Is that the default setting for black people in the USA? I don’t accept your characterization about that being the default setting in the USA, but that doesn’t even matter. We’re not talking about “the USA”. We’re talking about a black man. A black man who lives in the South. And you’re telling us that based on a few minutes of YOUTUBE video, you can know whether he knows what racism is or not.
Sorry, not buying it. You need a better argument than that if you want to convince us that Roof’s black friend doesn’t know what racism is.
His “friend” just slaughtered nine people because they were black. If someone can’t recognize this as the cold-blooded act of a racist, then they are mentally handicapped. Whether they be black or white. But I suppose I can give a kid a pass. Maybe this black guy hasn’t been raised right.
Of course you don’t “buy” what I’m saying. You hardly ever do when it comes to this subject.
How will the arrest and trial proceed differently if the Republican nominees say “Yes it was definitely racism - no doubt about it, racismracismracism” instead of “it looks like it but we will know more after the facts come out”. Please be specific about the effect such “leadership” will have.
You assume that the only thing we should do as a society in response to an event like this is prosecute the guy. Others of us think that this event raises other troubling questions that deserve social attention and response.
Naturally, if someone other than a white supremacist commits mass violence in the name of a political ideology, you have no problem with politicians discussing responses beyond prosecuting that single individual. Not sure why you’d have a different standard here.
Actually, no. I said everyone, including those guys, should STFU up in the immediate aftermath of such incidents. It was you who then inferred it was about due process. Yes, that could be part of it, but the point I was trying to make is exactly what I said: What good is served by this? (Emphasis added). I think it’s pretty obvious that it just feeds the political bickering that is SOP in this country.
Again, let’s not put too much emphasis on the due process aspect here. It could be a problem (as I said, if everyone jumps on the bandwagon), but I’m just not seeing what good is achieved. Grieve with the families. Assure then that justice will prevail.
But here’s the thing. You don’t have to wait years. There are trials in process all the time, and you’ve got juries reaching verdicts as often as you have these types of crimes being committed.
I’m not sure how you get that I think politicians should be saying stuff like that when I’ve said I think they should STFU several times. But since you asked, no I wouldn’t like it if some lone whack-job in the US shot up a Synagogue and everyone jumped around screaming “Islamic extremism, we need to stop it NOW”, because they most likely would be doing things I don’t want done. Things like wiretapping more phones, profiling more people, and feeding into the fears that Americans already have about the muslims living here.
I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make. My point is that if politicians were real leaders, they’d figure out a way to push these policy proposals all the time, not just when tragedy strikes. It doesn’t take a “leader” to decry the killing of innocent people in a church. It does take a leader to slog through the much less glamorous process of actually enacting policy changes.
I judge leadership by what is accomplished, not by what is said. I would LOVE for someone to take a leadership role and get some real gun control measures in place. But that takes a LOT more than “leadership” than making a speech every time tragedy strikes.
I don’t know why you keep saying he didn’t say that. Here’s the quote from HuffPost:
If you want to claim that that is not ALL he said, fine. I already acknowledged that. Yes, afterwards, he said it didn’t happen at the same frequency. SO WHAT? He still tried to pull the gun control card (which I don’t even think is the appropriate policy issue here) and ended up saying something that sounded stupid. And it does sound kind of stupid, even if you include the second part of what he said. The US is, after all, much larger than most other advanced countries. Why would these things not happen at a higher frequency in the US then in your typical European country? We have a large number of states that have more people in them than your average European country does.
That’s fine, and I think you know I have great respect for you on this MB. Definitely in my top 10 list of posters here. Still, I don’t think I’m posting bullshit, but I appreciate the input.
Again, if he’s that stupid, why are you so eager to say that we should believe anything else he has to say? Usually, people aren’t only stupid about one thing.
That’s not fair at all, and I don’t think it’s true. I often find your posts to be insightful and informative. I may not always agree with you on matters of race, but it’s not a rare occurrence when I do.
The point is not that because the black friend says Roof wasn’t racist he wasn’t racist. Obviously, Dylann Roof was virulently, obsessively, racist.
