Blacks have good nonracist reasons to prefer pols of their own race; whites don't

[UltraVires]

[QUOTE=you with the face]
Because whites are already at the top. So anyone making this statement should automatically be considered a dumbass at a minimum. Charges of racism are secondary to the crime of abject stupidity.

[/QUOTE]

So wanting to get on top is legitimate, but wanting to stay on top is vile racism? How does this gem of an argument play out?

What if I live in Alcee Hastings’ district? Since the black man is on top in my district, are the roles reversed and I can vote for the white guy because I want to get on top? Or does the whole country have to play along?

What if Obama wins, in the 2012 election can I vote for a white candidate without being a racist? Or do we have to wait 400 years to make up for slavery? Or some other point in between?

How about we get back to the idea that MLK tried to get us thinking, and that is if a person thinks that person X is better than person Y to do job Z because person x has a skin color #1, while person Y has skin color #2, then that reasoning is stupid in all cases and should be shunned..

[Apollyon]

(missed edit)

Frylock, Smith and the US founding ideals were not / are not in my mind unrelated subjects. Some googling turned up this interesting article: The Relevance of Adam Smith.

@the article

The intellectual spirit of The Wealth of Nations has much in common with the intellectual spirit existing in America at the time of the Revolution. Smith shared the egalitarian spirit of the Revolution… Both Smith and American statesmen were trying to devise social systems in accord with the spirit of natural law. They believed that the principles of social organization conducive to harmonious relations among men and between men and their government are inherent in and may be deduced from the natural forces that motivate men’s behavior.

@the article

One difficulty with defending the present day relevance of Smith is that his ideas have become so thoroughly absorbed into our intellectual heritage that they are no longer identifiable as having originated with Adam Smith.

[you_with_the_face]

[QUOTE=jtgain]
So wanting to get on top is legitimate, but wanting to stay on top is vile racism?
[/quote]

How about wanting to get on top just as whites have done is legimitate, while wanting to maintain an uneven distribution of power that favors one group is not legimitate. Part of wanting the former means wanting to actually see a member of one’s group put in an highly visible elected office, which inherently means being biased. This bias isn’t necessarily racist, since it is not based on prejudice.

Can you really not understand how this motivation is different than a white person trying to keep black people out of the White House? I feel like I’m in crazyland, seeing people essentially argue that wanting just some of the pie is equally wrong as wanting to keep the whole pie to oneself.

[mswas]

The case of the dueling ad hominems.

[XT]

My thought exactly.

[QUOTE=you with the face]
Can you really not understand how this motivation is different than a white person trying to keep black people out of the White House?
[/QUOTE]

Well, why don’t you explain it? What exactly is the difference between trying to get a black person into the White House solely because of the color of the persons skin different than trying to keep a white person in…solely because of the color of the persons skin? How is one better or even essentially different than the other?

And btw, there are a lot less Hispanics in positions of power in the US currently than either Whites OR Blacks…so, does that mean I’m totally justified in voting for a fellow Hispanic regardless of merit…because s/he is Hispanic? How does this differ?

[QUOTE=you with the face]
I feel like I’m in crazyland, seeing people essentially argue that wanting just some of the pie is equally wrong as wanting to keep the whole pie to oneself.
[/QUOTE]

Well, you know…that’s not what people are arguing, right? That’s basically you making up a strawman for the other side to wear…

-XT

[brazil84]

[QUOTE=you with the face]
I feel like I’m in crazyland, seeing people essentially argue that wanting just some of the pie is equally wrong as wanting to keep the whole pie to oneself.
[/QUOTE]

It seems to me that either approach is fundamentally based on self-interest.

By analogy, suppose that I, as a white person, earn $100,000 per year while Joe Black across the streat earns only $25k. Is it legitimate for Joe to vote in favor of a tax increase for upper income citizens? Is it legitimate for me to vote against such a tax increase? To vote for a tax reduction?

[Mijin]

[QUOTE=brazil84]
Is it legitimate for Joe to vote in favor of a tax increase for upper income citizens? Is it legitimate for me to vote against such a tax increase? To vote for a tax reduction?
[/QUOTE]

I don’t think this was a great choice of analogy. The answer to all your questions is “it depends on the reasons why that person is voting for that thing”.

WRT the OP: voting for someone on the basis of race as a main factor is wrong, and rascist IMO.

