PDA

View Full Version : Apparently, if you notice these things you’re just being a hateful racist


AemJeff
07-11-2011, 04:41 PM
h/t edroso (http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2011/07/ooga_booga_righ.php), who notes:

You probably know that, over the past few decades, crime rates in America's major cities have dropped sharply (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13799616). New York, which was once a symbol of urban menace, is particularly safe (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-13/new-york-city-remains-safest-big-u-s-city-as-crime-drops-5-mayor-says.html), and tourists freely roam Bed-Stuy and Central Park at night. Even historically troubled Oakland has recently seen its crime rates fall (http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2011/01/03/oakland-homicide-rate-continues-steady-decline/).

But nevetheless our brave RightBloggers can find a way to interpret a few incidents in a way that isn't "Raaaaaacist!" at all!

Apparently, if you notice these things you’re just being a hateful racist

Another “Mysterious” Flashmob Swarms & Destroys a Dunkin’ Donuts in Manhattan (http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/05/another-mysterious-flashmob-swarms-destroys-a-dunkin-donuts-in-manhattan-video/)


When I saw the Drudge headline that a group of teens rioted in a Manhattan Dunkin’ Donuts shop, I knew before I saw the video “who” those rioting punks were going to be. And so did you. And…yep…they’re a bunch of black kids, acting like animals and criminals while terrorizing the public.

Pack of Black Thugs Destroy a NY Dunkin’ Donuts Store…Just Because They Can (http://urbangrounds.com/2011/05/blacks-destroy-dunkin-donuts/)


The missing word is “black,” These aren’t “kids,” they are black kids - which seems to be the case with almost all of these sorts of attacks popping up on YouTube

Teens Target Manhattan Businesses (http://dailypundit.com/?p=41428)


The Frankenstein monster of perpetually aggrieved blacks who have been brainwashed into considering themselves entitled to anything and everything is breaking loose from the liberal social engineering laboratory. Since it's racist to examine the nature of these crimes, don't expect to see them solved, much less prevented.
How to Shop for Donuts in Fundamentally Transformed America (http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2011/05/how-to-shop-for.html)

Of course no such collection would be complete without an offering from Stacy:

Writing something like that should elicit accusations of “raaaaacism” — from white liberals who wouldn’t dare set foot in Milwaukee after dark. Liberals constantly patrol the Internet looking for opportunities to shriek “raaaaacist” at conservatives, rather than concerning themselves with the actual (and more dangerous) racism of “youths” engaged in mob violence.

Vox Day’s blog has never punched anybody in the face. Or looted a convenience store, for that matter. Just sayin’ . .
Milwaukee Celebrated 4th of July With Fireworks, Looting, Racial Mob Violence (http://theothermccain.com/2011/07/06/milwaukee-celebrated-4th-of-july-with-fireworks-looting-racial-mob-violence/)

Can I get a "Heh!?" Well, whaddaya know?

Welcome, Instapundit readers (http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/123802/)!

These guys just can't seem to help it! Or maybe they're just misunderstood.

sugarkang
07-11-2011, 05:51 PM
One ought to make distinctions about racism (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffxOSEj_sQM), particularly because the term is used as if it had a singular meaning.

There are traditional, Jim Crow era (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBwIRq_hmjg) notions of racism with criminal implications;
There are non-criminal, racial preferences leading to gentrification (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJ17HGVrHFY&feature=related) and/or segregation;
There are bayesian inferences (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_inference) based on empirical data (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States);
There is Glenn Beck (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mXMtLmhQ74);
There is the equivalent on the opposite side of the political (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHrEH5G90wo) spectrum;
And finally, there are those who see adversaries as sub-human, use their anger to justify a lack of empathy and engage in Nazi logic (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showpost.php?p=216118&postcount=43).
When armed with guns and self-righteousness, this can lead to disastrous results (http://www.slate.com/id/2099203/).

graz
07-11-2011, 05:59 PM
One ought to make distinctions about racism (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffxOSEj_sQM), particularly because the term is used as if it had a singular meaning.

There are traditional, Jim Crow era (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBwIRq_hmjg) notions of racism with criminal implications;
There are non-criminal, racial preferences leading to gentrification (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJ17HGVrHFY&feature=related) and/or segregation;
There are bayesian inferences (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_inference) based on empirical data (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States);
There is Glenn Beck (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mXMtLmhQ74);
There is the equivalent on the opposite side of the political (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHrEH5G90wo) spectrum;
And finally, there are those who see adversaries as sub-human, use their anger to justify a lack of empathy and engage in Nazi logic (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showpost.php?p=216118&postcount=43).
When armed with guns and self-righteousness, this can lead to disastrous results (http://www.slate.com/id/2099203/).

Geez Wally, I never thought of that. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VB8PEL49TbE&feature=related)

AemJeff
07-11-2011, 06:55 PM
Geez Wally, I never thought of that. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VB8PEL49TbE&feature=related)

It's strangely funny, isn't it? I perceive an apparently earnest desire to appear erudite and measured unnecessarily undermined by curious stylistic choices like the substitution of YouTube references (not that there's anything wrong with that!) for anything like an argument and the weirdly Tourette's-ish (and drearily repetitive) impulse toward Godwin violations. But at least there was a helpful definition of Bayesian inference, just in case I hadn't thought of that!

miceelf
07-11-2011, 07:12 PM
I have to admit, Sugar, as much as I like you in general, i find your comparison of accusations of racism to Nazism very difficult to figure out.
Unlike most of what you say, which I can figure out even if I don't agree, on this one, I just don't see it at all.

look
07-11-2011, 07:27 PM
I have to admit, Sugar, as much as I like you in general, i find your comparison of accusations of racism to Nazism very difficult to figure out.
Unlike most of what you say, which I can figure out even if I don't agree, on this one, I just don't see it at all.Let me try. There's a strain of race-baiting by some here, especially TwinSwords and Jeff. TS directed this post at me on a day that I had said to graz, 'if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem':

http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showpost.php?p=214004&postcount=10

He put it in a completely unrelated thread, a Bob foreign policy thread, I assume so he wouldn't get dinged for calling me a racist.