The point is that people who think that because those who heard him rant didn’t go to the police shows that there is a “racist culture” that provided “tacit support” for Roof’s. That’s just stupid. Unless you include Roof’s black friend as part of that “racist culture”. Did that friend look like a racist in those youtube videos to you?
They didn’t go to police precisely because those rants were outlandish enough that they didn’t take them seriously. That’s the opposite of “racist culture”.
The fact that people would find the existence of a virulent racist to be so outlandish as to be unbelievable is a consequence of racism, not it’s opposite.
Why would the kid lie about Roof’s plan to attack a college?! Why are you so intent on playing the skeptic? What are your motives here?
I don’t know what your intentions are in this thread. The fact that Republicans have been prevaricating and hedging for the past few days is unquestionable to me. The fact that this fits into a larger pattern of them downplaying and dismissing charges of racism is unquestionable to me. The fact that you seem to think that all of this is just another liberal delusion is crazy to me. Right now, I am feeling like you are no better than any of the other conservative fools that populate this board–the ones I “discount” because they routinely act as if they don’t know what racism is. I’ve long respected you as a poster, but I’m feeling different today.
I totally agree – I think the crazy talk was mostly ignored because similar discussions are so unfortunately common. I heard it (support for separation of the races, support for the Confederacy, and extremely racist assertions about black people) in my youth in Louisiana and Arkansas, and I heard it in my adulthood in the Navy.
Yes, yes, yes, you are going to be able to find some Republicans who think racism is over. My question was more along the lines with if that is a fair characterization of the party as a whole. And again, I think one needs to distinguish between legal, institutionalized racism and the kind of racism we see every day in our private lives.
Those both link to the same cite, and talk about “whites”, not “Republicans”. I did see, though, that you cite says:
That article is about different perceptions between blacks and whites, not Republicans and Democrats. And it’s not about whether blacks are right or whites are white-- it’s about how both groups view the same things differently.
There’s obv. a name for this psychological condition because a chunk of the population have friends/people they grew up with they like yet at the same time hate the culture/‘race’ they are from.
Really, none of you people know people like that? They’re not so bright but there’s plenty of them i.e. ‘you’re not like all the others’, 'some of my best friends are black but …!
I never said the kid would lie. I said if he was as stupid as you said he was, I’d discount anything he said. Not because he’s a lier, but because he’s an idiot.
As for my motives, if you want to come out and say something, please do. But I think it’s generally frowned upon to question someone’s motives in this forum.
Well, tomndebb pretty much said the same thing I did. Why don’t you jump down his throat for awhile.
Based on the many Republican elected officials and other prominent figures who have said such things without sanction by the party, I think it’s fair to say that the opinion is considered acceptable by the party as a whole, whether or not the opinion is actually shared in general by the party as a whole.
Well, I didn’t make the claim, so I’m not sure what that person was using for evidence. I’d say it’s up to him to present his evidence and then we can see if it stand up to scrutiny.
It might be fair to say that most believe legal, institutionalized racism has been eliminated. But I don’t think it’s fair to say they don’t believe there are still racists in the US. Those are two very different things. I think the Rosa Parks tweet that monstro linked to is a good example of that. (Not a tweet from RP, a tweet about her.)
It appears that they’ve found his website along with his Unabomber-like manifesto. Just as expected, it’s full of hate and invective, all based on racism. It’s called lastrhodesian.com and registered to Roof.
Think that will be enough to convince Fox and the Republican candidates to say the word racism, or will they continue to contort themselves into pretzels to avoid using that word?
Should be interesting.
(Bloody picture on splash page, but clearly fake and not graphic anyway)
You have the choice in a discussion to interpret others’ words in a hyperliteral manner in order to make them ludicrous, or to try to understand what they actually meant.
Nobody, of course, claims that “racism no longer exists” and means it literally: everyone knows there’s at least one racist asshole out there.
The chart shows that 67% of Democrats, and only 39% of Republicans, agree that racism against black people is widespread in the US.
Now, you may continue interpreting folks hyperliterally. But if you’re capable of figuring out what people actually mean, or even of asking questions genuinely intended to clarify, I think the discussion will waste less time.