the poor and minorities in general (that is another thread). But at least Sowell is a competent commentator. Rice was a national security advisor who didn't know that 9/11 attacks were possible.

I'm certainly willing to consider my prejudices, and I've never denied that I have them. I'd like to see people have equality of opportunity, and for that to happen a lot of work needs to be done. And a fellow like Sharpton is the one pointing the way.

Bob Loblaw

11-02-2005, 01:26 PM

Shit is what a healthy body gets rid of in order to remain healthy. Think on it.

Daniel

As much as you do?

Miller

11-02-2005, 01:28 PM

Do you have something to share with people other than venom? What do you think about racism in this country and why? Ya know, people might be interested.

Why should I share them with you? There are only two possible results of such an action:

1) I will say something that mirrors your opinion exactly, which I can only assume will somehow net me your respect.

2) I will say something you disagree with, which will get me labeled a racist.

So, trying to actually reason with you is pretty much a lose/lose situation for me. As is the situation any time someone tries to reason with the willfully irrational. Thanks, but I'm not going to waste my time. I'll stick with the pointing and laughing, which at least provides me with some amusement. I don't see how you're really useful for anything else.

Left Hand of Dorkness

11-02-2005, 01:34 PM

He has every right to be a conservative, but I still consider that to be a sellout to the black people who are struggling and have taken a stand for the rights of black people. I am fully aware that conservatives consider advocating for the rights of black people and for justice for black people as fundamentally racist because it is not color blind, and I think that is a fully disingenuous argument.
That's a straw man. The argument here is that you're considering him a sellout for not adopting your preferred political position, but you wouldn't consider him a sellout if he were white. That is, you're condemning him based on the color of his skin. That's absolutely a racist position.

Advocating for the rights of black people is not a racist position. One needn't be colorblind in order to avoid racism; people can recognize injustices done specifically to members of certain races and not be racist.

One of those injustices done to members of certain races is to require them to hold to specific political beliefs or else face censure. Again, do you consider me to be a sellout because I'm not specifically advocating for justice for white men? of course you don't. Part of White Privilege is not being required to hold particular political opinions, and you grant me that white privilege by not calling me a sellout, whereas you WOULD call me a sellout if I were black and not holding the required political opinions.

Inasmuch as you're supporting white privilege through this specific means, you are behaving in an explicitly racist fashion.

As much as you do?
Given that I only thought on it for like thirty seconds before realizing how you metaphorically resemble shit, yes: think on it at least as much as I do.

Daniel

What Exit?

11-02-2005, 01:44 PM

Bob Loblaw

11-02-2005, 01:58 PM

Why should I share them with you? There are only two possible results of such an action:

1) I will say something that mirrors your opinion exactly, which I can only assume will somehow net me your respect.

2) I will say something you disagree with, which will get me labeled a racist.

So, trying to actually reason with you is pretty much a lose/lose situation for me. As is the situation any time someone tries to reason with the willfully irrational. Thanks, but I'm not going to waste my time. I'll stick with the pointing and laughing, which at least provides me with some amusement. I don't see how you're really useful for anything else.

I haven't named any names here. And I'm not the only one posting or reading. It's a forum. Many people are participating. You're not interested in my respect, and that's fine, why should you be. But you've made a dozen posts in the thread and they're just sarcastic comments. Do you think the whole thread is unconstructive? Is there a poster who has said something useful that you'd like to add to?

Bob Loblaw

11-02-2005, 02:06 PM

Just curious now. I am not color blind, though I wish I was.
...What is the definition of racist. I have some racist attitudes, I try not to let them influence me and I try to keep an open mind. I don't consider myself or most people in this thread to be a "Racist".
...I assume most of us have some racist attitudes. To me these are not the same. :confused:

I am directing this at both Bob & Left Hand of Dorkness. But also anyone else who cares to comment.

Jim

I think racism is a consious or unconscious attitude of making another ethnic group a "them". And I'm not saying I never do it. Maybe people have a point about my comments of Sowell, Rice and Thomas; I don't think so, but I'm sure as hell re-examining it when they raise it. What is the obligation of a group member whose economic position allows them to ignore the group. Neibhur's "Moral Man and Immoral Society" sits next to my special white library chair, and he discusses the issue there and says it is perfectly natural and understandable. I disagree. I do think that individual human beings owe something to the group because we are social animals. Where to draw the line though?

Left Hand of Dorkness

11-02-2005, 02:10 PM

Just curious now. I am not color blind, though I wish I was.
...What is the definition of racist. I have some racist attitudes, I try not to let them influence me and I try to keep an open mind. I don't consider myself or most people in this thread to be a "Racist".
...I assume most of us have some racist attitudes. To me these are not the same. :confused:

I am directing this at both Bob & Left Hand of Dorkness. But also anyone else who cares to comment.
Hmm...a definition of racist? I'd say that racism equals making judgements about a person or a group of persons based on their perceived race, when such judgements are not directly connected to those aspects that make up their perceived race.

For example, saying, "Black people are more likely to suffere sickle-cell anemia than white people" is not racist, because the judgement is based off the genetic makeup that is a characteristic of the perceived race of black people.

Saying, "Most professional basketball players are black" is not racist, because skin color is a characteristic of the perceived race, and that is an easily verifiable claim.

Saying, "Dude's black, I bet he can dance like a motherfucker!" is racist, because we don't define blackness based on dance ability (nobody thinks that Fred Astaire is black because he can dance); it's making a judgement about someone based on race but not based on the racial definition.

Saying, "Dude's white, he's trying to keep me down!" is racist, because we don't define whiteness based on desire for oppression (nobody thinks that Idi Amin is white because he hurts black people).

Is that clear?

Daniel

Left Hand of Dorkness

11-02-2005, 02:12 PM

What is the obligation of a group member whose economic position allows them to ignore the group.
For the third time, I am a white male North Carolinian who advocates fairly leftist political positions. Am I a sellout to the white race?

Daniel

Bricker

11-02-2005, 02:14 PM

magellan01

11-02-2005, 02:18 PM

He has every right to be a conservative, but I still consider that to be a sellout to the black people who are struggling and have taken a stand for the rights of black people.

This seems to be a contradiction. Unless your saying that black people have a right to be sellouts. How very magnanimous of you. You might want to reevaluate your position that "conservative balck = sellout". Maybe, just mabe, thay have another means to the end. Maybe even a better way.

I am fully aware that conservatives consider advocating for the rights of black people and for justice for black people as fundamentally racist because it is not color blind, and I think that is a fully disingenuous argument.

Why, even as poorly stated as it is, is it a "fully disengenuous argument"? And if you have two sets of rules for two different races, isn't THAT the racist position?

Oh, and I think that Condi Rice and Clarence Thomas (especially Clarence Thomas) are sellouts too.

Are there any black conservatives who you'd consider to not be sellouts?

But at least Sowell is a competent commentator.

Yep, that right Boss. He sho' can thinks hisself some good thoughts and writes hisself some good words. Maybe he'd be more acceptable to you if he got into rap.

Rice was a national security advisor who didn't know that 9/11 attacks were possible.

Do you think her inability to foretell of two planes being flown in to the WTC is a failing as a National Security Advisor or a Black person? Or both?

I'm certainly willing to consider my prejudices, and I've never denied that I have them.

Well, I gather you're taking some time off from the Board. That should leave more time for reading. I suggest you use it. One place it seems that it couldn't hurt is with black conservatism. Sowell is good. I'd also recommand Walter Williams. And for a more extrem view to counter the Sharptons and Jesses of the world, I suggest "Scam", by Reverend Jesse Lee Peterson.

I'd like to see people have equality of opportunity, and for that to happen a lot of work needs to be done.

Wait, that's Thomas Sowell's position, the conservative position. Certainly you don't agree with that! The opposing view would be equality of result, that's the one you want.

And a fellow like Sharpton is the one pointing the way.

By this point in the thread I sincerely hope you've decided to reavaluate your position I'd take into account also, that many that have excoriated you are are Dems and Liberals, some extremely so.

Bob Loblaw

11-02-2005, 02:19 PM

For the third time, I am a white male North Carolinian who advocates fairly leftist political positions. Am I a sellout to the white race?

Daniel

I'm not a person who would argue that, although there are people who would.

Non-white races in this country have been subjected to oppressive treatment, white people have not. Suggesting that white people are subject to racism is to have no understanding of what minorities have had to deal with. We might have to listent to some nut bellowing about how the white man is evil to his or her group, but that is more a complaint about racist oppression than it is racist oppression. Yes, it might be racist, but it's hardly oppression of white people.

Left Hand of Dorkness

11-02-2005, 02:21 PM

Non-white races in this country have been subjected to oppressive treatment, white people have not. Suggesting that white people are subject to racism is to have no understanding of what minorities have had to deal with. We might have to listent to some nut bellowing about how the white man is evil to his or her group, but that is more a complaint about racist oppression than it is racist oppression. Yes, it might be racist, but it's hardly oppression of white people.
Perhaps I should be more specific. I am of Irish descent. Am I white?

This is just a test to see if you can smell a trap.
Daniel

What Exit?

11-02-2005, 02:26 PM

Hmm...a definition of racist? I'd say that racism equals making judgements about a person or a group of persons based on their perceived race, when such judgements are not directly connected to those aspects that make up their perceived race.

For example, saying, "Black people are more likely to suffere sickle-cell anemia than white people" is not racist, because the judgement is based off the genetic makeup that is a characteristic of the perceived race of black people.

Saying, "Most professional basketball players are black" is not racist, because skin color is a characteristic of the perceived race, and that is an easily verifiable claim.

Saying, "Dude's black, I bet he can dance like a motherfucker!" is racist, because we don't define blackness based on dance ability (nobody thinks that Fred Astaire is black because he can dance); it's making a judgement about someone based on race but not based on the racial definition.

Saying, "Dude's white, he's trying to keep me down!" is racist, because we don't define whiteness based on desire for oppression (nobody thinks that Idi Amin is white because he hurts black people).

Is that clear?

Daniel

Very Clear to me, I agree with it.

Thank you very much.
Jim

What Exit?

11-02-2005, 02:31 PM

I'm not a person who would argue that, although there are people who would.

Non-white races in this country have been subjected to oppressive treatment, white people have not. Suggesting that white people are subject to racism is to have no understanding of what minorities have had to deal with. We might have to listent to some nut bellowing about how the white man is evil to his or her group, but that is more a complaint about racist oppression than it is racist oppression. Yes, it might be racist, but it's hardly oppression of white people.
Wow, that is dismissing a lot of history. Please think about the oppression of Irish, Polish, Jewish and Italian immigrants to this country. I could write a 5000 word post on racism towards these groups. All are considered "white". While it is not as long and not eased up sooner this oppression definately existed. The many stereotypes still exist.

Left Hand of Dorkness

11-02-2005, 02:32 PM

Very Clear to me, I agree with it.

Thank you very much.
Jim
You're welcome! For what it's worth, I'm basically cribbing a definition from the book Racial Formation in the United States, one of the clearest examinations of the issue that I've read. The author rejects other theories of race, e.g., the colonialist theory, before arriving at the formation I offer (although the author was talking primarily about race, not racism). I'm sure I don't say exactly what the author did, but I'm heavily influenced by that book.

Daniel

holmes

11-02-2005, 02:33 PM

Non-white races in this country have been subjected to oppressive treatment, white people have not. Suggesting that white people are subject to racism is to have no understanding of what minorities have had to deal with. We might have to listent to some nut bellowing about how the white man is evil to his or her group, but that is more a complaint about racist oppression than it is racist oppression. Yes, it might be racist, but it's hardly oppression of white people.

Bob Loblaw you are digging deeper and deeper. At one time pretty much everyone has been subjected to oppressive treatment in this country regardless of national origin. Hell there was a point in time where the Irish where treated worst than and considered lower than the African-American. Now of course the Irish weren't considered white at the time, but that's another thread.

Miller

11-02-2005, 02:39 PM

I haven't named any names here. And I'm not the only one posting or reading. It's a forum. Many people are participating. You're not interested in my respect, and that's fine, why should you be. But you've made a dozen posts in the thread and they're just sarcastic comments.

I object to the characterization of my posts as "sarcastic." The venom in my posts to both duffer and yourself were not sarcastic. I meant every word.

Do you think the whole thread is unconstructive? Is there a poster who has said something useful that you'd like to add to?

Well, I suppose I could follow every post from Left Hand of Dorkness with "Ditto," but that seems excessive. He seems to have the logic part of the thread covered pretty well. I'm just here for the abuse.

Incidentally, I'm white. Is it your contention that the color of my skin makes me immune to oppression from society?

This, too, is another trap.

Left Hand of Dorkness

11-02-2005, 02:46 PM

Miller, you're a mensch! :D

Bob, what you describe as racism, I'd describe as racist oppression. It's useful to distinguish between the two, for a few reasons.

First, racist traditionally has the meaning I've ascribed. If you redefine it to deal only with oppression, you confuse people for no real reason.

Second, sometimes it's important to point out behavior that's racist without really being oppressive. The business I mentioned before, wherein you criticize a conservative columnist based on the color of his skin? That's not especially oppressive, since you're just a crank on the Internet; but it is racist. I like being able to make that distinction.

Third, it allows us to discuss racism with people (like myself) who consider race to be a giant granfalloon: it's entirely a social construct with no objective biological significance*, and it's one whose significance is historically rare, and whose significance arose out of a specific social institution, and it's one that, in my opinion, we'd all be much better off without. Advocating loyalty to a group based on skin color is offensive and stupid in my opinion, but talking about racism is neither offensive nor stupid. Let the word be one that leftists like myself can use.

Daniel

* Yes, black people are likelier than white people to suffer sickle cell anemia; but when we discuss race, that's almost never why we're talking about it.

FinnAgain

11-02-2005, 03:00 PM

wring

11-02-2005, 03:08 PM

I'm just here for the abuse.

Third door on the left.

(you knew it was coming, didn't you?)

What Exit?

11-02-2005, 03:25 PM

Well, I've been reading up on Rev Al. I was fairly neutral about him. I thought he did more good than bad.
I still haven’t seen convincing proof he incited the riot and fire. It does appear he was probably capable of attempting to stop it and failed to try. This lowers my opinion of him.
The Tawana Brawley case stills sounds like a well-done hoax by a foolish young girl. Rev Al got caught up with it and over reacted in much the same way the Cable News channels were slyly accusing the Runaway brides Fiance of killing her, when she was just a stupid, selfish git.
The scenario began on that morning when Brawley was found lying in a garbage bag, her clothing torn and burned, it and her body smeared with feces. Various slurs and epithets were written on her body in charcoal. She had been missing for four days up to this time. The FBI was called in, and Brawley was questioned about what had happened. She claimed she was raped, but was unable to describe her assailants other than that they were white men. The first inconsistency in her story came shortly, when she claimed she hadn't been raped, but had been sexually abused. The negative results of a rape test may have caused her story to change. Further examinations revealed that she had received no real injuries, nor any signs of exposure. Testimony from her schoolmates also indicated that she attended a local party during the time of her supposed abduction.

The trouble she went to, to fake this incident was fairly extreme and initially it looked real. I still maintain some doubts to whether it was a hoax. I know I am in the minority opinion here.
Rev Al jumped at the opportunity to take up this cause and he definitely was playing the race card at will. In the past Rev Al has also publicly used many racist terms but I believe he has not done so and has actually mellowed and become more reasoned of late. His statements about Katrina did not appear too extreme to me. I was mighty angry about the response to Katrina that week.
In balance I still think Rev Al tries to do good, but I do have to lower my opinion of him a bit.

Here is one of those horrible things he said about Katrina (sarcasm intended)
http://www.shreveporttimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051030/NEWS01/510300319/1002/NEWS
Sharpton accused the federal government of awarding bids to politically connected companies at the expense of local contractors. He specifically named Halliburton Co., formerly run by Vice President Dick Cheney, which has a subsidiary doing cleanup work in Mississippi for the Navy.

"There are those (who) are trying to make profits out of this crisis and trying to turn rebuilding into reconfiguration," Sharpton said.

Isn’t this actually true?

What Exit?

11-02-2005, 03:27 PM

Third door on the left.

(you knew it was coming, didn't you?)

Nope third door is Insults, 2nd door Arguments. Abuse was door 5. ;)

Bob Loblaw

11-02-2005, 04:15 PM

Perhaps I should be more specific. I am of Irish descent. Am I white?

This is just a test to see if you can smell a trap.
Daniel

I saw Charlie's Angels 2, Full Throttle. You are undoubtedly one of the Black Irish. But seriously, I can't with any certainty spot the trap. 100 years ago (and maybe not that long ago) Irish were subject to all the same kinds of oppression black people were, but to a lesser degree. I thought the movie Gangs of New York captured some of the flavor of it well. And a helluva performance by Daniel Day Lewis made it worth the admission price all by itself. (Leo DiCaprio and Cameron Diaz did fine too, but not in the same league. But I'll give DiCaprio that league for what he did in Aviator.)

Fearless Reader

11-02-2005, 05:18 PM

Indeed. My monkey is better informed and politer.

Go read some bell hooks, some Manning Marable. Go read The Wages of Whiteness, Racial Formation in the United States. Go educate yourself on DuBois's formulation of white privilege. Once you know what you're talking about, you may be able to enter into a conversation intelligently.

But for now, you're spouting screeds, and if you open your eyes, you'll see that they're not persuading anyone. Belief in some sort of magical metapersuasion is just as stupid as the street-preachers on the corner who think that I'm gonna go home and accept Jesus because they called me a Satanist.

All I ask, please, is that you stop hurting the leftist cause. Stop for a bit, retreat, and really pay attention to how folks respond to the sort of tactics you're using; then decide whether those tactics are building the world you want, or just stroking your ego.

DanielAgain? What the fuck are you talking about? I'm not a leftist. I'm not a radical activist. I have no screeds. I posted my opinion. If you disagree that's fine, but I have no idea where you're getting all this leftist cause business based on what I posted. Last night I was beginning to think that you and your friend FinnAgain were drunk or something, but now I just don't know. I know I still have many racist attitudes to overcome. I do think in terms of Jewish and Asian people in general care more about education than Blacks and Hispanics. I don’t really understand why more immigrants don’t seem to stress speaking American English well and I dislike having a poor English speaker on Cash Registers. I get a fear reaction when I come in contact with young black men that are dressed like Gangsta rappers.
…I still take extra pride in the accomplishments of Italian Americans. These are things I grew up with and I have to use my rational side to overcome my knee jerk side.
…I am not sure is this is racism of some other –ism, I loathe the collective French attitudes and consider them the worst allies any nation could ever have. I do think they should not have spent 55 years showing disdain for the USA and I think it is strange that the Italians received the Allied forces coming through their country as heroes and rescuers and the French were much more mixed in reaction.
…So I definitely have racist attitudes and I work to overcome them and not pass them on to my kids. My mother was far less racist than my Grandfather. My great Uncle Frank was an embarrassment to the entire family to such a degree that he even made my grandfather mellow. …At my Father’s knee I heard crap like, Martin Luther spoke well, but the minute he moved on the Blacks just rioted and destroyed everything. There is a lot of residual racism to overcome. I am as guilty as anyone else.
… I also think it is a 2 way street. I am an Italian from NJ. Here's a question I have actually gotten from a black man in the Navy and similar questions from both an Indian and some White southerners. So is your family in the Mafia? He just assumed that if I am of Italian descent and from NY/NJ I probably had some mob ties. People also assume I must be Catholic; I couldn’t possibly be rational enough to question the Church and be agnostic or Atheist. There is a lot of racism out there.Thank you. This is exactly what I was talking about, but you said it better than I did.

Bob Loblaw

11-02-2005, 05:21 PM

Calling me an Uncle Tom because I'm a conservative? Racist, or not?

Suggesting that my "friends" in the GOP laugh at me behind my back based on my ethnicity? Racist, or not?

Both of those comments were directed at me on this very board at one point. Bob, your take?

I don't know anything about your ethnicity. Let me first take slight issue with "Uncle Tom": he was the hero of the story, and they guy he eventually killed was the bad guy. Uncle Tom was an accomodationist, but not a bad guy. Yeah, people use it all the time, I'd like those reading to know about the caveat. Then let me be roundabout.

I was sitting at lunch watching espn about golf. Is Tiger Woods a racist or Uncle Tom because he takes advantage of others' sacrifice, yet says nothing to help any of his ethnic groups. I don't think so. Yeah, it's kinda irritating, but he's entirely non-political. People have a right to be non-political. But it doesn't sit quite right with me for a reason I have not put my finger on. Is that perhaps a prejudice on my part? Maybe. I know damn well I'm not color blind, and I try to correct for that failing without overcompensating by shutting up entirely.

Is a black conservative a sellout? An "Uncle Tom". Mostly no. Generally no. I think Neibhur would argue that, and he's thought it through. My inclination is that you can't really judge till you have a lot more facts about a person. I used Sowell as an example because he is a prominent black pundit who goes with the conservative argument against black people every time I've read him, without explaining to his audience the nature and perniciousness of racism that I believe that every black person in this country knows in a way a white person can never know. The closest analogy I can explain to another white person is the way the odd kid out in grammar school was treated 40 years ago, that's how black people are treated their whole lives, but not always openly.

But I would want to know before casting someone as a sellout, what they have done for the cause before I weigh what they've done against. I think Sowell regularly advocates against the common wisdom of the cause, but may do it for academicly rigorous reasons (which in my opinion is naive because I think economics is descriptive, not scientific, and that's another thread, assuming his analysis is economic as others have said).

Then let's compare George Will, pundit, uber white guy eastern establishment. Now I know a person who has personally worked with George Will in the most sensitive position, who is black. George Will would never, ever say or do anything overtly racist I am assured, and I believe it. Now my opinion from years of reading George Will is that he is obsessed with race and African Americans in a way that if you pulled out roughlyl 1 in 4 columns and made a book only of the ones discussing race questions, would look very disturbing. He is constantly telling black people what to think and do and not do. Of course, he tells every group what to think and do and not do, but the frequency he tells black people their business actually exceeds not only their demographic represenation, but all proportionality to the issue of race relations and without adequately listening sympathetically to the opposite point of view. I know a lot of white people like this. They tune out the point of view that society is biased against black people. They won't listen to Jesse Jackson because he rhymes, or has his hand out, never mind that he is the best orator in either party, they suddenly don't care for oratory. Same with Sharpton. Now Sharpton was talking a lot of trash over 10 years ago. He's largely cleaned up his act. And if I had to pick anyone as a better public speaker than Jackson, it would be Sharpton. Look at his debates and interviews in 04! The clarity of his language is just scintillating. He can explain complex ideas simply and directly, without pause in full sentences and paragraphs with a fluidity no other public person has. This is a gift not seen since the Kennedy brothers (or arguably Reagan but he didn't have complex ideas) and Sharpton is arguably clearer than the Kennedy's ever were. Yet people tune the guy out.

I've made a complete ass of myself in this thread, being just as offensive as Sharpton according to some posters, yet they are taking me seriously and many openly say they would not do the same for Sharpton. I'm not as articulate. I'm insulting them much closer to home than Sharpton ever did. It's because they don't want to face the issues they fear Sharpton is going to bring up.

But let's get back to if you're a black guy in the GOP, do your friends laugh at you and think you're a chump? If you're Colin Powell, who is the most respected black policy guy in the country, well, the neo-cons most certainly do and did. The old school cons may respect you for personal achievement and be down with your acceptance of conservative logic, but when you're gone they at least talk about why a black guy is with them politically. Maybe your friends are different, I obviously have no information relevant to your sitation. If they treat you with respect to your face, well, you know better than I that is an improvement over the days before Rosa Parks refused to move and before the days when the only black FBI agents were Hoover's personal servants.

I think the most sincere case of a black conservative I have seen in my neck of the woods is Ward Connelly, the University of California Regent who led the way and provided the political cover for UC and then the state for the GOP to do away with all affirmative action. The guy is decent, smart and sincere in his belief that affimative action hurts more than it helps. He ought to be respected. (And yes, both white and black democrats have called him an Uncle Tom, which I think is wrong.) While his campaign was going on in California the GOP higher ups were knowingly chuckling at him behind his back while I was in the room and they knew who I was (no, you won't get a cite), not all, but many. Today Ward Connelly can't get the time of day from the GOP or the state dems. And that's too bad, because he wasn't right unless other barriers went down, and the GOP has refused to equalize school funding. (My personal view is that affirmative action is a temporary remedy, and the only remedy to generations of discrimination that peaked in the 1910s and 1920s, and that it could be useful for another 10 or 20 years at most.)

But can I provide evidence that would convince you they are laughing at you? No, not that would satisfy either me or you if I were in your shoes, I can only tell you what I see, and if you could sit with my white face for a few hours in those crowds, you'd be disgusted with some, disappointed in others, and pleased with a few. And what I see is that virtually everybody I know doesn't want to be rude to another person's face and everyone has their preconceived notions, some of which are unpleasant prejudices. I don't want to be rude to people's faces. I find I'm disappointed in myself later, because all I've gained is further access to see if it still goes on. It's an outright relief to scream it out here.

Depending on the circumstances, when white folks are alone and talking about race (particularly middle aged and older, I don't hang with many younger people), the best minorities can hope for are jokes that use stereotypes told by people who don't want to be considered "racist". But if someone has lost a job in a larger company, or didn't get a job, it gets really ugly. So what do I do to stop such rudeness. Not a lot. I casually remind people that I'm a Democrat, or that we know so-and-so, and they aren't like that. How much is one to spit in the ocean for a good cause?

Well, there is a stream of consciousness rambling that is as brutally honest as I can be with myself and others. I hope it gave you the answer you were looking for.

Bob Loblaw

11-02-2005, 05:30 PM

Do you think her inability to foretell of two planes being flown in to the WTC is a failing as a National Security Advisor or a Black person? Or both?

How would being black cause her failure as a national security advisor? It's a skin color, not a mental condition. Her failing was in her ability to do her job, her basic competence. Her skin color or value as a person had nothing to do with it, that's a false dichotomy. Are you saying no black person could do this job? I just don't think that is true at all. I think her basic problem is that she is a Sovietologist in an administration that began 12 years after the Soviet Union fell and didn't refocus her world view. She repeated many times after the event that no one could have predicted such an attack. And it's fair to say no one would have predicted a commie attack of that nature. Well, many in government had predicted such an attack terrorists in general and Al Queda in particular: hijacked mulitple airplanes flown into buildings. She of all people should have recognized that her expertise was dated and brought in the right people and insisted that things be done to prevent terrorist attacks in the US. She was the national security advisor, and the buck stops on her desk and the President's. I really can't understand why she didn't blow her brains out.