In a discussion yesterday, Jeff refused to clarify his position:

http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?t=6875

and now he's loaded for bear and wants to start something in this thread.

The presidential election is fast approaching, and if we don't guard against it, some here will try to make a lot of the campaign season here about race and class.

So sugarkang is trying to draw a parallel between the race-baiting thought police here and the Nazis branding Jews as subhuman. That is, we're being falsely labeled as immoral, and we do not like it.

eeeeeeeli
07-11-2011, 07:27 PM
One ought to make distinctions about racism (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffxOSEj_sQM), particularly because the term is used as if it had a singular meaning.

There are traditional, Jim Crow era (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBwIRq_hmjg) notions of racism with criminal implications;
There are non-criminal, racial preferences leading to gentrification (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJ17HGVrHFY&feature=related) and/or segregation;
There are bayesian inferences (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_inference) based on empirical data (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States);
There is Glenn Beck (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mXMtLmhQ74);
There is the equivalent on the opposite side of the political (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHrEH5G90wo) spectrum;
And finally, there are those who see adversaries as sub-human, use their anger to justify a lack of empathy and engage in Nazi logic (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showpost.php?p=216118&postcount=43).
When armed with guns and self-righteousness, this can lead to disastrous results (http://www.slate.com/id/2099203/).

Yeah, I'm not sure what all of this is. I clicked on the Nazi link and was hopelessly confused.

I do think it is important to make distinctions about racism. As well as other varieties you didn't mention, there's the whole unconscious thing where any of these elements can be lurking and metastasizing in an orgy of epic cognitive failure.

graz
07-11-2011, 07:49 PM
The presidential election is fast approaching, and if we don't guard against it, some here will try to make a lot of the campaign season here about race and class.

So sugarkang is trying to draw a parallel between the race-baiting thought police here and the Nazis branding Jews as subhuman. That is, we're being falsely labeled as immoral, and we do not like it.

And once gain the hall monitor returns. Resplendent with gripes, grudges, and historical revision.

So are you a preemptive scud missile clearing the way for more race-baiting of the overt as well as hidden variety?

SK offered a dog whistle that only you could hear. Coincidence? I don't think so.

miceelf
07-11-2011, 07:50 PM
Let me try. There's a strain of race-baiting by some here, especially TwinSwords and Jeff. TS directed this post at me on a day that I had said to graz, 'if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem':

http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showpost.php?p=214004&postcount=10



Perhaps my context dependent threading ability is limited, but on that thread, TS was responding to the initial post, not to you. It may have been directed at you, I don't know.


The presidential election is fast approaching, and if we don't guard against it, some here will try to make a lot of the campaign season here about race and class.

So sugarkang is trying to draw a parallel between the race-baiting thought police here and the Nazis branding Jews as subhuman. That is, we're being falsely labeled as immoral, and we do not like it.

The charges of racism at specific people are either fair or not fair, accurate or not accurate, and reasonable or not reasonable. They aren't any different than any other charge. Most people don't respond to the frequent "class warfare" charge that some on the right make against some on the left (one that can also be fair or unfair, etc) with an analogy to Nazism; instead they focus on whether it is accurate in that specific instance. The leap to Naziism seems dramatically overblown to me.

As to whether the election is about race and class- well, again- the charge that it's about class doesn't seem any less unfair than the charge that it's about race, but the right seem happy to make that claim (I should also point out that the charge that the election was about race was one that some on the right were quite happy to make in the last presidential election- several argued that Obama only won because he was Black- do I really have to dig up the links?). And, again, it's a proposition that may or may not be true, depending on what happens and one's assessment of that. I don't see how such a claim is out of bounds necessarily, given that it's possible to be true in some circumstances.

eeeeeeeli
07-11-2011, 07:51 PM
I've long nursed a theory that apart from whatever cultural biases towards hatred exist (manifested in racism and other -isms), there is a certain interpretation of conservatism that leads directly to a logic of racism. It is based on the idea that inequality among minorities is a result of their racial or ethnic heritage. The former is strictly racist, the latter more of an unconscious bias, which of course is just as much a part of racism as that which makes its way to conscious awareness and acceptance.

Of course, it is certainly possible to not take this interpretation of conservatism. There are other explanations for minority inequality that conservatism can, if not explain, co-exist with.

What I find interesting is that opposition to this claim often relies on a sort of reverse argument-from-consequence. Because, according to this logical fallacy, a consequence of conservatism undermines its validity. This would be true if this were the only valid interpretation of conservatism. But it is not. It does not have to be the consequence.

And yet it so often is the consequence - this tendency towards racial bias - in a spectrum of ways, to much greater degree on the political and social right. Everything from the blatant KKK member to the "weekend" racist, who number so substantially in Aemjeff's post - and who we've all encountered amongst conservatives everywhere.

