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.
Hey, if the hobnailed boot fits, wear it. 
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.
Hey, I was not lying with my eyes while my hands were busy working overtime. You take that back!
Well, erm, I disagree.
Or a joi, er, never mind 
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!
The colorless all color of [del]atheism[/del] hidden text.
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’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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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 ), 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.
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.
I’ll get to the substantive points a bit later on today, I just wanted to clear this one up (if I can).
- You said Brickbacon’s points were excellent, this may be taken as your agreement of such ‘excellent’ points.
- You said Bob’s points were fundamentally the same as Brickbacon’s
- 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.
- Then you say that those who are annoyed at Bob’s posting style are being defensive and have unexamined racist tendencies.
- 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.
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
Simply for the record, I had done so before, just hadn’t numbered them.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
If I make any logical fallacies, or my text clearly implies things, feel free to call me out.
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.
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?