However, one thing that people forget in discussions like this is that white caucasians constitute the majority in the US and blacks are a minority group.

When people try to flip a situation around and say “Well, if a white person were to do this, it would be considered rascist” they’ve missed the difference between a member of a minority group trying to ensure that their group is not left out, to a member of the majority group, essentially trying to remove the minorities from the picture.

(I’m not specifically responding to the OP, with these latter points, I know you didn’t say any such thing)

[brazil84]

[QUOTE=Mijin]
I don’t think this was a great choice of analogy. The answer to all your questions is “it depends on the reasons why that person is voting for that thing”.
[/quote]

In that case, can I take it that you agree that there exist legitimate reasons for a wealthy man (or woman) to vote for a tax reduction for upper income people?

When people try to flip a situation around and say “Well, if a white person were to do this, it would be considered rascist” they’ve missed the difference between a member of a minority group trying to ensure that their group is not left out, to a member of the majority group, essentially trying to remove the minorities from the picture.

I’m not sure that relative numbers are critical. Is it legitimate for a white person to vote for a white candidate for mayor of New York City because of that person’s race?

[Mijin]

[QUOTE=brazil84]
In that case, can I take it that you agree that there exist legitimate reasons for a wealthy man (or woman) to vote for a tax reduction for upper income people?
[/quote]

Of course.
An example might be that a person may suspect that the very high tax rate for the wealthy is stifling the economy and hurting everyone.
Note that it’s not only rich people that believe taxes should be lowered for “upper income people”.

I’m not sure that relative numbers are critical. Is it legitimate for a white person to vote for a white candidate for mayor of New York City because of that person’s race?

The first thing to note is that my answer to this is obvious, being as in my previous post I’d said this: “voting for someone on the basis of race as a main factor is wrong, and rascist IMO”. I don’t think you can get much clearer than that.

The second thing to note is that you’ve obviously failed to understand the point I made.
I said that when we turn a situation around and say “Well, what if a white person…” the situation is not equivalent for the reason that I gave.
You’ve then said, effectively, “The situations are equivalent. What if a white person…”.
You can disagree with my argument of course, but to do so you have to discuss my reasoning, not just repeat the thing that I’m saying is invalid.

[John_Mace]

[QUOTE=Frylock]
That’s not really relevant, as all I’m saying is that it is possible for someone to vote for X “because X is black” and not thereby be a racist. Some people are responding to the OP by insisting that if you vote for someone “because he is black” this is enough to make that a racist voting decision. But it’s not.
[/QUOTE]

Of course it is. That is the very definition of racism-- assuming something about someone solely on the basis of his race. You are simply trying to redefine the term so that it’s not racism as long as it’s something you agree with. It doesn’t matter whether you assume something good, bad or indifferent. If I pick an Asian lawyer because I think Asians are smart and hard working, that’s still racism. You can dance around the issue all you want, but that doesn’t change the definition.

[you_with_the_face]

[QUOTE=xtisme]
Well, why don’t you explain it? What exactly is the difference between trying to get a black person into the White House solely because of the color of the persons skin different than trying to keep a white person in…solely because of the color of the persons skin? How is one better or even essentially different than the other?
[/quote]

First off, remove solely from the argument, because 1)no one is saying that and 2) I hate strawmen. I prefer to frame my argument like this: all other things being equal between two candidates, it is a justifiable for a (historically oppressed) minority group to prefer the minority candidate over the majority one. Maybe not rationally justifiable, but emotionally, yes. There’s nothing inherently racist about this.

In case there’s any doubt, I believe it takes a blackhole level of density to really not get this. (And I could care less if this offends.) So by my calculations attempting to debate this is going to be a gigantic waste of my time. I could create a whole bunch of analogies to illustrate what I’m saying, but it would be futile if all people are going to do is counter with silly bromides about MLK and false equivalences between whites and blacks.

Well, you know…that’s not what people are arguing, right? That’s basically you making up a strawman for the other side to wear…

It’s exactly what they are arguing. "What exactly is the difference between trying to get a black person into the White House solely because of the color of the persons skin different than trying to keep a white person in…solely because of the color of the persons skin? " boils down to this: What exactly is the difference between wanting to receive one slice of the White House pie and wanting to keep the whole White House pie to oneself?

The answer is that it has nothing to do with the “color of the persons skin” and all to do with wanting to break new barriers, challenging stereotypes about black capability, and establishing an inspiring precedent.