Here's a thought: there are certainly plenty of liberals with racial bias, however they would be horrified to admit it (wouldn't we all?). But anyhow you just don't see it very often at all. I mean, as a challenge, go out and try and find examples of racism towards minorities* on the internet.

(* Let's not even get into the weaksauce reverse-racism crap because its just so trite. It is rarely about cognitive bias or historical oppression - those things that have always driven out-group hostility.)

So why is it so hard to find liberals willing to say racist - or apparently racist) things about minorities, even if they really think/feel them? And here's the kicker: what is it about conservatism that makes conservatives obviously feel more comfortable with it? I think I have a good idea, but I'll just put it out there for now!

look
07-11-2011, 08:00 PM
Perhaps my context dependent threading ability is limited, but on that thread, TS was responding to the initial post, not to you. It may have been directed at you, I don't know.



The charges of racism at specific people are either fair or not fair, accurate or not accurate, and reasonable or not reasonable. They aren't any different than any other charge. Most people don't respond to the frequent "class warfare" charge that some on the right make against some on the left (one that can also be fair or unfair, etc) with an analogy to Nazism; instead they focus on whether it is accurate in that specific instance. The leap to Naziism seems dramatically overblown to me.

As to whether the election is about race and class- well, again- the charge that it's about class doesn't seem any less unfair than the charge that it's about race, but the right seem happy to make that claim (I should also point out that the charge that the election was about race was one that some on the right were quite happy to make in the last presidential election- several argued that Obama only won because he was Black- do I really have to dig up the links?). And, again, it's a proposition that may or may not be true, depending on what happens and one's assessment of that. I don't see how such a claim is out of bounds necessarily, given that it's possible to be true in some circumstances.Thanks for your thoughts, I get what you are saying, so I will just clarify that it's very uncomfortable to have judgements made on you in such a hostile, unfair manner. As for 'Nazi,' it's a comparison, not a direct analogy. 'Thought police' and being judged as immoral are the take-away thoughts.

look
07-11-2011, 08:03 PM
And once gain the hall monitor returns. Resplendent with gripes, grudges, and historical revision.

So are you a preemptive scud missile clearing the way for more race-baiting of the overt as well as hidden variety?

SK offered a dog whistle that only you could hear. Coincidence? I don't think so.You and the gang really live for this horseshit. How does it feel to be one of the flies to TS's lord?

graz
07-11-2011, 08:05 PM
Thanks for your thoughts, I get what you are saying, so I will just clarify that it's very uncomfortable to have judgements made on you in such a hostile, unfair manner.
If the glove don't fit, we will acquit.

AemJeff
07-11-2011, 08:40 PM
I've long nursed a theory that apart from whatever cultural biases towards hatred exist (manifested in racism and other -isms), there is a certain interpretation of conservatism that leads directly to a logic of racism. It is based on the idea that inequality among minorities is a result of their racial or ethnic heritage. The former is strictly racist, the latter more of an unconscious bias, which of course is just as much a part of racism as that which makes its way to conscious awareness and acceptance.

Of course, it is certainly possible to not take this interpretation of conservatism. There are other explanations for minority inequality that conservatism can, if not explain, co-exist with.

What I find interesting is that opposition to this claim often relies on a sort of reverse argument-from-consequence. Because, according to this logical fallacy, a consequence of conservatism undermines its validity. This would be true if this were the only valid interpretation of conservatism. But it is not. It does not have to be the consequence.

And yet it so often is the consequence - this tendency towards racial bias - in a spectrum of ways, to much greater degree on the political and social right. Everything from the blatant KKK member to the "weekend" racist, who number so substantially in Aemjeff's post - and who we've all encountered amongst conservatives everywhere.

Here's a thought: there are certainly plenty of liberals with racial bias, however they would be horrified to admit it (wouldn't we all?). But anyhow you just don't see it very often at all. I mean, as a challenge, go out and try and find examples of racism towards minorities* on the internet.

(* Let's not even get into the weaksauce reverse-racism crap because its just so trite. It is rarely about cognitive bias or historical oppression - those things that have always driven out-group hostility.)

So why is it so hard to find liberals willing to say racist - or apparently racist) things about minorities, even if they really think/feel them? And here's the kicker: what is it about conservatism that makes conservatives obviously feel more comfortable with it? I think I have a good idea, but I'll just put it out there for now!

I agree with much of this. "Conservatism" and "racism" are obviously far too broad as descriptors to be useful in any sort of analysis. It's also true that racism isn't the sole province of conservatism in any form. I'm not sure I'm up to the challenge of trying to clearly define how some forms of conservatism and racism might be compatible with one another; but conservatism often implies strong in-group bonds, adherence to tradition - general distrust of difference or change. (Obviously that's not a complete or a universally true assertion.)

My personal beef is with so-called "scientific racists" - the guys who tell you that some races are on the average stupider than others - but it's ok, because although they're not too bright, they sure can run fast! Steve Sailer, whose name comes up from time to time, is an exemplar. Here's some of what I've previously posted (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=178848) about Sailer, for reference.)

