Liberal Race Baiting page 3

140 posts

Flag Post
Originally posted by Redem:

The US political right has been the party of race hate for so long that, at times, the left’s trigger finger may be a little sensitive. However, it’s so sensitive with good reason, the racist portions of the US right have spent a fair amount of effort on cleaning up their language and trying to whitewash their rhetoric to avoid the appearance of racism, while still doing all they can do promote their racial agenda. They’re not always very good at the whitewashing, but they try damn hard.

If you want to end the “race baiting”, as you call it, do some house clearing on your side.

Citation? Because the way I see it, the American Left just sort of reduces racial and ethnic groups into voting blocs. The AL doesn’t see them as individuals. They just see them as a consistent voting source, and anybody who disagrees with the AL are immediately proclaimed to be racist.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by scoopolard:

Citation? Because the way I see it, the American Left just sort of reduces racial and ethnic groups into voting blocs. The AL doesn’t see them as individuals. They just see them as a consistent voting source, and anybody who disagrees with the AL are immediately proclaimed to be racist.

And there ya have it….
a load of shit from someone w/ a Phd. in hyperbole.
Just how small does a mind have to be in order to view the world as being THAT SIMPLISTIC?
 
Flag Post

Another article examining the “RACIST” mud slinging: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/303533/everyone-s-racist-ian-tuttle#

Here’s another little news tidbit from MSNBC, claiming that those who went after Eric Holder because of Fast and Furious were just racist: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2012/06/21/new-msnbc-host-spews-racist-conservatives-fear-obama-taking-money-wh

 
Flag Post

Keep providing nothing but blatant right-wing propaganda as “sources”, and people will keep disregarding them as the drivel they are.
Your “research” suffers from a pretty heavy dose of confirmation bias.

 
Flag Post

Well, he did include left-wing propaganda as well, by referencing the piece of shit MSNBC. They use as much hyperbole and hoopla as Fox does. I doubt anyone takes them seriously – well, except lunatic fringe individuals, same as with Fox.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by softest_voice:

Keep providing nothing but blatant right-wing propaganda as “sources”, and people will keep disregarding them as the drivel they are.
Your “research” suffers from a pretty heavy dose of confirmation bias.

Keep insulting the source instead of refuting the points.

Originally posted by vikaTae:

Well, he did include left-wing propaganda as well, by referencing the piece of shit MSNBC. They use as much hyperbole and hoopla as Fox does. I doubt anyone takes them seriously – well, except lunatic fringe individuals, same as with Fox.


The first link has a litany of other people throwing around the word “racist”, other than MSNBC.

 
Flag Post

Citation? Because the way I see it, the American Left just sort of reduces racial and ethnic groups into voting blocs. The AL doesn’t see them as individuals. They just see them as a consistent voting source, and anybody who disagrees with the AL are immediately proclaimed to be racist.

Eh, how would you like that cited? It is public knowledge that the right has opposed basically every piece of legislation that incrementally introduced racial equality, fighting a constant rearguard against it. At the same time it’s been the left that’s promoted and passed that legislation. Same on gender quality and sexual equality.

 
Flag Post

MyTie, the use of completely biased sources means I don’t need to refute the points.
The points are invalidated, in this instance, by the fact that your “sources” are just conservative mouthpieces.
Of course they’re stating the left is in the wrong; they’re speaking from the right.
In the same way, your decision to cite MSNBC as your initial source was foolish.
Anyone that thinks MSNBC represents anything but hard left propaganda is sadly mistaken.

But you don’t give a shit, do you? You just want a reason to claim the left as a whole is wrong.
Which is fine. If that’s your opinion, then so be it.

But using “sources” that are so hard leaning, be it left or right, and then claiming that these non-journalists are representative of an overall trend is fallacious.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Redem:

Citation? Because the way I see it, the American Left just sort of reduces racial and ethnic groups into voting blocs. The AL doesn’t see them as individuals. They just see them as a consistent voting source, and anybody who disagrees with the AL are immediately proclaimed to be racist.