E-Sabbath

11-02-2005, 07:21 PM

…I also recall an incident where the NYPD was trying to write off the killing of a young black man as another drug related incident. The young “Black Man” in question was an Honor student and preparing for college. They got the wrong kid because he didn’t know who was threatening him and he ran. They shot even though they were not endangered. Al championed this one and the Police involved were proved wrong. Wrong to shoot and wrong to cover up the reasons for the shooting.

Good one. Yes, Sharpton does serve as a lightning rod, to draw attention to injustice. But man... I still expect more than results. I believe that the end does not justify the means. I expect more of those who seek the moral high ground. Perhaps not in their personal life, but in their professional.

That is why, for example, I like Barack Obama. Not for the color of his skin, but because the man is righteous. We need more righteous men. Men with dignity, men with intelligence and wit, men with honor. And I don't care if they're black, white, female, or gay. Or any mix of the above (and additions), even if they wind up blue from collodial silver.

I do believe Sharpton wanted the riots. I find it hard to think what he utters are anything but 'fighting words.' If he were truly revolted, he would change his message after the _third_ riot, if not before.

If you believe he does not welcome them... from that perspective, I still find him flawed and undeserving, a liar and a corrupting influence. But not evil.

E-Sabbath

11-02-2005, 07:29 PM

Yes, Sharpton's been acting more and more reasonable as of late, as he tries to switch to the national scene.
I hear rumors of financial irregularities popping up more and more, and race-baiting less and less. But he cleaned up before, and then he backslid to his old ways.

I can't trust that man. He says I have five fingers on my hand, I will look, then _count_ to be sure.

On the other hand, I won't insist I have six just to spite him, I will check. Best lies in the world are stuck in a core of truth.

Bob Loblaw

11-02-2005, 07:53 PM

What Exit?

11-02-2005, 07:54 PM

Good one. Yes, Sharpton does serve as a lightning rod, to draw attention to injustice. But man... I still expect more than results. I believe that the end does not justify the means. I expect more of those who seek the moral high ground. Perhaps not in their personal life, but in their professional.

That is why, for example, I like Barack Obama. Not for the color of his skin, but because the man is righteous. We need more righteous men. Men with dignity, men with intelligence and wit, men with honor. And I don't care if they're black, white, female, or gay. Or any mix of the above (and additions), even if they wind up blue from collodial silver.

I do believe Sharpton wanted the riots. I find it hard to think what he utters are anything but 'fighting words.' If he were truly revolted, he would change his message after the _third_ riot, if not before.

If you believe he does not welcome them... from that perspective, I still find him flawed and undeserving, a liar and a corrupting influence. But not evil.

Well if we are comparing Obama to Sharpton; of course Sharpton will look less than great. Rev Al has flaws; he has been deliberately confrontational and has in the past made some very questionable statements. Obama is a good candidate for higher office. Rev Al should never be in higher office but should keep pushing those in office to not forget that there still are inequalities that need to be corrected.
…This thread started with comments from a thread about a nearly perfect hero. Rosa Parks. Rev Al is not in a league with Rosa, neither am I and I doubt many here are. I think Rev Al has made much progress toward being less of a rabble-rouser. I believe he has largely, if not totally stopped Race Baiting. I believe he has largely done this because he has purposely moved on from the role of Angry young man to trying to achieve mature representative of the continued fight for equality.
…Did anyone here look at his platform for President? It is actually quite good.
Sharpton's platform includes 10 key issues:
· Increase voter registration.
· Increase political consciousness and awareness.
· Stimulate more people to get involved in the political process.
· Raise issues that would otherwise be overlooked—for example, affirmative action and anti-death penalty policy.
· Strengthen our national security by fighting for human rights, the rule of law, and economic justice at home and abroad.
· Fight to ensure women's rights.
· Deliver Universal Health Care for the nation, not hidden benefits to the health care industry.
· Provide a solution to the current educational crisis in the nation caused by Bush.
· Help working people by giving them the biggest tax cuts - not the rich.
· Fulfill American democracy by supporting voting rights or statehood for the 600,000 disenfranchised citizens of the District of Columbia.

These aren’t black issues; these are issues of universal equality. These are issues democrats are suppose to champion. Strangely enough I am republican (well disenfranchised) but I agree with everything on this list except #8. I don’t really think it is fair to blame Bush.
…Strangely enough I believe UHC would be great for small & medium businesses and overall great for the economy. The fact it would also help 40 million of the working poor is a wonderful bonus.

So I think Sharpton might not be the boogieman people are making him out to be.

BTW: I can't comprehend how I became Rev Al’s defender here on SMDB. I just think a lot of the hatred directed at him is knee jerk and sound bite driven. I don’t make any claims he is a great man, but I do think the actual title of this thread is correct. Al Sharpton is a decent man is true. No claims of him being a saint or a hero. No better or worse than so many Politicians.

Fearless Reader

11-02-2005, 08:27 PM

What Exit?

11-02-2005, 09:17 PM

jrfranchi and E-Sabbath, I think you live in my neck of the woods. Do you recall an incident a few years ago, when the NYPD shot and killed an orthodox jewish man in brooklyn who was mentally unstable and waving a hammer? It was bad - six officers on the scene, and they couldn't disarm him without killing him?

Sharpton offered to get involved, and the Jewish community turned him down. Now, in a way I can understand that. But at the same time, wouldn't it have been an opportunity to repair a bridge between the black and jewish communities? I admit that Sharpton, based on his past, is not the ideal candidate for that, but how often does an ideal candidate appear? Shouldn't you work with what you've got for the greater good? Is it only Sharpton's fault if the bridge remains unrepaired? Are some people offered redemption or forgiveness and not others?

Racism doesn't begin to describe the problems within the NYPD. It is part of it, but not all of it. I've got stories of my own to tell, and I'm not black, or jewish, or fitting any popular criminal profile. So race based politics as usual hurts everyone in the end, and Sharpton isn't the only guilty party within that problem.

By the way, jrfranchi, I notice your admiration of Rudy Giuliani. I'd say he was a very racially divisive influence when he was mayor. Do you agree, and if so, how does it affect your overall opinion of him? (if not I'd ask for your reasoning as to why not)

I do recall the incident; their turning him down did not surprise me. It was a nice gesture on his part but just from viewing this thread, it would be hard for the Orthodox Jewish leaders to accept his help, even if they wanted it.

I hope I can defend Giuliani. I greatly respect him and I really like his politics. To defend him, I need to know how he was racially divisive. The single biggest thing I can think of is he supported the police more than any mayor ever has. He also worked harder to clean up the police department more than any mayor ever has. His legacy that Bloomberg has continued is NYC is the safest large city in the USA. This is an incredible accomplishment. Way ahead of national average for improvements by the way and he leapfrogged over a dozen cities.
…I always remember speaking to some ladies from my Aunts’ neighborhood in the Bronx. She was a 50ish Black woman. This is her quote Rudy is the first Mayor to make my neighborhood safer.
Rudy reduced gang violence that disproportionately affected the black community. He did not go after Black gangs only; he went after all criminals. The Garbage industry was controlled by the Mafia forever, he got them out. He did the same for the Fish Market. He went after absentee landlords, including the city own tenements to improve rental apartments. He brought jobs to the city, for all residents. He gave the city back some pride and I think the city was more unified after he left then any time in my lifetime.
… I had a baseball discussion this week with a friend. He mentioned what a great job the Yankees were doing by getting 4 million seats sold. I argued that at least a million was because of Rudy. In the 70’s and the 80’s the South Bronx was a scary place. I went to games or the Zoo and there were fires burning blocks away. Crime was very scary; you didn’t feel comfortable about bringing kids to a game. Belligerent squeegee men accosted you on the roads and panhandlers at ATM machines and hotdog stands. All of this was bad and kept people away from the Bronx. Central Park had become a place not to go after dark.
…I think Rudy was a tough on crime mayor, which should not be interpreted as racially divisive . So now I ask how was he racially divisive?

If I can find room to excuse Rev Al, and look behind the sound bites how could I not do the same for one of my heroes?

Bricker

11-02-2005, 09:37 PM

Well, there is a stream of consciousness rambling that is as brutally honest as I can be with myself and others. I hope it gave you the answer you were looking for.

Just for the record, I'm a Hispanic guy who is also a conservative.

Hamlet

11-02-2005, 09:51 PM

Just for the record, I'm a Hispanic guy who is also a conservative.I KNEW you were Emilio Garza.

What Exit?

11-02-2005, 09:55 PM

I KNEW you were Emilio Garza.
That would be cool, but I am reasonably sure he has let slip clues he is a lawyer that does Goverment Contract work. Of course I am now reasonably sure I am whooshing myself again. Oh Well.

Jim

Bob Loblaw

11-02-2005, 10:03 PM

Just for the record, I'm a Hispanic guy who is also a conservative.

At the risk of not being taken at tongue and cheek level: don't you know your Latino, not Hispanic. ;)

I don't know any openly conservative black people (that's a joke people, (but really I don't)), but I know a lot of conservative Hispanics.

Guinastasia

11-02-2005, 10:06 PM

I saw Charlie's Angels 2, Full Throttle. You are undoubtedly one of the Black Irish. But seriously, I can't with any certainty spot the trap. 100 years ago (and maybe not that long ago) Irish were subject to all the same kinds of oppression black people were, but to a lesser degree. I thought the movie Gangs of New York captured some of the flavor of it well. And a helluva performance by Daniel Day Lewis made it worth the admission price all by itself. (Leo DiCaprio and Cameron Diaz did fine too, but not in the same league. But I'll give DiCaprio that league for what he did in Aviator.)

You're an idiot. Try asking the Irish people about their history of oppression under the British, and THEN come baack and say it was "to a lesser degree". BTW, the Ireland hasn't even been independent for a full century yet. Ask someone in Northern Ireland if things are still fine and dandy.

I'm not trying to say "Oh, I suffer because I'm white!" But I'm so sick and tired of this notion that such and such group is the ONLY ONE to have ever experienced prejudice and persecution. Try asking a Holocaust survivor about that some time.

Bob Loblaw

11-02-2005, 10:24 PM

You're an idiot. Try asking the Irish people about their history of oppression under the British, and THEN come baack and say it was "to a lesser degree". BTW, the Ireland hasn't even been independent for a full century yet. Ask someone in Northern Ireland if things are still fine and dandy.

I'm not trying to say "Oh, I suffer because I'm white!" But I'm so sick and tired of this notion that such and such group is the ONLY ONE to have ever experienced prejudice and persecution. Try asking a Holocaust survivor about that some time.

Well aren't we peas in a pod, then. You don't know what you are talking about. We didn't treat the Irish anywhere near as bad as the British did. And for what it is worth, the British never treated the Irish as bad as America treated black people. First enslaving them outright, and then treating them as subhuman, peaking in the 1910s and 1920s. And Irish people in this country (US) have had it pretty damn good for the last 50 years at least.

Yeah, my very white European ancestors (the generation before the oldest now living) were peasant class and sold into apprenticeships that were a step above slavery and every bit as bad as what the Irish put up with. And you don't hear me whining about it because it has nothing to do with me. I have lived a good life without any prejudice towards me and mine. I live within the upper 1 percent of wealth worldwide, never miss a meal etc.

I know people who were born in Ireland 60 years ago and live here now. They are not the victims of racism in the US.

Fearless Reader

11-02-2005, 11:04 PM

I hope I can defend Giuliani. I greatly respect him and I really like his politics. To defend him, I need to know how he was racially divisive. The single biggest thing I can think of is he supported the police more than any mayor ever has. He also worked harder to clean up the police department more than any mayor ever has. His legacy that Bloomberg has continued is NYC is the safest large city in the USA. This is an incredible accomplishment. Way ahead of national average for improvements by the way and he leapfrogged over a dozen cities...

...I think Rudy was a tough on crime mayor, which should not be interpreted as racially divisive . So now I ask how was he racially divisive?

If I can find room to excuse Rev Al, and look behind the sound bites how could I not do the same for one of my heroes?I'm not sure what you mean about cleaning up the police department. The incident I mentioned, the Diallo incident, Abner Louima - all occurred under Giuliani, and he backed up the NYPD all the way. How could that not be considered divisive by the black community? Why did he consistently refuse to meet with state comptroller McCall or manhattan bp Virginia Fields? (not meeting with Sharpton being a given) He called them enemies, supposedly because they were democrats. But if it truly wasn't racial, then it was playing on partisan politics, which is just another way to be divisive.

As far as lowering crime - whether or not you can attribute that to Giuliani alone and not credit much of it as the results of the Dinkins/Ray Kelly era is very debatable. The squeegee men you mention were gone before Giuliani took office. Giuliani certainly took credit, but even his own commish (Bratton) gave most of the credit to Dinkins and Kelly. But perception trumps reality, and Giuliani was perceived as tough on crime by the press and the public, just as Dinkins was portrayed as weak.

By now you can guess I don't share your enthusiasm for him, but it wasn't as much about his policies as his attitude. Look at Bloomberg - same social liberal republican policies - but agree with his policies or not, he is in no way divisive, racially or as a partisan. Maybe it is a question of personal style. IMO, September 11th was the luckiest day of Giuliani's life because it wiped out his past record for many people. Some people get the chance for redemption, and some people don't.

Thanks for answering. Since I read this thread, I've been trying to think of a white leader equivalent to Sharpton (same mix of the bad and the good). I don't know if Giuliani qualifies, but he was the anti-Sharpton during his era. Maybe it would be a better fit for comparison if Giuliani hadn't lucked out on September 11th. He certainly wouldn't be known as America's Mayor without it.

Still like your style. I'd like to be as forgiving and open minded as you seem to be.

Left Hand of Dorkness

11-03-2005, 05:11 AM

What Exit?

11-03-2005, 10:09 AM

I'm not sure what you mean about cleaning up the police department. The incident I mentioned, the Diallo incident, Abner Louima - all occurred under Giuliani, and he backed up the NYPD all the way. How could that not be considered divisive by the black community? Why did he consistently refuse to meet with state comptroller McCall or manhattan bp Virginia Fields? (not meeting with Sharpton being a given) He called them enemies, supposedly because they were democrats. But if it truly wasn't racial, then it was playing on partisan politics, which is just another way to be divisive.

As far as lowering crime - whether or not you can attribute that to Giuliani alone and not credit much of it as the results of the Dinkins/Ray Kelly era is very debatable. The squeegee men you mention were gone before Giuliani took office. Giuliani certainly took credit, but even his own commish (Bratton) gave most of the credit to Dinkins and Kelly. But perception trumps reality, and Giuliani was perceived as tough on crime by the press and the public, just as Dinkins was portrayed as weak.

By now you can guess I don't share your enthusiasm for him, but it wasn't as much about his policies as his attitude. Look at Bloomberg - same social liberal republican policies - but agree with his policies or not, he is in no way divisive, racially or as a partisan. Maybe it is a question of personal style. IMO, September 11th was the luckiest day of Giuliani's life because it wiped out his past record for many people. Some people get the chance for redemption, and some people don't.

Thanks for answering. Since I read this thread, I've been trying to think of a white leader equivalent to Sharpton (same mix of the bad and the good). I don't know if Giuliani qualifies, but he was the anti-Sharpton during his era. Maybe it would be a better fit for comparison if Giuliani hadn't lucked out on September 11th. He certainly wouldn't be known as America's Mayor without it.

Still like your style. I'd like to be as forgiving and open minded as you seem to be.

I am having trouble with much of what you say.
I know the squeegee men were still there because I was going to the Bronx many times a year. Between the Yanks, my Nanny (grandmother) and the Zoo. I would be up there 10-20 times a year. It was a year into Rudy's first term that the Subway's were cleaned up, overpasses had graffiti being removed and Squeegee men were gone. The city was in terrible shape under Dinkins. I thought in four year he had undone the positive steps forward Koch had made. It was almost as bad as the Beame years. Dinkins was a well meaning but incompetent mayor.
Rudy supported the cops 100%. Even in the face of them being wrong. He also charged the department to root out it corruption. Is he perfect, of course not? Did he make the city a better place for all? Yes. Is he very tough of crime, Yes!

I find your choice of using 9/11 as a lucky event, extremely distasteful. But for a case of Flu, my Cousin would have been there that day. Rudy Giuliani lost friends that day.
The response was as good as it was because he had planned ahead and built a special response team. He had restored moral to the NYPD & FDNY. He promoted the terms “NY Finest and Bravest” and meant them. Part of leadership is morale building. Part of ending corruption is having a leader that stands by his men until they are actually proven guilty and sending out the constant word that corruption will not be tolerated.

A typical politician would have found scapegoats for the Abner Louima nightmare. He waited until the facts were in place. Politically a dangerous decision but if you think about it the right one.

If you look at the statistics, crime decline throughout the country during the Clinton years. This was a combination of a good economy and more money to police forces. The same statistics show NYC decline in crime was greater than any other large city and far ahead of the national average. Rudy basically went into office on a platform of cleaning up NYC and he did it. He is not a racist. He is not anti-gay. He is not a member of the religious right. He made most of NYC a better place and Bloomberg is continuing this and deserves another 4 years. His biggest crime is probably being a die-hard Yankee Fan.

Do you prefer the politician that throws people under the bus before they get all the facts or one who stands firm and maybe belligerently until the facts are in. Rudy is a flawed but generally upright man. As politicians go he is more honest than the vast majority and will actually say what he means. How many politicians could have turned NYC around the way he did? Of course if you don’t think he did, I can see where we will probably not be able to agree.

Lastly I am not immediately open-minded but I try hard to be. Life should be a process of learning. Gut instincts are often wrong and deeper analysis is often needed. If I went by Daily News headlines and 15 second news stories, I would think Rev Al was a complete Jerk, by learning more about him and taking time to listen to him, I learn to appreciate him. Take a little time to re-examine the pre 9/11 Giuliani. He had already made the city better and not all the issues were really how I think you perceived them.

Jim

Fearless Reader

11-03-2005, 02:29 PM

Fearlessreader, maybe you're not leftist, but I'm not sure I believe your protestations. I have never heard anyone but another leftist use the sort of slogans that you use, e.g., talking about unexamined racism. In any case, I don't care: the specific aspect of leftism that you're hurting is the anti-racist thread of leftism.

DanielVery classy.

You accuse me of lying rather than admit that you might have misunderstood my post. Why would I lie about something like that? You and your friend insulted me for no reason. I don't know the leftist code phrases. Maybe I was brainwashed by a lefty professor, or actually cracked open a book without your guidance. Or maybe I, one of the unwashed, came up with the concept on my own (gasp!).

You don't care? Fine. But if you're so worried about your fucking cause, maybe you should take your head out of your ass and stop coming across like the stereotype of a self-righteous reactionary condescending leftist. Your real opponents love to see that in action, don't they?

Thanks for nothing.

Fearless Reader

11-03-2005, 02:51 PM

I am having trouble with much of what you say.
I know the squeegee men were still there because I was going to the Bronx many times a year. Between the Yanks, my Nanny (grandmother) and the Zoo. I would be up there 10-20 times a year. It was a year into Rudy's first term that the Subway's were cleaned up, overpasses had graffiti being removed and Squeegee men were gone. The city was in terrible shape under Dinkins. I thought in four year he had undone the positive steps forward Koch had made. It was almost as bad as the Beame years. Dinkins was a well meaning but incompetent mayor.I agree with you about Dinkins. It was Ray Kelly who was shafted by the squeegee man story. It's not just my perception - Bratton admits it too. Here are some cites for that:
Gotham Gazette (http://www.gothamgazette.com/commentary/91.barrett.shtml):But Bill Bratton himself conceded in his 1998 book that by the time he arrived at police headquarters, the squeegees were gone, noting that, "ironically, Giuliani and I got credit for the initiative." Only politics, Bratton concluded, prevented David Dinkins and Ray Kelly from receiving their due.
New York Magazine (http://newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/news/politics/newyork/features/5589/index1.html):It is an extremely well-kept secret, however, that it was Kelly -- not Bratton and not Giuliani -- who actually took care of that reviled icon of urban disorder, that onetime symbol of police and government impotence: the squeegee man. Kelly ordered a study and had just begun to implement his plan when he had to leave office because Giuliani won the election. "We walked in the door and picked up his plan to get rid of the squeegee guys," says a member of Bratton's team, "and we knew we had to finish it. It was great. So we did, and it makes Ray crazy when someone says Bratton or Giuliani is responsible for getting rid of the squeegee guys." (In fairness to Bratton, he gives Kelly full credit in his book and whenever the subject comes up in conversation.)
Rudy supported the cops 100%. Even in the face of them being wrong. He also charged the department to root out it corruption. Is he perfect, of course not? Did he make the city a better place for all? Yes. Is he very tough of crime, Yes!Great Donald Rumsfeld impression. :p

I'll ask you again what you mean about cleaning up the police department in light of what you're saying here. You admit they were wrong, and I understand why it put Giuliani in a tough spot. But I'm looking for talent. That's what was needed - the talent to take charge without alienating either side. I'm sorry to disagree with a guy like you, but Giuliani just didn't have that talent. IMO, because he didn't build the foundation of trust within the minority communities prior to the incident. Compare that to Ray Kelly (http://newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/news/politics/newyork/features/5589/index1.html):Kelly used to spend weekends visiting black churches, working on the relationship between the Police Department and the community. His credibility ran deep enough that in 1997, when Al Sharpton ran for mayor, even he said he wanted "someone like Kelly" as his police commissioner. "You can't just sit back and tell the city's diverse communities 'We know what you need' and then shove it down their throats," Kelly says. "The department needs to make sure it has more validation about what it's doing. Look, there are 140 different ethnic communities in this city, and they all want the best possible quality of life. Most of it is how you deliver the services."I find your choice of using 9/11 as a lucky event, extremely distasteful. But for a case of Flu, my Cousin would have been there that day. Rudy Giuliani lost friends that day.I'm sorry I offended you. I had people there too. I went to a lot of funerals and memorial services back then. I'm not a politically correct person, and I'm not a politician, but truth is truth - some people cashed in on the tragedy. Is my remark any more distasteful than what Giuliani said at the GOP convention ("My first thought was 'thank God George Bush is President'") or what Bush said ("Laura and I had a pretty good year" or "I hit the trifecta")? The political posturing broke my heart.

But sensibilities aside, I was trying to say that Giuliani was given a second chance after September 11th, so he cannot be easily compared to Sharpton.If you look at the statistics, crime decline throughout the country during the Clinton years. This was a combination of a good economy and more money to police forces. The same statistics show NYC decline in crime was greater than any other large city and far ahead of the national average. An interesting take on that. (http://www.gothamgazette.com/article/20050228/200/1335)Rudy basically went into office on a platform of cleaning up NYC and he did it. He is not a racist. He is not anti-gay. He is not a member of the religious right. He made most of NYC a better place and Bloomberg is continuing this and deserves another 4 years. His biggest crime is probably being a die-hard Yankee Fan.Maybe we have to agree to disagree here. I'm not saying he was all bad, or incompetent, but he was very divisive. Democrats are 5 to 1 here, and he referred to them as the enemy. He refused to meet with democrats or any minority leaders. What, was he only the mayor of republicans? In a city like this, you've got to be able to work with everyone. That's not a partisan comment - it's pragmatism. That's what I most admire in Bloomberg.

Bloomberg is a completely different story. He hired a lot of democrats. He meets with Al Sharpton. He doesn't try to alienate some communities by toadying to his base voters (something I think Giuliani did deliberately). Right now it's a little uglier than usual because of the election, but without that stress, Bloomberg comes off a lot better. I voted for him last time, but I am thinking of withholding my vote now, mostly because of his excessive spending. He didn't need to spend 100 million to beat Ferrer (who only has 6 or 7 million to spend). He said last time he wouldn't spend as much and run on his record, so I think I'm going to hold him to that. Better to spend the money for something useful.Do you prefer the politician that throws people under the bus before they get all the facts or one who stands firm and maybe belligerently until the facts are in. Rudy is a flawed but generally upright man. As politicians go he is more honest than the vast majority and will actually say what he means. How many politicians could have turned NYC around the way he did? Of course if you don’t think he did, I can see where we will probably not be able to agree.All politicians are flawed - we can agree there. I don't vote strictly party, and I don't even vote strictly on issues. I vote the person, figuring if they are reasonable and competent and working for the good of all, I can hold their feet to the fire on issues I disagree with. Anyway, that's my reasoning.

But I believe Giuliani used divisiveness to further his own ends - much the same as the charges against Sharpton (lest we forget the origin of this thread). He refused to listen, or reach out to anyone who disagreed with him. Because of that, I can't even think of supporting him on a national level (I wouldn't support Sharpton for the same reason).

Honesty is a tough call for a politician. So is decency (as in the title of this thread). I try to avoid those calls because they are so complex and debatable based on perception and bias. Think about the national political scene and the "Bush lied" debate. I'm not above it all, but I'm so tired of it. I believe he lied, but I don't have absolute truth. Thing is, I don't think it's necessary to prove it. If he didn't lie, then he was incompetent, and that's enough for me to justify firing him (and the easiest firing I can think of - as a small business owner - I wouldn't have to lose sleep worrying about how he would take care of his family). Am I wrong about that?

Enough. Too bad about the Yanks this year, eh? :( Lastly I am not immediately open-minded but I try hard to be. Life should be a process of learning. Gut instincts are often wrong and deeper analysis is often needed. If I went by Daily News headlines and 15 second news stories, I would think Rev Al was a complete Jerk, by learning more about him and taking time to listen to him, I learn to appreciate him. Take a little time to re-examine the pre 9/11 Giuliani. He had already made the city better and not all the issues were really how I think you perceived them.Deeper analysis takes up a lot of my time. I don't want to shatter your ideal of a hero - but I'm still curious about why you chose Giuliani as a hero. Personally, I try to avoid an emotional investment in politicians. But I'll take your advice and try to keep an open mind. Jury is still out on all of us still breathing, right?

Thanks Jim.

What Exit?

11-03-2005, 03:16 PM

Fearless Reader Thank you & I agree to disagree.

Our debate is a hijack anyway.

Jim

Fearless Reader

11-03-2005, 03:54 PM

No problem, Jim.

I agree - if Giuliani ever runs for national office, these arguments will have more relevance.

