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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
No, 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.
I could think of a thread on nuclear power from back in august or July that was a cite war. Here it is.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
Not true. I asked you to start another thread about it because it was deemed a hijack earlier in this thread.
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?
I never said that. What “record” are you referring to? Did I misquote you or mischaracterize you?
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.
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 were discussing the subject. It’s a quaint idea to dodge a query about it because it’s suddenly a “hijack”.
I asked you for a response. You tried to avoid answering by a diversion into other areas. Why should I accomodate your evasion?
Repetition does not make your denial any more convincing.
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.
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?
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.
Yes, they both have zero justification.
You were the one who was arguing that racism was bad, right?
~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?
Yeah, two racists with racist messages get compared and they’re found to be racists with racist messages. I am shocked. Shocked!
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.
A means of stating which geo-political region you’re part of? Define meta-tribalism and we’ll see what we will see.
As it doesn’t deal with any other ‘races’, no, it is impossible for it to be racist.
American isn’t a race.
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.
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.
Or perhaps they’re individuals and don’t see a need to blow each other up? The fallacy of hasty generalization is a bitch.
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.
Erunh?
How exactly do you parse the two?
Porn is part of information overload?
And with proper education, how many will gain critical thinking and media literacy skills? Hopefully, everybody.
There is no knowledge that is not power.
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.