[Frylock]

[QUOTE=John Mace]
Of course it is. That is the very definition of racism-- assuming something about someone solely on the basis of his race.
[/quote]

You keep using words like “solely” and “only” and I keep trying to tell you I’m not talking about situations where someone votes “solely” or “only” because of race. My whole point is that you can vote because of race “plus something,” and thereby be voting “because of race,” and also at the same time not be a racist. Hence you can vote “because of race” and not necessarily thereby be a racist.

If you want to insist that the illustrations we’ve talked about are examples of voting “solely” because of race, then would you take on the other horn of the dilemma I alluded to earlier and say that in some cases racism is the correct attitude to have? As I’ve said, I think this is not possible because of the rules of the English language, however, I would understand what someone meant if they made the claim.

You are simply trying to redefine the term so that it’s not racism as long as it’s something you agree with. It doesn’t matter whether you assume something good, bad or indifferent. If I pick an Asian lawyer because I think Asians are smart and hard working, that’s still racism. You can dance around the issue all you want, but that doesn’t change the definition.

None of this seems to me to be relevant to our conversation. I think you are importing presumptions about my point from other conversations you’ve had with other people.

-FrL-

[Gary_Robson]

[QUOTE=you with the face]
FI prefer to frame my argument like this: all other things being equal between two candidates, it is a justifiable for a (historically oppressed) minority group to prefer the minority candidate over the majority one. Maybe not rationally justifiable, but emotionally, yes. There’s nothing inherently racist about this.

In case there’s any doubt, I believe it takes a blackhole level of density to really not get this. (And I could care less if this offends.)
[/QUOTE]
Offends? Of course it offends. You’re saying that if I pick a candidate because of color, it’s racist; but if you do exactly the same thing, it isn’t racist.

If racist decisions are based on the past (e.g., previous presidents have been white, so new presidents should be black), they are just as racist as if they were based solely on the present (e.g., you’re black so you want a black president). Every argument you make applies equally well to most of the other candidates (never had a woman, never had a Mormon…).

[Frylock]

[QUOTE=InvisibleWombat]
Offends? Of course it offends. You’re saying that if I pick a candidate because of color, it’s racist; but if you do exactly the same thing, it isn’t racist.
[/quote]

You were supposed to be offended at the notion you have the density of a black hole.

-FrL-

[you_with_the_face]

[QUOTE=InvisibleWombat]
Offends? Of course it offends. You’re saying that if I pick a candidate because of color, it’s racist; but if you do exactly the same thing, it isn’t racist.
[/quote]

I’m not saying that at all. There are people in this thread that are quick to slap a label on something and call it racist as if that’s all it takes to make an argument, but I’m not among them.

If racist decisions are based on the past (e.g., previous presidents have been white, so new presidents should be black), they are just as racist as if they were based solely on the present (e.g., you’re black so you want a black president).

You are asserting the same thing over and over again, but you haven’t presented an argument yet. Again, it’s like insisting that stealing bread to feed your starving kid counts as thievery just like stealing a million dollars to renovate your McMansion estate does. Maybe it does according to a dictionary definition, but it doesn’t mean these two things are equally objectionable. You have to show that it is.

Every argument you make applies equally well to most of the other candidates (never had a woman, never had a Mormon…).

Well, yeah. Bravo for seeing that. Women being biased towards the woman presidential candidate is justifiable, too. It’s not sexist to want to see a woman get a shot at the presidency and it’s not racist to want to see a black guy get a shot, either.

[John_Mace]

[QUOTE=Frylock]
You keep using words like “solely” and “only” and I keep trying to tell you I’m not talking about situations where someone votes “solely” or “only” because of race. My whole point is that you can vote because of race “plus something,” and thereby be voting “because of race,” and also at the same time not be a racist. Hence you can vote “because of race” and not necessarily thereby be a racist.
[/QUOTE]

OK, delete “solely”. If you are using race to come to any conclusion about the person, then it’s racist. If you are don’t know the guy’s position on some issue, but you assume it will be “x” because of his race, then you are engaging in racism. There are no ifs ands or buts about it.

[XT]

[QUOTE=you with the face]
First off, remove solely from the argument, because 1)no one is saying that
[/QUOTE]

If you are voting for a person who’s skin is black because their skin is black, then no…I won’t be removing ‘solely’ from the argument as it’s pretty much applicable. What you are essentially saying is that if you vote for someone with black skin because they have black skin it’s ok because you have an agenda of why a pol with black skin is important.