But I'm sorry if I offended you again somehow.

What Exit?

11-03-2005, 04:06 PM

No problem, Jim.
I agree - if Giuliani ever runs for national office, these arguments will have more relevance.
But I'm sorry if I offended you again somehow.
You didn't offend. I just thought we should let the debate go back to Rev Al.

Sorry
Jim

Left Hand of Dorkness

11-03-2005, 05:28 PM

Very classy.

You accuse me of lying rather than admit that you might have misunderstood my post.

I didn't accuse you of lying before--but since I didn't and you said I did, I'll accuse you of it now.

I don't know the leftist code phrases. Maybe I was brainwashed by a lefty professor, or actually cracked open a book without your guidance. Or maybe I, one of the unwashed, came up with the concept on my own (gasp!).
Or maybe your posts are actually typed by a collective of sponges growing across a keyboard. I don't much care: as I said, I care that you're hurting the antiracist cause with your idiotic posts.

But if you're so worried about your fucking cause, maybe you should take your head out of your ass and stop coming across like the stereotype of a self-righteous reactionary condescending leftist. Your real opponents love to see that in action, don't they?
Wow, bud. I really don't think you want to get in a pissing match with me about which of us is coming across as more the stereotype of a self-righteous reactionary condescending leftist. But if you do, I welcome you to ask around.

Daniel

Guinastasia

11-03-2005, 06:28 PM

Guin, I gotta disagree with you here. As badly as the Irish were treated by the British, I doubt the worst-treated Irish would have traded places with a captive on a slaveship/url] or [url=http://www.whatwasthen.com/lalaurie.html]a victim of the LaLaurie family (http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/slaveship.htm).

Lalaurie victims were rare, but millions suffered the conditions of the slave ship.

Daniel

Fixed link (http://www.whatwasthen.com/lalaurie.html)

Fixed link (http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/slaveship.htm)

Fair enough, and that's very true. I just don't like to see people playing the whole "Well, this group has been more oppressed than anyone in history!" I think you could argue that what Ireland went through over a period of hundreds of years (since the 12th century, as I understand it), and what the Jews went through ranks up there.

Left Hand of Dorkness

11-03-2005, 06:29 PM

LHoD: just wanted to apologize if I stepped on your toes. I know you're fully capable of defending yourself but these chimps really got under my skin. I hope you took no offense from my conduct.
I meant to respond to this earlier--no, Finn, not only wasn't I offended, but I can't imagine why I woulda been. I've been enjoying your posts in this thread.

Daniel

What Exit?

11-03-2005, 06:46 PM

Fixed link (http://www.whatwasthen.com/lalaurie.html)

Fixed link (http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/slaveship.htm)

Fair enough, and that's very true. I just don't like to see people playing the whole "Well, this group has been more oppressed than anyone in history!" I think you could argue that what Ireland went through over a period of hundreds of years (since the 12th century, as I understand it), and what the Jews went through ranks up there.

In Guin's defense, weren't a million Irish killed in the 5 years of the potato famine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_potato_famine) alone. The mass deaths of the Famine was basically really evil politics. This is a million death from a population of around 8 million.
For what was a very small population this was devastating and this is only the most glaring event in an 800-year history of oppression that is only eased up in the last 100 years. It is on a different scale than African slavery but almost as bad.
However this is not a part of American History and Slavery was. In the 20th century, many group were treated as badly as blacks at the same time. Japanese interments. Jews, Italians, Polish, Chinese and Irish treated like 3rd class citizen with hordes of insulting names. I agree that things improved for these other group quicker than for African American but it was very bad for all these groups at times and was on a scale.
The biggest difference I see is the KKK and lynch mobs of the Deep South. It was an organize horror.
The extreme prejudice against Blacks has also lasted longer and seems to run deeper. We all must continue to educate against this.

Left Hand of Dorkness

11-03-2005, 06:54 PM

In Guin's defense, weren't a million Irish killed in the 5 years of the potato famine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_potato_famine) alone. The mass deaths of the Famine was basically really evil politics. This is a million death from a population of around 8 million.
Please don't think I'm saying the Irish had strawberries and cream every day. They had it really, really, really tough I'm just saying--as you said--that it was on a different scale than African slavery.

There are plenty of groups that had it worse than the Irish. How many Irish, do you think, would have been willing to trade places with a random black Congolese during the reign of Emperor Leopold? How many would have traded places with a random Carib Indian on Columbus's second landing? A random Australian Aborigine during their genocide?

I think that even at the height of the Irish Potato Famine, as horrible as things got, they didn't make it into the top tier of atrocities in history.

Daniel

FinnAgain

11-03-2005, 09:19 PM

I meant to respond to this earlier--no, Finn, not only wasn't I offended, but I can't imagine why I woulda been. I've been enjoying your posts in this thread.

Some people are funny about accepting help, I'm glad I didn't offend.

danceswithcats

11-04-2005, 09:32 PM

It should be illegal to use "Al Sharpton" and "decent man" in the same sentence except as opposites. He makes Joe Kennedy look honest by comparison.

E-Sabbath

11-05-2005, 09:50 AM

I don't think so. I think Joe Kennedy was far nastier than Sharpton could ever be. Just not as slimy.

Fearless Reader

11-12-2005, 06:05 PM

I didn't accuse you of lying before--but since I didn't and you said I did, I'll accuse you of it now.

Or maybe your posts are actually typed by a collective of sponges growing across a keyboard. I don't much care: as I said, I care that you're hurting the antiracist cause with your idiotic posts.

Wow, bud. I really don't think you want to get in a pissing match with me about which of us is coming across as more the stereotype of a self-righteous reactionary condescending leftist. But if you do, I welcome you to ask around.

DanielBullshit, and weak bullshit at that.

Ask around about you? Who would I ask? I failed to notice the masses of posters coming to your defense. Is there no limit to your pretentiousness? I can read your posts here, and so can others. I'll let them stand as testimony.

It is obvious that the only "cause" you are serving is your own pride and ego. You were wrong about me, and it wouldn't have been a big deal if you hadn't insisted on making it so. And for what? Because your ego was more important than your so-called cause.

Sorry to revive an old thread, but I was away for a few days, and something like this shouldn't stand.

You only prove that assholes can exist on both the left and the right.

Miller

11-12-2005, 06:19 PM

Good Lord, are you still all worked up about this thread? You got your ass kicked by LHoD, and hard. It's really not in your best interest to keep bringing that fact to everyone's attention.

duffer

11-12-2005, 09:17 PM

Sorry to revive an old thread, but I was away for a few days, and something like this shouldn't stand.

Jesus, they let you out again???

Jackmannii

11-12-2005, 09:49 PM

Great Buddha, you're still posting on this?

Fearless Reader

11-12-2005, 09:53 PM

Good Lord, are you still all worked up about this thread? You got your ass kicked by LHoD, and hard. It's really not in your best interest to keep bringing that fact to everyone's attention.What is my best interest, according to you? When did this alleged ass kicking occur? Just saying it doesn't make it so. Sorry to burst your insular messageboard bubble world, but your friend was wrong, and abusive for no reason. Is that what passes for fighting ignorance around here? And you expect people to pay for it? Good luck with that, although I'm beginning to see that fighting ignorance has nothing to do with who gets a free ride here. Thanks, but I can get the typical messageboard pecking order structure for free.

FinnAgain

11-12-2005, 09:56 PM

insular messageboard bubble world, but your friend was wrong, and abusive for no reason.

He was right.
You're a tiresome asshole.
You're also a cowardly little shit who calls people racists and then acts like a victim when they get annoyed at you.

Is that what passes for fighting ignorance around here?

~hits you with a stick~
Yes.

And you expect people to pay for it?

I sure as hell hope that you won't, and that soon you'll go away.
Tell ya what, why don't you save us all the time and energy and just leave now?

Fearless Reader

11-12-2005, 10:18 PM

He was right.
You're a tiresome asshole.
You're also a cowardly little shit who calls people racists and then acts like a victim when they get annoyed at you.

~hits you with a stick~
Yes.

I sure as hell hope that you won't, and that soon you'll go away.
Tell ya what, why don't you save us all the time and energy and just leave now?I can well understand why you of all people would want me to just go away. I'm a reminder of how stupid you can be when you are reduced to drunken rambling (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6751257&postcount=266). Or did you rethink your vow to avoid this thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6751268&postcount=267)?

FinnAgain

11-12-2005, 10:26 PM

Oh, yes, you are certainly a reminder of how stupid I am. Yeep.

And, time passed, I saw that a useless waste of oxygen like yourself had come back, so I decided to tell you, yet again, that you're a useless waste of oxygen. Although, to be fair, I think you're also a waste of space, carbon, and bandwidth.

And by the way, simply because you're too stupid to understand some rather simple English doesn't mean I was drunk when I wrote it. No matter how stupid you are, it can't get me drunk. Which is unfortunate, because otherwise a quick glance at your posts would be enough to get me pleasantly tipsy. And even if I had been drunk, to steal a bit from Churchill:

"Yes I'm drunk, and you are stupid. But tomorrow I will be sober."

You don't like the Dope.
Fine.
Go the fuck away.

What Exit?

11-12-2005, 10:29 PM

Well first I defended Al and now I will defend Fearless Reader

He seems to be an intelligent poster that supports his post with details.
It looks like he was called liar for posting an unpopular opinion.
Why slam him so hard. He and I strongly but politely disagreed over Giuliani but I think he would make a good addition to the board. I like hearing opinions different from my own, especially when they can be backed up with intelligence. I reread this very long thread and many posts were much worse and much more offensive than Fearless Reader’s.
I think in most cases I am further to the right then you and it sounds like Fearless Reader is further to the left than most. Why the all out attack from yourself and LhoD?
Is there another issue I am missing?

I like you Finn and like your posts but I don’t like you asking intelligent posters to leave the board.

Fearless Reader, I really don’t think this is the normal exchange of ideas, but you wandered into a particularly virulent Pit Thread. Try to stay in GQ for a while to better appreciate what a great place this is.

I look forward to people from the Left and the right to inform us of viewpoints and facts. I usually don’t agree with Bricker but I strongly like his intelligence and ability to back up his opinion with well written posts and facts.

But as I write this too long post, upon preview I see you are both now engaged in a pissing match. So this is probably not going to help. :(

Jim

FinnAgain

11-12-2005, 10:34 PM

He seems to be an intelligent poster that supports his post with details.
It looks like he was called liar for posting an unpopular opinion.

Look back at this thread. He was called a number of names for saying that those who didn't agree with him were racists.

Why slam him so hard.

Because he's a dishonroable piece of shit and a coward who, when faced with the fact that he's insulting people, whines and pretends he's a victim.

I like hearing opinions different from my own, especially when they can be backed up with intelligence.

What intelligence is there in saying that those who disagree with you must be racists? That's just about the dumbest, and slimiest tactic in the book. And, I will add, it totally defeates the free exchange of ideas if you will simply call those who disagree with you, racists.

I reread this very long thread and many posts were much worse and much more offensive than Fearless Reader’s.

Maybe, but cowards who throw the first punch and then whine like toddlers when someone responds to them are a pet peeve of mine.

I think in most cases I am further to the right then you and it sounds like Fearless Reader is further to the left than most. Why the all out attack from yourself and LhoD?

You should know me well enough to know that I wouldn't attack a poster for simply being left, or right. But this cowardly bullshit of calling people racists and then acting like a victim when they get upset is simply beyond the pale.

I like you Finn and like your posts but I don’t like you asking intelligent posters to leave the board.

To my knowledge I haven't. I've told a shit flinging coward who won't take responsibility for his own actions and who seems to not like the Dope that he's better off not being here.

FinnAgain

11-12-2005, 10:39 PM

What Exit?

11-12-2005, 10:47 PM

Seriously, what possible good can come from a poster who may sometimes be lucid, but who carries around a massive chip on their shoulder and, at the first sign of trouble, will resorting to claiming that his opponents have 'unexamined racist tendencies?'

That isn't a marketplace of ideas, that's some childish schmuck who throws a firebomb into the marketplace if he can't get exactly what he wants.

Your posting too quick for me ;) but on the intelligence part,
I did read the thread and it was more Bob Loblaw that flinging around racist too loosely. I don't agree with a lot of what Fearless Reader but he did toss out an intelligent discourse on Rudy G. That is my primary reference for saying he was intelligent. Please refer back to those if you need some proof. Try around post 329.

Of course he needs to tone down calling people racist, but give him a chance to interact and see if his postings change.

BTW: Feel free to ask me to butt out, I won't take offense.
I just happen to like most of what he has posted I actually took the time to read his 30 or so post. Most are sound.

Jim

FinnAgain

11-12-2005, 11:00 PM

Your posting too quick for me ;) but on the intelligence part,
I did read the thread and it was more Bob Loblaw that flinging around racist too loosely.

Agreed, but they were both doing it. And IMO, both earned the reactions they got.

I don't agree with a lot of what Fearless Reader but he did toss out an intelligent discourse on Rudy G. That is my primary reference for saying he was intelligent. Please refer back to those if you need some proof. Try around post 329.

Fair enough... but there are plenty of people with 'booksmarts' who, let's face it, are just dumb. Calling people racists, and then getting surprised and acting like a victim when you're called out is both dumb, and, in my view, a serious character flaw.

Of course he needs to tone down calling people racist, but give him a chance to interact and see if his postings change.

Perhaps, but it seems that he still doesn't understand what he did wrong, or why it was wrong. Indeed, the reason he came back to this thread seems to be to protest his innocence; hardly a mea culpa. I don't have much hope of him getting it if he can't understand why people who he insults, act like they've been insulted.

BTW: Feel free to ask me to butt out, I won't take offense.

Naw, it's no problem. I do, after all, enjoy discussing things with people who have alternate opinions. But call me a racist for disagreeing with you... ;)

I just happen to like most of what he has posted I actually took the time to read his 30 or so post. Most are sound.

Indeed. But, as I see it, those are ruined by a massive character flaw.

FinnAgain

11-12-2005, 11:35 PM

What Exit?

11-12-2005, 11:49 PM

Seriously, and to put a finer point on it:
If he'd returned and apologized for his rhetoric and said that he'd seen the light, and that he understands how his attitude can alienate even those who might support some of his ideas, I've have gladly welcomed him back. But to come back and be pugnacious and militant in his ignorance?

I just don't think we can get blood from a stone.

Hey, I see your point, but the thread got very vicious and I think some of the venom that was aimed at Bob Loblaw fell on Fearless Reader and the level of venom was not conducive to getting someone to admit to a mistake.
As I posted, I am not colorblind and I wish I was, but I am still trying to overcome my gut instinct reactions. I think this is what Fearless was originally saying, but it sounded more like he was calling people racist.
Bob made no bones about it. I think he called everyone but me a racist. I think he even called Bill Cosby a racist by his definition. The only reason I escaped, is I share an unpopular position that Al is not the devil many see him as.

Jim

Fearless Reader

11-13-2005, 12:33 AM

Look back at this thread. He was called a number of names for saying that those who didn't agree with him were racists.

Because he's a dishonroable piece of shit and a coward who, when faced with the fact that he's insulting people, whines and pretends he's a victim.

What intelligence is there in saying that those who disagree with you must be racists? That's just about the dumbest, and slimiest tactic in the book. And, I will add, it totally defeates the free exchange of ideas if you will simply call those who disagree with you, racists.

Maybe, but cowards who throw the first punch and then whine like toddlers when someone responds to them are a pet peeve of mine.

You should know me well enough to know that I wouldn't attack a poster for simply being left, or right. But this cowardly bullshit of calling people racists and then acting like a victim when they get upset is simply beyond the pale.

To my knowledge I haven't. I've told a shit flinging coward who won't take responsibility for his own actions and who seems to not like the Dope that he's better off not being here.I wouldn't mind admitting to a mistake but I don't see where I made one. Please go back to my actual posts and point the mistakes out to me. I said it was my opinion that all of us have unexamined racist tendencies. All of us. That would include me too. For some reason, jrfranchi seemed to understand what I was saying, and expounded further. No one had a problem with that. So where is this alleged dishonesty, and the other horrible things I am being accused of?

As I said previously, if you disagree, fine. But nothing I said merited the abuse you and your friend decided to hurl my way. I never said you were a racist for disagreeing, so that is an outright lie. Why should I accept it? Because you are an established member and I am not?

Maybe there is no room here for new people unless they keep their nose down until they are established. I'm sorry I came here under these circumstances, but truth is truth, and you and your friend were wrong to attack me under any circumstances. If someone would like to point out why I should swallow your bullshit just because I have no standing here, that it is worth it somehow, I'd like to hear it. But there is no way I will pretend you are justified just because you got here first.

Jim, I appreciate your posts in my defense. I didn't want to drag you into this. Maybe that is what I originally admired in you - you call it as you see it, no matter the consequences. That is what I aspire to myself.

By the way, I am not a "he". I don't think that should matter, but who knows. This whole attack doesn't make any sense to me.

FinnAgain

11-13-2005, 12:54 AM

I wouldn't mind admitting to a mistake but I don't see where I made one. Please go back to my actual posts and point the mistakes out to me. I said it was my opinion that all of us have unexamined racist tendencies. All of us.

Well, you can't really say that such a statement is just an opinion. If it's your opinion that everybody is a racist, that means you're calling everybody racists. The words 'many' and 'some' are good to stick to.

And you did of course personally insult LHoD by saying that he had racist tendencies. An opinion that's an insult is still an insult.

That would include me too. For some reason, jrfranchi seemed to understand what I was saying, and expounded further. No one had a problem with that. So where is this alleged dishonesty, and the other horrible things I am being accused of?

Perhaps you don't understand why you came off the way you did?
jrfranchi didn't cast his statements as insults.

As I said previously, if you disagree, fine. But nothing I said merited the abuse you and your friend decided to hurl my way.

After LHoD told you that your rhetoric wasn't helping, you said...
I like this thread, not because I agree that every single person here is an out and out racist who deserves flaming, but because the confrontational style has caused a mass defensiveness that might lead to a personal re-evaluation of racist tendencies - conscious or unconscious.
... you were, essentially, saying that those who got upset at Bob's rhetoric were being 'defensive' and had racist tendencies to re-evaluate. That's a pretty strong insult, even if you don't mean it as such.

Your response to LHoD getting pissed off was, instead of telling him to get bent or what have you, to call him a racist as well.

Nothing compares to the righteous indignation of a called out leftist with unexamined racist inclinations.

That, by the way, is not only an insult about racism, but you're saying that people aren't introspective. So you're saying that not only are people racists, but they don't care enough about their behavior to look into it and try to do what's right.

I never said you were a racist for disagreeing, so that is an outright lie. Why should I accept it? Because you are an established member and I am not?

Again:

IMO, the problem is the style of Bob Loblaw's argument. But that is also part of his point re Sharpton, isn't it?

In this thread we have brickbacon making many succinct points - points that do not fundamentally disagree with Bob's premise - the difference is the style of argumentation. But does the style change the validity of the message? As you yourself alluded to earlier in this thread, an inyourface style also serves a purpose, even if in spite of itself.

I like this thread, not because I agree that every single person here is an out and out racist who deserves flaming, but because the confrontational style has caused a mass defensiveness that might lead to a personal re-evaluation of racist tendencies - conscious or unconscious.

Maybe there is no room here for new people unless they keep their nose down until they are established.

Not at all.

I'm sorry I came here under these circumstances, but truth is truth, and you and your friend were wrong to attack me under any circumstances.

You say, clearly, that people reacting to Bob's inflamatory intellectually bankrupt bullshit have unexamined racist tendencies that they'll have to re-evaluate. This has nothing to do with how new you are.

If someone would like to point out why I should swallow your bullshit just because I have no standing here, that it is worth it somehow, I'd like to hear it. But there is no way I will pretend you are justified just because you got here first.

You could, ya know, take accountability for your own words, which have nothing to do with me being here longer than you.

FinnAgain

11-13-2005, 01:15 AM

Sorry, I should've said that before LHod called you out, you made your statement about how people were being forced to re-examine their racist tendencies. After that you called him a racist.

Cutting and pasting in Word has its disadvantages.

Fearless Reader

11-13-2005, 01:19 AM

Well, you can't really say that such a statement is just an opinion. If it's your opinion that everybody is a racist, that means you're calling everybody racists. The words 'many' and 'some' are good to stick to.

And you did of course personally insult LHoD by saying that he had racist tendencies. An opinion that's an insult is still an insult.

Perhaps you don't understand why you came off the way you did?
jrfranchi didn't cast his statements as insults.

After LHoD told you that your rhetoric wasn't helping, you said...

... you were, essentially, saying that those who got upset at Bob's rhetoric were being 'defensive' and had racist tendencies to re-evaluate. That's a pretty strong insult, even if you don't mean it as such.

Your response to LHoD getting pissed off was, instead of telling him to get bent or what have you, to call him a racist as well.

That, by the way, is not only an insult about racism, but you're saying that people aren't introspective. So you're saying that not only are people racists, but they don't care enough about their behavior to look into it and try to do what's right.

Again:

Not at all.

You say, clearly, that people reacting to Bob's inflamatory intellectually bankrupt bullshit have unexamined racist tendencies that they'll have to re-evaluate. This has nothing to do with how new you are.

You could, ya know, take accountability for your own words, which have nothing to do with me being here longer than you.I'm completely accountable for my own words. I still stand by what I said. You lied about me and lied about what I said. Are you willing to be accountable for that?

Please point out where I said anyone was a racist simply for disagreeing with me, as you said previously. Can you do that?

I know you can't, because it isn't what I said. This whole argument is bullshit, because your friend made a mistake and couldn't own up to it. He misinterpreted what I said, and let it go this far because of his own stupid pride. How you fell into it is beyond me.

Personally, I try to give people the benefit of the doubt, especially on the internet, where intentions and tone can often be misinterpreted.

But in a case like this, where I was attacked even after I tried to rectify the misunderstanding, I refuse to back down. Own up to your mistake, or live with the posted proof of your own mistake, admitted or not. You haven't got a leg to stand on, other than your senior standing here. That means nothing to me. What it might mean to others here I cannot control. I posted my rebuttal for my own integrity, and I am satisfied. You and your friend lied about me, and have not proven otherwise. I am done with both of you.

FinnAgain

11-13-2005, 01:26 AM

I'm completely accountable for my own words. I still stand by what I said. You lied about me and lied about what I said. Are you willing to be accountable for that?

I quoted you. How can I lie by quoting you?

Please point out where I said anyone was a racist simply for disagreeing with me, as you said previously. Can you do that?

Are you for real?

IMO, the problem is the style of Bob Loblaw's argument. But that is also part of his point re Sharpton, isn't it?

In this thread we have brickbacon making many succinct points - points that do not fundamentally disagree with Bob's premise - the difference is the style of argumentation. But does the style change the validity of the message? As you yourself alluded to earlier in this thread, an inyourface style also serves a purpose, even if in spite of itself.

I like this thread, not because I agree that every single person here is an out and out racist who deserves flaming, but because the confrontational style has caused a mass defensiveness that might lead to a personal re-evaluation of racist tendencies - conscious or unconscious.

I know you can't, because it isn't what I said.

Are you IN-fucking-sane?
Bob causes a 'mass defensiveness' and those folks who were defensive had racist tendencies.

You haven't got a leg to stand on, other than your senior standing here.

You keep bringing that up. When have I pulled rank or claimed that my time here makes me right? Do you always need to invent an argument and ascribe it to someone else in order to have something to argue against?

You and your friend lied about me, and have not proven otherwise. I am done with both of you.

Mmm hmmm.
Bob causes a 'mass defensiveness', those who were 'defensive' had racist tendencies, in your eyes.
But you weren't saying that those who were taking issue with Bob had racist tendencies. Nopers.

Fearless Reader

11-13-2005, 01:37 AM

Please quote where I said someone was a racist for disagreeing with me. Isn't that what you said? What you quoted said nothing like that.

I'm sorry if I touched on one of your personal problems, but it has nothing to do with me. Please take it elsewhere. I can't help you.

FinnAgain

11-13-2005, 01:43 AM

Are you honestly this stupid?

You agreed with Bob.
You said those who disagreed with Bob were "defensive" and racists.
Thus you said those who disagreed with you (and Bob) were racists.

Sets up an awfully simple syllogism, don't it?

I'm sorry if I touched on one of your personal problems, but it has nothing to do with me. Please take it elsewhere. I can't help you.

And that was, of course, more of the bullshit which pissed me off. Instead of taking accountability for your actions, you try to engage in mind reading and whinge about how folks've gotta have 'personal issues'.

Fearless Reader

11-13-2005, 02:04 AM

Please quote where I agreed with Bob. Please quote anything that corresponds to what you are alleging.

You're not doing that, because you can't. You're reading way too much into what I actually said. It's kind of sad.

If I had said that it was human nature that anyone could commit murder, would you have interpreted it to mean that I was accusing everyone here of being a murderer? Or you personally???

You misinterpreted what I said - IMO because of your own personal problems - and now you are trying to project something on me for saying it. Are you some kind of super human, above all the frailties of human nature as we know it? If so, I would apologize. Still, I'd have to wonder why you wouldn't also understand why I might ascribe that weakness to us regular humans.

I think you're just being an asshole here, drunk or not. Amazing what people will do to avoid admitting to error, but you are taking it beyond anything I ever imagined. Live and learn.

FinnAgain

11-13-2005, 02:14 AM

Please quote where I agreed with Bob. Please quote anything that corresponds to what you are alleging.
You're not doing that, because you can't. You're reading way too much into what I actually said. It's kind of sad.

Jeez, you really are that stupid. In the post I've been quoting (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6750322&postcount=218), you respond to Bricker's question about why Bob was getting flack by suggesting that his points were not invalid but that he made people defensive and that they had unexamined racism in their hearts.

You say that Brickbacon's arguments are "excellent" after saying that they're pretty much the same as Bob. Again, this sets up a neat lil' syllogism.

Your continued denials either mean you're stupid, intellectually dishonest, or a mix of the two.

You misinterpreted what I said - IMO because of your own personal problems - and now you are trying to project something on me for saying it.

No, actually I think that, due to the personal problem of you being an idiot and a whinging schmuck, you refuse to see what your own words mean.

Amazing what people will do to avoid admitting to error, but you are taking it beyond anything I ever imagined. Live and learn.

Took the words right out of my mouth.

Babble on Xena.

