Liberal Race Baiting page 2

140 posts

Flag Post
Originally posted by Redem:

Conservatives and Republicans have consistently been against racism. Republicans fought for the end to slavery. Republicans voted for Blacks to have the right to vote, with Democrats voting against. The difference is, Dems have become the party of handouts to minorities. But, the Democrats, and liberals, are the party with the history of racism.

Simply untrue, if you ignore everything but the name. Conservatives are the ones that opposed and continue to oppose racial equality legislation and social changes, right back until the time they fought a war to maintain slavery. They’ve spent a lot of effort on trying to sound less racist but haven’t changed their goals significantly.

Back when the republican party was the liberal party, they opposed slavery, but then they chose to appeal more towards conservatives and began their march to the right and opposed racial equality.

Coulter is not worth reading on any subject, so no thanks.

HAHA. I list specific events that demonstrate I’m correct. You say “nu huh, there are other things I’m not listing, and I won’t read what you link because I disagree with it”. There’s no way to argue with this, so I’ll just leave you to your own self complimentary devices.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by MyTie:
Originally posted by Twilight_Ninja:Both sides seem to do it (shrug)

I think this is a cop out. Liberals have SLAMMED conservatives for so called “racism” for a long time now, on matters, like this Susan Rice thing, which have nothing to do with race. I’m sure there are conservatives who race bait, but the sides are hardly balanced on this issue. Even on this board, there is race baiting by the libs. Karma directly said the other day, on the healthcare thread, that I oppose it because I hate poor people, and I’m “not allowed” to hate blacks and gays anymore. This is the mount Everest of strawmen, and it’s so obvious, and so silly. How can people buy this crap? I know I’m not racist, and I’m sick of being called racist. I’m sick of it.

Just like how conservatives don’t call liberals “baby killers”.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Kegfarms:Just like how conservatives don’t call liberals “baby killers”.

I love this point! It’s a good illustration of what I’m talking about. Conservatives call liberals baby killers for their support of abortion. Liberals call conservatives racist for opposing Obamacare, which would hurt black people. Which one of these is accurate? Well, abortion kills babies, and opposing Obamacare doesn’t actually hurt black people. Liberals are baby killers, and conservatives aren’t racist, in these illustrations. The shoe fits in one example, but not in the other. McCain isn’t a racist for opposing Susan Rice’s appointment to Secretary of State. One is a ridiculous assertion. Race has nothing to do with Susan Rice’s opposition. One is a smear, and the other is accurate.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by MyTie:
Originally posted by Kegfarms:Just like how conservatives don’t call liberals “baby killers”.

I love this point! It’s a good illustration of what I’m talking about. Conservatives call liberals baby killers for their support of abortion. Liberals call conservatives racist for opposing Obamacare, which would hurt black people. Which one of these is accurate? Well, abortion kills babies, and opposing Obamacare doesn’t actually hurt black people. Liberals are baby killers, and conservatives aren’t racist, in these illustrations. The shoe fits in one example, but not in the other. McCain isn’t a racist for opposing Susan Rice’s appointment to Secretary of State. One is a ridiculous assertion. Race has nothing to do with Susan Rice’s opposition. One is a smear, and the other is accurate.

Actually it is all about race.

You see, when Rice jumped to conclusions after the attack, nobody was against her.

All of the republicans began their smear campaign after Obama won, because they are mad that a black man is president.

Also, abortion does not kill babies, it kills fetuses which aren’t babies yet. Its like saying we should let babies have alcohol because they COULD be an adult later and should therefor have all of the adult rights and responsibilities NOW

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by MyTie:
Originally posted by Kegfarms:Just like how conservatives don’t call liberals “baby killers”.

I love this point! It’s a good illustration of what I’m talking about. Conservatives call liberals baby killers for their support of abortion. Liberals call conservatives racist for opposing Obamacare, which would hurt black people. Which one of these is accurate? Well, abortion kills babies, and opposing Obamacare doesn’t actually hurt black people. Liberals are baby killers, and conservatives aren’t racist, in these illustrations. The shoe fits in one example, but not in the other. McCain isn’t a racist for opposing Susan Rice’s appointment to Secretary of State. One is a ridiculous assertion. Race has nothing to do with Susan Rice’s opposition. One is a smear, and the other is accurate.

The problem w/ YOUR “logic” here is that so little of the rheotric is of a factual nature.

Abortion doesn’t kill babies…we’ve talked this one to death.
Ergo…“conservatives” who say this are little more than complete ignorant idiots.

YOUR “connection” of Obamacare and lack of it hurting Blacks as being the definitve reason to oppose it (ergo entirely based on race = racism) is even more stooopid for ANYONE to make…be it liberal or conservative.

Yes, a lot of Blacks ARE serverely impacted by poor health care….and Obama care would help emensely.
BUT,,,,So would the hugely greater number of WHITES, etc. who are in the same boat as those Blacks.

SO, this “comparison logic” YOU want to pass off as being proof that lib’s slam down the race card at every opportunity is just overly loaded w/ bullshit…..of the magnitude that it is just as easily seen from outer space as is the Great Wall of China.

 
Flag Post
It is the many on the “conservative side” of the debate who insist that half-black Obama wouldn’t have been elected were he white. NOW, if THAT isn’t racism & playing a race card…I don’t know what is. Maybe, just maybe, a hugely strong majority of Blacks voted FOR Obama because they were actually voting AGAINST the many policies of the GOP…maybe partially because of their “racial flavor” being merely one of them.