I also have a problem with the cynical use of white racial resentment by political parties in the U.S. - and one reason why there's a relationship between conservatives and racism in this nation, at this time, is the direct result of Nixon's Southern Strategy response to the Civil Rights Act, and the realignment caused by that legislation including the flight of southern white racists from the Democratic party to the Republicans. It's virtually certain that somebody will point out that the Democrats aren't exactly innocent of the cynical use of racial resentment, and assert a morally equivalence. I say that's not the case (though that doesn't excuse the Democrats.) I think the specific history of slavery and racism in this country has placed a far greater moral burden on the actions of the majority wrt to everyone else - especially black people.

sugarkang
07-11-2011, 08:49 PM
I have to admit, Sugar, as much as I like you in general, i find your comparison of accusations of racism to Nazism very difficult to figure out.
Unlike most of what you say, which I can figure out even if I don't agree, on this one, I just don't see it at all.

Okay, let me try to separate out concepts because these words are very charged and can mean different things. I think look mentioned Thought Police as being more apt, and perhaps that would make more sense.

As I've mentioned in another thread, it's not as if I think Jeff is a real life Nazi. For all the bile that he spews, I think his urge for sweetcakes supersedes his murderous desires. There are many things needed to be a bona-fide Nazi. Jeff only has a few characteristics, not all.

First, I'd say look at my previous post detailing Jeff's rants about Steve Sailer. Look at what Steve Sailer actually said about Citizenism or whatever stupid shit that the guy believes. Take a look at the words actually said and tell me if you can definitively say whether Sailer is a racist or not. I, personally, think it's possible that he's a racist, but I wouldn't go around pointing fingers saying I know for sure.

If you're reasonable, and I think you are, you'd probably have suspicions like I do, but you wouldn't be able to say if Sailer's a racist for sure. It's plausible he's a racist; it's not a slam dunk case that he's a racist. Then compare what Jeff says. Jeff claims that Sailer is absolutely, positively, without a doubt racist. Why? Because Sailer denies that he's racist!

This logic amounts to: she's clearly guilty because she's denying it.

This is the same kind of murderous logic that would convict Casey Anthony without having a proper theory as to how Caylee died. My analysis doesn't end here.

miceelf
07-11-2011, 08:58 PM
Thanks for your thoughts, I get what you are saying, so I will just clarify that it's very uncomfortable to have judgements made on you in such a hostile, unfair manner. As for 'Nazi,' it's a comparison, not a direct analogy. 'Thought police' and being judged as immoral are the take-away thoughts.

Isn't "thought police" a similar hostile, potentially unfair judgment? not to mention "similar in some ways to Nazis"? (and, like I said, originally, class warrior).

look
07-11-2011, 09:03 PM
Isn't "thought police" a similar hostile, potentially unfair judgment? not to mention "similar in some ways to Nazis"? (and, like I said, originally, class warrior).Gotcha...just keep your eyes peeled as the election approaches.

TwinSwords
07-11-2011, 09:08 PM
Jeff claims that Sailer is absolutely, positively, without a doubt racist. Why? Because Sailer denies that he's racist!

This logic amounts to: she's clearly guilty because she's denying it.
I'm guessing you can't point to a post by Jeff in which he makes this argument. You know why? Because it's bullshit. What interests me is whether you really believe it.

Jeff believes that Sailer is a racist because of the things Sailer says. It's that simple.


This is the same kind of murderous logic that would convict Casey Anthony without having a proper theory as to how Caylee died.
Hysterical. In both senses.

AemJeff
07-11-2011, 09:10 PM
I'm guessing you can't point to a post by Jeff in which he makes this argument. You know why? Because it's bullshit. What interests me is whether you really believe it.

Jeff believes that Sailer is a racist because of the things Sailer says. It's that simple.



Hysterical. In both senses.

Aren't you supposed to be lording it over graz's flies or something?

TwinSwords
07-11-2011, 09:11 PM
Let me try. There's a strain of race-baiting by some here, especially TwinSwords and Jeff. TS directed this post at me on a day that I had said to graz, 'if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem'

You're lying again, look. That post had nothing to do with you. I had read about the racist dog whistling at Fox News on a blog, and came here to post it in the forum. The universe does not revolve around you, and the fact is that I think about you a whole lot less than you wish I did.


He put it in a completely unrelated thread, a Bob foreign policy thread, I assume so he wouldn't get dinged for calling me a racist.
Wait. What? You think I called you a racist? Maybe you can point out where I did that.

sugarkang
07-11-2011, 09:11 PM
I'm guessing you can't point to a post by Jeff in which he makes this argument. You know why? Because it's bullshit. What interests me is whether you really believe it.

Jeff believes that Sailer is a racist because of the things Sailer says. It's that simple.



Hysterical. In both senses.

You are blinded by your own tribalism. It's one thing to suspect and be on guard for injustice. It's another to casually throw around a charged term to shut down debate. If Jon Stewart can see the injustice in this, why can't you? Back to the first sentence of this paragraph.
http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showpost.php?p=216118&postcount=43

miceelf
07-11-2011, 09:15 PM
I am not clear why I need to limit my evaluation of whether sailer is racist to one very limited set of his public utterances.

i find this recent post pretty at least indicative of racism (I understand that people have different thresholds and working definitions. But I don't see how it's crazy to evaluate him as racist, regardless of whether he claims he isn't.)

http://isteve.blogspot.com/2011/07/nyt-not-enough-whites-murdering-blacks.html

Just one example. It's hard to find a post of his about race (and there are many) that isn't a variation on "Black people (or Mexicans) are bad"
I can understand why someone else might come to a different conclusion, but I honestly don't see the conclusion I come to as as crazy as (say) my preference for frost over arcane wizards, or liking pineapple on my pizza.

look
07-11-2011, 09:16 PM
I agree with much of this. "Conservatism" and "racism" are obviously far too broad as descriptors to be useful in any sort of analysis. It's also true that racism isn't the sole province of conservatism in any form. I'm not sure I'm up to the challenge of trying to clearly define how some forms of conservatism and racism might be compatible with one another; but conservatism often implies strong in-group bonds, adherence to tradition - general distrust of difference or change. (Obviously that's not a complete or a universally true assertion.)