FinnAgain

11-13-2005, 02:34 AM

Oh, and, simply as an addendum, if you said that everybody wsa a potential murderer, yes, you should expect some people to take offense. People who aren't cold blooded killers generally don't like being accused of such things. Same as if you said something like "all men are potential rapists" you might just upset a few men.

Fearless Reader

11-13-2005, 02:40 AM

Jeez, you really are that stupid. In the post I've been quoting (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6750322&postcount=218), you respond to Bricker's question about why Bob was getting flack by suggesting that his points were not invalid but that he made people defensive and that they had unexamined racism in their hearts.

You say that Brickbacon's arguments are "excellent" after saying that they're pretty much the same as Bob. Again, this sets up a neat lil' syllogism.

Your continued denials either mean you're stupid, intellectually dishonest, or a mix of the two.

No, actually I think that, due to the personal problem of you being an idiot and a whinging schmuck, you refuse to see what your own words mean.

Took the words right out of my mouth.

Babble on Xena.I think the problem is, you are in fighting mode, and cannot hear what I am saying.

I didn't come here to offend anyone. I didn't think what I posted was offensive. It was my own opinion about racism in general. To be attacked as I was, under those circumstances, was very surprising to me. I'm still not sure why I was misunderstood - possibly a regional tone to my posting style - but bottom line is that I wasn't trying to be provocative. I really thought it was a given in intelligent debate that people had unexamined racist tendencies.

And now we are here, where I need to defend this idea in order to defend my own integrity as an individual. Problem is, no one has told me why this idea is wrong. If it is, I'd really like to know that. I can entertain many ideas up to a point, but it is helpful if someone can point out why they are invalid, and not worth entertaining. You and your friend didn't do that. Instead, you attacked me personally. Please tell me how that fights ignorance effectively?

I still don't see how my idea about racism and human nature is wrong (according to you). Insulting me personally isn't a compelling argument, and I have no idea why you can't see that.

I said I was done with you, so my replies since then must seem superfluous. But since then I've come to think you are sincere - in that you think you are right. But how are you right? This was never explained by you or your friend.

If it is indeed wrong that all humans are naturally racist, then why can't or won't you explain that? And why is it so offensive to you personally if someone brings it up as a point in a debate about racism?

FinnAgain

11-13-2005, 03:01 AM

I think the problem is, you are in fighting mode, and cannot hear what I am saying.

No.
I hear what you're saying, and I'm pointing out why it's odd that you can't see the impact your words would have. Let's go over this yet again, shall we?

I didn't come here to offend anyone. I didn't think what I posted was offensive. It was my own opinion about racism in general.

If I say "It's my opinion that under the right circumstances, you might molest children." Should I expect some people to get upset? Or should I think that, hey, because it's my opinion it's all cool.

That is essentially as insulting what you've done by suggesting that people are closet racists. Nobody cares if it's your opinion.

To be attacked as I was, under those circumstances, was very surprising to me. I'm still not sure why I was misunderstood - possibly a regional tone to my posting style - but bottom line is that I wasn't trying to be provocative. I really thought it was a given in intelligent debate that people had unexamined racist tendencies.

You keep saying you were misunderstood, but that it was your opinion that posters in the thread had 'racist tendencies'. Yet again, them's fighting words.

And now we are here, where I need to defend this idea in order to defend my own integrity as an individual. Problem is, no one has told me why this idea is wrong.

Largely because many people have most likely been offended that you've accused them of having racist tendencies. But maybe there are other reasons.

If it is, I'd really like to know that. I can entertain many ideas up to a point, but it is helpful if someone can point out why they are invalid, and not worth entertaining.

Well, just off the top of my head, racism has to be learned. Babies aren't born hating people with certain features. In addition, you do not have a large enough sample size to generalize about all of humanity. Do you have any psychological studies to back up your claims as to 'human nature'? Anthropological studies?

You and your friend didn't do that. Instead, you attacked me personally. Please tell me how that fights ignorance effectively?

Sometimes, if someone insults you, you insult them right back instead of engaging in a factual discussion. Again, even if it's only your opinion, you still called people racists. After you've done that, it's strange for you to expect them to remain polite.

I still don't see how my idea about racism and human nature is wrong (according to you). Insulting me personally isn't a compelling argument, and I have no idea why you can't see that.

I wasn't attempting to disprove your argument, simply reacting to the insult.

I said I was done with you, so my replies since then must seem superfluous. But since then I've come to think you are sincere - in that you think you are right. But how are you right? This was never explained by you or your friend.

Again, if you call a man a racist, don't act surprised if he acts as if you've insulted him. And if you've called someone a non-introspective racist don't expect them to be happier than if you've simply called them a racist.

If it is indeed wrong that all humans are naturally racist, then why can't or won't you explain that? And why is it so offensive to you personally if someone brings it up as a point in a debate about racism?

I didn't because of the context in which it was delivered.
Had you wanted to start a GD thread and discuss what 'human nature' was with regard to racism, you probably would've gotten a good dicussion. But if you post something that looks like an insult (eg. saying people are being "defensive" due to their "unexamined racism"), and it's in the Pit, don't expect to get a fully civil response.

I would also point out, on a factual note, that even those poulations which are strongly xenophobic aren't necessarily racist. And not all populations are xenophobic.

Fearless Reader

11-13-2005, 03:30 AM

I think you are still in a fighting mode. What is with the "yet again" when you have never tried to explain anything previously?

Well, just off the top of my head, racism has to be learned. Babies aren't born hating people with certain features. In addition, you do not have a large enough sample size to generalize about all of humanity. Do you have any psychological studies to back up your claims as to 'human nature'? Anthropological studies?Where is your own cite about racism being learned behavior? I've never heard that before as a settled issue. And I don't consider racism to be strictly a measure of hatred. Maybe that is where we are misunderstanding each other.

Bottom line is, you decided to take offense to what I said, misunderstanding or not. It was not a given that you should have done so. Why you think that is a given is beyond my experience so far. There are many negatives in human nature - discussing them shouldn't necessarily lead to personal offense or personal insults - or at least I was led to believe that this messageboard was above that. Maybe I was wrong about that, and I should couch my words more carefully in future, if I decide to post here again.

FinnAgain

11-13-2005, 03:49 AM

I think you are still in a fighting mode. What is with the "yet again" when you have never tried to explain anything previously?

~sigh~
Because I have said, several times, that calling people racists is an insult.

Where is your own cite about racism being learned behavior? I've never heard that before as a settled issue.

It's the null hypothesis.
Infants are born with very little in the way of 'hardwired' behavior.
Unless you can prove that babies are racist, then it must be learned.
Can you prove that?

Bottom line is, you decided to take offense to what I said, misunderstanding or not.

Bottom line is, if you accuse people of being racists, they might very well 'decide' to take offense.

It was not a given that you should have done so. Why you think that is a given is beyond my experience so far.

"Them's fighting words"

There are many negatives in human nature - discussing them shouldn't necessarily lead to personal offense or personal insults - or at least I was led to believe that this messageboard was above that.

Again, in the context you made your statement, you were saying those who disagreed with you/bob/brickbacon were racists. That isn't even a generalization about human nature, but a direct insult.

(Or, if you want to quibble: that was the underlying logical structure of your post.)

Further, if you're going to call people racists, or potential rapists, or cold blooded killers, or whatever, expect someone to take offense.

Maybe I was wrong about that, and I should couch my words more carefully in future, if I decide to post here again.

Well, if you can choose your words more carefully you might just make a valuable addition to this message board. You do seem like you're honestly curious about why I responded the way I did, and that's good.

You should always be wary of generalizations (including this one).
Saying "I believe anybody would steal if they thought they wouldn't get caught" will most likely piss off some of the folks who are honorable and not thieves.
Saying "I believe that all men are potential rapists." will most likely piss of some of the men who wouldn't ever rape anybody.
Saying "All X are Y" will most likely piss of some X who don't like being called Y.

You will most likely further compound any offense which you give by saying something like "Why don't you like having it suggested that you might be a rapist? You're acting somewhat defensive. What do you think that says about your unexamined rapist tendencies?"

Now, again, the context matters. Had you opened a GD thread to talk about 'human nature', you'd probably have gotten a good discussion going. But if you step into a Pit thread and suggest those who are disagreeing are racists, then you'll most likely get flamed.

So I'll make an invitation to you: start a GD thread on racism, 'human nature', innate knowledge, etc... and if you decide to stay on this message board, I'll pay your regristration fee myself.

Fearless Reader

11-13-2005, 04:15 AM

FinnAgain, I'd like to expand on what I said about racism not being strictly a measure of hatred, because it is an important aspect of what I was trying to say.

I'd like to say that it is more about our tribal nature as humans, and of course what we consider racial differences today plays a role in that. If I, as a (white) European-American encounters an African-American (black), I can't help but be aware that we are from a different tribe. What this might mean is not necessarily hatred - and for me it is not - but it does register in my brain that there is a difference. I am recalling a study in JAMA where it was shown that humans registered identifying aspects - by gender, age, and race - in that order, whenever they encountered a stranger. Notice that race comes in third, after gender and age, but it is still there. That is part of what I am basing my theory on - that people need to identify others they encounter in a basic way. Race isn't the most important aspect, but it does play a role in how we make decisions about about people we encounter that we don't know.

So if we discuss someone like Al Sharpton, I would wonder if his race plays a part in how we determine our opinion of him. Can you understand where I am coming from when I say that? This would apply to everyone - black, white, brown, or whatever.

IMO, it's very difficult to separate out the racial aspects when making that kind of determination - regardless of whether you are black, white or other. I'm not sure anyone can do that in an objective way, and I am naturally suspicious of people who say race isn't a factor. I'm sorry if that is offensive to you or anyone else, but I really do believe it is a problem for humans of every race.

IMO, we are still tribal creatures, and still trying to work out how to justify that in a modern world.

I hope that helps you understand where I am coming from when I talk about racist tendencies - I didn't think long posts were helpful or wanted, but if it keeps me from being attacked, then I am only indulging for self-preservation.

Fearless Reader

11-13-2005, 04:26 AM

So I'll make an invitation to you: start a GD thread on racism, 'human nature', innate knowledge, etc... and if you decide to stay on this message board, I'll pay your regristration fee myself.I'll take you up on that, but I don't need for you to pay my way (ya bastard ;) ).

I'm still not sure it would get anyone's interest without Bob Loblaw's provocative premise. Do you really think it would?

EddyTeddyFreddy

11-13-2005, 09:13 AM

Maybe there is no room here for new people unless they keep their nose down until they are established. On the contrary, the members of this board are in most cases welcoming to new posters, not inclined to use the newbie stick for settling arguments. Most Dopers will cheerfully and politely set you straight if you've unwittingly gone against some SDMB custom, but won't hold it against you.

And, of course, some of our members are capable of being self-righteous pricks who get stuck in attack mode, blinded by the froth flying from their e-mouths. ;)

I'm glad you stuck around to explain what you'd meant by inherent, unexamined racism. I agree with that perspective, and find examples of such tribalism in myself, no matter how strenuously I try to eradicate it.

By the way, I disagree with this statement of yours: " I didn't think long posts were helpful or wanted" -- on the contrary, you're encouraged to set forth your ideas here at whatever length required to make your points.

Well, of course some people use that opportunity to ramble incoherently, but from what I've seen you're in no danger of that.

FinnAgain

11-13-2005, 10:16 AM

And, of course, some of our members are capable of being self-righteous pricks who get stuck in attack mode, blinded by the froth flying from their e-mouths. ;)

:p
(I think)

FinnAgain

11-13-2005, 10:53 AM

Yes, I think that thread might get some interest. Bob's antics did far more to facilitate flames than honest discussion, and you kinda stepped right into the middle o' that.

I'd like to say that it is more about our tribal nature as humans, and of course what we consider racial differences today plays a role in that. If I, as a (white) European-American encounters an African-American (black), I can't help but be aware that we are from a different tribe. What this might mean is not necessarily hatred - and for me it is not - but it does register in my brain that there is a difference.

Well, there is a problem there, in that I don't think most folks would call that racism. Doesn't-look-like-me, doesn't necessarily have any impact beyond that.

And I would argue that if someone had a meme that said "dislike anybody not from our community" that it wouldn't be racist, as the race of those being disliked wouldn't have anything in specific to do with it, only the lack of being part of that group. Various European and African tribes warred with each other for quite some time, and they were part of the same race. Heck, in some cases various clans/families within the same tribe warred with each other, too.

I'd still like you to define your terms a bit more if you don't mind. Does your definition of racism begin at simply noticing 'race'?

I am recalling a study in JAMA where it was shown that humans registered identifying aspects - by gender, age, and race - in that order, whenever they encountered a stranger. Notice that race comes in third, after gender and age, but it is still there. That is part of what I am basing my theory on - that people need to identify others they encounter in a basic way. Race isn't the most important aspect, but it does play a role in how we make decisions about about people we encounter that we don't know.

Ah, but there's a difference between identifying something, and acting on it.

For instance, you told me that you're a woman and not a man. But I didn't decide to treat you any differently. It's just another piece of data. And while it sounds fairly plausible for someone to think "he/she isn't of my tribe", I'm not sure that there needs to be any further implication. After all, I'd imagine, during medieval times one could just as easily have a xenophobic reaction to the next tribe over, whose skin/features were pretty much like yours, but maybe they spoke a different language, etc... Tribe doesn't always equal race.

So if we discuss someone like Al Sharpton, I would wonder if his race plays a part in how we determine our opinion of him. Can you understand where I am coming from when I say that? This would apply to everyone - black, white, brown, or whatever.

Yes, but I still think that the null hypothesis should be a test of their views/actions. If their views/actions, regardless of their race, are enough for people to get pissed, then we can assume that's the cause. If the people who are pissed wouldn't give a pass to members of their own 'tribe' for the same shit, then we can doubly assume that it's a merit-based dislike.

IMO, it's very difficult to separate out the racial aspects when making that kind of determination - regardless of whether you are black, white or other. I'm not sure anyone can do that in an objective way, and I am naturally suspicious of people who say race isn't a factor. I'm sorry if that is offensive to you or anyone else, but I really do believe it is a problem for humans of every race.

No, it's really not all that offensive in this context, at least for me. Your original remarks were, because essentially you stepped in the middle of a flame war and then said those who were disagreeing were racists :p.

But, now, why can't someone do that in an objective way? Let's say, for instance, that I think both David Duke and Farrakhan are assholes. And that I think so based solely on the fact that they're hateful bastards. Why, then, do we need to complicate things by suggesting racism at work? Do I find Duke revolting because he's from a different state that I am and thus not part of the Gothamite culture? Do I find Farrakhan revolting because he's black, and thus not white?

Or do I find them both revolting based solely on their message?

IMO, we are still tribal creatures, and still trying to work out how to justify that in a modern world.

Yes and no.
I'll try to find a cite for you, but there have been many people who've argued that one of society's problems is that the 'tribe' has totally broken down. Many of us don't even know our own neighbors, let alone feel that we have a place to fit in.

It's been said before that we're in a post-modern age, and to a degree I believe that is correct. I think we are, for the first time, hitting a critical mass in terms of information, communication, education, scientific inquiry, etc... which will, in time, allow us to take the reigns of our own evolution.

Or, to steal a phrase:

" Man is a rope, tied between beast and overman-a rope over an abyss. A dangerous across, a dangerous on the way, a dangerous looking back, a dangerous stopping shuddering and.
What is great in man is that he is a bridge and not an end: what can be loved in man is that he is an overture and a going under.":

I hope that helps you understand where I am coming from when I talk about racist tendencies - I didn't think long posts were helpful or wanted, but if it keeps me from being attacked, then I am only indulging for self-preservation.

Well, first off, it always pays to flesh out your posts and elaborate as much as you think is necessary to get your ideas across.
Second, again, a general intellectual discussion is different from stepping in the middle of a flame war and saying, in essence "Those who're disagreeing with the OP's claim that they're racists? Them doing so shows racist tendencies."

Maybe it was just an inoportune set of circumstances, and the whole tactic of "If you disagree with my condemnation of you it just proves my condemnation" is one of my pet peeves as well. Have you started that GD thread yet?

What Exit?

11-13-2005, 11:32 AM

You know this is why I really love this board.
Two intelligent people are engaged in a flame war and they post through the night.
By Morning they are actually being civil to each other again.

I want to complement both FinnAgain and Fearless Reader for working past the initial venom and reaching a level where discourse took back over. I think you are both intelligent and bright.

EddyTeddyFreddy nice job helping to diffuse a bomb.

Jim

FinnAgain

11-13-2005, 11:33 AM

Well fuck you too! ;)

What Exit?

11-13-2005, 11:55 AM

Well fuck you too! ;)

Your statement is illogical; it is anatomically impossible for a humanoid of my species to attempt you engage in intercourse with oneself. I also fail to see the benefits of such an attempt.

BTW: When do you sleep?

Jim

FinnAgain

11-13-2005, 11:56 AM

Why, when I'm not awake, of course.
;)

What Exit?

11-13-2005, 11:59 AM

Why, when I'm not awake, of course.
;)
:D :D :D A such simple logic, how did it escape me.

That is the second time this week you have caused me to choke on my drink while I laughing too hard to breathe.

EddyTeddyFreddy

11-13-2005, 01:04 PM

:p
(I think)Hey, if the hobnailed boot fits, wear it. :p

Yeh, Finn baby, you know I like you, but you do have an unfortunate tendency to go into berserker mode and become impervious to reason till the fit passes. I cut you some slack, though, because when you calm down you're willing to see the other person's point and go back to intelligent engagement in civilized argument.

Maybe when you're in the Pit we should keep a bucketful of cold water on hand to throw on you in case of emergency. :D

FinnAgain

11-13-2005, 01:07 PM

Hey, if the hobnailed boot fits, wear it. :p

Hey, I was not lying with my eyes while my hands were busy working overtime. You take that back! :D

Yeh, Finn baby, you know I like you, but you do have an unfortunate tendency to go into berserker mode and become impervious to reason till the fit passes.

Well, erm, I disagree.

Maybe when you're in the Pit we should keep a bucketful of cold water on hand to throw on you in case of emergency. :D

Or a joi, er, never mind :cool:

What Exit?

11-13-2005, 01:17 PM

Or a joi, er, never mind :cool:

That has always been one of arguments for the legalization of "Never Mind".
Alcohol makes many people more like to fight, "Never Mind" makes people chill out and get along.

Jim (Dave's not here man)

EddyTeddyFreddy

11-13-2005, 01:26 PM

That has always been one of arguments for the legalization of "Never Mind".
Alcohol makes many people more like to fight, "Never Mind" makes people chill out and get along.

Jim (Dave's not here man) Wow, man, the colors!

FinnAgain

11-13-2005, 02:10 PM

The colorless all color of atheism hidden text.

Fearless Reader

11-14-2005, 12:21 PM

But, now, why can't someone do that in an objective way? Let's say, for instance, that I think both David Duke and Farrakhan are assholes. And that I think so based solely on the fact that they're hateful bastards. Why, then, do we need to complicate things by suggesting racism at work? Do I find Duke revolting because he's from a different state that I am and thus not part of the Gothamite culture? Do I find Farrakhan revolting because he's black, and thus not white?

Or do I find them both revolting based solely on their message?
Here is where we differ. You see an equivalence between them (or their messages) and I don't. Farrakhan is a reaction to documented oppression and discrimination. What is David Duke reacting to? Where is the history of oppression and discrimination against "his people"? He might be sincere, but his fears and perceptions don't have the facts to justify them. Do you really think Duke's hate has the same justification as Farrakhan's hate? So how can you put Duke and Farrakhan in the same category?

Of course it is possible that they are both "assholes" as individuals, but I don't think it is objective to judge the messages based on the messengers, or dismiss both messages as if they had equal merit, simply because they are both "hateful bastards". And I think that is what happens when people like Duke and Farrakhan are compared.
I'll try to find a cite for you, but there have been many people who've argued that one of society's problems is that the 'tribe' has totally broken down. Many of us don't even know our own neighbors, let alone feel that we have a place to fit in.I'd like to see some cites if you can find them. I'm sure they are out there, but think about most of the conflicts today and in recent history. They are tribal conflicts. In some cases, they are divided by religion rather than race, but I see racism as a product of what you could call "meta-tribalism" (or call it something else - as long as you see the point I'm trying to make).

What is nationalism if not a form of "meta-tribalism" as I defined it above? Is American exceptionalism a form of racism? Isn't it ascribing superiority to a certain group? Is Zionism a form of racism? What about the Irish "troubles", or the ethnic cleansing in the Balkans? Why can't sunni and shia muslims get along? Are they so different they can't live together peacefully? And what about the infamous French xenophobia?

I think it is a trait we all share, varied in degree because of circumstances and external pressures. Politicians prey on this human trait for their own ends, and so we get fear mongering and scapegoatism. Those tactics wouldn't be effective if human nature didn't respond to them. But they are effective.

I think you are right in that certain elements of tribalism can break down in a larger, more heterogenous environment. For example, sunni and shia muslims in the US aren't blowing up each other up, as they do in Iraq, or Pakistan. Either they assimilate to some degree into the larger tribe of "american", or form a coalition to protect against the more generalized US discrimination against muslims. But the human tendency of tribal affiliation persists, even under those conditions. If a perceived common enemy disappears, or they feel disenfranchised from the meta-affiliation, the old tribalist instincts can resurface, and history shows us that they often do.
It's been said before that we're in a post-modern age, and to a degree I believe that is correct. I think we are, for the first time, hitting a critical mass in terms of information, communication, education, scientific inquiry, etc... which will, in time, allow us to take the reigns of our own evolution.I certainly hope you are right. But information is not necessarily knowledge. And most people are suffering from information overload - advertisements, escapist or sensational pseudo-news, political propaganda, porn, etc. - how many of us will use our valuable time to sift through it all to determine what is knowledge and what is pap? How many of us have been trained to do so? What is the incentive to do so? Knowledge for its own sake? How quaint is that concept?

I think eventually, knowledge will win out. Maybe there are too many people coasting on limited knowledge just because they can currently afford to, and if things turn bad or ugly, many of them will perish. Not a pretty scenario to envision, but truth and nature isn't always pretty.
No, it's really not all that offensive in this context, at least for me. Your original remarks were, because essentially you stepped in the middle of a flame war and then said those who were disagreeing were racists.

Second, again, a general intellectual discussion is different from stepping in the middle of a flame war and saying, in essence "Those who're disagreeing with the OP's claim that they're racists? Them doing so shows racist tendencies."

Maybe it was just an inoportune set of circumstances, and the whole tactic of "If you disagree with my condemnation of you it just proves my condemnation" is one of my pet peeves as well. Have you started that GD thread yet?I hate to pick this bone again, but I never did say anything about people disagreeing with me being racists. I believe you sincerely got that impression, but I still have no idea why.

I haven't started that new thread yet. In light of my seeming ability to cause offense without intention, or be misunderstood, I am wondering how to frame the debate. If you really are interested, why don't you give me a frame to work with, or start the debate yourself (I promise to participate). I'd really appreciate it.On the contrary, the members of this board are in most cases welcoming to new posters, not inclined to use the newbie stick for settling arguments. Most Dopers will cheerfully and politely set you straight if you've unwittingly gone against some SDMB custom, but won't hold it against you.Thanks, but cheerful and polite aren't on the top of the list of words I would choose to describe my experience here so far. :)

But in a way I understand. Even messageboards are a form of tribalism. I'm a stranger here, so I don't know the secret handshakes or code words that might set some people off.

What Exit?

11-14-2005, 12:47 PM

Here is where we differ. You see an equivalence between them (or their messages) and I don't. Farrakhan is a reaction to documented oppression and discrimination. What is David Duke reacting to? Where is the history of oppression and discrimination against "his people"? He might be sincere, but his fears and perceptions don't have the facts to justify them. Do you really think Duke's hate has the same justification as Farrakhan's hate? So how can you put Duke and Farrakhan in the same category?

Of course it is possible that they are both "assholes" as individuals, but I don't think it is objective to judge the messages based on the messengers, or dismiss both messages as if they had equal merit, simply because they are both "hateful bastards". And I think that is what happens when people like Duke and Farrakhan are compared.
...snip...
I would say David Duke has absolutely nothing to support his cause. He is completely morally void. But Farrakhan is such a hateful man that it stops being a meaningful difference for me. They are both far, far off the scale of decency and respectability. Farrakhan actually promotes hatred. David Dukes leads hatred embodied. While they are not equally bad, they are both very bad and we would all be better of if neither ever spread their message of hate again.

Jim

EddyTeddyFreddy

11-14-2005, 01:14 PM

.Thanks, but cheerful and polite aren't on the top of the list of words I would choose to describe my experience here so far. :)

But in a way I understand. Even messageboards are a form of tribalism. I'm a stranger here, so I don't know the secret handshakes or code words that might set some people off. Eh, this is the Barbecue Pit, where "cheerful and polite" are way down on the list of descriptive terms for the forum. ;)

Have you visited Great Debates, In My Humble Opinion, Cafe Society, even MPSIMS? The expected level of civility is far higher in those forums. There's often a good conversation to take part in in the forums devoted to discussion of Cecil's and staff member's columns, as well.

I do hope you'll join up; you'd clearly have much to offer the Dope.

Fearless Reader

11-14-2005, 01:20 PM

I would say David Duke has absolutely nothing to support his cause. He is completely morally void. But Farrakhan is such a hateful man that it stops being a meaningful difference for me. They are both far, far off the scale of decency and respectability. Farrakhan actually promotes hatred. David Dukes leads hatred embodied. While they are not equally bad, they are both very bad and we would all be better of if neither ever spread their message of hate again.

JimBut there is a meaningful difference, assuming you accept that one hatred has merit where the other does not. And you seem to accept that with what you say here.

I'm not defending the individual here so much as the message. Why should Farrakhan's message be ignored or dismissed because he happens to alienate a large segment of white people? Is he wrong when he rails against a history of oppression and discrimination?

I'm sorry to disagree with you Jim (I'd like to think you are perfect aside from your Rudy G blind spot :p ), but it seems to me that it is always a white person who will try to make this kind of false equivalence as a way of dismissing the arguments of black leaders. The merits of the arguments are not the same. Farrakhan has real reasons to feel hatred, and David Duke does not. That is all I am saying here.