Eh, how would you like that cited? It is public knowledge that the right has opposed basically every piece of legislation that incrementally introduced racial equality, fighting a constant rearguard against it. At the same time it’s been the left that’s promoted and passed that legislation. Same on gender quality and sexual equality.

Redem, you, obviously a staunch liberal, are an example of what I mentioned before. You accuse conservatives of being sexist, racist, etc. Then, you proceed to call Ann Coulter an extremely derogatory and sexist term just because you disagree with her points of view on issues. This is what bothers people so much and gives liberals a bad name. Fighting to end hatred is a noble cause, but many times this doesn’t appear to be the real motivation behind the actions of people.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by softest_voice:

MyTie, the use of completely biased sources means I don’t need to refute the points.
The points are invalidated, in this instance, by the fact that your “sources” are just conservative mouthpieces.
Of course they’re stating the left is in the wrong; they’re speaking from the right.
In the same way, your decision to cite MSNBC as your initial source was foolish.
Anyone that thinks MSNBC represents anything but hard left propaganda is sadly mistaken.

But you don’t give a shit, do you? You just want a reason to claim the left as a whole is wrong.
Which is fine. If that’s your opinion, then so be it.

But using “sources” that are so hard leaning, be it left or right, and then claiming that these non-journalists are representative of an overall trend is fallacious.

Everyone is biased to one degree or another. You aren’t better than others, just because they hold differing opinions. Sure, a lot of these opinions come from people with different biases than you, but that doesn’t make them wrong. The center is not somehow a “better” opinion than the far right or far left. The far right and far right aren’t automatically wrong, and shouldn’t automatically yield to you because you are somehow more unbiased than they are. Either read the articles I linked, and refuted the points in them, and the points in my post, or don’t. It is inappropriate for you to come in here as some sort of biased police, doing nothing but attacking sources and posters, instead of the points being raised.

Attack the argument, not the source. Debate 101.

 
Flag Post

The center is not somehow a “better” opinion than the far right or far left.

Moderate opinion is generally better than fanaticism, yes.

I’ve no doubt softest could easily find some left-wing spin to counter your right-wing spin, but what would be the point? It’s just dross.

Also

Attack the argument, not the source. Debate 101.

Wrong. Character – ethos – has great importance on the debate. Should I take Stormfront’s opinions about non-white immigration seriously? If the source has proven to be untrustworthy, underhanded, unwilling to consider any position but its own, then there is no point in debating it. The Economist is biased to the left, but it’s trustworthy. Wall Street Journal edges to the right, but again, also trustworthy. Same with Ha’aretz and Jerusalem Post, respectively. Globe and Mail and National Post, Le Monde and Le Figaro, etc. I’m not going to take a rag seriously, nor a pundit like Coulter…nor, as Scoop said on the first page, Chris Matthews. Scum floats to the top of the pond. I don’t let that confirm my opinion that the water is dirty.

 
Flag Post

Let’s all self-exile ourselves from mass media. We shall all only hear things from word of mouth. It’ll be like telephone. No matter what news I get, I’m going to tell everybody that Davy Jones is running for New Mexico Senator.

 
Flag Post

I’m not advocating that we ignore all mass media, Ivan.

Like Jan pointed out; the blatantly biased sources are safe to ignore, but they don’t automatically qualify ALL sources as biased/propagandized.

Again, as Jan pointed out, I could go find a million links on Google saying the exact opposite of MyTie’s “sources”, but they’d likely just be equally biased articles and op/eds from the left…so what’s the point?

On the other hand, I could attack MyTie’s original point by explaining how his initial post and most of his subsequent arguments are based on extreme examples, not necessarily the “norm”.
Which sort of invalidates the whole thing.

That’s not left or right, that’s just observation.

Finally, again, as Jan pointed out; the source is absolutely a valid target in a situation like this, considering it is being pointed to as “proof” of MyTie’s point.
If you want to “prove” something, MyTie, don’t use obviously biased/bigoted sources.