Maybe, just maybe, it is the idiotic position (MyTie…I’m insulting YOUR opinion, NOT YOU) using of historical use of political party identification as some kind of proof that Democrats & liberals are racist…yet, in some oddly skewed manner, will “play the race card” seemingly because they use it to skewer the GOP radical conservatives,,,esp. their NON-RACIAL programs of equality for those who are different than they.

The economic condition among Blacks in the US has deteriorated under the President’s term. That is an undeniable fact. The economic conditions in the Black community compared to other racial demographics and the nation as a whole has lagged considerably under this administration. That also is an undeniable fact.

I’m not sure you’re trying to make the argument that if Obama were white he would be under the same scrutiny, but the chair of the Congressional Black Caucus said" If we had a white president we’d be marching around the White House." Certainly African Americans would have broken overwhelmingly for the Democratic Candidate regardless of the color of his/her skin. But to more or less ignore the fact that many people voted on race, as you seem to be doing, is absurd.

It’s anecdotal, but I know a number of people who voted for the President in ‘08 because they wanted to vote in the first racial minority into the White House. It’s anecdotal, but there are people like Samuel Jackson who openly admitted he voted for Obama because he was black and that Obama’s message didn’t mean anything to him. Are instances like this the majority of the President’s vote totals? Absolutely not, but I would argue that instances like these aren’t a negligible amount of his totals either.

Just like how conservatives don’t call liberals “baby killers”.
Well, abortion kills babies, and opposing Obamacare doesn’t actually hurt black people. Liberals are baby killers, and conservatives aren’t racist, in these illustrations.
Also, abortion does not kill babies, it kills fetuses which aren’t babies yet. Its like saying we should let babies have alcohol because they COULD be an adult later and should therefor have all of the adult rights and responsibilities NOW
Abortion doesn’t kill babies…we’ve talked this one to death.
Ergo…“conservatives” who say this are little more than complete ignorant idiots.

I’m pretty sure there are about a hundred different threads talking about abortion – it really isn’t necessary to clutter a discussion about the politicization of race with it.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by CROWcialism:You see, when Rice jumped to conclusions after the attack, nobody was against her.

You were under a rock? The questioning of her statements came immediately.

Originally posted by CROWcialism:Also, abortion does not kill babies

I disagree, but it isn’t necessary to conclude this disagreement to come to an understanding. The reasoning that abortion is killing a baby, while debatable, is at least grounded in reason. Those reasons are not all agreed upon, but they are at least understood. We know why conservatives think that abortions kill babies. Something that would have been a baby is dead. But, there is no logical reasoning, agreed upon or not that the opposition to Susan Rice by McCain is based in RACISM. That’s ridiculous. So, to use these two examples as comparable doesn’t work.

 
Flag Post
The reasoning that abortion is killing a baby, while debatable, is at least grounded in reason.

Actually it isn’t connected to reason at all. Using the word ‘baby’ instead of fetus is just a means of sensationalizing the debate by using an emotionally charged word – ‘liberal fetus-killers’ lacks the same connotation of moral outrage that ‘liberal baby-killer’ has in spades. It’s not biologically accurate to call a fetus a baby. That’s not an opinion formed by ideology, it’s just a fact.

 
Flag Post

Jan – From the other perspective, removing “baby” and inserting “fetus” is just a way of covering up something that is awful. The point isn’t WHO IS RIGHT, but the point is DO BOTH SIDES HAVE REASONS. That can only be answered with a “yes”. Yes, liberals and conservatives both have reasoning behind the abortion debate. HOWEVER!!!! The liberals do not have reasoning behind this racism drumbeat. They have no argument. They are not right. The fight in abortion, at least they have their points, and arguments. The racism argument has no supporting points. It is simply calling people “racist” without any foundation for the accusation. That is the difference between these arguments, and how they are not comparable.

 
Flag Post

Jan – From the other perspective, removing “baby” and inserting “fetus” is just a way of covering up something that is awful.

Yeah, but again…that’s trying to put the argument into emotional terms, which is deceptive. If everything is emotional then the debate just becomes polarized between different, mostly false, extremes – baby-killers versus misogynists.

Both sides have reasons, sure. But the language, the kinds of rhetoric employed, matter. You think it’s all one to call a fetus a baby, as if the words are interchangeable. They’re not. Nor, from the other side, would it be accurate to call pro-lifers (in broad strokes) misogynists, if perhaps for the simple reason that there are many women who are pro-life. There is a sort of decorum that has to be followed, and it has nothing to do with civility, and everything to do with ensuring your wording is accurate. If one side decides not do that, why would the other side bother? And this lack of decorum bleeds over into other controversies, hence the liberal application of racism to the conservative character.

As far as empirical evidence for racism among conservative, critics – liberal and otherwise – have plenty of reasons. What matters in this debate is whether it’s fair to generalize the traditional conservative party in the US as a bunch of racists, or if that’s a reductionist argument, or even, as you say, a hypocritical argument.