That doesn't mean that I am advocating hatred from anyone. I don't think hate works in the long run as a message. But to dismiss the justification for the hatred when it is easily justified doesn't work either. Someone has to be the first to hold out an olive branch, to be willing to "lose face" to save the "human" race. As it stands now, which group can more easily afford to do so? Try to think about it like that.

Fearless Reader

11-14-2005, 01:32 PM

Eh, this is the Barbecue Pit, where "cheerful and polite" are way down on the list of descriptive terms for the forum. ;)

Have you visited Great Debates, In My Humble Opinion, Cafe Society, even MPSIMS? The expected level of civility is far higher in those forums. There's often a good conversation to take part in in the forums devoted to discussion of Cecil's and staff member's columns, as well.

I do hope you'll join up; you'd clearly have much to offer the Dope.Thanks again. I'm an old Cecil Adams fan (or maybe I'm just old). My internet time is erratic and limited, but I have looked at the other forums. I understand that racism is a touchy topic. I didn't mean to insult the entire board with my comment.

FinnAgain

11-14-2005, 01:33 PM

I hate to pick this bone again, but I never did say anything about people disagreeing with me being racists. I believe you sincerely got that impression, but I still have no idea why.

I'll get to the substantive points a bit later on today, I just wanted to clear this one up (if I can).

1. You said Brickbacon's points were excellent, this may be taken as your agreement of such 'excellent' points.
2. You said Bob's points were fundamentally the same as Brickbacon's
3. Logically, if you agree with Brickbacon, whose points in turn are fundamentally the same as Bob's, then you are agreeing with Bob as well.
4. Then you say that those who are annoyed at Bob's posting style are being defensive and have unexamined racist tendencies.
5. Having already said that you agree with Brickbacon whose point you see as essentially the same as Bob's, then you are saying that the people who have reacted to the point you agree with were defensive and had unexamined racism to deal with.

Is that clear now? That's why I qualified a previous post by stating that perhaps it was 'only' the underlying logical structure of your post, and not what you meant to convey.

Fearless Reader

11-14-2005, 01:46 PM

I'll get to the substantive points a bit later on today, I just wanted to clear this one up (if I can).

1. You said Brickbacon's points were excellent, this may be taken as your agreement of such 'excellent' points.
2. You said Bob's points were fundamentally the same as Brickbacon's
3. Logically, if you agree with Brickbacon, whose points in turn are fundamentally the same as Bob's, then you are agreeing with Bob as well.
4. Then you say that those who are annoyed at Bob's posting style are being defensive and have unexamined racist tendencies.
5. Having already said that you agree with Brickbacon whose point you see as essentially the same as Bob's, then you are saying that the people who have reacted to the point you agree with were defensive and had unexamined racism to deal with.

Is that clear now? That's why I qualified a previous post by stating that perhaps it was 'only' the underlying logical structure of your post, and not what you meant to convey.Thanks for delineating your reasoning. Seems like a long way to go in order to justify attacking someone, but since I was (or still am) an unknown quantity here I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

My free time this afternoon is just up now too. Catch you later, and look forward to your reply.

What Exit?

11-14-2005, 02:05 PM

But there is a meaningful difference, assuming you accept that one hatred has merit where the other does not. And you seem to accept that with what you say here.

I'm not defending the individual here so much as the message. Why should Farrakhan's message be ignored or dismissed because he happens to alienate a large segment of white people? Is he wrong when he rails against a history of oppression and discrimination?

I'm sorry to disagree with you Jim (I'd like to think you are perfect aside from your Rudy G blind spot :p ), but it seems to me that it is always a white person who will try to make this kind of false equivalence as a way of dismissing the arguments of black leaders. The merits of the arguments are not the same. Farrakhan has real reasons to feel hatred, and David Duke does not. That is all I am saying here.

That doesn't mean that I am advocating hatred from anyone. I don't think hate works in the long run as a message. But to dismiss the justification for the hatred when it is easily justified doesn't work either. Someone has to be the first to hold out an olive branch, to be willing to "lose face" to save the "human" race. As it stands now, which group can more easily afford to do so? Try to think about it like that.

I agree there is history to support the hatred that comes from Farrakhan.
His message is laced with hatred and bigotry; he is not bettering the country or the human race. I believe Jesse and Al both make arguments in a fashion to make things better for all people. Al’s past history will keep him from being a successful force for shared understanding, but he does try. Farrakhan spews hate so often that his more positive messages about responsibility cannot get through.
Even Bob admitted Farrakhan should not be in a discussion with Jesse and Al. I don’t think this is black/white issue. It is hate/non-hate issue.

It is almost impossible to better the world through hate speech. The most successful changes require either peaceful methods like Ghandi & Martin Luther King or armed rebellion. I obviously favor peaceful discourse and speech.

Jim

FinnAgain

11-14-2005, 02:20 PM

Thanks for delineating your reasoning.

Simply for the record, I had done so before, just hadn't numbered them.

Seems like a long way to go in order to justify attacking someone, but since I was (or still am) an unknown quantity here I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Long way? Benefit of the doubt?
Your post, intentionally or not, set up a couple of syllogisms. It took me all of half a second to see that after I'd read the post. I don't quite understand why that would require any benefit of the doubt, or be beyond a reasonable interpretation.

I'll chew through the rest of this and get back to you later.

Fearless Reader

11-14-2005, 05:09 PM

I agree there is history to support the hatred that comes from Farrakhan.
His message is laced with hatred and bigotry; he is not bettering the country or the human race. I believe Jesse and Al both make arguments in a fashion to make things better for all people. Al’s past history will keep him from being a successful force for shared understanding, but he does try. Farrakhan spews hate so often that his more positive messages about responsibility cannot get through. The message might not get through to some people but not all. Have you ever listened to Farrakhan, or are you depending on the media soundbites? The man never gives a short speech, and the soundbites don't do him justice. The media cherry-picks the more controversial statements.

Maybe this is his own fault - he is not concerned about getting good mainstream press? But maybe his purpose isn't to woo the mainstream, but to speak to those outside the mainstream (or those who feel themselves to be disenfranchised from the mainstream). The bulk of his speeches aren't about hate at all, but personal responsibility.

But most often, his arguments are dismissed with the usual talking points about how he is only a hate monger - as if he never says or does anything else other than the two minute soundbite of hate.

This is part of what I meant about sifting through information to get knowledge. How many white people will be bothered to look beyond the soundbites they've heard from Farrakhan? Most won't, because they don't need to - they are not oppressed or disenfranchised, so why should they waste their time?

That translates to me as an aspect of unexamined racism.

If you take your own hero, Rudy G, as an example - I can list quite a few soundbites of things he has said, that make him look bad. Would you accept them at face value and dismiss him, or would you look beyond them to try to justify the man, either in context or in entirety? Conversely, could you really blame a black person for hearing a racially divisive soundbite or two from Giuliani, and not bothering to look beyond that?

That's why I am suspicious of people who claim to be able to be objective. It's not as simple as they make it out to be.

Fearless Reader

11-14-2005, 05:13 PM

Long way? Benefit of the doubt?
Your post, intentionally or not, set up a couple of syllogisms. It took me all of half a second to see that after I'd read the post. I don't quite understand why that would require any benefit of the doubt, or be beyond a reasonable interpretation.You attacked someone you didn't know at all based on half a second's thought. And you think that is reasonable. I don't know what else I can say about that without damaging our truce, but it is not how I normally operate. I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt, and that entails more than half a second of my time. I hope we can agree that in future you ask for clarification before you go off on a rant. It would be very difficult for me to learn anything from you, or take the time to acknowledge your points, if it seemed like your own ego, or hair-trigger temper, was the first consideration.

Reasonable enough for you?

Jackmannii

11-14-2005, 05:25 PM

If you take...Rudy G, as an example - I can list quite a few soundbites of things he has said, that make him look bad. Would you accept them at face value and dismiss him, or would you look beyond them to try to justify the man, either in context or in entirety? Conversely, could you really blame a black person for hearing a racially divisive soundbite or two from Giuliani, and not bothering to look beyond that?I am not particularly a Giuliani fan, but would be interested in hearing what he has supposedly said that leads you to equate him to Farrakhan.

FinnAgain

11-14-2005, 05:33 PM

You attacked someone you didn't know at all based on half a second's thought. And you think that is reasonable.

You created syllogisms. They do not require massive ammounts of thought. If someone says A = B, and B = C, I don't need to spend an afternoon wondering if the implication is A = C.

I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt, and that entails more than half a second of my time.

If I make any logical fallacies, or my text clearly implies things, feel free to call me out.

I hope we can agree that in future you ask for clarification before you go off on a rant. It would be very difficult for me to learn anything from you, or take the time to acknowledge your points, if it seemed like your own ego, or hair-trigger temper, was the first consideration.

If your posts are unclear, I will ask for clarification. But it has nothing to do with my ego, or an imaginary hair-trigger temper, for me to react to the logical implications of a post.

I actually find it rather disturbing that you still want to cast the clear and transparent logical implications of your posts as being my fault, or my noticing them as being ego, or hair-trigger borne.

In any case I'll do my best to answer your points later.

Fearless Reader

11-14-2005, 05:35 PM

I am not particularly a Giuliani fan, but would be interested in hearing what he has supposedly said that leads you to equate him to Farrakhan.I don't equate him to Farrakhan. Read my posts again (especially the one about false equivalences) - that wasn't my point at all.

The Giuliani example is about how people will take the time to consider all aspects of a public figure - or not - depending on their own self interests. Do you disagree with that?

What Exit?

11-14-2005, 06:18 PM

The message might not get through to some people but not all. Have you ever listened to Farrakhan, or are you depending on the media soundbites? The man never gives a short speech, and the soundbites don't do him justice. The media cherry-picks the more controversial statements.

Maybe this is his own fault - he is not concerned about getting good mainstream press? But maybe his purpose isn't to woo the mainstream, but to speak to those outside the mainstream (or those who feel themselves to be disenfranchised from the mainstream). The bulk of his speeches aren't about hate at all, but personal responsibility.

But most often, his arguments are dismissed with the usual talking points about how he is only a hate monger - as if he never says or does anything else other than the two minute soundbite of hate.

This is part of what I meant about sifting through information to get knowledge. How many white people will be bothered to look beyond the soundbites they've heard from Farrakhan? Most won't, because they don't need to - they are not oppressed or disenfranchised, so why should they waste their time?

That translates to me as an aspect of unexamined racism.

If you take your own hero, Rudy G, as an example - I can list quite a few soundbites of things he has said, that make him look bad. Would you accept them at face value and dismiss him, or would you look beyond them to try to justify the man, either in context or in entirety? Conversely, could you really blame a black person for hearing a racially divisive soundbite or two from Giuliani, and not bothering to look beyond that?

That's why I am suspicious of people who claim to be able to be objective. It's not as simple as they make it out to be.

Rudy is a gruff New Yorker, he has a tendency to say what he thinks, and he is not actually a very professional politician. He has never used outright racial terms in public that I have heard. He had an administration with good diversity. Sound bites are always a bad way to judge someone and if you look back through this incredibly long thread you’ll find I argued against judging people and specifically Sharpton by them.
I have listened to Farrakhan’s “million-man march” speech in its entirety. Even this was chauvinistic and racist.
I have read some of his other speeches including when he has condemn all Jews, claimed Jews were the oppressors. Railed against Koreans coming into black neighborhoods and having the nerve to open a store to serve the black community. I have heard various other speeches over the years.
I find him to mainly be a hatemonger. Keep in mind I am also an agnostic and I distrust all religious leaders not just Islamic.

I have heard nothing but sound bites on Dukes, so if anything, I need to be more cautious in my dislike of him. But I am not rational about the KKK. This is an evil organization.

Jim

Jackmannii

11-14-2005, 06:21 PM

I don't equate him to Farrakhan. Read my posts again (especially the one about false equivalences) - that wasn't my point at all.

The Giuliani example is about how people will take the time to consider all aspects of a public figure - or not - depending on their own self interests. Do you disagree with that?Alright. Now that you've acknowledged that the idea Guiliani is comparable to Farrakhan is a false equivalence, we come back to my request. I would be interested in hearing what you believe Giuliani has said that would lead a reasonable person to mention him in the same breath as Farrakhan.

What Exit?

11-14-2005, 06:43 PM

Fearless Reader

11-14-2005, 06:49 PM

Alright. Now that you've acknowledged that the idea Guiliani is comparable to Farrakhan is a false equivalence, we come back to my request. I would be interested in hearing what you believe Giuliani has said that would lead a reasonable person to mention him in the same breath as Farrakhan.What are you getting at? My point had nothing to do with equating them so I don't know what you mean by "in the same breath". Should I repeat myself? Here:The Giuliani example is about how people will take the time to consider all aspects of a public figure - or not - depending on their own self interests. Do you disagree with that?Is there something unclear in that statement? If you disagree with it, please reply. If you need clarification, let me know. But it seems like you are more interested in arguing about something I didn't say. Sorry, but I'm not interested. Been there, done that.

Fearless Reader

11-14-2005, 07:06 PM

Fearless Reader brought up Rudy, because I brought him up much earlier as one of my heroes. She was trying to hammer home a point about sound bites. I think forgetting that I was the first in this thread to bring up the point.

JimThanks Jim. I didn't forget you brought it up, I just thought to use it again as a general example - not to imply anything personal about you.

One problem I seem to be having is that I myself don't take offense to general statements about humanity. I wasn't really offended by what Bob said, even though I agreed that his style seemed deliberately provocative.

It's difficult for me to gauge the sensitivity level on this board. Why would seemingly intelligent people (and it is obvious the intelligence level is pretty high on this board) take personal offense to a general remark made by a total stranger on the internet? Is it just an opportunity to vent?

What Exit?

11-14-2005, 07:15 PM

Thanks Jim. I didn't forget you brought it up, I just thought to use it again as a general example - not to imply anything personal about you.

One problem I seem to be having is that I myself don't take offense to general statements about humanity. I wasn't really offended by what Bob said, even though I agreed that his style seemed deliberately provocative.

It's difficult for me to gauge the sensitivity level on this board. Why would seemingly intelligent people (and it is obvious the intelligence level is pretty high on this board) take personal offense to a general remark made by a total stranger on the internet? Is it just an opportunity to vent?

It has a lot to do with it being the Pit; this is the only part of the Board where this will happen. If you hit the wording thread and the right time and said "Green is my favorite color" you might end up in a flame war. I was flamed early on by a very reasonable person, because she mistook my post as a belittling do to my poor use of the English language. This is a bit of a growing pain. Great Debates is very different. You end up in Cite wars rather than Flame wars.

Now I did answer your post on Farrakhan, I want to toss back at you for clarification.
Are you actually defending the hateful person?
I know David Dukes is worse but Farrakhan is very bad and to me beneath reproach. Hitler was worse than Stalin; but Stalin was still a horrible and evil dictator. There is a point on the scale where people have just gone to far and while which is worse is meaningful, it doesn’t justify the lesser jerk from being a jerk.

Jim

What Exit?

11-14-2005, 07:17 PM

It has a lot to do with it being the Pit; this is the only part of the Board where this will happen. If you hit the wording thread and the right time and said "Green is my favorite color" you might end up in a flame war. I was flamed early on by a very reasonable person, because she mistook my post as a belittling do to my poor use of the English language. This is a bit of a growing pain. Great Debates is very different. You end up in Cite wars rather than Flame wars.

Darn, wording... was suppose to be wrong thread at the right time .

Frank

11-14-2005, 07:25 PM

Great Debates is very different. You end up in Cite wars rather than Flame wars.
Cite?

Fearless Reader

11-14-2005, 07:29 PM

Now I did answer your post on Farrakhan, I want to toss back at you for clarification.
Are you actually defending the hateful person?
I know David Dukes is worse but Farrakhan is very bad and to me beneath reproach. Hitler was worse than Stalin; but Stalin was still a horrible and evil dictator. There is a point on the scale where people have just gone to far and while which is worse is meaningful, it doesn’t justify the lesser jerk from being a jerk.

JimNo, I'm not defending Farrakhan. I was trying to get beyond that and discuss how and why we form opinions of people.

The point is, if you're going to wait for some perfect leader to come along - well, that's not going to happen. All your heroes have flaws. Everyone you admire has flaws. Everyone I admire has flaws. How do we make the final determination that these flawed humans are worth our time, or admiration, or respect? Who deserves a second chance and who does not? Can we really say it is an objective measurement?

I have no idea how I would make a final determination about any of the people we've discussed here - as individuals.

Voting for them is something else.

Jackmannii

11-14-2005, 07:37 PM

What are you getting at? My point had nothing to do with equating them so I don't know what you mean by "in the same breath". Should I repeat myself? Here:Is there something unclear in that statement? If you disagree with it, please reply. If you need clarification, let me know. But it seems like you are more interested in arguing about something I didn't say. Sorry, but I'm not interested. Been there, done that.You said:I can list quite a few soundbites of things he (Giuliani) has said, that make him look bad. Would you accept them at face value and dismiss him, or would you look beyond them to try to justify the man, either in context or in entirety? Conversely, could you really blame a black person for hearing a racially divisive soundbite or two from Giuliani, and not bothering to look beyond that?I have twice asked you to provide examples of any such alleged "soundbites".

Instead you are splitting hairs about exactly what you meant by making your comparison, and ignoring an unambiguous request for cites.

Surely if there's a racist lurking in all of us, you can demonstrate Rudy's quite easily. Why the evasiveness?

What Exit?

11-14-2005, 07:45 PM

Cite?

Someone had to say it. Thank you.

I could think of a thread on nuclear power from back in august or July that was a cite war. Here it is. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=328522)

Fearless Reader: I try to educate myself on the issues and the people and then I make a personnel decision for myself.
Example: I strongly dislike Bush and I disliked Kerry. I ended up voting for Kerry in hopes he would win and do less damage. If we are going to be in a war, at least I'll take someone with experience over a draft dodger. This is more opinion than fact, but I believe I honestly came by my opinion, I did not listen to talking heads to make up my mind.

This is Farrakhan’s site http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/cat_index_9.shtml you can see his good and bad writings and speeches by wading through this. I could not locate some of the live speeches I have heard him make that I heard live on NPR, but I do not feel like devoting an hour to his writings.

Jim

Frank

11-14-2005, 07:49 PM

Someone had to say it. Thank you.
I'm just happy that for once I was in time to give the obvious response before fifteen other people had already done it. It's a small pleasure, I know, but it beats closing threads.

Is that what took you so long to answer? You knew somebody was going to do it, and you were already off looking for it? :)

Fearless Reader

11-14-2005, 07:50 PM

You said:I have twice asked you to provide examples of any such alleged "soundbites".

Instead you are splitting hairs about exactly what you meant by making your comparison, and ignoring an unambiguous request for cites.

Surely if there's a racist lurking in all of us, you can demonstrate Rudy's quite easily. Why the evasiveness?Because I think you have an agenda I'm not interested in. If you had taken the time to respond to any of my larger points, I might feel differently. No evasions - I do not lack cites pertaining to Giuliani - but it would be a hijack of the point of this thread. I began discussing him a couple of pages back and this was pointed out to me by jrfranchi. I agreed with him then, and I don't see why I should indulge you now - especially since you refuse to acknowledge my main points here. If you are truly and sincerely interested, start a thread about Giuliani and I promise to be there, with cites and bells and whistles. Fair enough?

What Exit?

11-14-2005, 07:59 PM

I'm just happy that for once I was in time to give the obvious response before fifteen other people had already done it. It's a small pleasure, I know, but it beats closing threads.

Is that what took you so long to answer? You knew somebody was going to do it, and you were already off looking for it? :)

I was slogging through the NOI and Farrakhan. As an agnostic this is a little like cleaning out the bilge on a ship for me. It was distasteful and I got disgusted.
I found the cite fairly quick, I am still subscribed to the thread.

Jim

EddyTeddyFreddy

11-14-2005, 08:19 PM

The point is, if you're going to wait for some perfect leader to come along - well, that's not going to happen. All your heroes have flaws. Everyone you admire has flaws. Everyone I admire has flaws. How do we make the final determination that these flawed humans are worth our time, or admiration, or respect? Who deserves a second chance and who does not? Can we really say it is an objective measurement? I'd be very, very wary of any leader without apparent flaws. Assuming it were true, how could such an individual possibly understand and work with the flawed, fumbling common ruck of humanity?

I'd want to know the flaws, assess them against my own moral and ethical code, analyze how such flaws could affect the person's decisions and conduct, and determine which leaders I'd choose to follow based on that.

Of course, since we inevitably will lack perfect information, even that's something of a crapshoot.

Jackmannii

11-14-2005, 08:51 PM

Surely if there's a racist lurking in all of us, you can demonstrate Rudy's quite easily. Why the evasiveness?Because I think you have an agenda I'm not interested in.Fearless, I have not speculated here about any agenda I think you might have or called you names. I have simply asked you, in accordance with customary practice on this board, to document a controversial allegation with facts. You are unwilling or unable to do so.

You previously castigated other posters (i.e. FinnAgain and LHoD) for accusing you of lying and/or attacking you personally, but now here you are questioning my "agenda" and sincerity.

Very sad.

For the record, you do, very obviously, appear to be trying to excuse examples of virulent race-baiting by saying in effect "Well, everyone raises racial hackles, so we need to look beyond that stuff."

Once any politician or would-be leader crosses the line too many times in attempts to divide and provoke hatred for personal or political gain, no amount of tap-dancing will resurrect their reputations, in the absence of sincere refutation of former excesses. Your attempt to throw respected public figures into the same pot stands out as a transparently ridiculous ploy.

Fearless Reader

11-14-2005, 09:56 PM

Fearless, I have not speculated here about any agenda I think you might have or called you names. I have simply asked you, in accordance with customary practice on this board, to document a controversial allegation with facts. You are unwilling or unable to do so.Not true. I asked you to start another thread about it because it was deemed a hijack earlier in this thread.You previously castigated other posters (i.e. FinnAgain and LHoD) for accusing you of lying and/or attacking you personally, but now here you are questioning my "agenda" and sincerity.Questioning is not attacking or insulting. I didn't call you names either. If you are truly interested in Giuliani's record you could start the new thread. Or here's an idea - you could have tried talking to me and not at me. Addressed one of my points. If I'm not worth that much respect from you, why would you think I should make an effort to indulge you in a hijack?For the record, you do, very obviously, appear to be trying to excuse examples of virulent race-baiting by saying in effect "Well, everyone raises racial hackles, so we need to look beyond that stuff."I never said that. What "record" are you referring to? Did I misquote you or mischaracterize you? Once any politician or would-be leader crosses the line too many times in attempts to divide and provoke hatred for personal or political gain, no amount of tap-dancing will resurrect their reputations, in the absence of sincere refutation of former excesses. Your attempt to throw respected public figures into the same pot stands out as a transparently ridiculous ploy.I see. You go from not being a Giuliani fan to calling him a respected public figure. How many times is it necessary to point out that I wasn't throwing anyone mentioned "into the same pot"? In fact, my point was the opposite of doing that. You're not responding to what I'm saying (or even what others try to point out to you about what I'm saying).

But you haven't got an agenda, right? :dubious:

You're going to have to do better to help me see that you don't.

What Exit?

11-14-2005, 10:17 PM

...snip...
I see. You go from not being a Giuliani fan to calling him a respected public figure. How many times is it necessary to point out that I wasn't throwing anyone mentioned "into the same pot"? In fact, my point was the opposite of doing that. You're not responding to what I'm saying (or even what others try to point out to you about what I'm saying).
...snip...
On the hi-jack portion, we can probably move beyond that now. Bob Loblaw is no longing posting and you reopened the thread after it had died down. I was halting that before a mod asked us to. I don't believe they will mind at this point as the Al Sharpton part of this debate is basically completed.

Whether you like him or not Giuliani is a "Respected Public Figure".

Jackmannii is mainly asking you for some cites on Rudy

You said
…snip…If you take your own hero, Rudy G, as an example - I can list quite a few soundbites of things he has said, that make him look bad. Would you accept them at face value and dismiss him, or would you look beyond them to try to justify the man, either in context or in entirety? Conversely, could you really blame a black person for hearing a racially divisive soundbite or two from Giuliani, and not bothering to look beyond that?…snip…
He and I both are a bit dubious about this claim.

Jackmannii

11-14-2005, 10:35 PM

Not true. I asked you to start another thread about it because it was deemed a hijack earlier in this thread.You were discussing the subject. It's a quaint idea to dodge a query about it because it's suddenly a "hijack".Or here's an idea - you could have tried talking to me and not at me. Addressed one of my points. I asked you for a response. You tried to avoid answering by a diversion into other areas. Why should I accomodate your evasion?How many times is it necessary to point out that I wasn't throwing anyone mentioned "into the same pot"? Repetition does not make your denial any more convincing.But you haven't got an agenda, right? :dubious:

You're going to have to do better to help me see that you don't.You know, for someone who's insistent that everybody's at least a closet racist, you seem awfully naive about the subject of "agendas".

We all have a point of view, babe. You as well as everyone else. To refuse to respond to another poster on the grounds that he has different opinions than you is farcical.

FinnAgain

11-15-2005, 01:01 AM

Here is where we differ. You see an equivalence between them (or their messages) and I don't.

Why not?
"I hate group X" is "I hate group X" no matter who says it.
Or do you think that black people can't be racist?

Farrakhan is a reaction to documented oppression and discrimination. What is David Duke reacting to? Where is the history of oppression and discrimination against "his people"? He might be sincere, but his fears and perceptions don't have the facts to justify them.

Bullshit on both counts. Simply because someone is part of a 'group' which has had a history of oppression, does not mean that they're allowed to do as they please. Would it suddenly be non-racist for say, a Jew, to say "black people suck?" If not, then why is it okay for Farrkhan to say "Jewish people suck?"

There are no facts which justify Farrakhan's bigotry., or could possibly justify his bigotry.
And it is disturbing that you don't place him in exactly the same category as Duke.

Do you really think Duke's hate has the same justification as Farrakhan's hate?

Yes, they both have zero justification.
You were the one who was arguing that racism was bad, right?

Of course it is possible that they are both "assholes" as individuals, but I don't think it is objective to judge the messages based on the messengers, or dismiss both messages as if they had equal merit, simply because they are both "hateful bastards".

~blink~
~blink blink~

What 'merit' does Farrakhan's obvious and blatant and unapologetic racism have? You seem to be evading the issue with great force. What the hell does the 'messenger' have to do with a message that is blatantly racist?

And I think that is what happens when people like Duke and Farrakhan are compared.

