by russell
This post is about the shootings in Charleston. It's a topic about which people are going to have strong feelings, in a wide variety of directions, so I would like to ask a couple of favors.
Please don't direct ad hominem comments toward other folks here on the blog.
Please don't call for anybody to be shot or otherwise bent, folded, or mutilated. That request is mostly directed at the Count. Nothing personal, at all, it just is what it is. Cream pies are fair game.
Venting is OK if you need to do that, and being angry is OK if you need to do that, but please try to keep it between the lines.
Please.
So – my question: why is it so apparently difficult for conservative spokespeople – people holding elected office, people running for elected office, conservative media organs like Fox – to acknowledge the racial motivation behind the shooting?
Roof has stated that he wanted to shoot black people to start a race war. He wore flags from white supremacist apartheid regimes. Etc etc etc.
Why the apparent difficulty in acknowledging all of that?
I am, sincerely, not trying to call anybody racist, or stir up controversy for the sake of it. I simply don't understand what I'm hearing, and I'd like to.
Are public conservatives simply afraid to discuss race, full stop? Do they sincerely not recognize it as a dynamic in this case? Are they overly sensitive to being somehow associated with Roof and his ideology, so they want to steer the conversation in some other direction?
Note that *none of those things* require a presumption of a racist motive. I'm not assuming one. I just don't get it, and I'd like to try to get it.
As with the gun regulation thread, if things get too crazy, I'll close comments. Not trying to shut down conversation, just trying to keep things as civil as possible.
Over to you all. And again, it's a topic that folks no doubt have very strong feelings about – I know that I do – so inside voices will be appreciated.
Thanks
why is it so apparently difficult for conservative spokespeople – people holding elected office, people running for elected office, conservative media organs like Fox – to acknowledge the racial motivation behind the shooting?
Because it will offend their viewers/voters/contributors, etc.
Better, like that jackass Santorum (not ever a commenter here AFAIK), to claim the shooting was an attack on Christianity and religion.
The conservative response is revolting. What else can be said?
why is it so apparently difficult for conservative spokespeople – people holding elected office, people running for elected office, conservative media organs like Fox – to acknowledge the racial motivation behind the shooting?
Because it will offend their viewers/voters/contributors, etc.
Better, like that jackass Santorum (not ever a commenter here AFAIK), to claim the shooting was an attack on Christianity and religion.
The conservative response is revolting. What else can be said?
why is it so apparently difficult for conservative spokespeople – people holding elected office, people running for elected office, conservative media organs like Fox – to acknowledge the racial motivation behind the shooting?
Because it will offend their viewers/voters/contributors, etc.
Better, like that jackass Santorum (not ever a commenter here AFAIK), to claim the shooting was an attack on Christianity and religion.
The conservative response is revolting. What else can be said?
I think there’s some truth to the “sensitive to being somehow associated with Roof and his ideology”.
Remember, this is the same bunch that are gung-ho on smearing all blacks, all muslims, all liberals, for the outrageous actions of a few. It can get pretty uncomfortable to be on the receiving end of that.
Lots of people will work very hard to keep from learning an uncomfortable lesson.
I think there’s some truth to the “sensitive to being somehow associated with Roof and his ideology”.
Remember, this is the same bunch that are gung-ho on smearing all blacks, all muslims, all liberals, for the outrageous actions of a few. It can get pretty uncomfortable to be on the receiving end of that.
Lots of people will work very hard to keep from learning an uncomfortable lesson.
I think there’s some truth to the “sensitive to being somehow associated with Roof and his ideology”.
Remember, this is the same bunch that are gung-ho on smearing all blacks, all muslims, all liberals, for the outrageous actions of a few. It can get pretty uncomfortable to be on the receiving end of that.
Lots of people will work very hard to keep from learning an uncomfortable lesson.
I don’t have any problem acknowledging it. He was pretty explicit about it. Exactly who’s denying it?