Thus the two arguments ARE comparable, if only slightly, because in both, both ideologies employ rhetoric that misleads or outright falsifies the stasis, the central point being contested. Of course, in that sense it’s comparable to almost any political controversy, but that’s what i’m getting at – there’s nothing exceptional about the topic, and trying to make it so is just another form of deception, another argument that gets thrown off course because of partisan bickering in other (mostly) unrelated arguments.

TLDR: current discussions in other threads have posters (mostly liberal) bemoaning the fact that the discussion just goes around in circles. That’s because it takes so long for ideological opposites to put aside their bullshit spin-language in order to try to get to the heart of the debate. Instead they waste time debating outlying points of issue or even non-points, ie. ‘she called me this so i called him that’ and other meaningless shit.

 
Flag Post

Actually this thread is a good example of an ‘outlying point’ that really just confuses the main issue. Mytie’s pissed that liberal mouthpieces demonize US conservatives by tarring them all as racists since forever. To corroborate this argument he uses a conservative mouthpiece, Anne Coulter, who is

a) no historian
b) a pundit infamous for demonizing liberals.

Bravo, mytie.

Liberal posters respond by tying up the question in a labyrinth of other issues not really related to the question, more demonizations, and no proofs for their counter-arguments whatsoever, even bad ones.

Bravo, liberals.

So we can waste some more time arguing over this, or try to resolve the stasis: (why) does liberalism – whose members, it is often claimed, are lampbearers of an enlightened, tolerant ideology – silence dissent (through reductionist slurs like ‘bigot’, ‘racist’ etc) from any position that doesn’t play by their rules? What are those rules? If liberalism does silence dissent, how can this imbalance be corrected?

Damned if I know. But that’s the point of issue I’d start from if I wanted some straight answers.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by MyTie:
Originally posted by Kegfarms:Just like how conservatives don’t call liberals “baby killers”.

I love this point! It’s a good illustration of what I’m talking about. Conservatives call liberals baby killers for their support of abortion. Liberals call conservatives racist for opposing Obamacare, which would hurt black people. Which one of these is accurate? Well, abortion kills babies, and opposing Obamacare doesn’t actually hurt black people. Liberals are baby killers, and conservatives aren’t racist, in these illustrations. The shoe fits in one example, but not in the other. McCain isn’t a racist for opposing Susan Rice’s appointment to Secretary of State. One is a ridiculous assertion. Race has nothing to do with Susan Rice’s opposition. One is a smear, and the other is accurate.

Nope. Abortion kills fetuses.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by issendorf:

It’s anecdotal, but I know a number of people who voted for the President in ‘08 because they wanted to vote in the first racial minority into the White House. It’s anecdotal, but there are people like Samuel Jackson who openly admitted he voted for Obama because he was black and that Obama’s message didn’t mean anything to him.

I’ll admit that in 08 the thought of having the first black president was kind of cool, but at that time I was overwhelmingly won over by his personality/charisma/message. I will say, though, that voting for or against someone just because of their skin color bothers me. When I see anything split along racial lines that way (while discarding the message and ideology), it makes me kind of sick.

 
Flag Post

Jan – Ok. Fair enough. I don’t agree with it all, but it is effective at bringing up back to point.

Case in point: Joe Biden’s appeal to racism, the comment that said Republicans wanted to put blacks “back in chains”.

Source:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57496040/giuliani-biden-chains-remark-a-blatant-appeal-to-racism/

 
Flag Post

Wow.
Way to completely ignore basically everything jan said, mytie.

Jan, great couple of posts.
Like, got me thinking about some of my responses to things.

Good on ya, man. :)

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by softest_voice:
Like, got me thinking about some of my responses to things.

Good on ya, man. :)

I concur, softest. In fact, I was going to make a similar gesture...though it would likely be viewed by him as merely being fawning, butt-kissing. LOL

Even though he very much toned down his typical scathing rhetoric...his polemic postion had its own share of reductionism. Of course, I fully understand that the other end of a critical analysis of the situational confrontations on this forum--and in RL in general--would need a tome....and that likely such assessment would require one for each of the "biggie" issues.

HOWEVER, his brief assessment did nicely bring into a focus something that I highly agree with: beating problems (in a long-dead horse manner?) to such a bloody pulp that--when a timeout (such as his there) is called and a few ppl involved actually do step back and do some reassessment--it succinctly appears that the issue itself has taken a backseat and the fight has become the manna du jour....ya know, like a hockey game. I went to see a fight and it broke out into a hockey game. 0¿~

I don't have much of a problem w/ a good thorough--and even passionately heated--looking at & assessing of the problematic issue at hand. But, there comes a time when this needs to naturally evolve--and continue to do so from time-2-time--into a discussion of WHAT MIGHT A SOLUTION to the problem could be and how best to begin the first steps towards implementing various (there should likely ALWAYS be more than one) solutions...in hopes that some actual progress can be made in solving the problem at hand. Obamacare quickly comes to mind.

Much to my chagrin (esp.since I like to think of myself as a "solution facilitator"), I have--for the most part--failed to put forth my typical "call-to-arms" to end a really fucked up "peaceful", doggerel belaboring of the issue and encouraged us to begin a truly beneficial search for solutions to it. I should have long ago put forth to jake-o's excessive bitching about his govt. and appeal to him to present just what exactly he thinks is the SOLUTION to the problems. I think that in doing so, he just might discover that the many situations he has harsh issue w/ are merely not as easily solvable and likely simply inherent in establishing some form of social order for such a huge number of very diverse people spread over a very large area of equally diversity.