Yeah, two racists with racist messages get compared and they're found to be racists with racist messages. I am shocked. Shocked!

I'd like to see some cites if you can find them. I'm sure they are out there, but think about most of the conflicts today and in recent history. They are tribal conflicts. In some cases, they are divided by religion rather than race, but I see racism as a product of what you could call "meta-tribalism" (or call it something else - as long as you see the point I'm trying to make).

Wait. Before I go looking for cites, please define all your terms. I'd rather not go looking only to find that we're not speaking the same language.

Describe, as you see it, 'tribalism' or 'meta-tribalism' and 'racism'. I had assumed that LHoD definition would suffice, but something tells me that might not be the case.

What is nationalism if not a form of "meta-tribalism" as I defined it above?

A means of stating which geo-political region you're part of? Define meta-tribalism and we'll see what we will see.

Is American exceptionalism a form of racism?

As it doesn't deal with any other 'races', no, it is impossible for it to be racist.

Isn't it ascribing superiority to a certain group?

American isn't a race.

Is Zionism a form of racism?

Not in a million years. And to be honest I've only ever heard bigots claim that it is. They're generally the same folks who'll claim that Israel is engaged in 'ethnic cleansing'. Not to say that you're an anti-semite, but I'd be curious how on earth someone could say that the idea that the Jewish people should have a homeland is racist.

What about the Irish "troubles", or the ethnic cleansing in the Balkans? Why can't sunni and shia muslims get along? Are they so different they can't live together peacefully? And what about the infamous French xenophobia?

You're mixing many examples. Religious intollerance, for example, cannot possibly be racism especially since people of the same race may hate each other for having differeing religions.

It would certainly help if you defined your terms.

I think you are right in that certain elements of tribalism can break down in a larger, more heterogenous environment. For example, sunni and shia muslims in the US aren't blowing up each other up, as they do in Iraq, or Pakistan. Either they assimilate to some degree into the larger tribe of "american", or form a coalition to protect against the more generalized US discrimination against muslims.

Or perhaps they're individuals and don't see a need to blow each other up? The fallacy of hasty generalization is a bitch.

But the human tendency of tribal affiliation persists, even under those conditions. If a perceived common enemy disappears, or they feel disenfranchised from the meta-affiliation, the old tribalist instincts can resurface, and history shows us that they often do.

You seem to be conflating coalition politics with tribalism and ignoring the fact that times of peace don't see an automatic elevation of race riots.

I certainly hope you are right. But information is not necessarily knowledge.

Erunh?
How exactly do you parse the two?

And most people are suffering from information overload - advertisements, escapist or sensational pseudo-news, political propaganda, porn, etc. - how many of us will use our valuable time to sift through it all to determine what is knowledge and what is pap?

Porn is part of information overload?
And with proper education, how many will gain critical thinking and media literacy skills? Hopefully, everybody.

How many of us have been trained to do so? What is the incentive to do so? Knowledge for its own sake? How quaint is that concept?

There is no knowledge that is not power.

I haven't started that new thread yet. In light of my seeming ability to cause offense without intention, or be misunderstood, I am wondering how to frame the debate. If you really are interested, why don't you give me a frame to work with, or start the debate yourself (I promise to participate). I'd really appreciate it.Thanks, but cheerful and polite aren't on the top of the list of words I would choose to describe my experience here so far.

Naw. It's your topic, your belief, and it should be your OP. I have no idea how you would like to structure your argument. It's your argument, after all.

Miller

11-15-2005, 11:24 AM

What Exit?

11-15-2005, 11:41 AM

So, unless I'm misreading Fearless Reader, we should excuse Farrakhan's anti-Semitism, because there is a long and continuing history of discrimination against blacks in this country. Well, last week fully three quarters of Texas voted to discriminate against me. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051109/pl_nm/marriage_gays_dc) Who do I get to hate?

I am sorry Miller, there was a redrawn map of North America circulating last year that had the North East and the West Cost and Michigan (Blue States) join Canada as the United Stated of Canada and the rest of the US (Red States) as Jesus Land. This might make everyone happier. ;)

I found it on Wiki. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesusland_map

All I can say is there is a lot of ignorance out there. Try not to hate them. Their kids may be better. I am sure my grandparents would have been intolerant of Gay Marriage. So maybe a few more generations and we can all be adults about this.

Jim

Miller

11-15-2005, 11:53 AM

What Exit?

11-15-2005, 12:40 PM

Unfortunetly, the blue states aren't too keen on gay marriage, either. But that's not really the point. I'm being discriminated against. According to Fearless Reader, that means I get to discriminte against someone else, and anyone who calls me on it is really exhibiting unexamined homophobic tendencies. At least, I think that's what she's trying to say. It's hard to tell, because women just aren't good at putting together logical arguments. It sure is precious when they try, though, isn't it?

I guess you chose the group. ;)

I think in another 20+ years you'll have equal rights in NY, Mass, California, Hawaii, Nevada, probably NJ and a few others. It stinks for now.
The Woman's movement really got going in the 1880's and has probably only mostly completed in the last decade. The Civil Rights movement really got started in 1946 and they are getting much closer with Generation "Y". The Gay Movement really did not get going until the Stonewall riots of 1969. So figure 20-25 for most rights and another 20-25 for complete acceptance. Again not fair but reality. I thought it would happen sooner but the last 5 years have proved this country can move backwards. It will swing again.

From a fiscal republican standpoint is this piece of stereotyping that is fairly well accepted and in practice largely true.
Take an area of urban blight. The Gay/Artist community will move in for cheap rent/ownership.
The town/area will start turning around and wealthier gays will move in as they don’t care about the schools that much.
Then the Yuppies without kids will start buying in as the real estate values are going up and the place is Trendy. By the time the yuppies come in the artists need to start the next area up.

There are actually a few towns trying to be gay friendly to get this cycle started.
My fiscally republican Gay Brother-In-Law agrees with this basic piece of economics and in practice it seems to work.

Your time will come.

Jim

Miller

11-15-2005, 12:56 PM

I'm sure that will be a great comfort to me when I'm seventy.

What Exit?

11-15-2005, 01:10 PM

I'm sure that will be a great comfort to me when I'm seventy.

I am sorry, I was just trying to present some analysis of a terrible situation.

I really do know my answer was not good, I just don't think there is a good answer.
If anything the push for gay marriage before the last election actually helped Bush get re-elected. I witnessed a grass roots movement of the religious right to get the ignorant out to vote. It was galvanized on this issue. The republicans actually place gay legislation on the ballot just to get these intolerant voters out.

BTW: I am not comfortable with the idea myself and I have attended a gay wedding. I just can't see it being my business to tell you, "you can't get married".
It is your choice and you should be allowed full rights. This country still has so far to go.

Jim

Miller

11-15-2005, 01:19 PM

I am sorry, I was just trying to present some analysis of a terrible situation.

I really do know my answer was not good, I just don't think there is a good answer.

I don't mean to get bitchy, but you're really not telling me anything I don't already know. I appreciate the sentiments and all, but it's really got nothing to do with this thread or why I was posting. That said...

If anything the push for gay marriage before the last election actually helped Bush get re-elected. I witnessed a grass roots movement of the religious right to get the ignorant out to vote. It was galvanized on this issue. The republicans actually place gay legislation on the ballot just to get these intolerant voters out.

Al Franken did an interesting analysis of why this is probably untrue in his latest book. I don't have it with me here, but if you're interested, I can dig it out when I get home and post the relevant bits.

What Exit?

11-15-2005, 01:35 PM

I don't mean to get bitchy, but you're really not telling me anything I don't already know. I appreciate the sentiments and all, but it's really got nothing to do with this thread or why I was posting. That said...

Al Franken did an interesting analysis of why this is probably untrue in his latest book. I don't have it with me here, but if you're interested, I can dig it out when I get home and post the relevant bits.

I am curious about that. It looked that way and the church lady at work was part of a get out the vote drive for the religious types that don't believe in evolution and are against gay marriage.

This thread is pretty far from where it started anyway. I don't know if anything in it is really a Hi-Jack at this point. I think this thread has mutated to a tolerance vs. bigotry thread.

Jim

Fearless Reader

11-15-2005, 02:24 PM

On the hi-jack portion, we can probably move beyond that now. Bob Loblaw is no longing posting and you reopened the thread after it had died down. I was halting that before a mod asked us to. I don't believe they will mind at this point as the Al Sharpton part of this debate is basically completed.

Whether you like him or not Giuliani is a "Respected Public Figure".

Jackmannii is mainly asking you for some cites on Rudy

You said

He and I both are a bit dubious about this claim.I posted quite a bit about Giuliani a few pages back, and you said you were troubled by it, and that it was a hijack. But now you change your mind and say it's okay to hijack and you are also dubious. Dubious about what? It amazes me that I should be called out for saying Giuliani was racially divisive, or said things that made him look bad. Was there some kind of mass amnesia after 9-11? His approval rating on September 10th, 2001 was 40 percent. And falling.

I'm sorry, but I didn't see that Jackmannii was truly curious about Giuliani. I'd be willing to bet he is not, if it were possible to prove it. But since you have now changed your mind and are also questioning my integrity, I will provide the cites:

Daily News (http://www.mcauliffecommunication.com/News/NyDailyNews0409.htm):
"I would not want a picture presented of an altar boy, when in fact maybe it isn't an altar boy," Giuliani said of Patrick Dorismond, a former altar boy, after Dorismond minding his business, was intercepted by a police officer and ended up being shot dead.

The problem, as you can see, is that the reporters simply don't understand when the mayor is using innovative speaking techniques. The exact same thing happened when the mayor went on Fox TV to talk about Dorismond's arrest record.

"What you have here is robbery, attempted robbery, possession of a gun," Giuliani said.

"Convictions?" asked Brit Hume. "Convictions?"

"Convictions and arrests, both," Giuliani said. "You have both happening."

Again, people stuck in the old way of thinking probably believed that the mayor really said that Dorismond had not been an altar boy and did have a record of convictions for dangerous crimes. In fact, on both the altar boy issue, and the conviction matter, the mayor was using a specialized form of language.

It is called Reverse Speaking. So the truth is, Dorismond did not have any criminal convictions, and he was indeed an altar boy, even though that is the direct opposite of what Giuliani said in words.
Second source (http://www.zmag.org/ZSustainers/ZDaily/2000-05/19marable.htm):
For example, in the wake of Dorismond's killing, New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, currently campaigning for a US Senate seat, made callous remarks about the dead man. Giuliani illegally disclosed Dorismond's sealed juvenile records and refused to extend condolences to the deceased's family.

All blacks, Latinos and even most whites living in New York City were appalled by Giuliani's racist behaviour, yet according to polls, only 28 per cent of upstate New Yorkers and 34 per cent of suburban voters disagreed with Giuliani's handling of this situation. Two-thirds of upstate New Yorkers even said that Giuliani should not have to express remorse to Dorismond's family.

In effect, millions of white middle- and upper-class people have made the cold calculation that a certain level of unjustified killings of blacks, Latinos and poor people is necessary to maintain public order.You see Jim, I don't live upstate or in the suburbs, I don't just drive in for ballgames - I live here. I saw what he did. I lived through it. Need more?

NYPD's racial profiling (http://www.villagevoice.com/news/9913,hentoff,4704,1.html):
On Brian Lehrer's On the Line (WNYC-AM, Monday through Friday, 10 a.m. to noon), Attorney General Eliot Spitzer was talking about the way the cops, particularly the nearly all-white Street Crime Unit, have been jumping mostly black and Latino New Yorkers in search of guns - or whatever else turns up.

So here we have— according to official police statistics— over 30,000 New Yorkers having been restrained by the police and searched for doing nothing wrong. In addition, nearly half the felony gun cases actually brought to court in Manhattan by the Street Crime Unit have been thrown out as being unconstitutional.

But the police commissioner— and the mayor, who often makes clear that he is the ultimate commander of the NYPD— are responsible for even worse constitutional violations.

During that WNYC interview, Attorney General Spitzer, who has begun an investigation of Giuliani's police, startled Brian Lehrer by breaking this news:

"I've spoken to many officers who say they do not fill out the required forms for every stop-and-frisk. They may fill out one in five or one in 10. We may have several hundred thousands of these police actions without arrests." (Emphasis added.)

The American Jewish Committee and the New York Board of Rabbis have joined the black and Latino communities in sharply criticizing the mayor and his police commissioner.

Rabbi Robert Levine speaks of New York under Giuliani as "a racially polarized city in which there are two standards of justice."

More "stop and frisk" data (http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/nypolice/ch5.htm):
An examination of the UF-250 data indicates that NYPD officers routinely stop blacks and Hispanics out of proportion to their presence in the general population.[119] In many precincts, as noted above, significant disparities exist between the actual population of Hispanics and primarily African Americans within New York’s communities, and the racial distribution of UF-250 subjects reported by the NYPD. In addition, a number of minority New York City residents also contend that they are more likely to be stopped and frisked, as well as detained by the police.[120] During the Commission’s hearing on police practices in New York City, the testimonies of several community residents reflected a great deal of frustration with this situation.[121] For example, Arthur Mims, a New York City resident, stated that while on his way home one evening in November of 1997, he was stopped by police officers from the Midtown North precinct. “They came over to me and asked me what is in my “f-ing” bag, and they didn’t say “f-ing.” I said I work here. I went over to the door, rang the bell, co-workers came out and said he works here. And with that I was maced.”[122]

Similarly, Anthony Rivera, a corrections officer of the New York Department of Corrections, informed the Commission of another potentially serious incident that involved the Street Crime Unit:

I was also stopped by a fellow officer while picking up my daughter one day at school, by the Street Crimes Unit. They just came out of their vehicles, about three vehicles, like cowboys from the wild, wild west, with their guns drawn. Luckily I had a shield, and my friend, my fellow officer, had his shield. But if it was a regular Latino out there, we might have been a statistic that you talk about today, our brothers being shot without probable cause, or for any reason.[123]

Other witnesses maintained that minority youth in particular are especially likely to be stopped and frisked in New York City. According to Hyun Lee, program director of the Committee Against Anti-Asian Violence,

[y]outh of color who sit on their front stoops these days are routinely subjected to illegal stops and frisks during random neighborhood drug sweeps conducted by the NYPD. After illegally searching the youth and coming up with absolutely nothing, the police continue the process of detention and questioning for several hours, hoping to acquire leads on other cases. During the detention, the police officers also take illegal Polaroid snapshots of the youth. Although the youth has committed no crime and have no prior record, his or her face is now logged into the criminal justice system. These illegally acquired mug shots are later used to facilitate the selection of suspects when a crime is reported.[124]Why did Giuliani refuse to meet with any black leaders during his tenure? In his own words (http://www.evote.com/index.asp?Page=/news_section/2000-12/12292000Rudy.asp):
(NY Post) By DAVID SEIFMAN Mayor Giuliani claimed yesterday that by ignoring New York's black leaders, he's actually been able to accomplish more for minority communities.

The mayor said he adopted a strategy to avoid dialogue with black leaders because many of them espouse a philosophy of dependence that has kept their constituents "enslaved" and "oppressed."

And the mayor argued the tactic worked because minorities "are much better [off] today than they were the day before I came into office."

"If I had spent my time engaged in that dialogue, the changes that you saw take place would not have taken place," Giuliani said in his year-end interview at City Hall. "Because what happens when you engage in the dialogue is, you compromise. I think the things we've done are better for the community than the things they've been fighting for the last 20 to 30 years.No compromises for the great white hope of Giuliani. He knows what's best for "them", even if they don't.

This is your respected public figure. Who insisted on building his 15 million dollar command center at 7 WTC, even though it was a prime target area, and walked out of the rubble and straight to the cameras to become a hero. Let's not ruin that image by asking why the FDNY radios didn't work, or how the feud between NYPD and FDNY might have cost lives. That would be offensive, right?

So what are a few dead innocent black men, compared to a cleaner Times Square? Who cares about the civil rights of all those frisked innocents - the suburbans felt safer under Giuliani!

Did someone mention anti-semitism? I guess it would be offensive to mention that Giuliani spent MLK day with Joerg Haider (http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0004,noel,12049,1.html), an Austrian nationalist who openly praised Hitler's policies. And look up The Manhattan Institute, where Giuliani admits he got many of his policies from. Eugenics anyone?

Cronyism, corruption, and racism combined? Russell Harding (http://villagevoice.com/news/0220,robbins,34777,5.html). Makes Michael Brown look like an amatuer:
On the Clintons:
"And her husband having his offices in harlem is a hoot . . . he and the blacks were made for each other . . . nothing but trash all of them . . . i think we need to move to a conservative all-white state like idaho."

On Colin Powell:
"I think it was a horrible choice that he will come to regret soon . . . he's black and will just throw around that black 'tude all of them have . . . and be a big black ass in the long run if you ask me."

On NYC snow removal:
"No, manhattan is always clear . . . the other boros take a little longer . . . but then all that lives in those areas are the low class white trash or blacks . . . so no need to make things easy on them."
Was he renounced or was he rewarded? (http://villagevoice.com/news/0221,robbins,34985,5.html)
In his final days as head of the city's Housing Development Corporation, former Giuliani aide Russell Harding collected a whopping $128,000 extra in pay, records show. The payment was included in Harding's January 10 paycheck, issued just days before he stepped down after three and a half years at the helm of the agency, which helps finance affordable housing.

It is not clear what the extra payout represents. Corporation officials refused to discuss the issue, citing an ongoing probe of Harding's high-spending conduct by the city's Department of Investigation.

Asked about the payment, Harding's attorney, Gerald Shargel, said, "There will be a day when we respond to all this but it won't be today."

Harding was shifted to HDC by Giuliani in 1998 after serving as an executive vice president for corporate communications at the Economic Development Corporation. He caused a minor stir in that post as well when he implemented a controversial bonus program that rewarded top executives with extra pay of up to $15,000. Prior bonus programs had been spread out among lower- and mid-level employees. In 1997, a year when cops, firefighters, teachers, and other city workers went without any pay hikes, Harding himself collected a $3400 bonus—after working at the agency for only six months.

A college dropout, Harding had no financial background when Giuliani appointed him to head HDC, which handles complex housing bond deals worth tens of millions of dollars. Expense records show that Harding spent much of his tenure jetting around the country and staying at expensive hotels and resorts. Along with Cusack, his top aide, Harding spent an astonishing $250,000 in expenses, which included gifts of a television and a DVD player to someone he met in an online chat room.If you need more, let me know. We never even got up to the public schools, or the deficit Giuliani left behind. For 400 pages of quotes, you can always buy the book (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1566491630/102-7929972-2636137?v=glance).

I'm sorry Jim. This reminds me of the time I told my younger brother there was no Santa Claus. I don't expect you to be any more grateful than he was. I thought I was sparing you, but you asked.

What Exit?

11-15-2005, 02:49 PM

I posted quite a bit about Giuliani a few pages back, and you said you were troubled by it, and that it was a hijack. But now you change your mind and say it's okay to hijack and you are also dubious. Dubious about what? It amazes me that I should be called out for saying Giuliani was racially divisive, or said things that made him look bad. Was there some kind of mass amnesia after 9-11? His approval rating on September 10th, 2001 was 40 percent. And falling.

I'm sorry, but I didn't see that Jackmannii was truly curious about Giuliani. I'd be willing to bet he is not, if it were possible to prove it. But since you have now changed your mind and are also questioning my integrity, I will provide the cites:
...snip...
I'm sorry Jim. This reminds me of the time I told my younger brother there was no Santa Claus. I don't expect you to be any more grateful than he was. I thought I was sparing you, but you asked.

I need time to read over your post. You present compelling arguments.

On the thread Hi-jack: at the time the thread was still focused on the OP and Bob Loblaw. It would not have been appropriate for us to continue at that point in this thread. Now the thread has been effectively done and we seem to be on to other points. So it is no longer a negative hi-jack per se. Does that part make sense?

As far as Giuliani plunging polls, I was aware of that. I knew many New Yorkers who did not like him.
I liked him as a candidate back in '88 when he didn't have a clue how to run for office. So I did not discover a like for him on 9/11. I liked the fact it was safe for me to return to Yankee Stadium and the Bronx Zoo with kids again. So I always liked him and he lived up to all my expectation and more on 9/11.

I did not mean for "dubious" to reflect your integrity, I was honestly dubious that you could provide cites to prove your statement about Rudy. Give me a chance to look these over and attempt to verify them against additional resources.

I believe Jackmannii was coming from the same direction, but I cannot speak for him.

As far as Santa, well I do kind of believe in the big guy. Not so much the sled and the chimney, but as the idea of Good Will toward all mankind. Can't help myself on this one. ;)

Jim

Fearless Reader

11-15-2005, 03:05 PM

According to Fearless Reader, that means I get to discriminte against someone else, and anyone who calls me on it is really exhibiting unexamined homophobic tendencies. At least, I think that's what she's trying to say. It's hard to tell, because women just aren't good at putting together logical arguments. It sure is precious when they try, though, isn't it?I said nothing like that. Too bad lying about another poster isn't against the rules here.

I just wonder why you need to do it. Are you that sad, or that lazy, or just unable to read? You have a compelling argument for your own discrimination without resorting to lies or smearing someone else. And yet you do it. Could it be human nature, or are you just not a decent man?

What Exit?

11-15-2005, 03:28 PM

Fearless Reader: I have review your cites and I have these replies.

1st quote:
Is not from Daily news
It is from Kevin McAuliffe who is selling a book about how awful Rudy was.
Included on his site is this gem that is supposed to be bad.
I think that’s an insulting question. Happy New Year. That’s been a perception from the very beginning. It’s something that you keep writing and I really don’t give a darn. I’m doing my job as well as I can do it. I think I’m taking New York City into the next century in much better shape than I found it. If people like my personality, thank you. If you don’t, I really don’t care.

2nd quote: Completely true, he did a terrible job on this case. In fact I think this was a case where Rev. Al did good in trying to keep the news media focused on it without using inflammatory words to make a bad situation worse. Rudy’s primary guilt was in defending the police actions to a fault. He is guilty in this case.
3rd quote: He is guilty again. The cops had a free hand in cleaning up the city. They exceeded their authority often. Rudy shielded them often. I agree. Very damning.
4th Quote: Stop, Question, and Frisk. Good take on the policy. Why do I recall it a little different? I recall it as youths in gang colors, not youths of color.
5th Quote: Yep, Rudy can be an asshole. He did actually make the city better and improve health care and safety didn’t he?
6th & 7th Quote: Okay Russell Harding was a complete jerk and said stupid things, Rudy was grossly wrong to not toss him out as bad trash. This is the most damning thing you have shown me. Also the only surprise. If it is all true it eliminates one more candidate that I would want to vote for. I have never seen or heard of this Harding Moron before.
Thanks for killing Santa again.

As far as Miller, he was extending the logic you used about Farrakhan. If Farrakhan is allowed to make hate speech because blacks were oppressed then Miller should be aloud to make hate speech because Gays are oppressed.
He was using a large blunt instrument to make a valid point. Your arguments for Farrakhan are weak.
Sounds like Farrakhan, Harding and David Dukes should go on a retreat together.

Jim

FinnAgain

11-15-2005, 03:34 PM

I said nothing like that. Too bad lying about another poster isn't against the rules here.

You said that David Duke can't be judged on the same level as Louis Farrakhan because Farrakhan was reacting to real oppression. Which is exactly what Miller and I called you on.

If that's not what you meant, you do seem to be having a rather large problem communicating effectively here.

Fearless Reader

11-15-2005, 03:43 PM

Why not?
"I hate group X" is "I hate group X" no matter who says it.
Or do you think that black people can't be racist?Of course black people can be racist. I said that before. What I have trouble with is the comparisons.
Bullshit on both counts. Simply because someone is part of a 'group' which has had a history of oppression, does not mean that they're allowed to do as they please. Would it suddenly be non-racist for say, a Jew, to say "black people suck?" If not, then why is it okay for Farrkhan to say "Jewish people suck?"I wasn't referring to someone being able to "do as they please". Why do you keep taking my words out of context? There are no facts which justify Farrakhan's bigotry., or could possibly justify his bigotry.
And it is disturbing that you don't place him in exactly the same category as Duke.Disturbing? Why? Why must they be in the exact same category when they are coming from different perspectives and experiences? Why isn't it enough that I am against the idea of hate speech in general? Why is it disturbing to think they should be addressed in a different way as individuals?

I'm not talking about justifying bigotry, but trying to understand it and deal with it. Do you think it will just disappear if we throw everyone into the same box and dismiss what they say or why they're saying it?You were the one who was arguing that racism was bad, right?I can live without your insinuations, okay? ~blink~~blink blink~Same with your need for visual and audio aids. Does your argument suffer if you don't employ these tactics?What 'merit' does Farrakhan's obvious and blatant and unapologetic racism have? You seem to be evading the issue with great force. What the hell does the 'messenger' have to do with a message that is blatantly racist?The merit comes from the need to acknowledge the past and ongoing discrimination and oppression. Do you think simply dismissing Farrakhan is going to make the problem go away?
Wait. Before I go looking for cites, please define all your terms. I'd rather not go looking only to find that we're not speaking the same language.

Describe, as you see it, 'tribalism' or 'meta-tribalism' and 'racism'. I had assumed that LHoD definition would suffice, but something tells me that might not be the case.No cites, huh. I guess only newbies need to present cites on demand, regardless of how rude, baseless, or off-topic the request is. Could you at least cite LHoD's definitions that you are referring to, or do I need to wade through this board to find them?

But I do suspect that defining the terms is one the problems we are having. The rest of your post points to that too. Is it worth it for us to continue or not? I was really looking forward to a reasonable debate about this, but to be honest, I'm very skeptical that anyone currently replying to me feels the same. Respect is a two-way street. How about a little less heat (and sarcasm), and a little more light? So far, I feel I've been wasting my time replying to personal attacks and outright lies about what I've said.

I'm willing to go forward and define terms, but I need some good faith reassurance it won't be just another round of take a piece out of the newbie. I'm interested. I promise to reply (perhaps not immediately - that hijack took up most of my free time today). But more smearing I don't need. If so many of you are that determined to get rid of me, just say the word. I'd appreciate the honesty.

Jackmannii

11-15-2005, 03:43 PM

I'm sorry, but I didn't see that Jackmannii was truly curious about Giuliani. I'd be willing to bet he is not, if it were possible to prove it. But since you have now changed your mind and are also questioning my integrity, I will provide the cites:Still up in arms about perceived challenges to your "integrity", while casting aspersions on others, I see.

