Is Al Sharpton as bad and as powerful as the right makes him out to be?

Great Debates
81

The difference is in the naming statement. We have always held that one attacks the post, not the poster. Hence the difference between these two statements:

“You are a bigot.”

And

“That is a bigoted statement.”

We can have debates, but they will not occur with personal attacks and insults. Doing so, indeed, kills the entire concept of rational debate. I know it may sound as a small thing, but keeping a certain distance from oneself is utterly necessary in maintaining a proper debating environment.

82

Yes they should because that would be an inaccurate statement.

Because the Republicans have actually done the things that I’m saying they’ve done. All of your posturing on how I shouldn’t say the things I say because I have to be fair to Republicans fall on deaf ears because what I have said is true. Take a hundred analogies of people dissing women or minorities and it wouldn’t be true. But I can say Republicans support torture and it would be 100% true. Stop pretending that both sides do it, it does a disservice to fighting ignorance. Both sides don’t do it

We have a debate if you accept reality. How is refusing to see facts a call to honest debate? If I said John Wilkes Booth never shot Lincoln, would you debate with me or tell me I’m wrong and that there’s no debate? Same thing with the GOP. They have supported things, done things, said things, that are utterly vile and their leadership does nothing because they can’t or won’t. That is a fact. Saying Republicans do not care about the poor is not a false statement when I can point you to examples like Paul Ryan’s tax plan raising taxes on the poor and middle class while giving the rich tax breaks.

I like debates as much as the next guy but I’m not going to stand here and pretend the GOP are equals to the Dems on morality when its just not true. You want honest debate? Accept reality. Then we can debate

83

Not speaking as a moderator, but I disagree.

It is possible for two people of good faith to disagree on basic interpretations of facts.

Paul Ryan proposed a budget that cuts aid to the poor is fact.

Paul Ryan hates the poor is an interpretation of the REASON behind that fact. To consider ones interpretation as fact is to undermine debate on the facts.

84

This last question was worded too harshly and I apologize and didn’t mean it to come across as accusatory the way I noted how many white liberals tend to ignore anti-Asian racism.

85

Same here.

86

Sharpton is racist. I think of him similar to other attention whores like Gloria Allred. Resist we much, indeed.

87

No it would not be 100% true and you are completely wrong. You are so confident in your wrongness it’s amusing. All it takes is a single self identifying Republican to not support torture and your claim is false. In case it was unclear, you are wrong.

88

WRONG! They would deserve a Warning for personal attacks outside The BBQ Pit, regardless whether the insult was (in your personal opinion) “accurate.”

The notion that one is permitted to insult another poster just because one holds a personal belief about that poster fails on two points:
Insults simply destroy discussion and debate, so they have no place in this forum;
Your personal opinions are not the measure of truth or accuracy.

(Don’t bother trying to establish your views as Truth, because even in the unlikely event that you persuaded me of that opinion, the first point rules out insults, regardless.)

[ /Moderating ]

89

I can agree with your general idea but not with the example. I think we have seen too many Republicans in Congress, conservative pundits in the media, and GOP voters that vote for crazy policies/people that we can come to some kind of conclusion as to their motivations.

If I were to ask you to imagine how we can prove the hypothesis that “Conservatives hate minorities, women, and the poor”, can you imagine how that data would be different from what they’ve freely provided in the last few years? I mean, what else do you want? And don’t anybody say the completely unreasonable “We’d have to have every conservative say unequivocally the phrase “I hate minorities, women, and the poor” to know for sure.” Plate tectonics was proven with less concrete evidence than that.

I’m sorry but the last few years, last few decades, is proof enough. They cannot provide any more definitive proof of their views than the things they have said and done

Its wrong by your criteria. An unreasonable one, at that, that says that unless 100% of Republicans believe in something, then no one can say the phrase “Republicans believe X”. That’s a straw man and nobody’s falling for it. Enough Republicans support torture for the phrase “Republicans support torture” to be true. I’m not going to acquiesce to some arbitrary 100% limit like some made up Senate 60 vote limit on passing bills.

90

It’s not a straw man - You made the categorical statement which you are making again. You are wrong.

Some Republicans support torture = true.
Republicans support torture = not true.

The nuance seems to be lost on you, or you don’t seem to care. But who cares about accuracy when you have ignorance! You are wrong.

91

Its not lost on me. Read what I wrote, I said enough Republicans support torture that I don’t mind damning the whole lot. Tell me, what percentage would satisfy you to make that statement true? 90% 80%? 60%? 51% Give me your criteria, I really want to know

92

The answer there is irrelevant. Grouping all under one definition like that is equivalent t to the old ‘all Jews are greedy’ or ‘all Mexicans will steal’ canard. It’s wrong on the face of it and is not permitted in GD. In effect, you are arguing for the right to prejudge your debating opposition. Note the word ‘prejudge’ there. It’s something you should avoid.

