:eek: Partisans?! They’re going to take to the hlls and form a guerilla army?!
But equally conservative blacks are not?
I feel sorry for all the mal-aligned conservative blacks/Cubans/Mexicans/Samoans/Egyptians/Tanzanians/Koreans, et al, that have effectively been called racist, along with conservative Caucasians, by the ignorant, circular reasoning of this OP.
I should know better and stay away from these regressively intelligent discussions.
No, but Black Nationalists, Black Separatists, and the Nation of Islam sure as hell are racists. (And KlanWatch keeps tabs on them as hate groups, same as on the Klan, etc.) As for black Tea Partiers . . . not enough of them to discuss, are there?
. . . oxymorons.
You said it, thanks for the fulfillment.
Thank my after you’ve worked out what I said. The dictionary is your friend. And “regressively intelligent” is an oxymoron, if not completely meaningless.
Exactly my point, thanks so much for your wisdom.
You coined the phrase. You explain what it means.
Gotta go eat supper.
There’s a difference between a person having negative stereotypes about a group and a person having an active hatred and loathing for a group. Does the Tea Party have a hidden agenda to pass laws that undermine civil rights, or discriminate against a particular racial group? Face it - the Tea Party is a group that was formed to protest against certain economic policies that are related to government in general.
There are many people who are racist in the Tea Party, but they are fellow travelers who don’t really have any voice in the organization. The question that is pertinent is not what certain people in the Tea Party think about race, but whether their thoughts on that issue, if biased, will translate into discriminatory policy based on race. The answer is a clear no.
Imagine if you’re taking a reading comprehension/verbal reasoning exam and are asked to identify the “main idea” of what the Tea Party is about. If you circle the answer “race,” you know that you’re going to get that question wrong. There is no need to bring sociology and psychology into an economics debate; to do so is superfluous and pretty much irrelevant.
There is a difference, yes. But both are still racism. The ocean and a mud puddle are vastly different, but they are both still bodies of water.
As Malcolm Gladwell points out in Blink, humans are very good at pattern recognition and making quick judgments using those patterns. I suppose you could lobotomise people to stop them doing this, but I doubt it will happen.
This is relevant how?
I was commenting on the comment above about stereotypes being racist. In that case everyone is a racist.
Also, if you are on the look out for some racists look at revealed preferences rather than avowed preferences. For instance, dating choices, school choices, residential choices. The phenomenon of “white flight” isn’t limited to Tea Baggers 
Read the quote in the OP. It ain’t a description of “everyone.”
I was commenting on Randvek’s comment.
Nitpick: that’s a Libertarian POV, not a racist one.
Really? I thought it was Hillary’s campaign that started it.
So racists have given up on not allowing blacks to vote. But they’re still trying to hold the line on blacks getting elected.
This is the thing. There’s no acceptable minimum of racism. It’s not a matter of “We used to be ninety percent racist and now we’re only fifty percent racist. We deserve a lot of credit, right? So can we ease up now?” No, we don’t ease up. It’s nice we’re heading in the right direction but we don’t get to stop now that we’re moving.
We don’t stop at fifty percent racism. Or twenty percent racism. Or ten percent or five percent or one percent. The acceptable amount of racism is zero. That’s when we stop.
Not to speak for the group as a whole, but the Tea Partier whose car I was behind a week or so ago, with the pro Tea Party bumper stickers, and the “Don’t Re-Nig” sticker, I’d say was pretty definitely a racist.