While we’re on the topic, why all the denial about the knockout game being real? It’s not just white racists who get violent, you know.
I don’t have any problem acknowledging it. He was pretty explicit about it. Exactly who’s denying it?
While we’re on the topic, why all the denial about the knockout game being real? It’s not just white racists who get violent, you know.
I don’t have any problem acknowledging it. He was pretty explicit about it. Exactly who’s denying it?
While we’re on the topic, why all the denial about the knockout game being real? It’s not just white racists who get violent, you know.
I’d say the difficulty with acknowledging it comes from habit. They so often see (unwarranted, in their opinion) accusations of racial motivation, that rejecting that explanation becomes a reflex. And that sort of reflex can be very hard to overcome.
I’d say the difficulty with acknowledging it comes from habit. They so often see (unwarranted, in their opinion) accusations of racial motivation, that rejecting that explanation becomes a reflex. And that sort of reflex can be very hard to overcome.
I’d say the difficulty with acknowledging it comes from habit. They so often see (unwarranted, in their opinion) accusations of racial motivation, that rejecting that explanation becomes a reflex. And that sort of reflex can be very hard to overcome.
Much like the first step in a twelve-step recovery program, the hardest part of fixing a problem is admitting that one exists. It seems to me there is a group unwilling to accept that the problem of racism still exists, and are so desperate to deny the existence of this problem that they will point to anything else, no matter how insignificant or circumstantial, in order to avoid having to admit this problem.
I don’t blame them for not wanting to admit there is a problem. Admitting there’s a problem means admitting you have been wrong in some way, shape, for form. Admitting there’s a problem means something has to change, and our brains are pretty hard-wired to resist change with all our might.
I have no potential solution to this problem to offer. But until those in denial are willing to admit the problem exists and begin taking steps to untangle themselves from said problem, all the blog comments on the internet won’t amount to more than a few tears in the rain.
Much like the first step in a twelve-step recovery program, the hardest part of fixing a problem is admitting that one exists. It seems to me there is a group unwilling to accept that the problem of racism still exists, and are so desperate to deny the existence of this problem that they will point to anything else, no matter how insignificant or circumstantial, in order to avoid having to admit this problem.
I don’t blame them for not wanting to admit there is a problem. Admitting there’s a problem means admitting you have been wrong in some way, shape, for form. Admitting there’s a problem means something has to change, and our brains are pretty hard-wired to resist change with all our might.
I have no potential solution to this problem to offer. But until those in denial are willing to admit the problem exists and begin taking steps to untangle themselves from said problem, all the blog comments on the internet won’t amount to more than a few tears in the rain.
Much like the first step in a twelve-step recovery program, the hardest part of fixing a problem is admitting that one exists. It seems to me there is a group unwilling to accept that the problem of racism still exists, and are so desperate to deny the existence of this problem that they will point to anything else, no matter how insignificant or circumstantial, in order to avoid having to admit this problem.
I don’t blame them for not wanting to admit there is a problem. Admitting there’s a problem means admitting you have been wrong in some way, shape, for form. Admitting there’s a problem means something has to change, and our brains are pretty hard-wired to resist change with all our might.
I have no potential solution to this problem to offer. But until those in denial are willing to admit the problem exists and begin taking steps to untangle themselves from said problem, all the blog comments on the internet won’t amount to more than a few tears in the rain.
While we’re on the topic
The topic is the conservative response to the Charleston shootings.
Yes, there are racists who aren’t white, and some of them are violent. So stipulated. Not the topic of this thread, so we’re moving on.
Good on you for not having a problem acknowledging Roof’s racism. Others seem to be unable to do so.
It’s puzzling, and without wanting to assume or impute bad motives, I just want to understand the response.
I don’t know how we address stuff like this if what seem, to me, to be the most obvious aspects can’t be discussed candidly.
While we’re on the topic
The topic is the conservative response to the Charleston shootings.