Each person is an individual and should not - and never in Great Debates - be subject to prejudice. Your opinions are yours, and you have a right to them. But you do not have a right to require all others agree with them. If you can’t do that I suggest you avoid Great Debates.

93

Fair enough.
DGF

94

Suppose it can be proved that those are true. Are we still not allowed to say it? Are we not allowed to make sweeping generalizations about any group, from Young Earth Creationists to teenage pop stars to 1930’s era gangsters? I feel that the rules are being redefined as we go along and I’d like some clarification on what’s a sweeping generalization and what is a proper use of a descriptor within a group.

If I cannot make a statement about the GOP in general, can I make one about GOP elected officials? Or GOP elected officials in a state? How about sitting members of the House GOP committee on Science and technology? Or does every single adjective have to mention by name an individual? If your goal is to promote healthy debate, fight ignorance, and all that, don’t you think that a good way to do that is to provide concrete boundaries? I feel that based on this thread, anything I say in the near future will be more closely scrutinized and modded, so in order to prevent that from happening, I’d like better defined lines where I can and cannot cross.

Prejudge seems to point to the capability of coming to some conclusion after vigorous debate. If I can prove that Republicans are a certain way, can I use that descriptor? I can have names and stats for Republican beliefs on global warming, creationism vs. evolution, gender equality, gay marriage, treatment of the poor, taxes, foreign intervention, torture, etc. If I provide enough cites to back up my claims, can I then not prejudge but properly judge them for things they have actually done and said? Debate is great, but endless debate without even coming to a conclusion seems to be the opposite of fighting ignorance. I get that the conservatives are a significant population on this board and you and most other mods and admins probably don’t want to alienate them, but is fighting ignorance served by saying we can never come to a conclusion about them? Again, I’m saying I’m using my beliefs to justify it, there are loads of threads worth of actual data proving they are what I call them. Is evidence not good enough or are we forever to assume they are just another party, equal in every way to liberal Democrats, unable to ever do wrong enough to color their whole group?

There’s that word again, prejudice. It implies I can provide evidence to prove my point once I’ve given it a fair shake. My question to you is, will that be enough for you? That’s why I asked the other guy about the percentages of Republicans that must believe something to agree that the GOP as a whole are being properly colored by a faction’s beliefs. How much of the party must believe something in your eyes for it to matter?

You’re a reasonable person, if 99 out 100 people in a group believe in something, are you really going to stand there and tell me that I cannot say that the group believes in it? You know it works the opposite way right? Not all Christians believe in god, not all Republicans are conservative. Are you saying if I said the GOP is very liberal/very conservative, that those are equal statements to you? That’s unreasonable and I think you know that too

95

Have you been to same Facebook news page I’ve been in? It sometimes comes up with /Jesse Jackson whenever a Black on Black or Black on White crime ever comes up on the news. Sayings like, “Where is Al Sharpton/Jesse Jackson on this?” are repetitive sayings and played out rhetorical questions as some people are aware he is an opportunist jackass and having him comment on anything related to Black people will not make him more of a ideal spokesperson.

Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson aren’t exactly the emperor of Black People, it’s Obama now/sarcasm, no will they listen to his every word. He has a following but spends his time with just talk, his opinions or what he does on race shouldn’t be used as an example of “Black people this or Black people that,” no less than Rush Limbaugh for Conservatives.

Golly, I should just listen to my brain and stop reading Facebook/online news article comments, but I still do, maybe it’s for lulz.

Also actual question, but is Jesse Jackson as worst as old Al here?

96

Then prove it. With cites.

And since you claim:

Prove, with cites, that 99% of the GOP are as bad as you claim.

97

Waiting for the mod to weigh in, cause otherwise it’ll be pointless and I’ll just get warned or something

99 is an example. Doesn’t have to be 99, could be as low as 51. But again, waiting for a mod to weigh in.

98

The idea that Sharpton is created by the focus of white people is a myth created by various saner black people who are embarassed of him.

According to 60 Minutes, Sharpton is now "a trusted White House adviser who has become the president’s go-to black leader campaigning around the country for President Obama and his agenda".

And back when Sharpton was a lot more extreme than he is now, he routinely won large majorities of the black vote in his campaigns for governor of NY State. Cite

99

How many terms did he serve as governor because of that support?

100

What point are you trying to make?