Casting back to your original remarks juxtaposing Farrakhan and Giuliani, you suggested there were readily available racist "soundbites" from Rudy.

Why then, do your cites* virtually all seem to be about general Giuliani administration policies with which you differ, Giulianai's attendance at a Congress of Racial Equality dinner with 2000 other people including a far-right Austrian politician (you make it sound like they were hugging on the dais) or statements made by another city office-holder, rather than any bigoted "soundbites" from Giuliani?

The closest item you have relates to a black man shot by NYC police, whose juvenile criminal record was improperly released by the mayor, who also suggested that the man was not the paragon of virtue portrayed by other sources.

Insensitive? Yes. But let's see how it compares with just a limited sampling of Farrakhan "soundbites". From USA Today: (http://www.usatoday.com/news/million/mfm6.htm)

"During Jesse Jackson's presidential campaign, Farrakhan refers to Judaism as a "gutter religion," and the Chicago Tribune quotes him as saying: "The Jews don't like Farrakhan, so they call me Hitler. Well, that's a good name. Hitler was a very great man. He rose Germany up from the ashes."

During his November 1970 "Black Solidarity Day Address," Farrakhan urges black men to "take this beautiful woman — she's your queen! She's your jewel. Don't let a white man get near this black woman. And last but not least, black man, don't let that white man at anytime in your life give you his white woman! We don't want her!"

Before a City College audience in New York, Farrakhan warns: "The white man is our mortal enemy, and we cannot accept him. I will fight to see that vicious beast go down into the late of fire prepared for him from the beginning, that he never rise again to give any innocent black man, woman or child the hell that he has delighted in pouring on us for 400 years."

Somehow I just don't see in your cites the kind of crude race-baiting and appeals to hatred that Farrakhan is known for. Your attempts to lump the two men together are off-base.

As to your refusal to acknowledge that the subject of this thread is an unrepentant bigot based on the supposed guilt of everyone else including other posters, I'll toss this quote right back at you:
You have a compelling argument for... discrimination without resorting to lies or smearing someone else.

*Gotta love the Village Voice. It takes me back...

Fearless Reader

11-15-2005, 03:50 PM

You said that David Duke can't be judged on the same level as Louis Farrakhan because Farrakhan was reacting to real oppression. Which is exactly what Miller and I called you on.

If that's not what you meant, you do seem to be having a rather large problem communicating effectively here.Is it possible that a large problem is the large chip on your shoulder?

Miller mischaracterized what I said for his own reasons. What is there to call me on? I don't put black anger and white anger in the same category. Why is this such a problem? Can anyone explain that without the insults or lies?

Look, if you want to try to have a discussion let me know. I've really got to go now.

What Exit?

11-15-2005, 03:59 PM

Is it possible that a large problem is the large chip on your shoulder?

Miller mischaracterized what I said for his own reasons. What is there to call me on? I don't put black anger and white anger in the same category. Why is this such a problem? Can anyone explain that without the insults or lies?

Look, if you want to try to have a discussion let me know. I've really got to go now.

Your full of it on this one. Miller is part of a group that is probably more oppressed than the blacks. He made a simple point. You were excusing Farrakhan version of hate because of Black oppression. Miller was saying that by your logic it would excuse him if he chose to help his cause by making hate speech towards a group.
Why don't you see that is what you effectively said?

Jim

What Exit?

11-15-2005, 04:04 PM

Some great news on the Russell Harding front.
Disgraced ex-Giuliani official claims mental illness, judge prescribes prison
http://www.nynewsday.com/news/local/manhattan/nyc-russ0722,0,695757.story?coll=nyc-moreny-headlines

Jim

Fearless Reader

11-15-2005, 04:06 PM

Insensitive? Yes. But let's see how it compares with just a limited sampling of Farrakhan "soundbites". See? I was right, you only wanted to make a comparison.

You cannot compare Giuliani to Farrakhan, for an even more compelling reason than the Farrakhan v. Duke comparison.

Why? Because Giuliani was an elected official. He was Mayor of NYC. The whole city, not just his base, not just white people. He was accountable to all of us here.

What about Farrakhan? Who is he accountable to? Was he in charge of the NYPD? City services?

You want to compare talk to actions, between an accountable official and an activist with limited power?

Who are you kidding? You've got a hard-on for Farrakhan, and your beef with me is that I am not foaming at the mouth to the degree you'd like. Too bad. Go fuck yourself for your sneaky smears and lies about me, and wasting my time with your bogus demand for cites. It's all about self interests. Objective my ass.

FinnAgain

11-15-2005, 04:08 PM

Is it possible that a large problem is the large chip on your shoulder?

Oh, yeah, you want to keep things insult and snark free.

Look, if you want to try to have a discussion let me know. I've really got to go now.

It depends, are you going to do things like say I've got a large chip on my shoulder and then whine about how I'm not being nice and fluffy to you?

Miller mischaracterized what I said for his own reasons. What is there to call me on? I don't put black anger and white anger in the same category. Why is this such a problem? Can anyone explain that without the insults or lies?

Miller correctly pointed out the logical implications of your own position, which you still refuse to cop to. And yes, the problem with placing 'white' and 'black' racism in different categories is that it ends up being a partial-to-total excuse of racism if one is of the 'right' group. Which was, of course, Miller's point. Should 'gay' racism be less or more severely judged than 'black' racism? Why?

No, that's not possible. That is the clear logical implication of your post. For fuck's sake have some accountability.

Of course black people can be racist. I said that before. What I have trouble with is the comparisons.
I wasn't referring to someone being able to "do as they please". Why do you keep taking my words out of context?

Does this even make sense to you? You say that Farrakhan can't be judged on the merit of his words, because he's black and has a history of oppression. Then you deny that you're giving him special treatment?

Again, if you don't mean that, you really need to spend much more time working on your posts.

Disturbing? Why? Why must they be in the exact same category when they are coming from different perspectives and experiences? Why isn't it enough that I am against the idea of hate speech in general? Why is it disturbing to think they should be addressed in a different way as individuals?

Can you please not contradict yourself from one sentence to the next? If you're against hate speech in general, then it doesn't matter who says it. If you want to have different standards depending on the race of the racist, then your claims of disliking hate speech "in general" are simply false.

Again, if that's not what you meant you really need to spend more time working on your posts.

I can live without your insinuations, okay?

This is fucking absurd. Do you care/think about the logical implications of your posts? Any attempt to ameliorate racism depending on who it comes from shows that you have mutable standards. There's no escaping that logic, I'm afraid.

And quite frankly, your tactic of accusing those who correctly read the logical implications of your posts of various and sundry bad things is rather distasteful. If you don't want posts which imply the things they're implying, write them differently.

Same with your need for visual and audio aids.
Does your argument suffer if you don't employ these tactics?

WTF?
You're actually going to complain about the fact that I illustrated my surprise with text? Tell me you're kidding.

The merit comes from the need to acknowledge the past and ongoing discrimination and oppression.

Jesus, you say you don't support racism, and then you say Farrakhan's message has merit. What, his message that "The Jews" control black America? You're getting rather Machiavellian on us here. The goal of combatting racism does not allow one to be a racist.

And yet again, if you're going to deny implying that, then you need to take a serious look at your text and stop blaming everybody else for correctly reading the logical implications in your posts.

Do you think simply dismissing Farrakhan is going to make the problem go away?

What does that have to do with anything? Why set up such an obvious strawman? Dismissing Farrakhan as a racist, which he is, won't make overall racism in society go away, but it will marginalize a racist. So in a sense, it will keep more racism from being added to the mix.

No cites, huh. I guess only newbies need to present cites on demand, regardless of how rude, baseless, or off-topic the request is.

What is wrong with you? I asked you to define your terms so I know what cites to look for. And you keep bringing up this 'newbie' thing, who the fuck has taken you to task for being new to the boards? Are you just nursing a persecution complex?

Could you at least cite LHoD's definitions that you are referring to, or do I need to wade through this board to find them?

No, you need to have read this thread. I think it's on page six or something.

But I do suspect that defining the terms is one the problems we are having. The rest of your post points to that too. Is it worth it for us to continue or not?

I'm guessing not, especially if you're not going to finally take accountability for your posts.

I was really looking forward to a reasonable debate about this, but to be honest, I'm very skeptical that anyone currently replying to me feels the same.

I was hoping for one from you too, but so far you're unable or unwilling to look at the clear logical implications of your posts, busy accusing other posters of having hidden agendas, etc...

Respect is a two-way street. How about a little less heat (and sarcasm), and a little more light?

Should I bake you a cupcake too? I'm perfectly allowed to point out the logical contradictions inherent in your post. Do you even read Cecil Adams' stuff? Sarcasm bothers you? You'll sure get that in GD as well. Maybe you're a bit thin skinned for this board.

So far, I feel I've been wasting my time replying to personal attacks and outright lies about what I've said.

Again, this bullshit.
Your posts set up clear logical implications, which you refuse to address. I knew it was a bad sign that even when I pointed out that you'd made clear and transparent syllogisms, that you still tried to blame it on me. Evidently you're not going to be responsible for your own posts. Pity.

I'm willing to go forward and define terms, but I need some good faith reassurance it won't be just another round of take a piece out of the newbie.

Again this absurd "newbie" crap. Will you get off it? And look at your own posts, you think you're behaving all that nicely when you call people liars, say they have hidden agendas, etc, etc, etc... ?

I'm interested. I promise to reply (perhaps not immediately - that hijack took up most of my free time today). But more smearing I don't need. If so many of you are that determined to get rid of me, just say the word. I'd appreciate the honesty.

This is insane. I've been debating your points, and you're claiming you're somehow a victim? Takes all kinds I guess.

FinnAgain

11-15-2005, 04:11 PM

You want to compare talk to actions, between an accountable official and an activist with limited power?

No, why would anybody have gotten the idea that you're excusing Farrakhan to any degree?

Who are you kidding? You've got a hard-on for Farrakhan, and your beef with me is that I am not foaming at the mouth to the degree you'd like. Too bad. Go fuck yourself for your sneaky smears and lies about me, and wasting my time with your bogus demand for cites. It's all about self interests. Objective my ass.

I guess that's the polite tone you'd like to see when people respond to you, right?

Miller

11-15-2005, 04:12 PM

I said nothing like that. Too bad lying about another poster isn't against the rules here.

I just wonder why you need to do it. Are you that sad, or that lazy, or just unable to read? You have a compelling argument for your own discrimination without resorting to lies or smearing someone else. And yet you do it. Could it be human nature, or are you just not a decent man?

Why do you hate gay people so much? Where do you get off calling me a liar, when I'm only reacting to my people's oppression in this country? You're no better than a common eskimo!

Oh, there's also the fact that I am not, in fact, lying about you:

Here is where we differ. You see an equivalence between them (or their messages) and I don't. Farrakhan is a reaction to documented oppression and discrimination. What is David Duke reacting to? Where is the history of oppression and discrimination against "his people"? He might be sincere, but his fears and perceptions don't have the facts to justify them. Do you really think Duke's hate has the same justification as Farrakhan's hate? So how can you put Duke and Farrakhan in the same category?

You give Farrakhan a pass on his blatant anti-semitism, because black people have been oppressed in this country. You don't give David Duke a pass on his blatant anti-semitism, because white people have not been oppressed in this country. You're operating on a double standard, here, and it's one based solely on race. And you accuse us of having "unexamined racist tendencies?" Like hell. You've got racist tendencies out the wazoo, and you're trying to justify them by pretending that they're normative. Hate to break it to you, sister, but that shit doesn't fly around here.

NB to interested readers: I do not have any animus against eskimos, women, or eskimo women. Statements to the contrary were intended solely as illustrative of the moral bankruptcy of Fearless Reader's position. No offence intended to any other party.

FinnAgain

11-15-2005, 04:19 PM

Only a racist pigdog would call them Eskimos instead of Inuit! ;)

But I guess it's not as bad if a gay man calls them that. After all you could be a white straight man calling them that.

What Exit?

11-15-2005, 04:23 PM

...snip...
NB to interested readers: I do not have any animus against eskimos, women, or eskimo women. Statements to the contrary were intended solely as illustrative of the moral bankruptcy of Fearless Reader's position. No offence intended to any other party.

Thankfully most of can understand the use of sarcasm to point out a logical fallacy.

Fearless Reader, do you ever concede a point?
Your own quote shows that Miller is correct and you are wrong.
The logic you used to give Farrakhan a slide is the same logic Miller was throwing back at you to illustrate that it is not a valid argument.
I think you admitted that Farrakhan has made Hate speech. He has done so for over 30 years. Probably longer. He is a hateful man.

Jackmannii

11-15-2005, 04:55 PM

Insensitive? Yes. But let's see how it compares with just a limited sampling of Farrakhan "soundbites". See? I was right, you only wanted to make a comparison.No, I requested that you produce on your promised Giuliani "soundbites" so we could see if there was any justification for linking him with Farrakhan. You could not supply any quotes constituting racial hate speech, never mind remarks comparable to the bile that has issued from Farrakhan. As a demonstration of your vaunted integrity, will you now admit your error?

If you had said that actions occurring in NYC government during the Giuliani administration had poisoned race relations to an extent comparable to what Farrakhan's remarks had produced, you'd have had a more defensible argument. Still wrong, but far less so than attributing remarks to Guiliani that he never made.You cannot compare Giuliani to Farrakhan, for an even more compelling reason than the Farrakhan v. Duke comparison.

Why? Because Giuliani was an elected official.Correct. And Farrakhan has promoted himself into a national figure and racial spokesman. He has sought and received a vast amount of publicity. His race-baiting has a national stage.
And you seem to be forgetting that Al Sharpton, apart from being a national figure has run for major office on numerous occasions and apparently still has political aspirations. By your own logic, his words and actions deserve close scrutiny.
...your beef with me is that I am not foaming at the mouth to the degree you'd like.Don't sell yourself short. :D Too bad. Go fuck yourself for your sneaky smears and lies about me, and wasting my time with your bogus demand for cites.Finally, you're getting the hang of the Pit (I was wondering when you might look up, see that marquee over your head and realize that all is not kindness and gentility within). If you stick around, you might be more comfortable with Great Debates - though even there, tarring with a broad brush, misrepresentation and evasiveness are likely to garner a less than enthusiastic reception.

Fearless Reader

11-15-2005, 04:59 PM

Fearless Reader, do you ever concede a point?Jim, do you ever address a point?

How did I give Farrakhan a pass? And where will this alleged pass take him? I don't see him being hailed as a hero, or talked up as a possible candidate for President. Or even dog-catcher. How is acknowledging that his anger comes from actual situations, whereas Duke is only angry about the possibility of oppression, giving him a pass? Isn't that true? It doesn't absolve him from responsibility for his actions.

And I wasn't even thinking about his anti-semitism in particular, but only his anger about oppression by white society in general. Why is he anti-semitic? Can anyone shed light on the apparent feud between blacks and jews? I know there are local tensions here in NYC, but if there is a history beyond that I am ignorant about it. How about someone tries to fight ignorance and expounds on it?

But it's not only about Farrakhan, it's about recognizing black anger at discrimination and oppression. As I said, he might be an asshole as an individual. But can you deny that he speaks for and to his followers? How is it a good idea to ignore that by dismissing him?

Do we want to solve problems or just score ego points?

The double standard exists. Should I ignore it?

FinnAgain

11-15-2005, 05:01 PM

In some ways, GD is even "worse" than the Pit. They'll insult you and tear you to pieces, but they'll do so by coming a hair's breadth from actually flaming you. That's one of the reasons I don't post there more often, because some Debateizens have flaming-without-flaming down to an artform.

Here I can at least say "Well fuck you too!" in response :D

FinnAgain

11-15-2005, 05:06 PM

And I wasn't even thinking about his anti-semitism in particular, but only his anger about oppression by white society in general. Why is he anti-semitic? Can anyone shed light on the apparent feud between blacks and jews? I know there are local tensions here in NYC, but if there is a history beyond that I am ignorant about it. How about someone tries to fight ignorance and expounds on it?

...
You didn't just try to suggest that Farrakhan would have a reason to be anti-Semitic, did you? Do you ask the same for people who hate blacks?

FinnAgain

11-15-2005, 05:13 PM

And to put a finer point on it, the substance of most of Farrakhan's messages are, indeed, not 'just' anti-white, but anti-semitic. He claims that Jewish people control the blacks in this country. His anger is channeled into his claims that the oppression which went on and goes on is due to "The Jews". He has also gone on record as saying that whites aren't fully human, and they have to evolve to get ot that point.

Being ignorant of these things would tend to suggest that you are only defending Farrakhan because he is black. You do realize that's a racist position, right?

Miller

11-15-2005, 05:17 PM

How did I give Farrakhan a pass? And where will this alleged pass take him? I don't see him being hailed as a hero, or talked up as a possible candidate for President. Or even dog-catcher. How is acknowledging that his anger comes from actual situations, whereas Duke is only angry about the possibility of oppression, giving him a pass? Isn't that true? It doesn't absolve him from responsibility for his actions.

How are you so certain that Duke's anger doesn't spring from actual situations? I don't know jack about his life, maybe he's simply an oppotunist playing up on racial tensions to advance himself, or some sort of a genuine sociopath. Or maybe he's faced genuine hardships in his life, and has reacted by finding an external source for his anger and frustrations. The KKK got a lot of traction in the past because they addressed very real concerns about the disenfranchisement of poor, rural whites. Of course, the way they addressed these concerns was by stringing up random black folk from trees, but we shouldn't let their moral shortcomings distract us from the validity of their concerns, right?

But it's not only about Farrakhan, it's about recognizing black anger at discrimination and oppression. As I said, he might be an asshole as an individual. But can you deny that he speaks for and to his followers? How is it a good idea to ignore that by dismissing him?

One can recognize that black anger is valid, and that black oppression exsists, and still write Farrakhan off as a useless, racist piece of shit. It's only idiots like you and Bob_Loblaw who insist on creating some sort of a dichotomy there.

Me, I don't take someone's race into consideration when I condemn them for racism. Louis Farrakhan may have faced more genuine hardship and discrimination in his life than David Duke. But so what? There's no justification sufficient to excuse racism. Any attempt to create one, even if couched in terms of overall disapproval, is itself the very essence of racism.

The double standard exists. Should I ignore it?

Ignore it? You embody it!

Fearless Reader

11-15-2005, 05:20 PM

No, I requested that you produce on your promised Giuliani "soundbites" so we could see if there was any justification for linking him with Farrakhan. You could not supply any quotes constituting racial hate speech, never mind remarks comparable to the bile that has issued from Farrakhan. As a demonstration of your vaunted integrity, will you now admit your error?

If you had said that actions occurring in NYC government during the Giuliani administration had poisoned race relations to an extent comparable to what Farrakhan's remarks had produced, you'd have had a more defensible argument. Still wrong, but far less so than attributing remarks to Guiliani that he never made.Correct. And Farrakhan has promoted himself into a national figure and racial spokesman. He has sought and received a vast amount of publicity. His race-baiting has a national stage.I told you why I don't do comparisons. That's your agenda, babe.

I believe Giuliani caused more harm and racial divisiveness than Farrakhan. Maybe Farrakhan would have if he could have, but he didn't and doesn't have that power at his disposal. Talk is cheap, actions speak. Farrakhan can't be compared under those circumstances. What national stage do you see him holding? Any real possibility of him holding office in any capacity?

You prefer to see Giuliani's comments and actions after the Dorismond shooting as merely "insensitivity", and not race-poisoning. You don't think his actions qualify as examples of racial divisiveness.

That is an opinion, an opinion I and many others do not share. Which goes back to my point about objectivity. Who gets to decide? Who can claim objectivity?

FinnAgain

11-15-2005, 05:21 PM

Miller just a clarification, but Bob_Loblaw is not the OP of this thread, that was Bob Loblaw.

Jackmannii

11-15-2005, 05:25 PM

I told you why I don't do comparisons. That's your agenda, babe.

I believe Giuliani caused more harm and racial divisiveness than Farrakhan. Um, I believe I will rest my case here, your Honor. :rolleyes:

Fearless Reader

11-15-2005, 05:35 PM

Um, I believe I will rest my case here, your Honor. :rolleyes:You just prove that you're more interested in ego points than a discussion. Way to go Jackass. What a neat solution to avoid addressing my points. I guess it takes you back - to high school.

Miller

11-15-2005, 05:55 PM

Miller just a clarification, but Bob_Loblaw is not the OP of this thread, that was Bob Loblaw.

Whoops! Sorry, bob_.

Jackmannii

11-15-2005, 05:56 PM

You just prove that you're more interested in ego points than a discussion. Way to go Jackass. What a neat solution to avoid addressing my points. I guess it takes you back - to high school.On the basis of your demonstrated level of immaturity, yes, it does remind me of high school.

Not even there, however, do I remember encountering anyone so hilariously oblivious to self-contradiction. ;)

FinnAgain

11-15-2005, 06:03 PM

You sexist! Don't you realize she's a woman? Obviously we can't judge contradiction on anything approaching an objective scale, especially since women have a long history of oppression.

E-Sabbath

11-15-2005, 06:06 PM

I still think Farrakhan had something fairly darn significant to do with killing Malcom X. That's a pretty big point right there, for me. What do you think?

duffer

11-15-2005, 06:18 PM

You just prove that you're more interested in ego points than a discussion. Way to go Jackass. What a neat solution to avoid addressing my points. I guess it takes you back - to high school.

It still seems that, for the most part, you're deflecting your defense of Farrakhan by trying to make the thread turn toward how Duke and Rudi are racist scum. And possibly gay. (It's kind of hard to keep up with you here.)

And great sidehand with the high school reference. ZING! Jesus, you're even taking the occasional potshot at the few people trying to defend you. I just can't keep from checking this thread a few times a day. :eek:

Fearless Reader

11-15-2005, 06:24 PM

On the basis of your demonstrated level of immaturity, yes, it does remind me of high school.

Not even there, however, do I remember encountering anyone so hilariously oblivious to self-contradiction. ;)Translation: A pathetic old man's version of "I know you are but what am I?"

Anything but address my points, right Jack?

Miller

11-15-2005, 06:26 PM

Translation: A pathetic old man's version of "I know you are but what am I?"

Ageist bitch.

Fearless Reader

11-15-2005, 06:27 PM

I still think Farrakhan had something fairly darn significant to do with killing Malcom X. That's a pretty big point right there, for me. What do you think?I'd be interested to know more about that, if you've got anything to hand.

Fearless Reader

11-15-2005, 06:31 PM

Ageist bitch.Did I strike a nerve?

Miller

11-15-2005, 06:38 PM

Did I strike a nerve?

Well, yes, your general racism does bother me. But the ageist thing was just more of me mocking your blatant hypocrisy, which seems to be about 100% of the content of your post in the last two pages or so.

What Exit?

11-15-2005, 06:57 PM

Fearless Reader

11-15-2005, 07:00 PM

It still seems that, for the most part, you're deflecting your defense of Farrakhan by trying to make the thread turn toward how Duke and Rudi are racist scum. And possibly gay. (It's kind of hard to keep up with you here.)

And great sidehand with the high school reference. ZING! Jesus, you're even taking the occasional potshot at the few people trying to defend you. I just can't keep from checking this thread a few times a day. :eek:It still seems that, for the most part, you're deflecting your defense of Farrakhan by trying to make the thread turn toward how Duke and Rudi are racist scum. And possibly gay. (It's kind of hard to keep up with you here.)

And great sidehand with the high school reference. ZING! Jesus, you're even taking the occasional potshot at the few people trying to defend you. I just can't keep from checking this thread a few times a day. :eek:Yeah, lots of people reading this thread. What's up with that?

But I'm not defending Farrakhan. I'm defending the merits of his anger - why he is angry. How he handles that anger is unfortunate, but I really don't see how the reasons for it can be denied. Is there a way to separate his handling with the reasons?

Are we saying that a perfect black leader needs to rise up before we address this issue? That is what I have a problem with. I doubt that will ever happen, and in my more cynical moments I think that is what some people are counting on. Not necessarily anyone here (I think most of the hostility towards me is just misunderstanding or ego or perceived political differences - the usual reasons we decide to dislike someone). But why the aversion to discussing it?

I think Farrakhan should be addressed. I think Duke should be addressed too. Different reasons, different perceptions, but how can we afford to dismiss people who symbolize or mobilize anger for a larger group? Duke's anger may not have the same merits, but he and others share that perception. Ignoring it or dismissing it doesn't make it go away.

They don't have to be right in order to be addressed. Plenty of examples in history of people who weren't right, who subsequently got power and wreaked havoc - because the reasons for their anger were not addressed before they got power.

I just think the bar here about how to deal with racism is unrealistic.

Miller

11-15-2005, 07:15 PM

But I'm not defending Farrakhan. I'm defending the merits of his anger - why he is angry. How he handles that anger is unfortunate, but I really don't see how the reasons for it can be denied. Is there a way to separate his handling with the reasons?

No, you're just excusing him, which is almost as offensive. When you say something like, "Sure he's a racist, but it's understandable because of his background," you both minimize his brand of racism, and promote your own. Yes, blacks are oppressed in this country. That's not an excuse to shun civilized standards of behavior: the attitude you're expressing in this thread is the worst kind of liberal paternalism. It's far more racist than any actual opinion expressed by any person in this thread.

Are we saying that a perfect black leader needs to rise up before we address this issue? That is what I have a problem with. I doubt that will ever happen, and in my more cynical moments I think that is what some people are counting on. Not necessarily anyone here (I think most of the hostility towards me is just misunderstanding or ego or perceived political differences - the usual reasons we decide to dislike someone). But why the aversion to discussing it?

Who here is averse to discussing the issues he's raised? Why is he necessary to any discussion on racism, except as an example of it? These issues exsist independently of him, they can be discussed independently of him, as well.

Further, there is a whole hell of a lot of distance between "prefect" and "Louis Farrakhan." Jesse Jackson is a flawed man, but not entirely without substance. Martin Luther King, Jr. had flaws, too, but is no less revered. No one is demanding a perfect black leader, but that doesn't require an absolute abdication of standards, either. I don't think it's unreasonable to look for a black leader who is angry, outspoken, and not an unrepentent racist.

I think Farrakhan should be addressed. I think Duke should be addressed too. Different reasons, different perceptions, but how can we afford to dismiss people who symbolize or mobilize anger for a larger group? Duke's anger may not have the same merits, but he and others share that perception. Ignoring it or dismissing it doesn't make it go away.

