# The racist Tea Party is in love with Herman Cain **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 26, 2011, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-racist-tea-party-is-in-love-with-herman-cain/600876 "2011-10-26T16:57:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2011, 5:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-racist-tea-party-is-in-love-with-herman-cain/600876/121 "2011-10-27T05:53:26Z")
> [@Grumman](#): > > No. It says that 68% of Tea Party members either have one of the other seven Republican candidates as their first choice, or they just don’t have a single first choice yet. Someone who wanted either Cain or Romney but didn’t mind which would be part of that 68%, for example. > > It does _not_ say that 68% of Tea Party members would not support Cain if he was the Republican candidate. If you believe that, you are wrong. Don’t make shit up to blackwash people with the “racism” tag. Amazing, absolutely amazing. Never did I imagine that the poll he used was asking that question. I thought no matter how ideological one is on this forum one would not be so blatantly misleading and dishonest. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2011, 6:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-racist-tea-party-is-in-love-with-herman-cain/600876/122 "2011-10-27T06:02:19Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > Of course not. Illegal Canadians aren’t flooding across the border in the hundreds of thousands, and there are no Canadians encouraging hatred against native born Americans or demanding special consideration or treatment for Canadians based on some bogus claim of victimhood. Nor do Canadians set up insular colonies of their own which become outposts of an alien culture. Their numbers are small enough and their culture is such that white Canadians can be easily absorbed and integrated into the rest our community, while huge numbers of Mexicans make little or no effort to do so and have little or no intention to do so. It is one thing to ask me to accept people of my own physical race and of a closely related culture, and demanding that I must accept people of a different race and substantially different culture who show little or no respect to my own people. > > Mexicans and other Hispanics don’t come here because they want to live in peace and brotherhood with their beloved Anglo neighbors. They come here because they love our money. You really can’t see that? Of course this doesn’t remotely resemble the rhetoric people used to use when talking about Irish immigrants. Beyond that I can’t help but chuckle at how paranoid so many white people are about Hispanic immigrants. Beyond that, thanks for admitting that your problem isn’t **illegal immigrants** but is instead **illegal immigrants that are Hispanic**. Essentially, you just torpedoed your own argument since treating people differently based on their race or ethnicity, I.E. being more afraid of illegal Guatemalan immigrants than illegal Irish immigrants is the vey definition of racism. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2011, 6:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-racist-tea-party-is-in-love-with-herman-cain/600876/123 "2011-10-27T06:11:28Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > It is one thing to ask me to accept people of my own physical race …and demanding that I must accept people of a different race. Exactly how are Canadians of “[your] own physical race” while Mexicans aren’t. Who else is not of “[your] own physical race”? Jews? Italians? Slavs? Arabs? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2011, 11:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-racist-tea-party-is-in-love-with-herman-cain/600876/124 "2011-10-27T11:14:57Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Probably think they’re voting for Don Corleone. Or they’re confusing him with McCain. > [@Buchanan](#): > > Why is it so ignorant and terrible for the Tea Party to be racist (meaning the traditional “holding beliefs that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievements” as opposed to the more current “hate-based” definitions)? The current term they use to describe themselves appears to be [“racial realists”](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_realism). > [@](#): > > For all of western history until 50 years ago, this view was taken for granted. These days, I can’t think of anything which attaches more of a stigma - except perhaps being a pedophile. Humanity continues to advance and evolve, because of the progressives and despite the conservatives, doesn’t it? ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2011, 11:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-racist-tea-party-is-in-love-with-herman-cain/600876/125 "2011-10-27T11:18:55Z")
Using the standards of the OP, [proof that Archie Bunker was not a bigot.](http://www.google.com/imgres?q=archie+bunker+sammy+davis+kiss&hl=en&safe=active&biw=1280&bih=829&gbv=2&tbm=isch&tbnid=BtJcKk81TvZaOM:&imgrefurl=http://archives.thedailydose.com/2010/the-daily-dose-Saturday,_2010-04-03,_02:38.html&docid=39kITs1E6pvxSM&imgurl=http://thedailydose.com/lll/externals/sammy-davis-archie-bunker-kiss.jpg&w=709&h=480&ei=6D2pTu3BHsfh0QGCh5j1DQ&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=378&sig=100672144537186510035&page=1&tbnh=151&tbnw=184&start=0&ndsp=22&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0&tx=156&ty=104) ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2011, 11:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-racist-tea-party-is-in-love-with-herman-cain/600876/126 "2011-10-27T11:22:46Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > Who else is not of “[your] own physical race”? > > Jews? Italians? Slavs? Arabs? Martians. The tentacles are a dead giveaway. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2011, 12:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-racist-tea-party-is-in-love-with-herman-cain/600876/127 "2011-10-27T12:17:32Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > We have no information whatever about the other 68%. The news item only supports the conclusion that 32% are not racist.Absolutely unsupportable by the information you supplied. In what specific way was my reasoning flawed? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2011, 12:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-racist-tea-party-is-in-love-with-herman-cain/600876/128 "2011-10-27T12:22:26Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > Using the standards of the OP, [proof that Archie Bunker was not a bigot.](http://www.google.com/imgres?q=archie+bunker+sammy+davis+kiss&hl=en&safe=active&biw=1280&bih=829&gbv=2&tbm=isch&tbnid=BtJcKk81TvZaOM:&imgrefurl=http://archives.thedailydose.com/2010/the-daily-dose-Saturday,_2010-04-03,_02:38.html&docid=39kITs1E6pvxSM&imgurl=http://thedailydose.com/lll/externals/sammy-davis-archie-bunker-kiss.jpg&w=709&h=480&ei=6D2pTu3BHsfh0QGCh5j1DQ&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=378&sig=100672144537186510035&page=1&tbnh=151&tbnw=184&start=0&ndsp=22&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0&tx=156&ty=104) First of all, let me thank those of you who supposedly favor evidence-based debate for clamping down on your own side when they do things like this. It means that I have to respond to your actual posts, and also waste time answering these things. The link shows the famous scene from “All in the Family” where guest-star Sammy Davis Jr. plants a smooch on Archie Bunker’s (Carroll O’Connor) face. Archie’s expression is not joy. We have plenty of evidence from which to conclude that Archie is a racist. “The standards of the OP” are that we should use available evidence to reach conclusions. Thus, by the standards of the OP, we can conclude Archie is a racist. Perhaps **BobLibDem** meant that by applying the standards of the OP only to this picture, what conclusions can we reach? In that case, he is correct: using only the evidence of this photo, we cannot conclude Archie Bunker is a racist. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2011, 12:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-racist-tea-party-is-in-love-with-herman-cain/600876/129 "2011-10-27T12:49:45Z")
And to the actual evidence-based debaters: The general answer, if I might be permitted my own summary, to “OK, how do we falsify the proposition?” has been to imagine targeted research. I agree that this is a good answer. But I will also point out that the contrary proposition seems to have been established without such research. (I will concede that one link has mentioned such research, but no details about it have been given.) In other words, the usual formula is that the proponent of a claim has the burden of proof. In this case, you’re asking that targeted research, carefully worded questions asked of statistically representative samples, be the standard used to falsify the proposition. I say to you: shouldn’t that be the standard necessary to establish the proposition? ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2011, 12:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-racist-tea-party-is-in-love-with-herman-cain/600876/130 "2011-10-27T12:51:19Z")
If the evidence-based debate line was directed at me, I did respond to BLDs nonsense earlier. Both his recent post and your annoyed post occurred while I was offline. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2011, 12:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-racist-tea-party-is-in-love-with-herman-cain/600876/131 "2011-10-27T12:53:52Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Not in a vacuum, no. > > But let’s reason this out a bit. We’re assuming that 32% of the Tea Party are egalitarian, and the other 68% racist. > > How is it that the 32% would go uniformly to Cain? That is, all other things being equal amongst the egalitarians, we’d expect to see the same sort of uniform distribution among them – Cain favored, but not uniformly, and other support distributed among other candidates, right? > > And among the 68%, Cain would be eliminated as a possibility due to his race, so their distribution of support would be among the others in similar proportion to the 32%. > > That doesn’t make sense. > > To get to 32% that support Cain, you must concede that a majority are not racists, or posit that Cain is so oibviously the best choice that no reasonable person would choose another candidate, except on racial grounds. Isn’t there a factor at work here you are ignoring that would tend to overstate support for Cain amongst non-racist tea partiers? As you are so found of saying, correctly, things don’t happen in a vacuum. These polls are taken against a backdrop of accusations that the tea party is racist. So, wouldn’t you agree there is an incentive for undecided people who dislike these accusations to pledge meaningless support in a poll to Cain? ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2011, 12:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-racist-tea-party-is-in-love-with-herman-cain/600876/132 "2011-10-27T12:54:22Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > Using the standards of the OP, proof that Archie Bunker was not a bigot. > [@Bricker](#): > > First of all, let me thank those of you who supposedly favor evidence-based debate for clamping down on your own side when they do things like this. Hmm, this is unusual for a **Bricker** gotcha thread. Typically he cites alleged error, hypocrisy or other perfidy committed by some left-of-center person or group with the implication that it’s typical of the breed, inviting the remainder of the clan to join in denunciation and shame that their cause has been sullied, after which **Bricker** can thank those brave enough to admit their flaws while sneering at apologists (i.e. those who have a different take on the matter). But now even the brave, honest few who “clamp down” on the errant ways of their brethren are to be doubted, for they only “supposedly” favor evidence-based debate (while sneakily promulgating something else entirely, it would appear). Gee, they can’t win no matter what they do. I weep for the incivility of our political discourse. :(😃 ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2011, 1:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-racist-tea-party-is-in-love-with-herman-cain/600876/133 "2011-10-27T13:06:23Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I say to you: shouldn’t that be the standard necessary to establish the proposition? If what established the proposition was anecdote, experience, and inconclusive statistics, then the properly framed equal and opposite counter-argument is counter-anecdotes, an alternate life experience, and other inconclusive statistics. Since that’s not generally possible, it usually just requires some kind of more rigorous study. Consider Sam, my neighbor. He’s an old coot. He firmly believes that juvenile crime is skyrocketing because of parental neglect. He’s lived in the neighborhood for 60 years, and sees things he’s never seen before like 14-year-olds wandering the streets unattended. He hears news stories about gangs of youths beating people up, among other pieces of anecdotal data. It’s a more intricate web of evidence than this, but you get the idea. Now, I happen to know that juvenile crime is actually down in my area overall. And I were so inclined, I could probably show him the comprehensive studies and maybe persuade him. But under your standard, I should be able to persuade him with anecdotes and inconclusive studies about juvenile free time or some such. I don’t think that’s reasonable. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2011, 1:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-racist-tea-party-is-in-love-with-herman-cain/600876/134 "2011-10-27T13:13:55Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > If the evidence-based debate line was directed at me, I did respond to BLDs nonsense earlier. > > Both his recent post and your annoyed post occurred while I was offline. You among others. There’s a group of people debating, and a smaller group interrupting the debate with contentless posts like that. When I respond, the inference to the casual reader is that my opposition arises from my underlying position in the debate. When you, or someone else who’s arguing the actual proposition disclaims drivel, it’s a stronger rebuke – not to the person posting the drivel, but to the lurker reading it all. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2011, 1:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-racist-tea-party-is-in-love-with-herman-cain/600876/135 "2011-10-27T13:16:23Z")
> [@villa](#): > > Isn’t there a factor at work here you are ignoring that would tend to overstate support for Cain amongst non-racist tea partiers? As you are so found of saying, correctly, things don’t happen in a vacuum. These polls are taken against a backdrop of accusations that the tea party is racist. > > So, wouldn’t you agree there is an incentive for undecided people who dislike these accusations to pledge meaningless support in a poll to Cain? That’s an interesting point. Yes, I suppose there is such an incentive. I have no idea how to measure it, but I agree it’s probably non-zero – there’s at least one or two people who might say to themselves, “I don’t have any favored candidate yet, but I don’t hate Cain, and saying ‘Cain’ will put a stick in the eye of those folsk that call us racists, so… ‘Cain!’” This observation weakens my argument, but I don’t think it disposes of it. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2011, 1:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-racist-tea-party-is-in-love-with-herman-cain/600876/136 "2011-10-27T13:20:12Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > If what established the proposition was anecdote, experience, and inconclusive statistics, then the properly framed equal and opposite counter-argument is counter-anecdotes, an alternate life experience, and other inconclusive statistics. Since that’s not generally possible, it usually just requires some kind of more rigorous study. > > Consider Sam, my neighbor. He’s an old coot. He firmly believes that juvenile crime is skyrocketing because of parental neglect. He’s lived in the neighborhood for 60 years, and sees things he’s never seen before like 14-year-olds wandering the streets unattended. He hears news stories about gangs of youths beating people up, among other pieces of anecdotal data. It’s a more intricate web of evidence than this, but you get the idea. Now, I happen to know that juvenile crime is actually down in my area overall. And I were so inclined, I could probably show him the comprehensive studies and maybe persuade him. > > But under your standard, I should be able to persuade him with anecdotes and inconclusive studies about juvenile free time or some such. I don’t think that’s reasonable. It is reasonable, in a sense. But you’re right: it won’t work, “reason” aside. I guess I’m asking folks here to be more reasonable than Sam. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2011, 1:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-racist-tea-party-is-in-love-with-herman-cain/600876/137 "2011-10-27T13:26:54Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > That’s an interesting point. > > Yes, I suppose there is such an incentive. I have no idea how to measure it, but I agree it’s probably non-zero – there’s at least one or two people who might say to themselves, “I don’t have any favored candidate yet, but I don’t hate Cain, and saying ‘Cain’ will put a stick in the eye of those folsk that call us racists, so… ‘Cain!’” > > This observation weakens my argument, but I don’t think it disposes of it. Back in the day, I think support for Jesse Jackson was overstated in polls. There were those who wanted to support the idea of a viable black candidate, and those who wanted to counter three image of racism. There were also those with a more malicious agenda -overstating support for the black man can be ideas to benefit a particular candidate. Don’t split the vote our we get a black guy… Now, I’m by no means saying this explains all our even a majority of this support. It may be tiny. But I think it is a jump to assume that 30% support inn a poll translates to the death of the idea that the Tea Party is heavily populated by racists. ---
**Author:** ![Buchanan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/edb3f5/32.png) [@Buchanan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buchanan)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2011, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-racist-tea-party-is-in-love-with-herman-cain/600876/138 "2011-10-27T13:37:39Z")
> [@SpoilerVirgin](#): > > Because it’s ignorant and terrible. Ignorant because we now know better, and stubbornly holding on to beliefs that are untrue is ignorant, and this site is all about fighting ignorance. Terrible because the consequences of such beliefs are so bad for so many people, and not just for the groups deemed “inferior.” Can you give me a cite for the claim that racism is ignorant? In fact, science hasn’t changed: someone’s race is a statistically significant indicator of many things beyond skin color (and I don’t mean just the PC-acceptable differences like susceptibility to hypertension and Sickle-Cell Anemia, explosive athletic power as required for football runningbacks and basketball fowards, etc.). Or perhaps it is just coincidence that in nearly every IQ test devised in the last 100 years, ethnic groups’ means and standard deviations are quite similar? Or that in the US in 1988, there were 9,406 cases of black-on-white rape and fewer than 10 cases of white-on-black rape (cite: William Wilbanks, who derived all stats from DOJ data, as published in "Frequency and Nature of Interracial Crimes,"Justice Professional (November 7, 1990)…and that these ratios don’t vary much across which which year you choose, which western country you select, or which violent crime you are interested in…? To me, not drawing valid conclusions based on group membership due to observed propensity for certain behaviors is ignorant and wishful thinking. > [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > Of course this doesn’t remotely resemble the rhetoric people used to use when talking about Irish immigrants. > > Beyond that I can’t help but chuckle at how paranoid so many white people are about Hispanic immigrants. > > Beyond that, thanks for admitting that your problem isn’t **illegal immigrants** but is instead **illegal immigrants that are Hispanic**. > > Essentially, you just torpedoed your own argument since treating people differently based on their race or ethnicity, I.E. being more afraid of illegal Guatemalan immigrants than illegal Irish immigrants is the vey definition of racism. Illegal immigrants that are Hispanic, as a group, have different behaviors than irish illegal immigrants. One such behavior is incarceration rate. It is reasonable to therefore discriminate in country of origin. > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Or they’re confusing him with McCain. > > The current term they use to describe themselves appears to be [“racial realists”](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_realism). Humanity continues to advance and evolve, because of the progressives and despite the conservatives, doesn’t it? Let me know if you can find any flaws in that race realism philosophy, will you? ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2011, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-racist-tea-party-is-in-love-with-herman-cain/600876/139 "2011-10-27T13:43:24Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > You among others. There’s a group of people debating, and a smaller group interrupting the debate with contentless posts like that. When I respond, the inference to the casual reader is that my opposition arises from my underlying position in the debate. When you, or someone else who’s arguing the actual proposition disclaims drivel, it’s a stronger rebuke – not to the person posting the drivel, but to the lurker reading it all. I agree with this in principle, which is why I criticized him earlier in the thread. In practice, time is limited, and we choose our battles to maximize whatever is we try to get out of this message board. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2011, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-racist-tea-party-is-in-love-with-herman-cain/600876/140 "2011-10-27T13:43:42Z")
Well that’s this thread done. (referring to the post before Mr. Parker’s) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-racist-tea-party-is-in-love-with-herman-cain/600876.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-racist-tea-party-is-in-love-with-herman-cain/600876.md?page=8)