Maybe it is because I often just enjoy a good donnybrook of ideological clashes as a prelude to a chartic mosh pit that can--as Jan puts it--seek to come up w/ some RULES that might possibly correct the imbalance of intolerance-of-dissent...from both sides of the issue. I might venture to say that most (all?) of us on this forum & in RL are "guilty" of doing this from time-2-time, and in different measure depending upon mood & issue. But, isn't that pretty much what life comes down to....between person-2-person and nation-2-nation?

There are a few points Jan brings up that I would like to "contest" as a means to prompt some clarification:
Originally posted by Jantonaitis:

Actually this thread is a good example of an ‘outlying point’ that really just confuses the main issue. Mytie’s pissed that liberal mouthpieces demonize US conservatives by tarring them all as racists since forever. To corroborate this argument he uses a conservative mouthpiece, Anne Coulter, who is

a) no historian
b) a pundit infamous for demonizing liberals.

Bravo, mytie.

Liberal posters respond by tying up the question in a labyrinth of other issues not really related to the question, more demonizations, and no proofs for their counter-arguments whatsoever, even bad ones.

Bravo, liberals.

While I don't disagree, for the most part, w/ this overly terse (both main definitions) assessment of our behavior on this forum (& in RL)...I think it is wrong for him to paint said behavior w/ such a broad & heavy stroke of often similar (frustration driven?) angst when he is addressing the more extremes of our contentions. BUT, as I've stated before, operating well within the extremes of an issue is often tantamont to having ones head up their ass. It is the really heavy smoke & red glow & intense heat that really gets the attention that there is probably a FIRE that needs to be dealt with. Jan does bring this problem of our "merry-go-roung" stasis by saying:

So we can waste some more time arguing over this, or try to resolve the stasis: (why) does liberalism – whose members, it is often claimed, are lampbearers of an enlightened, tolerant ideology – silence dissent (through reductionist slurs like ‘bigot’, ‘racist’ etc) from any position that doesn’t play by their rules? What are those rules? If liberalism does silence dissent, how can this imbalance be corrected?

Damned if I know. But that’s the point of issue I’d start from if I wanted some straight answers.

It is truly our misfortune (ass-kissing alert here...lol) that he is _"dammed if he knows"_ how these two extremes can 'cease fire' long enough to have at least a 'cold war' where a detente might induce this _"point of issue he would start from if he wanted some straight answers"_ on these very serious problems our global society faces. I want to present a part of his preceding post where he gave a very good of an assesment of our more base "bickering" as a prelude to his post above:
Originally posted by Jantonaitis:

TLDR: current discussions in other threads have posters (mostly liberal) bemoaning the fact that the discussion just goes around in circles. That’s because it takes so long for ideological opposites to put aside their bullshit spin-language in order to try to get to the heart of the debate. Instead they waste time debating outlying points of issue or even non-points, ie. ‘she called me this so i called him that’ and other meaningless shit.

I would also like to point out that Jan isn't being much of a sterling example of civility even though he tends (claims?) to remain aloof of taking sides in some of the issues. His demeanor is often just as caustic and demeaning, if not moreso, than the most antagonistic pf posters. Sure, a lot of it boarders on a form of highly critical ad homenism of the ideology of a poster (something I quite often do)...but, I try to overlook not only the personality of the messenger,,,I try to overlook the manner in which the message is delivered. So, as he is so often wont to do in calling hypocrisy on ppl (seemingly in extra delight to me....lol),,,I offer that he might have a good, long look in a mirror in an attempt to understand why he is so (compeled?) readily adept at being caustic in delivering his poignant views. Not one whit of ass-kissing (as he has called my acknowledgment of his intellectual acumen) attempted here, but I greatly appreciates what he brings to this forum. I hope he gives strong consideration to his thinking about abandoning us.
 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Jantonaitis:


So we can waste some more time arguing over this, or try to resolve the stasis: (why) does liberalism – whose members, it is often claimed, are lampbearers of an enlightened, tolerant ideology – silence dissent (through reductionist slurs like ‘bigot’, ‘racist’ etc) from any position that doesn’t play by their rules?

As I see it, its never about silencing dissent, just pointing out what someone’s position actually is. So they’re a racist. Why does that mean they have to shut up, or their position is suddenly not valued? If anything, identifying that hey are in fact a racist, will help them understand their own views a lot more. They don’t have to change anything, just acknowledge that they are.

The fairly recent issue with one poster who has since left us – Darear – was a perfect example. He made such an insane hoohah out of it being pointed out to him that he was racist. It was insane. All he had to do was ‘man up’, admit he was racist, acknowledge that may color his views, and we move on from there.

Too often people tend to clam up or go off on a rant when their intolerance is pointed out – racism, homophobia, sexism, whatever it happens to be. There’s no need for either response. Just acknowledge the fact and move on. It’s interesting to find out why someone is racist, sexist, whatever, both from an outside point of view, and for them themselves.

Just because they are, does not mean there is suddenly no value in their point of view. Rather the opposite, usually. It is just that getting them to talk about their own prejudices is often like trying to get blood out of a stone.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:
Originally posted by Jantonaitis:


So we can waste some more time arguing over this, or try to resolve the stasis: (why) does liberalism – whose members, it is often claimed, are lampbearers of an enlightened, tolerant ideology – silence dissent (through reductionist slurs like ‘bigot’, ‘racist’ etc) from any position that doesn’t play by their rules?

