Al Sharpton is a decent man

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. :stuck_out_tongue:

{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

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.

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

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).

Thanks. 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?

From this site

You are right again.
He is so much more polished, I assumed he came from a different class.

Jim

You said:

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.

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?

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, and here, here, here.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Fallacy of the excluded middle. We can recognize black anger by listening to black leaders who aren’t racists.

Spare me the martyr routine. You’ve been as insulting as anyone else in this thread.

Try comparing that to Sharpton’s rhetoric. Remember Al? The subject of the OP?

Sharpton gets involved in race-baiting in Harlem. 7 people die at Freddie’s Fashion Mart.

Sharpton whips up more racial hatred in Crown Heights. More people die in days of rioting. Al’s immortal words of peace and reconcilation during this period: “If the Jews want to get it on, tell them to pin their yarmulkes back and come over to my house.”

Ironically, some political observers think a shift in the Jewish vote after the Crown Heights riots helped elect Rudy Giuliani, the mayor Fearless Reader so deplores. Could it be that the backlash from race-baiting and racial violence might have some undesirable and unanticipated effects?

I realize this will probably be another case of tossing eggs against a brick wall of wilful ignorance, but sometimes that’s the only way to make an omelet. :dubious:

From reading his ‘apology’, and from Betty Shabazz’s words, I think he is about as culpable as Henry II is for the death of the Archbishop of Canterbury. “Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest?”

That is, of course, my opinion, but something of the sort is suggested by his own words.