My personal beef is with so-called "scientific racists" - the guys who tell you that some races are on the average stupider than others - but it's ok, because although they're not too bright, they sure can run fast! Steve Sailer, whose name comes up from time to time, is an exemplar. Here's some of what I've previously posted (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=178848) about Sailer, for reference.)

I also have a problem with the cynical use of white racial resentment by political parties in the U.S. - and one reason why there's a relationship between conservatives and racism in this nation, at this time, is the direct result of Nixon's Southern Strategy response to the Civil Rights Act, and the realignment caused by that legislation including the flight of southern white racists from the Democratic party to the Republicans. It's virtually certain that somebody will point out that the Democrats aren't exactly innocent of the cynical use of racial resentment, and assert a morally equivalence. I say that's not the case (though that doesn't excuse the Democrats.) I think the specific history of slavery and racism in this country has placed a far greater moral burden on the actions of the majority wrt to everyone else - especially black people.So what you want to talk about is racist scientists. Did you really have to kick off the thread with a provocative title to insite hard feelings? That is what I mean by the race-baiting you and some do here.

TwinSwords
07-11-2011, 09:17 PM
Thanks for your thoughts, I get what you are saying, so I will just clarify that it's very uncomfortable to have judgements made on you in such a hostile, unfair manner.
That is, in the hostile, unfair manner that you completely dreamed up.

look
07-11-2011, 09:18 PM
You're lying again, look. That post had nothing to do with you. I had read about the racist dog whistling at Fox News on a blog, and came here to post it in the forum. The universe does not revolve around you, and the fact is that I think about you a whole lot less than you wish I did.



Wait. What? You think I called you a racist? Maybe you can point out where I did that.:)

TwinSwords
07-11-2011, 09:18 PM
Aren't you supposed to be lording it over graz's flies or something?

Done lording for the day. Finished early! ;-)

look
07-11-2011, 09:19 PM
That is, in the hostile, unfair manner that you completely dreamed up.:)

graz
07-11-2011, 09:22 PM
You and the gang really live for this horseshit. How does it feel to be one of the flies to TS's lord?
Wait. What? You think I called you a racist?

Flie: Lord?

Lord: Yes my flie?

Flie: I would venture that her reply would have to be (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LT6kjQhVJ9Y&feature=related).

AemJeff
07-11-2011, 09:24 PM
So what you want to talk about is racist scientists. Did you really have to kick off the thread with a provocative title to insite hard feelings? That is what I mean by the race-baiting you and some do here.

Did you notice that it was a direct quote from Jim Hoft (Gateway Pundit)? (That I helpfully left in a pull in the original post!) Of course it was race-baiting - that was Hoft's obvious intention, shared with every one of the bloggers whom I quoted later in that post.

sugarkang
07-11-2011, 09:27 PM
I am not clear why I need to limit my evaluation of whether sailer is racist to one very limited set of his public utterances.


You don't have to. I'm saying that it's not clear that he's racist. I'm saying you can't be sure. From the blog post you linked:


If more whites murdered more blacks, then more whites could be executed for murdering blacks, which would move us closer to racial equality, thus making the death penalty less racist. And that's the really important thing.

This is mathematical logic. I'm assuming he wants more death penalty (which I oppose). But it clearly moves against racism, if anything. People have completely lost their minds when trying to evaluate racism. They are frequently confusing form and substance.

But again, it's not about racism. It's about logic. Evaluate Jeff's logic. Do you know what a person is thinking? What racist thoughts lurk in another man's mind? Jeff does.

Thought Police. Nazi. Typical authoritarian statist. Whatever.

look
07-11-2011, 09:28 PM
Did you notice that it was a direct quote from Jim Hoft (Gateway Pundit)? (That I helpfully left in a pull in the original post!) Of course it was race-baiting - that was Hoft's obvious intention, shared with every one of the bloggers whom I quoted later in that post.Okay. By all means, continue on as you have been. Don't improve the dialog, just emote and simmer.

graz
07-11-2011, 09:34 PM
Okay. By all means, continue on as you have been.

It's tough to know where to draw the line. When one has to contend with for instance, the unassailable mathematical logic of the SK, who contends that since you can't prove racism it's a fools errand ... what is one to do?

You choose avoidance ... that's not gonna cut it for most sentient beings.

TwinSwords
07-11-2011, 09:34 PM
It's one thing to suspect and be on guard for injustice.
You're obviously not familiar with Sailer's work. Either that or you're totally oblivious to clear racism.


It's another to casually throw around a charged term to shut down debate.
It's not thrown around casually. Jeff "throws it around" carefully, and accurately. Familiarize yourself with the subject matter. Why you would want to be seen defending Sailer, or the others you defend, is beyond my understanding.

Regarding your claim that it's intended to shut down debate, two points. First of all, this is a debate you seem to gravitate to. Nothing seems to charge you up quite like attacking liberals for being opposed to racism, for calling out racism when they see it. So, far from "shutting down debate," Jeff seems to be giving you the thing you crave: a chance to tell liberals to stuff it for being such tight asses about racism all the time.