As I see it, its never about silencing dissent, just pointing out what someone’s position actually is. So they’re a racist. Why does that mean they have to shut up, or their position is suddenly not valued? If anything, identifying that hey are in fact a racist, will help them understand their own views a lot more. They don’t have to change anything, just acknowledge that they are.

The fairly recent issue with one poster who has since left us – Darear – was a perfect example. He made such an insane hoohah out of it being pointed out to him that he was racist. It was insane. All he had to do was ‘man up’, admit he was racist, acknowledge that may color his views, and we move on from there.

Too often people tend to clam up or go off on a rant when their intolerance is pointed out – racism, homophobia, sexism, whatever it happens to be. There’s no need for either response. Just acknowledge the fact and move on. It’s interesting to find out why someone is racist, sexist, whatever, both from an outside point of view, and for them themselves.

Just because they are, does not mean there is suddenly no value in their point of view. Rather the opposite, usually. It is just that getting them to talk about their own prejudices is often like trying to get blood out of a stone.

I agree in a way – we all have internal biases that affect our decisions. And often, these quick judgments we make are for the good – as humans we have to process information and act on it quickly. But we also need to be able to step back and take a slow objective look at situations and problems also. If we allow the same things we use to make snap judgments to influence us here, we might have a problem. Ex) We might choose not to read a book because it has an ugly cover. The cover is one easy source of information about a book to us, so we use it to make a quick decision at a library. However, if we read a book and then say it was bad because of an ugly cover, we’re being somewhat strange.

Obviously this leads to some less than ideal situations. Judgments based off someone’s appearance for example are an interesting topic. We can look at someone briefly and make many assumptions. This isn’t innately bad, but we do have to be careful.

I think what Jant is referring to is the broad characterization by liberals of others. For example, say someone is opposed to abortion and mandatory insurance-coverage of contraceptives. This in no way makes a person ‘sexist’ and is not in any way a ‘war on women’. In fact, it might be more sexist to make the assumption that all women want those types of things. There also seems to be a double standard where conservatives can hardly comment on women’s issues without being called derogatory things while well-known conservative women are considered fair game for all kinds of harassment.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by softest_voice:


Good on ya, man. :)

thanks. I’ll try to clarify a few things.

Originally posted by karmakoolkid:

Much to my chagrin (esp.since I like to think of myself as a “solution facilitator”), I have—for the most part—failed to put forth my typical “call-to-arms” to end a really fucked up “peaceful”, doggerel belaboring of the issue and encouraged us to begin a truly beneficial search for solutions to it. I should have long ago put forth to jake-o’s excessive bitching about his govt. and appeal to him to present just what exactly he thinks is the SOLUTION to the problems. I think that in doing so, he just might discover that the many situations he has harsh issue w/ are merely not as easily solvable and likely simply inherent in establishing some form of social order for such a huge number of very diverse people spread over a very large area of equally diversity.

Well, ok…but you’re relying on his response to the problem to be unsatisfactory – he gives you his fail-answer, and then, if i’m reading the bolded part right, his eyes open with the revelation that Obamacare is the only way out.

In other words, the argument ends with him agreeing with you. But if that doesn’t happen, then what?

Maybe it is because I often just enjoy a good donnybrook of ideological clashes as a prelude to a chartic mosh pit that can—as Jan puts it—seek to come up w/ some RULES that might possibly correct the imbalance of intolerance-of-dissent…from both sides of the issue. I might venture to say that most (all?) of us on this forum & in RL are “guilty” of doing this from time-2-time, and in different measure depending upon mood & issue. But, isn’t that pretty much what life comes down to….between person-2-person and nation-2-nation?

No. I didn’t mean ‘rules’ like rules of civility. There IS a need for decorum, but all that means is ensuring one’s ideas are presented with accurate wording, to avoid misunderstandings…Don’t call someone a racist because he voted for a black guy to become president. Don’t call someone a sexist because (stealing from Bob) he doesn’t believe in gov’t funded free contraceptives. You can still call them (in either case) a fucktard to denote your dislike of their beliefs, but it’s when you use politically loaded words that we run into real problems.

By ‘rules’, I meant the internal logic of liberalism as it’s expressed, say, in this forum.

Take the example you made above about you and jhco discussing obamacare. So you decide to try to reach stasis, the central point, by getting him to offer his solution to health care. You’re expecting that he doesn’t have one. You’re expecting that in the process of trying to form a response, he’ll realize how impossibly big the problem has become, and that he’ll therefore have no choice but admit that obamacare is at least a step in the right direction, if not a solution in itself. You’re not prepared for an alternate solution. Or that jhco won’t offer a solution because he doesn’t need one (ie. favoring the status quo over the risky costs of such massive change). You’re trying to reach stasis but you’re thinking ahead to how you’re going to win this, which is fine, but it puts you on a particular path, and you’re going to be pissed when jhco veers off that path.

I’m shamelessly speculating, of course. Maybe you really are willing to entertain alternatives to obamacare. But I think the scenario I outlined above is pretty consistant with how liberals in a given community (like SD) react to arguments. They posit that any reasonable person given reasoned proofs/time to consider, etc. will think x (x, coincidentally, being their preference). If the other guy doesn’t think x then he’s being unreasonable and needs to be educated.

