While many of us are talking about what Ryan said.
Straw men like this cause me to roll my eyes.
Good evidence has been presented that what Ryan said can reasonably be interpreted as racist, even if he didn’t mean it that way. It’s not the end of the world – if he meant it in a non-racist way, he should have used different language. But it’s reasonable (for the many reasons already asserted) to object to what Ryan said.
Do you feel any moral obligation to give anyone the benefit of the doubt at any time though?
Or can you just look at someone, before they even say anything, and assume they’re guilty? Can you just assume all white people have racist thoughts even if they don’t say anything?
The idea that this is even about presumption of innocence is the disturbing part. It’s about how solid the evidence is. “Blacks are dumb” is pretty good (though as you point out, not perfect) evidence of racism. Other statements are not. There’s no need to presume anyone guilty.
That’s still lame, but at least you’re budging a little.
Hey, while you’re at it, can you explain the concept of Asianness, Hispanicness, manliness and womanliness? And why we should accept those too?
So? I wasn’t. Can you get the difference between a principle and its possible application to a specific case?
It’s not a straw man.
So you agree that “good evidence” is required?
Which is why I said I’m speaking in general terms. I’m not talking about the Ryan case, I’m talking about the way Salon tried to justify presuming the worst in Ryan’s statements without examining them or him defending them.
I think there’s a case to be made that Ryan’s meaning wasn’t racist, but he chose poor words, which it seems you agree is possible. But according to Salon, he’s a racist bastard even if he didn’t “mean it that way.”
I agree with this in general terms. There are many false accusations of racism. A very big problem, of course, is that the very term “racism” is extremely ambiguous. (A thread “Define racism” would have more value than all these other threads put together.)
But I don’t like to waste energy on rhetorical nuance. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, I call it a duck and move on. If we agree Ryan is racist, is it important to decide whether a particular utterance of his is 80% likely to be “racist” or only 60%?
Yes - hence my concern with terms!
This isn’t just about Ryan.
Why do you think there are so many false accusations of racism? It’s not because people just throw it out there for absolutely no reason (though some do), it’s because that “rhetorical nuance” matters, alot. Two people can reasonably disagree about many statements being racist or not. Not all racism is overt, and on the other hand, not all discussion of race is racist. If we can’t handle this discussion, we won’t be able as a society to discuss race at all. And that’s another unfortunate byproduct of this crap - many white people are terrified to talk about race at all because they’re afraid the slightest “rhetorical nuance” will get them branded a KKK member. (You can’t even say “niggardly.”) Is that a good thing? Is that going to help race relations or help fix racial problems?
Sure, quite frequently in face.
Nope, and nope, and I’m not sure where you’re getting this stuff.
In some cases perhaps no, and in some cases, it might be perfectly reasonable. It’s okay if we disagree on which is which for some cases.
Anything to stop the whining 
Manliness and womanliness (masculinity and femininity) certainly exist and could be discussed for hours. I’m not sure about the others, but perhaps they exist as well.
That liberals yell “racism” at every little thing conservatives say? Please. I’m sure Rush Limbaugh says that about liberals, but I don’t know why you would.
Sure… why wouldn’t it be?
I still don’t think you’re understanding the intent of the Salon article, which, as I read it, was to demonstrate why it was reasonable (considering the history of the cultural concept formerly called “whiteness”) that so many people objected to what Ryan said.
Well, then…
Then how’s that square with the Salon statement?
No, you can’t ever presume guilt, because, like you said, that would empower you to just look at someone and know they’re guilty of something.
And there are plenty of people out there who object to concepts like those being used to enforce sex roles or make assumptions about genders, right? One might be frowned on for suggesting that someone’s behavior or thoughts or outlook can be explained by “masculinity” or “womanliness,” right?
I didn’t say it that way. I said “WHEN” liberals yell racism. I wasn’t saying they all do it all the time. But there are incidents when people yell racism when its not appropriate.
Here, this is what I’m talking about - right-wingers dismissing the credibility of liberal cries about racism by pointing to examples of false accusations, including some examples.
Glad you brought up Limbaugh. We should never give him fuel for his show by actually making accusations that aren’t solid.
Ask Salon.
I don’t. If that’s it, it was incredibly poor wording. How can it be “white privilege” to assume innocence? How can one not assume innocence, for everyone? That was a really loony and disturbing statement.
As I read it, they have nothing to do with each other.
Sure, one should never presume guilt with no evidence. Luckily, whenever I presume guilt, I have evidence Like in the case of Ryan.