Second, Jeff doesn't have the ability to shut down debate. In fact, Jeff knows perfectly well that every time he speaks out against racism, there will be a torrent of abuse directed at him from conservatives -- conservatives who, for whatever odd reason, become enraged at liberal criticism of racism. This has been the pattern in this forum for years. So, your claim that Jeff is trying to shut down debate when he knows the opposite will happen is both spurious and transparently false. If anyone is trying to shut down debate, it's you, for demonizing Jeff and others who take a principled stand against racism -- racism which exists, whether you are willing to acknowledge it or not.


If Jon Stewart can see the injustice in this, why can't you?
Oh, Jon Stewart is on your side in this debate, is he? LOL.

look
07-11-2011, 09:35 PM
Flie: Lord?

Lord: Yes my flie?

Flie: I would venture that her reply would have to be (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LT6kjQhVJ9Y&feature=related).http://www.mediaite.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/goyle.jpg

TwinSwords
07-11-2011, 09:37 PM
Flie: Lord?

Lord: Yes my flie?

Flie: I would venture that her reply would have to be (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LT6kjQhVJ9Y&feature=related).

Hehe.

Great song. And perfect for the occasion.

look
07-11-2011, 09:41 PM
It's tough to know where to draw the line. When one has to contend with for instance, the unassailable mathematical logic of the SK, who contends that since you can't prove racism it's a fools errand ... what is one to do?

You choose avoidance ... that's not gonna cut it for most sentient beings.I know you have problems with differentiation, being so immersed in the gang, and all, but why don't you address sk's points to sk?

As far as avoidance, ramping up emotion on a message board is sheer self-indulgence.

miceelf
07-11-2011, 09:45 PM
But again, it's not about racism. It's about logic. Evaluate Jeff's logic. Do you know what a person is thinking? What racist thoughts lurk in another man's mind? Jeff does.

Thought Police. Nazi. Typical authoritarian statist. Whatever.

I just don't see how it's inappropriate to make evaluative statements about someone's behavior. Calling someone dumb or ignorant isn't thought policing either, although there's the existential quesiton as to whether the person who says and does dumb things is really dumb or engaging in elaborate performance art or whathave you. People make inferences about the internal states of each other all the time. And that's assuming that "racist" is a label denoting an internal state, rather than a pattern of behavior and speech.

graz
07-11-2011, 09:49 PM
... emotion on a message board is sheer self-indulgence ...

The rest home awaits ... bon voyage ... go with the vanilla.

graz
07-11-2011, 10:02 PM
As far as avoidance ...
I tried to avoid posting this: They were just sayin' (http://blog.reidreport.com/2011/07/right-wing-group-withdraws-slave-language-from-marriage-pledge-bachmann-signed/).

Then I realized the humanity in removing the plank. There's hope.

look
07-11-2011, 10:06 PM
I tried to avoid posting this: They were just sayin' (http://blog.reidreport.com/2011/07/right-wing-group-withdraws-slave-language-from-marriage-pledge-bachmann-signed/).

Then I realized the humanity in removing the plank. There's hope.I thought you were leaving.

TwinSwords
07-11-2011, 10:30 PM
I also have a problem with the cynical use of white racial resentment by political parties in the U.S. - and one reason why there's a relationship between conservatives and racism in this nation, at this time, is the direct result of Nixon's Southern Strategy response to the Civil Rights Act, and the realignment caused by that legislation including the flight of southern white racists from the Democratic party to the Republicans.
I agree with that whole post.

With respect to the part I've bolded, I'll say that the Southern Strategy is alive and well. (Though it's a national strategy, not a Southern one.) Just the past two years show GOP messaging continues to be replete with the exact same kinds of racially charged messaging that defined the Southern Strategy -- everything from the attacks on ACORN to the New Black Panthers (aka "two guys") to the Shirley Sherrod fiasco to the treatment of the "wise Latina" Sonia Sotomayor to the Ground Zero Mosque to the alarm over Sharia to Drudge's and Fox News' constant emphasis on black on white crime to ... we could go on and on like this.

Too often people talk about the Southern Strategy like it's this thing that happened a long time ago. But it's happening right now, every day, in the Republican Party. Appeals to racial and ethnic hatred remain a central part of the GOP strategy for winning elections.

This is one of the reasons there is so much rage at liberals for pointing it out. The charge wouldn't have so much potency if it was easier to deny. But it's impossible to deny, and the result is enormous conservative frustration at being branded with the truthful and accurate label. The conservatives pushing back know the charge is accurate, and they feel a little guilt and a little cognitive dissonance variously defending, rationalizing, justifying, or denying it.

But this is the old dilemma in a two party system where appeals to racial and ethnic hatred remain a key to electoral success: What do you do if you're, say, a gay person who believes in supply side economics? Or a black person who believes in a strong national defense? Or a Muslim who believes in traditional family values? Or an Hispanic who favors "free trade" and low taxes?

Where do you go when one of the two political parties is infused with people who hate you?

We know the answer. Most vote Democratic.

But what do you do if you're a white person who is opposed to racism but who supports GOP policies?

We know the answer to that one, too. A majority decide they can live with the racism and they vote Republican anyway.

I guess it's harder to make that calculation when you're actually a target for GOP hatemongering; but when it's just an abstraction, as it is for white people, then no big whoop -- pull that lever for the GOP.