^ That’s one example of a rule governing liberal logic. There’s lots more. Finding them out would probably make thread debates a lot easier.

I think it is wrong for him to paint said behavior [bravo mytie; bravo liberals] w/ such a broad & heavy stroke of often similar (frustration driven?) angst when he is addressing the more extremes of our contentions.

Then you’ll probably really dislike the sketch I drew above. But that’s all it is, a quick sketch of the situation. I was probably being unfairly critical to both sides when I made it (and I’m probably being unfair to you in the last example), because I’m trying to cover a lot of ground quickly. But you’re quite right to correct me for doing the same thing i’ve been railing against (ie making a hash of presenting my ideas).

I would also like to point out that Jan isn’t being much of a sterling example of civility even though he tends (claims?) to remain aloof of taking sides in some of the issues. His demeanor is often just as caustic and demeaning, if not moreso, than the most antagonistic pf posters. Sure, a lot of it boarders on a form of highly critical ad homenism of the ideology of a poster (something I quite often do)…but, I try to overlook not only the personality of the messenger,,,I try to overlook the manner in which the message is delivered.

,,,I offer that he might have a good, long look in a mirror in an attempt to understand why he is so (compeled?) readily adept at being caustic in delivering his poignant views.


See my reply to Vika
 
Flag Post

As I see it, its never about silencing dissent, just pointing out what someone’s position actually is. So they’re a racist. Why does that mean they have to shut up, or their position is suddenly not valued? If anything, identifying that hey are in fact a racist, will help them understand their own views a lot more. They don’t have to change anything, just acknowledge that they are.

Why should they? Because confession is good for the soul? Because what better way for them to learn about themselves than to publicly admit bigotry to a bunch of strangers?

This is another ‘rule’ of liberal logic. You’re doing it, and karma did it toward the end of his post – deflecting criticism by an appeal to some humble pie / know thyself combo…which conveniently only applies to other people. Like it’s an inherent good if people would just stop lying to themselves and admit their prejudices. Preferably in public. Am I supposed to feel better if I take karma’s advice and ‘take a good hard look in the mirror’, and admit that I’m a real jerk on SD? No – but it’ll make KARMA feel better, because then he’ll know that he never deserved any of the criticisms I’ve dealt him. Just as a conservative admitting that he’s a racist isn’t going to make him a better person or a more reasoned debater, but it’ll certainly vindicate all the liberals who called him that.

And yes, it does serve another function, by silencing views you don’t like. In the ‘israel bombs gaza’ thread I was often at odds with mytie, who is super pro-israel. Suppose in the course of the argument I admit that, “btw, I really hate Jews.” How do you suppose the argument will go from there? Will mytie be impressed that I volunteered this info, perhaps similarly confess a long unacknowledged hatred for Arabs? Or will he point out that the usual political biases aside, my motive for criticizing israel isn’t, in fact, some pure reason like fighting against the injustices committed on the poor, benighted palestinians. It’s because I hate jews so obviously I really hate a country that promotes its jewishness. And from there, everything I’ve criticized Israel for is now suspect, because now it has to be considered from the POV of an anti-semite who’ll say anything to attack Israel. Israel’s been trying to slot anti-israel critics into the anti-semite box for years. They’re not doing it because rigorous honesty is so awesome. They’re doing it because they want those critics to shut up already, and once they’re in that box, their arguments can be easily dismissed.

The fairly recent issue with one poster who has since left us – Darear – was a perfect example. He made such an insane hoohah out of it being pointed out to him that he was racist. It was insane. All he had to do was ‘man up’, admit he was racist, acknowledge that may color his views, and we move on from there.

Yeah, see, it’s actually this example that has made me reluctant to give you the benefit of the doubt here, like you honestly believe confessing your biases to the group (rather than simply being aware of them) is somehow going to result in fruitful discussion.

You called Darear a racist – and subsequently tried to get him to admit it – because of this post. You then said that what makes it racist is the assumption that latinos are the only ethnicity among illegal immigrants, and the further assumption that if Obama’s soft on illegal immigration he’s pandering to latinos.

I’m no expert on the US illegal immigrant issue, but I would generally suppose that while latinos aren’t the only group involved, they’re probably the biggest. So while I see that he made an extreme, all or nothing argument, something he did constantly, which makes him a shitty debater that I don’t miss…I don’t see how he’s a racist for what he said. Nor, given how much he tried to specify his meaning afterwards, and grew increasingly incensed about being called a racist, do I see that whole incident as being a real plus for your argument. “If he only manned up and admitted that he was a racist,” except he wasn’t and agreeing to that label would have had only one positive outcome: you’d be satisfied.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Jantonaitis:

As I see it, its never about silencing dissent, just pointing out what someone’s position actually is. So they’re a racist. Why does that mean they have to shut up, or their position is suddenly not valued? If anything, identifying that hey are in fact a racist, will help them understand their own views a lot more. They don’t have to change anything, just acknowledge that they are.

Why should they? Because confession is good for the soul? Because what better way for them to learn about themselves than to publicly admit bigotry to a bunch of strangers?

