Great. Thanks for helping, Buchanan.
The problem with this approach is that uses the fallacy of the general rule. It is an invidious inference to ascribe to an individual negative characteristics of the group he belongs to, even if it can be said that more than 50% of his group has those characteristics.
But hey – I certainly appreciate your great contributions to this thread. Stop helping now, mmmkay?
Willingness to vote for a black candidate is, at best, weak evidence against claims of racism, for reasons that the entirety of the messageboard has dogpiled on in the intervening 24 hours since I made my post.
Some people don’t know Herman Cain is black. (Seriously. A number of the people I’ve talked to have heard his name, but never seen his face.) Thus, racists who are simply ignorant. Some people would be willing to vote for “one of them blacks” provided that his policy positions suit them. Racists willing to compromise their racism for ideology. Some don’t like most blacks, but ‘this one’s okay’. Some might prefer him to ‘prove’ their not racist. Some might choose him ‘tactically’ to try and even out any racial factors in the general election. And I bet a few Tea Partiers actually aren’t racist. But we can’t make any kind of inference from this evidence.
Racism is not a binary behavior switch. If you are racist against black people it does not mean you must invariably oppose them in whatever they do. It means that absent other factors, you are far more likely to do so - but in an election, there are lots of other factors.
And no, the one-line rebuttal is not misplaced - the “some of my best friends are..” line is not usually a lie, in my experience, so much as it is a self-delusional defense mechanism to assure oneself one is not racist. The statement is objectively false, but the speaker believes it to some degree or another.
And then the 6th-grade teacher slaps your desk and wakes you, “Pay attention, boy, pay attention!. Do you want to remain stupid your whole life?”
I’ll leave it to the peanut gallery to decide if I’m stupid or not.
I note that you don’t attempt rebuttal, but simply distraction.
Not so fast. You asked if he hated them with the “same passion”. Given that the comparative size of the problem and the lack of Canadian hate-America groups or movements seeking to take over large swaths of the U.S., it would be odd in the extreme if the illegals coming from Canada would spark the same passions as those coming from the southern border.
But since you seem so concerned with this, can you show how big this problem is of Canadian citizens sneaking into the U.S. What do the numbers look like? 3? 4? 12? 100? 0?
Are you telling me that their are no racists who follow the NFL? Or listen to and like popular US music?
Here’s the thing - racism isn’t rational and it’s an opinion held by stupid and\or the ignorant.
Er…he said he didn’t like them in part because they weren’t of his “own physical race”.
I’d like to know what he considers his “own physical race”.
Norwegians, Jamaicans, Jews, Chinese, Irish, Italians, Greeks, Arabs, Iranians?
A substantive rebuttal to this:
[QUOTE=Lobohan]
This is the part where the DA smiles, looks at the jury, and says, “No further questions, your honor.”
[/QUOTE]
?!!!
My God, you really are an imbecile!! Now why don’t you go back and rebut Lonesome Polecat’s response to you, rather than attempt to “distract” or dismiss it?
Unbelievable.
But you didn’t point that out until a subsequent post. Still, without getting into a major hijack regarding the validity of “race”, he was obviously using the term to point to Hispanics as a distinct group, and he didn’t say race exclusively, but used “race and culture”. That makes it clear what he’s talking about. And then he even goes to explain why. It would really be helpful if you wouldn’t go down the tiresome road of extracting tiny snippets from someone’s fuller points intent on playing a desperate game of gotcha.
By the way, your list above brings nationalities into the discussion about race. Which one are you trying to discuss?
Except that it is not a race among equals. It is a race between the Black Guy and the Cultist, who are both spouting the same party line. The question then is which do the racist, Christian tea partiers hate more: the Black Guy or the Morman? Since most of the primary season has been about them trying to find a NOT-Romney to run, I am guessing that Mormon and Liberal-esque is more of a problem then a Black Guy who says the right things. Notice that Cain did not get traction until all the other NOT-Romney’s currently in the race flamed out.