"Louis Farrakhan is a racist," is, in fact, addressing Louis Farrakhan. It is also, please note, not dismissive of every issue which he raises. Those issues can be adressed without giving a racist an aura of legitimacy, or national attention beyond the fact that he's a hate-monger.

They don't have to be right in order to be addressed. Plenty of examples in history of people who weren't right, who subsequently got power and wreaked havoc - because the reasons for their anger were not addressed before they got power.

I just think the bar here about how to deal with racism is unrealistic.

And there are just as many example of people who came to power because people excused, minimized, or simply ignored their explicit bigotry. As you have done throughout this entire thread.

Fearless Reader

11-15-2005, 07:32 PM

Fearless Reader
You're on quite a roll. Insulting everyone. Setting an excuse for "F" (I am tired of his name even) and then completely failing to see how your comparison of "F" to David Dukes is the same as what Miller was saying. There is no excuse for the way "F" has acted over the years.
You have changed the argument anytime a reasonable person might concede a point and then go after another point.

You have seemingly missed every piece of snarky humor and sarcasm employed by others.
You made some points of Rudy that are downright frightening but then step it up to where he is worse than “F”.
You apparently are also unable to give Rudy any credit for the good he did for the city. You even begrudge him having done well on 9/11.I know you will never forgive my cites about Giuliani, but keep in mind that I didn't make them up. How is your continued defense of him any different from what I've said about Farrakhan? Aren't they both men, with good and bad qualities? Or is it necessary to dehumanize Farrakhan, whereas Rudy gets a pass?

You ask for cites and I provide them, and then you never address them. Isn't it time for you to step up to the plate and defend your hero?

I'm taking heat here - not for defending Farrakhan as a hero, but only as a flawed man with a message - but you get a pass to continue to go on about how Giuliani is still worthy of respect and on your wish list as President.

I'd fear Farrakhan if he had that kind of following. But he doesn't. I fear Giuliani, for the reasons I posted, and he's got the following, and the greater potential for power. They cannot be compared for that reason, and I keep saying why, yet you insist on continuing the lie by suggesting that comparing them was my agenda.

But why is it that you get a pass for enthusiastically supporting Giuliani? Who is in a position to cause more harm to this country? Why are we more concerned with Farrakhan? Are you trying to compare them as a way of making Rudy seem more palatable? The lesser of two evils?

Problem with that is - Farrakhan doesn't have the same chance of winning an election. Why can't you grasp that point? BTW your "A pathetic old man's version" is actually ageist and sexist.

JimToo bad you overlook the insults directed at me. You're a member and can search. You've already said you checked out my history here. Do you think I came here to insult anyone? Is it possible that I have given up on polite discourse because of the volume of smears hurled my way in this thread?

Try to be <cough> objective.

What Exit?

11-15-2005, 07:42 PM

I know you will never forgive my cites about Giuliani, but keep in mind that I didn't make them up. How is your continued defense of him any different from what I've said about Farrakhan? Aren't they both men, with good and bad qualities? Or is it necessary to dehumanize Farrakhan, whereas Rudy gets a pass?

You ask for cites and I provide them, and then you never address them. Isn't it time for you to step up to the plate and defend your hero?

I'm taking heat here - not for defending Farrakhan as a hero, but only as a flawed man with a message - but you get a pass to continue to go on about how Giuliani is still worthy of respect and on your wish list as President.

I'd fear Farrakhan if he had that kind of following. But he doesn't. I fear Giuliani, for the reasons I posted, and he's got the following, and the greater potential for power. They cannot be compared for that reason, and I keep saying why, yet you insist on continuing the lie by suggesting that comparing them was my agenda.

But why is it that you get a pass for enthusiastically supporting Giuliani? Who is in a position to cause more harm to this country? Why are we more concerned with Farrakhan? Are you trying to compare them as a way of making Rudy seem more palatable? The lesser of two evils?

Problem with that is - Farrakhan doesn't have the same chance of winning an election. Why can't you grasp that point? Too bad you overlook the insults directed at me. You're a member and can search. You've already said you checked out my history here. Do you think I came here to insult anyone? Is it possible that I have given up on polite discourse because of the volume of smears hurled my way in this thread?

Try to be <cough> objective.
Please look at post 432 & 437. Your link concerning Russell Harding appears a valid reason to remove Rudy from my list of supportable candidate for POTUS.
This is disappointing and I posted a responce to everyone of your quotes. I will assume you missed these posts. I do think I might at least be owed an apology on these points.
Yes I still think despite this Rudy is a much better man that "F".
I did not overlook the insults directed at you, but because Finn & others were in attack mode you did give Miller a fair hearing. I believe I still post rationally even after I get attacked. I might get snarkier but I review my position and I am definately known to change it.

duffer

11-15-2005, 07:50 PM

Not necessarily anyone here (I think most of the hostility towards me is just misunderstanding or ego or perceived political differences - the usual reasons we decide to dislike someone). But why the aversion to discussing it?

Well, misunderstanding, ego and political differences are pretty low on my list of reasons I dislike people. Hell, I think if Clinton and I ever went out on the town we'd have a pretty damn good time. It takes something much more substantive than the above 3 items for me to dislike someone.

But I'm sure that just like everyone else here it must be some "issue" I need to work out for myself.

Fearless Reader

11-15-2005, 08:21 PM

Please look at post 432 & 437. Your link concerning Russell Harding appears a valid reason to remove Rudy from my list of supportable candidate for POTUS.
This is disappointing and I posted a responce to everyone of your quotes. I will assume you missed these posts. I do think I might at least be owed an apology on these points.
Yes I still think despite this Rudy is a much better man that "F".
I did not overlook the insults directed at you, but because Finn & others were in attack mode you did give Miller a fair hearing. I believe I still post rationally even after I get attacked. I might get snarkier but I review my position and I am definately known to change it.If I missed some of your responses then I will apologize in advance. I'll take you at your word. I didn't realize the post about Harding had the import you suggest now.

I still like your style, and if you check this thread yourself, you'll see I've apologized to you quite a bit, even though the perceived offensiveness was unintentional, and the facts behind the cites weren't my own doing. I don't enjoy disagreeing with people I like, but lying gives me stomach pains.

I'm sure you feel bad about the revelations about the Giuliani administration. Believe me, I wish they weren't true. But that is reality, and that is my point. There are no perfect leaders. We weigh the good and the bad and struggle to make a decision (just as EddyTeddyFreddy said earlier. It's not easy, and I still don't think it can be objective, regardless of our good intentions in that regard.

Fearless Reader

11-15-2005, 08:33 PM

Well, misunderstanding, ego and political differences are pretty low on my list of reasons I dislike people. Hell, I think if Clinton and I ever went out on the town we'd have a pretty damn good time. It takes something much more substantive than the above 3 items for me to dislike someone.

But I'm sure that just like everyone else here it must be some "issue" I need to work out for myself.So what makes you dislike someone?

I was thinking about internet dislike with my criteria. Real life dislike is a whole other can of worms.

Fearless Reader

11-15-2005, 09:06 PM

Fearless Reader: I have review your cites and I have these replies.

1st quote:
Is not from Daily news
It is from Kevin McAuliffe who is selling a book about how awful Rudy was.
Included on his site is this gem that is supposed to be bad.

2nd quote: Completely true, he did a terrible job on this case. In fact I think this was a case where Rev. Al did good in trying to keep the news media focused on it without using inflammatory words to make a bad situation worse. Rudy’s primary guilt was in defending the police actions to a fault. He is guilty in this case.
3rd quote: He is guilty again. The cops had a free hand in cleaning up the city. They exceeded their authority often. Rudy shielded them often. I agree. Very damning.
4th Quote: Stop, Question, and Frisk. Good take on the policy. Why do I recall it a little different? I recall it as youths in gang colors, not youths of color.
5th Quote: Yep, Rudy can be an asshole. He did actually make the city better and improve health care and safety didn’t he?
6th & 7th Quote: Okay Russell Harding was a complete jerk and said stupid things, Rudy was grossly wrong to not toss him out as bad trash. This is the most damning thing you have shown me. Also the only surprise. If it is all true it eliminates one more candidate that I would want to vote for. I have never seen or heard of this Harding Moron before.
Thanks for killing Santa again.Jim - sorry again but thanks for bringing it to my attention. There are a whole bunch of posts on the page before that I didn't see. Probably cross posted with my own replies. I wouldn't have said that about you acknowledging my cites if I'd seen it.

I'm really surprised that the Harding scandal was a tipping point for you, out of everything else. NYC politics has been so corrupt for as far back as I can remember. But I agree, we don't need any more of that on a national level. That's why I'm skeptical about Rudy actually tossing his hat in - all this stuff is certain to come out during any new campaign. Or is the media that impotent at this point?As far as Miller, he was extending the logic you used about Farrakhan. If Farrakhan is allowed to make hate speech because blacks were oppressed then Miller should be aloud to make hate speech because Gays are oppressed.
He was using a large blunt instrument to make a valid point. Your arguments for Farrakhan are weak.
Sounds like Farrakhan, Harding and David Dukes should go on a retreat together.

JimI wouldn't condemn Miller for "hate speech" related to gay oppression, and I didn't. I agree that gays are oppressed. Anger about that wouldn't cause me to dismiss the argument. I think it is justified.

I condemned him for mischaracterizing what I said in order to make his points.

Jackmannii

11-15-2005, 09:13 PM

I don't enjoy disagreeing with people I like, but lying gives me stomach pains.Absent a character shift, the solution is just a click away (http://www.rxlist.com/cgi/generic/ranit_pi.htm)

Fearless Reader

11-15-2005, 09:28 PM

Absent a character shift, the solution is just a click away (http://www.rxlist.com/cgi/generic/ranit_pi.htm)I'll suggest an SSRI for you. Big Pharm says they're good for everything - even paranoia. ;)

E-Sabbath

11-15-2005, 11:05 PM

I'd be interested to know more about that, if you've got anything to hand.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/05/10/60minutes/main194051.shtml

"I may have been complicit in words that I spoke leading up to February 21 [1965]," Farrakhan tells Shabazz and Wallace. "I acknowledge that and regret that any word that I have said caused the loss of life of a human being."

...

Shabazz's mother, Betty Shabazz, who died in 1997, had publicly accused Farrakhan of a role in the murder. She reconciled with him after her daughter Qubilah was charged in 1994 with lotting to hire a hitman to kill him. The charges were later dropped.

E-Sabbath

11-15-2005, 11:07 PM

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/9929,noel,7168,5.html

Apparently, F had some kind of special relation with the killer, too.

http://www.stanford.edu/dept/news/pr/95/950117Arc5411.html

FinnAgain

11-15-2005, 11:15 PM

Gotta love the gummy bear porn on the village voice site :D

FinnAgain

11-15-2005, 11:17 PM

Erm... it was there the last time I saw it. No, you're crazy!

VegemiteMoose

11-15-2005, 11:30 PM

FinnAgain, what? They were in a queue, the green gummi collapsed to the ground, the yellow fellow is bending over to check if greenie's ok and the red gummi-person is looking on solicitously. You sick, sick bastard.

Ok, they were in a queue for porn, but still.

duffer

11-15-2005, 11:48 PM

I'll suggest an SSRI for you. Big Pharm says they're good for everything - even paranoia. ;)

Wow, it seems every other post you're telling someone what med they should take or what psych disorder they're displaying. Repeated over and over in your assertions that people have "issues" of whatever sort you're diagnosing.

As far as internet dislike? If political disagreement and ego were the criteria, I'd have left long ago. While the SDMB isn't a standard-bearer of the far-left, there are enough suffering that disorder, er idealogical slant, that I and a few others feel the need to be extra strident to keep the place in the center's area code. Picture me and 3 or 4 others palying tug of war with about 50 opponents. We have to bulldog it. Often with amusing results. (Though, to be honest, without me those that are right-of-center would probably have a better chance at winning this little battle)

It's much, much easier to be more vocal, opinionated and rigid when posting to a message board populated by people that have little to no real influence over your day-to-day life. It's much harder to do so in real life where diplomacy and decorum are the main focus, and you have to sometimes temper what you say because the person you say it to may be your boss tomorrow.

The point is, we're all human. We all have beleifs and opinions that will get us riled up to the point of personal invective. I'm guilty of it as are so many others. There are 3 posters I can think of right now though, that conjure up little more than indifference. I don't dislike them, we're just not compatable in any way. We have a mind-set and personality that just won't ever mesh in any way. It happens. Often you'll see two or more Dopers really go at it in one thread, then discuss the merits of an actor being worthy of an Oscar in another thread.

And when those Dopers really get into it? Most often, if it goes beyond an argument into a full out battle, in a day or two the parties involved will either clarify, apologize, or just concede the fact that of the thousands of issues that concern us all in our own way, it's one that won't be resolved and the parties let it go as something that they just accept in another. They don't have to like it, it's just something you tolerate/accept. Lord knows there are many here that have let me off the hook on one point knowing they'd be able to hit me on another in a different thread. :smack:

Disliking someone on a message board? Not likely, for me anyway. I understand there are millions that disagree with me in the world. I also understand there are millions in the world that disagree with those that disagree with me. All I want is to get up in the morning, go to work, pay my taxes and pretty much let everyone else find their happiness as long as it doesn't negatively affect me nor my own.

That's a far cry from where I was years ago. And the SDMB has actually helped out greatly in that tidal shift to my outlook and world view. (Imagine what I was like 10 years ago!) :eek:

And that change was fomented by those posters that would appear as hateful to me or vice versa (sp?). I can't say what they may honestly think of me, but I hold no ill-will to any of them. Balance needs to be reached in every life, and this is the greatest influence in tempering my views on many topics. (Even if those pinko bastards are all disillusioned and wrong. wrong, wrong!) *now say that out loud in your best Archie Bunker impersonation*

I don't think there's a lot of genuine dislike around here. It's (weak analogy) like an extended family. You get this many people together that can freely debate/joke/rant/needle. You're going to get some that just rub each other the wrong way from time to time. That's life. You can simultaneously have a thread open where almost every post seems to be attacking you, while at the same time have a thread open in MPSIMS or Cafe Society where those same Dopers are offering up opinions on what to buy your wife for Christmas or which character gave the best performance in The Usual Suspects. It's, IMO, a very dynamic board.

Except for the Mods. Everyone hates those bastards. :p

What Exit?

11-16-2005, 08:19 AM

Jim - sorry again but thanks for bringing it to my attention. There are a whole bunch of posts on the page before that I didn't see. Probably cross posted with my own replies. I wouldn't have said that about you acknowledging my cites if I'd seen it.

I'm really surprised that the Harding scandal was a tipping point for you, out of everything else. NYC politics has been so corrupt for as far back as I can remember. But I agree, we don't need any more of that on a national level. That's why I'm skeptical about Rudy actually tossing his hat in - all this stuff is certain to come out during any new campaign. Or is the media that impotent at this point?I wouldn't condemn Miller for "hate speech" related to gay oppression, and I didn't. I agree that gays are oppressed. Anger about that wouldn't cause me to dismiss the argument. I think it is justified.

I condemned him for mischaracterizing what I said in order to make his points.
{My bolding above}

Rudy was extremely heavy handing in dealing with crime and foes to his admin. None of the other post surprised me. His standing by the cops to the point of being made to look bad, actually added to my feelings that he is an honorable man. I take honor very seriously. No politician would normally protect the police to the point he did.
This honor is completely slashed by not toss Harding out in disgrace. It shows him to be a politician. It is one case, but it is a particularly damning case. Harding actually looks dumber and less qualified then Michael Brown. I cannot defend Rudy on this appointment as I have castigated Bush for Brown.
Your other points are valid and you won't like me saying this, but I think he did what NYC needed done. Of course I do speak as a Bronx born but live in White Suburbia visitor, not a resident. My Brother who lives in Brooklyn never liked Rudy as much as I did.
I also respected the heart on the sleeve aspect of the way Rudy rooted for the Yankees. He made no bones about and his box seats were his from the days when the Yanks were lost and long before he was mayor.
For myself I like McCain, Rudy, Dean and Obama because they appear to have honor. Rudy just lost a lot of respect in my eyes. I was very glad to see Harding is now in jail and his life as a political hack is over. Rudy should have done the right thing and called him out in public and fired him. I still like Bloomberg but I preferred Rudy the middle class guy that made good to Bloomberg the enlightened Billionaire.

Jim

Miller

11-16-2005, 12:08 PM

I wouldn't condemn Miller for "hate speech" related to gay oppression, and I didn't. I agree that gays are oppressed. Anger about that wouldn't cause me to dismiss the argument. I think it is justified.

I condemned him for mischaracterizing what I said in order to make his points.

You know, if you absolutely have to lie about what you've said, it would behoove you to do so in a medium where anyone can't just scroll back up and read it for themselves.

What Exit?

11-16-2005, 07:51 PM

Rev. Al was on the Colbert Report last night and I just caught it.
He was funny and still made some points.
Just thought I would bring it up.

Jim

Fearless Reader

11-17-2005, 12:54 PM

I'm really surprised that the Harding scandal was a tipping point for you, out of everything else.{My bolding above}

...This honor is completely slashed by not toss Harding out in disgrace. It shows him to be a politician. It is one case, but it is a particularly damning case. Harding actually looks dumber and less qualified then Michael Brown. I cannot defend Rudy on this appointment as I have castigated Bush for Brown.I was surprised because I almost didn't include the cite about Harding in my post (I had so much material to choose from!). Bad apple cronyism is an endemic problem in politics - and even outside of politics. Have you never encountered a Harding or a Brownie in the workplace?

But you're right, Giuliani should have tossed him like garbage (or never hired his unqualified ass in the first place). The problem was Giuliani was beholden to his father, and the financial and political opportunities he provided. Just another example of self interest trumping objectivity. Human nature.Your other points are valid and you won't like me saying this, but I think he did what NYC needed done. Of course I do speak as a Bronx born but live in White Suburbia visitor, not a resident. My Brother who lives in Brooklyn never liked Rudy as much as I did.I agree that the squeegee man problem was getting out of hand. As I said, it was Ray Kelly's plan that was implemented - Bratton and Giuliani just continued it.

But the stop and frisk program was unconstitutional. Were things so bad they warranted suspending constitutional rights?

My brother is in NJ now too. Used to be a wild man fixture on the lower east side, and now he gets cranky when he comes in for a visit. I think his perspective changed more than the city did.I still like Bloomberg but I preferred Rudy the middle class guy that made good to Bloomberg the enlightened Billionaire.Bloomberg started out middle class too, didn't he?

I only hope we never have to debate the merits of John McCain. Or the Easter Bunny (brother has never forgiven me for that either).

Fearless Reader

11-17-2005, 01:13 PM

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/9929,noel,7168,5.html

Apparently, F had some kind of special relation with the killer, too.

http://www.stanford.edu/dept/news/pr/95/950117Arc5411.htmlThanks. I wasn't sure if you'd reply, so I started looking into it myself too.

Do you hold him responsible because of what he said about Malcolm deserving death, or do you think he was involved in the actual conspiracy to murder?

My impression of Farrakhan is based on recent years. The million man march. A couple of speeches I happened to hear this year on the radio and tv. It appears he's toned down quite a bit. Is it a sincere change or just a ploy? How can we determine that objectively?

What Exit?

11-17-2005, 01:16 PM

I was surprised because I almost didn't include the cite about Harding in my post (I had so much material to choose from!). Bad apple cronyism is an endemic problem in politics - and even outside of politics. Have you never encountered a Harding or a Brownie in the workplace?

But you're right, Giuliani should have tossed him like garbage (or never hired his unqualified ass in the first place). The problem was Giuliani was beholden to his father, and the financial and political opportunities he provided. Just another example of self interest trumping objectivity. Human nature.I agree that the squeegee man problem was getting out of hand. As I said, it was Ray Kelly's plan that was implemented - Bratton and Giuliani just continued it.

But the stop and frisk program was unconstitutional. Were things so bad they warranted suspending constitutional rights?

My brother is in NJ now too. Used to be a wild man fixture on the lower east side, and now he gets cranky when he comes in for a visit. I think his perspective changed more than the city did.Bloomberg started out middle class too, didn't he?

I only hope we never have to debate the merits of John McCain. Or the Easter Bunny (brother has never forgiven me for that either).

From this site (http://www.nyc.gov/portal/index.jsp?epi_menuItemID=e985cf5219821bc3f7393cd401c789a0&epi_menuID=beb0d8fdaa9e1607a62fa24601c789a0&epi_baseMenuID=27579af732d48f86a62fa24601c789a0) Michael R. Bloomberg is the 108th Mayor of the City of New York. He was born on February 14, 1942 to middle class parents in Medford, Massachusetts, where his father was the bookkeeper at a local dairy

You are right again.
He is so much more polished, I assumed he came from a different class.

Jim

Fearless Reader

11-17-2005, 02:12 PM

You know, if you absolutely have to lie about what you've said, it would behoove you to do so in a medium where anyone can't just scroll back up and read it for themselves.You said:So, unless I'm misreading Fearless Reader, we should excuse Farrakhan's anti-Semitism, because there is a long and continuing history of discrimination against blacks in this country. Well, last week fully three quarters of Texas voted to discriminate against me. Who do I get to hate?Unfortunetly, the blue states aren't too keen on gay marriage, either. But that's not really the point. I'm being discriminated against. According to Fearless Reader, that means I get to discriminte against someone else, and anyone who calls me on it is really exhibiting unexamined homophobic tendencies. At least, I think that's what she's trying to say. It's hard to tell, because women just aren't good at putting together logical arguments. It sure is precious when they try, though, isn't it?I wasn't even talking about his anti-semitism in the first case, and I wasn't giving anyone a pass to actually discriminate. That isn't where I was going with this debate.

I think you raised some good points in a post I missed the other day.How are you so certain that Duke's anger doesn't spring from actual situations? I don't know jack about his life, maybe he's simply an oppotunist playing up on racial tensions to advance himself, or some sort of a genuine sociopath. Or maybe he's faced genuine hardships in his life, and has reacted by finding an external source for his anger and frustrations. The KKK got a lot of traction in the past because they addressed very real concerns about the disenfranchisement of poor, rural whites. Of course, the way they addressed these concerns was by stringing up random black folk from trees, but we shouldn't let their moral shortcomings distract us from the validity of their concerns, right?I did say Duke might be sincere in his views, and his personal experiences probably have a role in why he thinks the way he does.

But where is this place in the US that have white people being oppressed by black people? His perceptions and fears aren't based on reality, but only a possibility. You don't see a difference between that perception and what reality says about a black person's experiences? The KKK lynched people. How can we compare that with Farrakhan's rhetoric? If the NOI participated in violent actions like that I am unaware of them.

Let's use your own example. Where is the justification for heterosexual fear of gay marriage? Do you think they're not sincere? Do you think their arguments have the same merits as the arguments in favor of gay marriage? If you decided to rant about homophobes would that be considered hate speech?One can recognize that black anger is valid, and that black oppression exsists, and still write Farrakhan off as a useless, racist piece of shit. It's only idiots like you and Bob_Loblaw who insist on creating some sort of a dichotomy there.How do we recognize that black anger is valid, if we write off a black leader because he expresses it?

By the way, I'm not the only idiot who thinks it might be helpful to create a dialogue with Farrakhan. If you're really interested, read here (http://www.polyconomics.com/searchbase/03-08-00.html), and here (http://www.polyconomics.com/searchbase/10-11-00.html), here (http://www.polyconomics.com/searchbase/10-12-00.html), here (http://www.polyconomics.com/searchbase/10-16-00.html).

My opinions aren't set in stone - if you've got something other than personal attacks I'd appreciate your passing it on - but I don't see how your way is working.

I still think that ignoring someone like Farrakhan (or even Duke) doesn't make the problems go away.

Miller

11-17-2005, 02:57 PM

I wasn't even talking about his anti-semitism in the first case, and I wasn't giving anyone a pass to actually discriminate. That isn't where I was going with this debate.

Oh, Jesus Christ, I said "anti-Semite" when I should have said "anti-white." You've really exposed the depths of my duplicity on that one.

And yes, when you say that someone like Farrakhan needs to be listened to, you are giving him a pass on his racism. When you legitimize any part of his message, you legitimize the whole thing, and you legitimize him as a public figure. That might not be your intent, but that is the effect.

I did say Duke might be sincere in his views, and his personal experiences probably have a role in why he thinks the way he does.

But where is this place in the US that have white people being oppressed by black people? His perceptions and fears aren't based on reality, but only a possibility. You don't see a difference between that perception and what reality says about a black person's experiences? The KKK lynched people. How can we compare that with Farrakhan's rhetoric? If the NOI participated in violent actions like that I am unaware of them.

What difference does it make? There are serious hardships being faced by poor rural whites in this country. Those problems are not caused by all black people, but folks like Duke blame all black people anyway. There are serious hardships being faced by blacks in this country. Those problems are not cause by all white people, but Louis Farrakhan blames all white people anyway. We can address the problems facing both of these communities without having to give credibility to the hate-mongers. When we pay attention to these people, we make the problem worse by giving them even the slightest tinge of legitimacy.

Let's use your own example. Where is the justification for heterosexual fear of gay marriage? Do you think they're not sincere? Do you think their arguments have the same merits as the arguments in favor of gay marriage? If you decided to rant about homophobes would that be considered hate speech?

No, because a homophobe is by definition someone who discriminates against gays. Just as a racist is by definition someone who discriminates against other races. If Farrakhan spent all his time talking about how much the Klan, or Aryan Nation, or other racist organizations suck, he wouldn't be promoting hate speech. But that's not what he does: he talks about how all white people are bigots who are keeping him and his down. That's bullshit: it's a racist generalization that doesn't help anything, it just creates more anger and divisivness on both sides. Farrakhan isn't part of the solution, he's part of the problem. Just like I'd be if, instead of ranting about homophobes, I ranted about Christians. Sure, a lot of Christians are homophobes. But not all of them are, and if I can't make that distinction, I'm no better than the people I'm railing against.

How do we recognize that black anger is valid, if we write off a black leader because he expresses it?

Fallacy of the excluded middle. We can recognize black anger by listening to black leaders who aren't racists.

My opinions aren't set in stone - if you've got something other than personal attacks I'd appreciate your passing it on - but I don't see how your way is working.

Spare me the martyr routine. You've been as insulting as anyone else in this thread.