Well, seeing as they refuse to do it any other way, why not? You seem to forget that this forum is all about discussion, and understanding one another’s point of view? How can we understand the other person’s point of view, when the other person doesn’t even stop and think why they may havethose inherent biases in the first place?

This is another ‘rule’ of liberal logic. You and karma are both doing it – you’re deflecting criticism by an appeal to some humble pie / know thyself combo.

That’s a crock of shit, and you know it. I’m after understanding more of the other person’s point of view. Its why I pursued you a while back, when I was speaking of full prosthetic bodies, and you voiced the opinion it would horrify you, because you wouldn’t know whether the body was originally male or female, regardless of what it was now, and this was a problem for you. When I pushed for why that mattered, you were too chickenshit to reply, and clammed up. Despite the fact this was actually a valuable POV worth exploring, you refused to discuss further, even when pressed. That was entirely your decision Janton. I was eager to examine that position and try and understand it. You would not allow that. No ‘liberal’ took control of your body and forced you to stay silent, that was entirely you.

Like it’s an inherent good if people would just stop lying to themselves and admit their prejudices.

Well, yes. I’ve had mine exposed on this forum, and its done me a lot of good. DarkBaron exposed my fear of being alone in a room with a strange man, and my fear of being alone in a room with a convicted sex offender, as both being examples of a version of misandry. Its a version without any hatred whatsoever, but its still a fear of not being able to defend myself against a powerful man, so misandry does sorta fit. Its something I have tried to keep in mind since then. Tried to push my boundaries a little.

Being aware of where you have prejudice is the first step to fighting it, and if you don’t see it in yourself, its best to have it pointed out by another. At least SD is semi-private, so better than it being out in the open. Very few people come here, even fewer come here regularly. We’re a lot like a tight-knit community in that fashion.

Am I supposed to feel better if I take karma’s advice and ‘take a good hard look in the mirror’, and admit that I’m a real jerk on SD?

Not the same sort of thing. We’re looking for real, deep-seated issues, that may be subconsciously affecting your worldview. They often express themselves without the person really realising, over and over again in their arguments. These are basically mental diahorrea, and its surprising what baggage does come out if you look closely. Helps to understand the person better, and their pointt of view better.

because then he’ll know that he never deserved the harsh criticisms I’ve dealt him.

Of course he did. As I already said, it doesn’t change the arguments. It doesn’t change the facts. If you dealt them out, he did something to you to deserve them. Figuring out what that was, is always a valued exercise, as it might lead to some self-discovery. It equally might not. Sometimes just existing is enough to set another person off.

Just as a conservative admitting that he’s a racist isn’t going to make him a better person or a more reasoned debater, but it’ll certainly vindicate all the liberals who called him that.

Who cares about vindication for some shallow minds? The important thing once we realise its there (both sides) is trying to work out why its there. Racism isn’t inherently bad after all. It all depends on why it has been instilled. Like my issue with men in proximity without backup available, there is often a solid reason in the past for why it exists. A justification if you will.

Not looking to change anyone, just identify natural biases, and work out the reason for them being there. Then we can work round them in discussion. It opens up more tracks for discussion, not less. There’s more we can explore with a willing debate partner with honesty about their own preconceptions. Far better than these people who try to lie about them to conform to some perceived standard, then slip up in their actual arguments.

And yes, it does serve another function, by silencing views you don’t like. In the ‘israel bombs gaza’ thread I was often at odds with mytie, who is super pro-israel. Suppose in the course of the argument I admit that, “btw, I really hate Jews.” How do you suppose the argument will go from there?

Knowing MyTie from previous arguments, he doesn’t have the strength of character to accept that point of view in you. We had another poster, Yarga, a long, long time ago, who did have that point of view. He honestly could not stand jews, and blamed them for German economic woes, post WW2. He was one of those who could not help but drag that argument into every thread he participated in, but when he wasn’t doing that, when we saw his actual views in context, it was a fascinating glimpse into a very different set of motivations. There were some very illuminating conversations.

They’re not doing it because rigorous honesty is so awesome. They’re doing it because they want those critics to shut up already, and once they’re in that box, their arguments can be easily dismissed.

Just because they’re doing it for those reasons, doesn’t mean I am, or Karma is (though I don’t know what Karma’s motivations are). I do it to better comprehend where the other poster is coming from, and in hopes of pumping that for better access to that point of view. I disagree with it, strongly, but how are we ever to learn from one another, if people keep these views hidden? I’d rather they were honest about their biases, and then we can work with that.

Ironically, that’s about the only thing I respect MyTie for. He wears his biases openly, on his sleeve. He’s extremely intransient, but you can see at a glance exactly where he stands, and thanks to several of your own posts, and ungs, on the matter, I find it much easier to understand where he is coming from, and am much more aware now of the incideous dangers of such a POV to certain other efforts. Aware enough to be wary should I encounter another such individual professionally, offline. Continued arguing with him – or continued lurking whilst others argue with him, helps me build up better picture of that type of mindset.

I’m looking for a specific purpose, yes. Like your example of Israel, I’m looking for potential threat to projects I am involved in, and to my interests. But, unlike your Israel example, the last thing I want is to silence them. The more I understand, the better prepared I am. Again, its why I was so damn interested in your view regarding full prosthetic bodies. It is a view I damn well know I am going to encounter sooner or later, for real. Understanding as much as possible about that point of view now, is critical for later on, when it really matters. Its why I was so disappointed when you never did get back to me. I was equally disappointed when DarkRuler clamed up likewise, after a similar incident in a thread regarding sentient rights to artificial minds.