In a less sick political culture, the GOP would get its fair share of black, gay, Muslim, and Hispanic votes. But we don't have that political culture. We have, instead, Steve Sailer's and Richard Nixon's political culture, one in which Sailer literally advocates framing the two parties as the White Party and the non-white party. He calls it the Sailer Strategy (http://www.vdare.com/sailer/091004_rebrand_democrats.htm).

miceelf
07-11-2011, 11:57 PM
Wow, that vdare link is all kinds of f***ed up.

stephanie
07-11-2011, 11:59 PM
The charges of racism at specific people are either fair or not fair, accurate or not accurate, and reasonable or not reasonable. They aren't any different than any other charge. Most people don't respond to the frequent "class warfare" charge that some on the right make against some on the left (one that can also be fair or unfair, etc) with an analogy to Nazism; instead they focus on whether it is accurate in that specific instance. The leap to Naziism seems dramatically overblown to me.

As to whether the election is about race and class- well, again- the charge that it's about class doesn't seem any less unfair than the charge that it's about race, but the right seem happy to make that claim (I should also point out that the charge that the election was about race was one that some on the right were quite happy to make in the last presidential election- several argued that Obama only won because he was Black- do I really have to dig up the links?). And, again, it's a proposition that may or may not be true, depending on what happens and one's assessment of that. I don't see how such a claim is out of bounds necessarily, given that it's possible to be true in some circumstances.

Good post.

I generally don't call even the Steve Sailers of the world racist, because that's what they want -- they want to make the conversation about how liberals are calling them racist. That's part of the strategy TS references. But I think it's silly to suggest that there's something dreadful about calling Sailer and the like on the clear implication of their words. It's a limited claim. As as Jeff points out, it's one that in this case was certainly not raised initially by "liberals."

eeeeeeeli
07-12-2011, 12:13 AM
... we could go on and on like this.
It's outrageous how thick it has become. I think I kept waiting for some magic moment to come - like when Tea Party people were actually elected - and the nation, including the Republican party would be like, "Whoa. OK. We've really gone too far. We need to look in the mirror." But no. The '10 sweep I think wiped a bit of the froth from people's mouths, but it's simmering hot as ever.

We have, instead, Steve Sailer's and Richard Nixon's political culture, one in which Sailer literally advocates framing the two parties as the White Party and the non-white party. He calls it the Sailer Strategy (http://www.vdare.com/sailer/091004_rebrand_democrats.htm).
Then there's this. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/05/david-duke-president_n_890755.html)

edit: lol - from that link, the tea party is accused of racism from the left, but apparently Stormfront thinks they're bluffing too:
But as Don Black, who founded the white supremacist organization Stormfront tells Conant, the Tea Party is "skittish when it comes to talking about racial realities," and "are too conditioned to run like scared rabbits when called racists.”
You just can't win!

eeeeeeeli
07-12-2011, 12:46 AM
I just don't see how it's inappropriate to make evaluative statements about someone's behavior. Calling someone dumb or ignorant isn't thought policing either, although there's the existential quesiton as to whether the person who says and does dumb things is really dumb or engaging in elaborate performance art or whathave you. People make inferences about the internal states of each other all the time. And that's assuming that "racist" is a label denoting an internal state, rather than a pattern of behavior and speech.
Hasn't this devolved into an issue of simple semantics.

Sugarkang brought up the Casey(?) trial - you surely can't convict someone on a feeling. But there is a particular reason the bar of evidence is so high for court cases - people lives depend on them. The same could be said for science - it is useless without good, hard data from which further work can be done.

Yet we are talking about people and feelings. People are complex and weird. Who really knows what is in the mind of anyone? Obviously someone who admits to being racist can be sure to be a racist. (Or maybe not - back to the courts, innocent people make false statements. Maybe they aren't even really that racist!)

But most racists won't admit it, certainly not those whose heads are filled with vile stereotypes and biases yet somehow consciously believe themselves to not be racist. So as a social matter, trying to figure each other out, we make assumptions and judgement calls.

I would definitely call Steve Sailor a racist - whatever that means. I am profoundly suspicious that his entire line of inquiry is based on highly subjective intuitions about race that he either went into with or came out of with, but has now embraced.

Racism is just too creepy and powerful to not take seriously. Shit, I know I have my share of messed up biases I have to keep in check. And I've been thinking about this stuff for years. It seems to be almost a part of our DNA - at least the suspicion, the in-group preference, the bias of privilege, etc.

At the end of the day, what probably most kills people on the left who emphasize race is just how unseriously the right has always dealt with race. It's like this weird bogeyman that went from being perfectly natural, to unnatural and terrible overnight, with nary a self-analysis in-between. I mean, so much of what has moved our national consciousness of racism and inequality has been driven by people on the left focusing on it as a problem. You can't help but get the feeling that the right simply doesn't care about it, except as a way to point out excesses of the left, or when they feel falsely attacked.

This is the heart of Colbert's joke that "he doesn't see race". It is satirizing the obvious phoniness and sort of ideological nihilism on the right when it comes to dealing with the real roots and reality of racism. You look at a party like the Republicans and they just seem oblivious. There's a big, fat, stinking sore wedged deep in their chest and they refuse to even acknowledge it.

sugarkang
07-12-2011, 02:24 AM
Hasn't this devolved into an issue of simple semantics.


Well, I know this (not directed at you eeeeeeeli). I've yet to see Sailer's comments be racist. Maybe they exist, but I'm not going to point my finger without knowing. And of the comments I've highlighted, is anyone seriously going to say those were racist?