 
Flag Post

Just because something is biased doesn’t make it “fanaticism”. Comparing sources like “nationalreview” to “stormfront” isn’t even realistic. You are comparing biases to overt hatred. They aren’t the same thing. Even if you wanted to argue “against” stormfront, you could easily pull apart their arguments with facts. That is STILL the preferred way to go with that situation, which isn’t even CLOSE to this situation. Read the national review article, and argue against those points. I have yet to see anyone do that. Here it is again:

Originally posted by MyTie:http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/303533/everyone-s-racist-ian-tuttle

@softest -
These are not “extreme” examples. The people citing this stuff are mainstream news outlets and politicians themselves. This stuff is New York Times, not just MSNBC. Don’t try to paint a mainstream liberal movement as some sort of fringe rarity, nor the critics of that movement as fanatical nuts. This is Joe Biden, not just Jesse Jackson.

 
Flag Post

I’m really tempted to link to major news outlets overtly race baiting, to prove my point. The problem is, I don’t want to give them a platform. I want to address something disgusting, but it’s actually to vile to post. Besides, I have a strong feeling that some of the libs here would actually sympathize with this garbage. I fear inspiring others to believe this crap.

The more I study this, and read about it, the more I see that the effort is to label certain words as “code words”, and the use of those words as “racist”. Some of the words are “welfare”, “entitlements”, “unemployment”, “debt”, etc. Once these words are labeled as code words, then anyone who talks about them gets the racist label. It’s just a lame attempt to silence discussion about certain topics.

 
Flag Post

I’m really tempted to link to major news outlets overtly race baiting, to prove my point. The problem is, I don’t want to give them a platform. I want to address something disgusting, but it’s actually to vile to post. Besides, I have a strong feeling that some of the libs here would actually sympathize with this garbage. I fear inspiring others to believe this crap.

It’s posts like these that make me wish I hadn’t wasted my time filling up the last page with referee notes. You’re so full of crap it’s no wonder the liberal crap looks so easy-going by comparison.

Enough with the goddamn blogs and watch lists you’re so fond of. Post the real sources or don’t bother continuing the spiel.

And YES, Coulter is a fanatic. These right-wing ‘news’ sources that love making hay about how ‘victimized’ they are, are fanatics. They’ll never be satisfied, and they’ll never agree to an open perspective – they fear being wrong, and they develop persecution complexes so they’ll never have to be. But what really bugs me is the sense of patriarchal entitlement in your posts, the preachy moral majority crap that is inherently contradictory to the underdog position you and conservatives like you so desperately crave. Compared to that, I don’t care what the liberals have done.

 
Flag Post

It’s unnecessary to “referee” for me. I don’t expect nor desire fairness here. This is a massively liberal leaning internet forum with scant moderation. I know what I’m getting into.

As for this “source” stuff, let’s just cut it out and look at the issue free from medium.

Joe Biden said that Republicans want to put blacks “back in chains”. That’s fucking race baiting. That is the vice president of the united states, not some fringe whack.

What say you to that? What defense is there for it?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by MyTie:

Joe Biden said that Republicans want to put blacks “back in chains”. That’s fucking race baiting. That is the vice president of the united states, not some fringe whack.

Its not race baiting if the republican politicians in general give every indication of that being the type of goal they are after. Examples such as ‘Civil rights under threat as states plan assault on anti-discrimination laws’ don’t help. Maybe ‘put back in chains’ is a bit extreme. In the example cited, there’s just a movement to remove the right to vote from the blacks. It is still discrimination based on skin color by one side of the political spectrum, and it is absolutely something to be opposed.

Your skin color should not matter. If you are an American citizen, in theory you should be granted equal rights to every otherAmerican citizen, and these rightshould not be taken away from you for any political reason.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:
Originally posted by scoopolard:

Citation? Because the way I see it, the American Left just sort of reduces racial and ethnic groups into voting blocs. The AL doesn’t see them as individuals. They just see them as a consistent voting source, and anybody who disagrees with the AL are immediately proclaimed to be racist.