You’re getting it! Absolutely true! I strongly object to the existence of the cultural concept formerly known as “whiteness” (meaning that I wish it did not exist), and I strongly object when it is used to enforce any cultural racial roles or make assumptions! Wonderful!
Really? A statement about presumption of innocence has nothing to do with presumption of innocence?
Okay, glad we agree. Still don’t see how Salon can say that white privilege = presumption of innocence, with the implication that presumption of innocence is wrong.
Cool! So we agree on that too. Now, back up from “whiteness” to “white privilege.” You see how that term can also unfairly define a white person or enforce cultural roles or make assumptions?
[QUOTE=adaher]
Since you’re stonewalling a little here, I’ll complete this one for you: He was criticizing black culture, which is the sole source of ostracism for black kids who “have a book in their hand”.
And it’s not the only example. His post-racial identity was built on criticisms of black culture.
[/QUOTE]
The short answer is that Obama has the gravitas in the black community to say those words. This anti-government clown who worships at the shrine of Ayn Rand and his own reflection, does not. Those words came positon from a position of derision, if not hate. I don’t believe for a moment that these comments were gaffes; these are purposeful, deliberate political overtures to the racist electorate, a kind of siren-song if you will, to reel them at the polls.
The longer answer is that white people’s concern over black people or their culture is entirely irrelevant and misplaced. Mind your business. White people have their own innumerable issues of self-love and self-acceptance to work on, more importantly, you guys can’t even run a functioning government without having a temper tantrum every two years and shutting it down. You guys - which unsurprisingly includes Ryan - can’t even adequately fund your roads, your education system, or agree on something as humane as health insurance for infants and children, so, please, STFU.
Now you’re getting somewhere. Obama could say what he said because he’s a liberal. And you’re right they were purposeful, but they were not a political overture to racists. There just aren’t enough racists to do well at the polls with them. Paul Ryan worships at the altar of Jack Kemp more than Ayn Rand, and that’s who he’s trying to emulate here. Jack Kemp, despite being a Reagan conservative, also had the gravitas to talk like this on race. Ryan does not, you’re right. But he wants to try.
Um, we kinda live together and we all are working towards the same thing. Sometimes I get the impression that the vast improvement in outlook for African-Americans is threatening to Democrats and so they feel the need to do their best to reverse that progress.
So if Ryan had repeated Obama’s words verbatim when he said basically the same thing, they would cease to be true?
(And does being anti-government and worshipping Ayn Rand make you racist, and therefore everything you say racist?)
Really? Because I hear black leaders frequently invoking white leaders to pay MORE attention to black people and their problems.
I am a liberal Democrat and two-time Obama voter, so having said that, I’ll say this - if blacks want help, they have to accept all of it, and that includes criticism for ways that they hurt themselves. I’m not extending my hand with help just to see someone fritter it away. I understand the racial politics and the resentment of a white person saying it and all that though, so if you don’t like hearing it from Ryan, can you handle it when Obama says the same thing? Is that minding his own business and not just yours?
It’s a great discussion you guys are having, but on one point I have to agree with Honesty and iiandyii: this is not helping the GOP with black voters.
I think that Rand Paul is actually doing a good job, because he’s talking directly to black voters, whereas Paul Ryan was talking to a primarily white crowd about African-American issues. The optics are bad, even if I agree that Republicans are unfairly maligned on the issue.
Yes, Rand Paul has been taking the time to inform black students that Lincoln was a Republican. Came as a real shock to a lot of them, I’m sure.
bolding mine.
No, not at all. Colin Powell could’ve said the same thing.
No, blacks happily vote Democrat. The only thing going against the tide of progress are Republicans who can’t even get behind filling in the new hole in the Voting Right’s Act or passing any laws that may uplift poor Americans. It has become clear that when bills come to the floor that might help blacks, Republicans “array themselves in [an] unbroken phalanx, and vote against every such measure. . . . Why did [they] do it? I answer, because those measures had a tendency to give to the poor Negro his just rights, and because they proposed to knock off his shackles and give him freedom of speech, freedom of action, and the opportunity of education, that he might elevate himself to the dignity of manhood.” I peeled that from a speech given by an African-American Congressman in 1873; it’s same song, different dance.
Black people will never vote for Republicans because we’re not stupid to vote against our own interest. If you doubt that, follow the DC electorate vote since 1964. There has not been one election where we voted against our interest. Not. A. Single. One.
Well, DC could be all male rednecks and they’d vote Democrat, because the Democrats are all about taking the rest of the country’s wealth and transferring it to DC.
Just as a reminder, here’s what Rand Paul, aka the GOP’s new Great White Hope after Christie, has done to reach out to young blacks - basically, to pretend the last fifty years never happened.