You’re not in the Pit here. Be very careful about personal remarks like this. Saying a post is incorrect is allowed; calling a poster dishonest is strongly discouraged.
Personal insults like this are not allowed here. This is a formal warning not to do this again.
I wasn’t trying to “help you”, I was sharing my opinion. My point was that race provides information which is valuable to consider, given propensities of groups of which I pointed out only one related to crime.
I’ll wait for a cite which disproves my assertions rather than just being told it is “terrible” or “ignorant”.
They haven’t voted for him yet, and there are plenty of racist teabaggers, if not the majority. But they are not admitting that they are racist, in fact they are denying it. Despite the signs and birtherism.
When the time comes to vote, I can’t imagine that Cain will break 30 percent.
I absolutely refuse to believe (absent more compelling evidence) that any statistically significant number of Tea Party supporters don’t know Herman Cain in black.
That aside, your other objections return us to this point: the common-sense response to the charge of racism in the group is to point out that the single candidate with the lion’s share of their support is black. No matter how closely he espoused their positions, I can’t imagine the KKK or the Neo-Nazis supporting a black leader.
Your charge, then, is that there’s a weak-tea racism afoot, one that sublimates itself to more substantive issues, like policy.
If true, how could we disprove it? Carefully crafted research? Interviews with polygraph verification?
And more to the point: why does the side disproving it have that burden? The charge of racism is made, and seemingly stuck, on rumor, hearsay, and innuendo, while the challenge to disprove it requires pure science, ready for peer review.
That seems unbalanced to me.
The cite is the Fallacy Of The General Rule. It doesn’t disprove your assertion, but rather shows it to be logically fallacious, leaving you with no assertion at all, since the burden is on you, the proponent, to demonstrate the truth of your claim.
Didn’t have to be you.
“Voting reform and the existence of the Tea Party are both reactions to one thing, and one thing only: A black man in the White House.”
Or:
“Right now, the Tea Party is seen by conservatives as a strong, viable venture, and liberals as a bunch of insane racists trying to foment armed revolution.” (Granted, this post doesn’t directly advance the truth of the racism claim – merely the claim that liberals see the Tea Party as racists.)
Yes, I’m sure the hard-core racist purists in the Tea Party found one of the other candidates to vote for. What’s your point? No one said the Tea Party was the KKK. Again, racism is not a binary on/off switch.
How about the polls that have already been presented to you that prove the Tea Party is more racist than the general population? It’s hard to disprove something that’s true.
Willingness to vote for a black candidate doesn’t mean you’re not racist. Guess what? Some of the Democrats who voted for Obama are racist too. My ‘charge’ is that your fundamental premise for your OP is based on flawed logic. And now you’re scrambling around trying to find a new place to draw a line so you can engage in your usual tactics, but no one is playing that game.
I agree- although it’s worth pointing out that several Klan groups supported Obama because they thought a black president might scare enough whites to kick off their racial holy war.
However, the KKK and Neo-Nazis are equivalent to single-issue voters. Even if we accept the premise that the Tea Party is racist, most of us do not believe that the Tea Party is primarily racist. Members might object to Obama because he’s black, but people who are able to function normally in a mixed-race society are unlikely to go out and protest just because he’s black.
Obviously, that would not be the case for Klansmen.
Put another way, I have a certain level of antipathy for any pro-life electoral candidate. That doesn’t mean I won’t vote for one if I support his other positions. Considering the quality of the current Republican field, and the fact that ~23% of Republican voters won’t vote for a Mormon, it’s certainly not inconceivable that some- or even many- are holding their noses and supporting the negro.
Oops. My apologies. I was posting here and in the Pit and got the two fora confused.
Though, I think a lighter moderation slap should have been used. Things like this happen. Again, though, my apologies.
You got off easy. Had it been TomnDeb, you’d have been in for a severe but calmly stated scolding!