And there ya have it….
a load of shit from someone w/ a Phd. in hyperbole.
Just how small does a mind have to be in order to view the world as being THAT SIMPLISTIC?

Still waiting on a citation.

Originally posted by Redem:

Citation? Because the way I see it, the American Left just sort of reduces racial and ethnic groups into voting blocs. The AL doesn’t see them as individuals. They just see them as a consistent voting source, and anybody who disagrees with the AL are immediately proclaimed to be racist.

Eh, how would you like that cited? It is public knowledge that the right has opposed basically every piece of legislation that incrementally introduced racial equality, fighting a constant rearguard against it. At the same time it’s been the left that’s promoted and passed that legislation. Same on gender quality and sexual equality.

Still waiting.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:
Originally posted by MyTie:

Joe Biden said that Republicans want to put blacks “back in chains”. That’s fucking race baiting. That is the vice president of the united states, not some fringe whack.

Its not race baiting if the republican politicians in general give every indication of that being the type of goal they are after. Examples such as ‘Civil rights under threat as states plan assault on anti-discrimination laws’ don’t help. Maybe ‘put back in chains’ is a bit extreme. In the example cited, there’s just a movement to remove the right to vote from the blacks. It is still discrimination based on skin color by one side of the political spectrum, and it is absolutely something to be opposed.

Your skin color should not matter. If you are an American citizen, in theory you should be granted equal rights to every otherAmerican citizen, and these rightshould not be taken away from you for any political reason.

Please explain to me again how that is NOT race-baiting. And I don’t think the aim to take away black voting rights was ever mentioned to be supported by the Right Wing. Also, it appears as though a lot of this is about affirmative action…which doesn’t qualify as a civil right…

And, if you do somehow manage to accurately explain why Joe Biden was not race baiting, try defending this lovely piece from the oh so loved Chris Matthews:
http://www.examiner.com/article/chris-matthews-romney-referencing-obama-s-revenge-comment-racist

 
Flag Post

vika-
The article sites gerrymandering, and opposition to Affirmative Action, among other benign issues as proof of racism? Gonna have to do better than that to justify the VP claiming Republicans want to put blacks in chains.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by scoopolard:

And, if you do somehow manage to accurately explain why Joe Biden was not race baiting, try defending this lovely piece from the oh so loved Chris Matthews:
http://www.examiner.com/article/chris-matthews-romney-referencing-obama-s-revenge-comment-racist

Why would I? Individuals are individual. We’re not some glorious hive-mind. Neither side is composed of a multiple-individual hive mind. Instead, its composed of individuals with individual agendas which often share a lot in common. There are racists on the left, just asthere are racists on the right. These people are human, after all.

 
Flag Post

We’re not some glorious hive-mind.

by your command.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:
Originally posted by scoopolard:

And, if you do somehow manage to accurately explain why Joe Biden was not race baiting, try defending this lovely piece from the oh so loved Chris Matthews:
http://www.examiner.com/article/chris-matthews-romney-referencing-obama-s-revenge-comment-racist

Why would I? Individuals are individual. We’re not some glorious hive-mind. Neither side is composed of a multiple-individual hive mind. Instead, its composed of individuals with individual agendas which often share a lot in common. There are racists on the left, just asthere are racists on the right. These people are human, after all.

So, do you feel that Biden is or is not race baiting?

 
Flag Post
But using “sources” that are so hard leaning, be it left or right, and then claiming that these non-journalists are representative of an overall trend is fallacious.

It’s not just MSNBC – it’s the New York Times, the Washington Post, the LA Times, and any other left of center publication. Here’s the Wapo editorial board:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-gops-bizarre-attack-on-susan-rice/2012/11/22/22c54a10-340a-11e2-bfd5-e202b6d7b501_story.html

If only the Republican Party had approved of an African American Secretary of State before to make this argument even more absurd than it already is on face value. Oh wait…