I need these dissenting, honest opinions, and need for people to stop hiding behind some lie of conformity. They’ve expressed them – often multiple times – but they very rarely stand by their bigtry, and attempt to explain it from their point of view. So, I pursue every opportunity that arises aggrssively. I need them to rise to the occasion, and start giving me whatI seek to know. When they clam up instead, I feel like bludgeoning them with a blunt instrument until they start talking again.

You called Darear a racist – and subsequently tried to get him to admit it – because of this post. You then said that what makes it racist is the assumption that latinos are the only ethnicity among illegal immigrants, and the further assumption that if Obama’s soft on illegal immigration he’s pandering to latinos.

I’m no expert on the US illegal immigrant issue, but I would generally suppose that while latinos aren’t the only group involved, they’re probably the biggest. So while I see that he made an extreme, all or nothing argument, something he did constantly… ::snip::

Exactly. He did it constantly. It was screaming out like a bullhorn, loud and clear, that there was a real issue there. Why that issue existed was of interest. In the end, in that post, I called him out on it. He was a racist, as simple fact. If he had just acknowledged that, we would have started in on trying to work out why that was so. Not to change his racism; that’s fine as it is. Instead, to understand where he was coming from, and why he felt like that. Truly understanding why he saw the latinos as an enemy based on their ethnicity, would have been highly useful.

Yes, it benefits me more than Darear, although the honesty is certainly appreciated, but I can repay that benefit (I hope) in exploring the depths of that bias, and hopefully come up with something useful to him as well. Admittedly maybe Darear was the wrong individual to work with, as he was extremely prone to hyperbole and hatred, but I work with the material that makes itself available.

Its never been about vindiction; its always simply been about data. To avoid going too far off topic, I’ll end with a note that DarkBaron recently asked me about why I stay on these forums. I’d recommend you ask him to share those whispers with you, as it is directly relevant to this whole argument. If he won’t, I still have a copy in word. It might help you to understand the whole purpose behind all my debates here.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Jantonaitis:

Just as a conservative admitting that he’s a racist isn’t going to make him a better person or a more reasoned debater, but it’ll certainly vindicate all the liberals who called him that.

On this note, I wonder, how many racist people even know they’re racist? Something considered racist to one group just looks like common sense to another. I recall a news story ran on a town in the South which is one of the last sundown towns remaining, and when interviewing a local woman who did not consider herself racist, she said, “I’m not racist, I don’t have a problem with black people, I just won’t eat with them.”

I’ve heard other real life variations like, “I don’t dislike black people, they just can’t marry my kids.” etc. etc. What good could it do to have someone put a label on themselves they apparently don’t understand and identify with anyway?

 
Flag Post

Well, moving along.

So we can waste some more time arguing over this, or try to resolve the stasis: (why) does liberalism – whose members, it is often claimed, are lampbearers of an enlightened, tolerant ideology – silence dissent (through reductionist slurs like ‘bigot’, ‘racist’ etc) from any position that doesn’t play by their rules? What are those rules? If liberalism does silence dissent, how can this imbalance be corrected?

Now I truly don’t mean to be glib here, but I feel there is a simple answer. Because they can. It’s a stick, and right now with their guy as visible minority POTUS it is their stick. It is a simple enough tool afforded to them in the current political climate, and they’re going to use it.

Now, why do Democrats do this despite being ‘the good guys’? Well, because they’re not. They are career politicians, or those that feed off them. I think those that hold any sort of ideals as greater value their own beyond rational interest and their cushy employment are pretty few and far between – and certainly not the type that anyone would likely ever hear about.

The democrats are certainly actively trying to silence dissent by connoting that their opposition is racist. What can be done to correct that? Bah, little. It’s populist rhetoric for a populace scared of racists. Which is in its way perhaps a good thing. It shows that the US truly is beginning to Other the notion of racism and treat it as separate
and hostile.

It will likely continue until growing anxiety and expectations force the Republicans to forward a few minority nominates. Which will take quite a great deal of pressure certainly, because you know, they’re…

 
Flag Post

HAHA. I list specific events that demonstrate I’m correct. You say “nu huh, there are other things I’m not listing, and I won’t read what you link because I disagree with it”.

You don’t list specifics, you merely engaged in a little sophistry to try to wriggle out from under the fact that conservatives have been the ones holding back equality. Whether it be racial, sexual, gender equality, conservatives opposed it. And failing to prevent any of them engaged in a constant rearguard action to slow down progress and stymie it wherever they could.

Coulter is, to be blunt, a complete cunt. Her publicly made statements on various issues have led me to reject her as an impartial or trustworthy source for information on anything at all. I do not wish to waste my time with her.

There’s no way to argue with this, so I’ll just leave you to your own self complimentary devices.

Agreed, there is no way to argue this. You know the basic claim to be factual. Hard to argue that 2+2 really does equal 5.

 
Flag Post

Listened to a guy by the name of Peter Collins on 810 KGO in San Francisco this evening. He explained that the people who want secession of Texas, want it because they are racist against Obama. There was no reasoning why, nor evidence presented. It was just asserted as if it were a self evident fact.

Still tired of this shit.