Now, if you want to say you are voting for someone who has black skin for reasons OTHER than the color of their skin (like that ‘content of their characters’ stuff)…well, then you are moving beyond the OP at that point.

[QUOTE=you with the face]
2) I hate strawmen.
[/QUOTE]

Damn, lost another irony meter there! It’s funny that you hate them when you don’t seem to know what one is…seeing as how you built one up on the one hand and then mischaracterized one on the other. My argument isn’t a strawman.

[QUOTE=you with the face]
all other things being equal between two candidates, it is a justifiable for a (historically oppressed) minority group to prefer the minority candidate over the majority one. Maybe not rationally justifiable, but emotionally, yes.
[/QUOTE]

Ah…you have changed the goal posts. Now it’s a matter of all things being equal between candidates. When did that come into the discussion? I must have missed the memo.

[QUOTE=you with the face]
There’s nothing inherently racist about this.
[/QUOTE]

Well sure…if you move the goal posts then it’s much easier to score. Of course, there is that pesky ‘all things being equal’ part. How do you quantify ‘equal’? People can use all kinds of terms to represent ‘equal’ in order to justify choice based on that. ‘Well, both candidates are human and male, so all things being equal, I’m going to vote for the Hispanic candidate. See…I’m not racist!’ (btw, just so you know…THAT was a strawman).

[QUOTE=you with the face]
In case there’s any doubt, I believe it takes a blackhole level of density to really not get this.
[/QUOTE]

Myself I think it takes hand waving on the order of danger of lift off in order to make the claim that it’s not racist to vote based solely on the color of someones skin.

[QUOTE=you with the face]
(And I could care less if this offends.)
[/QUOTE]

Well good…we are on the same page then.

[QUOTE=you with the face]
So by my calculations attempting to debate this is going to be a gigantic waste of my time.
[/QUOTE]

You should probably leave before you are sucked into the black hole of logic and rationality. Thus far your hand waving, while cooling things off by sheer air motion, has really been fairly unconvincing except to the faithful.

[QUOTE=you with the face]
I could create a whole bunch of analogies to illustrate what I’m saying, but it would be futile if all people are going to do is counter with silly bromides about MLK and false equivalences between whites and blacks.
[/QUOTE]

Oh, undoubtedly. I’m sure you COULD whip up an argument that would simply blow away the competition and render them teary eyed at your eloquence, totally destroyed by the sheer weight of your mighty arguments. The fact that you have only tried lame assertions by fiat and insults compounded by strawman arguments of the other side is because you just don’t see the point in discussing the subject or listening to those lame ‘bromides about MLK’, punk ass that he was. You should spare yourself (and us) and go to a discussion more worthy of your abilities and effort. Perhaps in The Pit, or MPSIMS…or, maybe another board, ehe?

Ado…may we not meet again under more pleasant circumstances…

-XT

[mlees]

[QUOTE=you with the face]
It’s really not that complicated, come on.

If there’s discrimination going on, how it racist for those being discriminated against to vote in a a way that helps ameliorate that discrimination? Are gay people heterosexist for voting for politicians that speak to their wants and needs?

If people just want to be treated equitably and fairly, their desires should not be equated with those who want the opposite. Doing so may make the math even out in a feel-good kind of way, but its disingenous and blatantly self-serving to those who benefit from status quo.
[/QUOTE]

The racism part creeps in when they think that only a black candidate can fix the problems, and that white candidates will not.

Racism is evidenced by using a broad brush to paint an enitre group of people with a negative stereotype.

It’s OK to vote for Obama because you think he is more likely to be successfull in solving African American issues compared to Hillary or McCain (by comparing the individuals involved).

But it’s not OK to assume that no white candidate will (which is how the OP framed his hypothesis, by naming no names).

[you_with_the_face]

[QUOTE=mlees]
The racism part creeps in when they think that only a black candidate can fix the problems, and that white candidates will not.
[/quote]

So it is racist if you vote for the white candidate who you think can fix black problems? According to Little Nemo’s argument (which my post was in response to), that would be racist.

[JThunder]

[QUOTE=Frylock]
It’s pretty much impossible to vote for someone “solely because he is black.” Such a vote would hardly count as a coherent action.
[/QUOTE]
It would be incoherent, but hardly impossible. People vote incoherently all the time.