I could see xenophobia, maybe. After all, it seems like he's internally consistent to what he argues for. Some sort of national solidarity, not based in race, but based on borders. Of course, that could be racist. Is it de facto racist?

And for the sake of argument, let's say that I agree that it is. Now, then ask yourselves if you or your friends have ever looked to buy a house and asked the realtor, "Is it in a good neighborhood?" Do I have to be so obvious in translating what that means?

So, maybe the next time any of you point your sanctimonious fingers, you should question whether or not you are complicit in the same behavior.

AemJeff
07-12-2011, 12:11 PM
h/t edroso (http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2011/07/ooga_booga_righ.php), who notes:
...

Edroso has mail (http://alicublog.blogspot.com/)! (Or more properly, he's collected commentary from the Voice article I linked yesterday.)



I know it hurts your liberal feelings that these 'ooga boogas' can't behave and act somewhat human...

American blacks need to be encouraged to immigrate to Africa, where they can be among their own and create their own civilization. Let’s face it…blacks are unfit to live among humans in human civilization...

Maybe miscegenation is the answer for your daughter, sugerpuff. I'm sure you're evolved enough it won't bother you at all. Until the black dude leaves her a single mother, and you can't get him to pay child support...

But this is what diversity is like for the rest of us: chaos, violence, fear, distrust, theft, assault, battery, rape, murder, gangs, declining property values...

Black folks: Is there nothing they can't blame on white folks?...

Let us know when your daughter has neighbors of feral fatherless young black males. Until then your words are of no value...

Don Zeko
07-12-2011, 02:34 PM
That's really unfair of you Jeff. I'm sure if you were to ask this guy if he is a racist, he would say no.

sugarkang
07-12-2011, 02:41 PM
What does a random racist have anything to do with Steve Sailer? You know, the guy who is "plainly racist" because he denies it. Clearly?

Is it the entire Gang of 12 that attended the same School of Logic? I'd get your tuition back.

chiwhisoxx
07-13-2011, 03:15 PM
I thought one of the main benefits of Brendan not being here anymore would be we wouldn't have these kinds of posts anymore. Sorry Jeff, I'm not saying you had bad intentions, but I think most of us know the kind of discussion that ensues in a thread like this.

AemJeff
07-13-2011, 03:20 PM
I thought one of the main benefits of Brendan not being here anymore would be we wouldn't have these kinds of posts anymore. Sorry Jeff, I'm not saying you had bad intentions, but I think most of us know the kind of discussion that ensues in a thread like this.

Actually, with notable exceptions, I think we saw a reasonably good discussion of the merits here. And while I'll freely admit to impure intentions, my bottom-line motivation is to shine a bright light on certain things that I think are loathesome and which ought to seen for what they are (IMO) -- which, I might add, was the same reason Brendan has had for posting in threads he's created.

uncle ebeneezer
07-13-2011, 07:22 PM
Jeff, the problem is not with overtly racist statements by wingnuts, it's with people like Edroso, Brendan and yourself who insist on drawing attention to those statements. Whatever racism exists in the Tea Party and greater Wingnuttia would surely evaporate if people like you would stop inciting it by reprinting their words.

graz
07-13-2011, 07:33 PM
Jeff, the problem is not with overtly racist statements by wingnuts, it's with people like Edroso, Brendan and yourself who insist on drawing attention to those statements. Whatever racism exists in the Tea Party and greater Wingnuttia would surely evaporate if people like you would stop inciting it by reprinting their words.

You're so right. They never address this kind of malevolent undercurrent, that most certainly informs one of the major parties, on the fair and reasonable Morning Joe program. Out of sight, out of mind.


There's only one network television show with an adult conversation between Democrats and Republicans and it's Morning Joe. Regardless of what you think about the show, there does not exist a moderate liberal equivalent.

The people are stupid because they want to be stupid. They're angry because they want to be angry.

chiwhisoxx
07-13-2011, 08:41 PM
Jeff, the problem is not with overtly racist statements by wingnuts, it's with people like Edroso, Brendan and yourself who insist on drawing attention to those statements. Whatever racism exists in the Tea Party and greater Wingnuttia would surely evaporate if people like you would stop inciting it by reprinting their words.

I hope you don't think that was my point

TwinSwords
07-24-2011, 04:58 PM
Wow, that vdare link is all kinds of f***ed up.

Indeed. I would extend that sentiment to the GOP as a whole. Clearly the professional class of Republicans -- their strategists, party leaders, elected officials, and their media presence (Fox News, talk radio, etc.) -- are obviously dedicated to fostering racial, religious, and ethnic hatred for political advantage.

TwinSwords
07-24-2011, 06:03 PM
It's outrageous how thick it has become. I think I kept waiting for some magic moment to come - like when Tea Party people were actually elected - and the nation, including the Republican party would be like, "Whoa. OK. We've really gone too far. We need to look in the mirror." But no.
Yep. We keep waiting for people to catch on, and they just keep not catching on. I think there is a fundamental flaw in the liberal notion that the public would be offended if they only understood how vile and hateful the heart of the GOP is. The fact is that the GOP deploys the politics of hate because they work. Some of my liberal friends have suggested that outspoken liberal resistance to hatemongering, racism and bigotry actually just makes it worse -- actually pushes people in the opposite of the desired direction. I fear there is truth to this. We might be making things worse with our opposition.