Yes, there are racists who aren’t white, and some of them are violent. So stipulated. Not the topic of this thread, so we’re moving on.
Good on you for not having a problem acknowledging Roof’s racism. Others seem to be unable to do so.
It’s puzzling, and without wanting to assume or impute bad motives, I just want to understand the response.
I don’t know how we address stuff like this if what seem, to me, to be the most obvious aspects can’t be discussed candidly.
While we’re on the topic
The topic is the conservative response to the Charleston shootings.
Yes, there are racists who aren’t white, and some of them are violent. So stipulated. Not the topic of this thread, so we’re moving on.
Good on you for not having a problem acknowledging Roof’s racism. Others seem to be unable to do so.
It’s puzzling, and without wanting to assume or impute bad motives, I just want to understand the response.
I don’t know how we address stuff like this if what seem, to me, to be the most obvious aspects can’t be discussed candidly.
The people and organizations in question have a set of narratives that they use to fire up their most ardent supporters/viewers/listeners, so they’re shoehorning this tragedy into one of those narratives. No talking about race hatred or gun violence, that’s what the liberal opportunists do, so they’ve got to distinguish themselves.
There’s probably an element of “how can we engage this story in a way that will piss off liberals?” as a subtext.
The people and organizations in question have a set of narratives that they use to fire up their most ardent supporters/viewers/listeners, so they’re shoehorning this tragedy into one of those narratives. No talking about race hatred or gun violence, that’s what the liberal opportunists do, so they’ve got to distinguish themselves.
There’s probably an element of “how can we engage this story in a way that will piss off liberals?” as a subtext.
The people and organizations in question have a set of narratives that they use to fire up their most ardent supporters/viewers/listeners, so they’re shoehorning this tragedy into one of those narratives. No talking about race hatred or gun violence, that’s what the liberal opportunists do, so they’ve got to distinguish themselves.
There’s probably an element of “how can we engage this story in a way that will piss off liberals?” as a subtext.
“The topic is the conservative response to the Charleston shootings.”
Gotcha, only conservative wrongdoing is pertinent, identical behavior by liberals is not to be mentioned. I should have assumed standard rules applied.
Fine. Which others? I’d like some names, if you please, because I’ve somehow missed this phenomenon.
A quick google search shows me that there’s a vast, and remarkably concerted concern about this supposed refusal to admit Roof is a racist, and that this motivated his killing.
Somebody wasted no time getting the talking point out, it looks to me. Journolist is back up to speed.
But, who’s doing this denying?
“The topic is the conservative response to the Charleston shootings.”
Gotcha, only conservative wrongdoing is pertinent, identical behavior by liberals is not to be mentioned. I should have assumed standard rules applied.
Fine. Which others? I’d like some names, if you please, because I’ve somehow missed this phenomenon.
A quick google search shows me that there’s a vast, and remarkably concerted concern about this supposed refusal to admit Roof is a racist, and that this motivated his killing.
Somebody wasted no time getting the talking point out, it looks to me. Journolist is back up to speed.
But, who’s doing this denying?
“The topic is the conservative response to the Charleston shootings.”
Gotcha, only conservative wrongdoing is pertinent, identical behavior by liberals is not to be mentioned. I should have assumed standard rules applied.
Fine. Which others? I’d like some names, if you please, because I’ve somehow missed this phenomenon.
A quick google search shows me that there’s a vast, and remarkably concerted concern about this supposed refusal to admit Roof is a racist, and that this motivated his killing.
Somebody wasted no time getting the talking point out, it looks to me. Journolist is back up to speed.
But, who’s doing this denying?
Look at it this way. If your response to any suggestion of a motivation of racism is that the speaker is “playing the race card,” it can be very hard to accept that racism actually was the motive in a specific case. Even if the perpetrator says that it was.
Look at it this way. If your response to any suggestion of a motivation of racism is that the speaker is “playing the race card,” it can be very hard to accept that racism actually was the motive in a specific case. Even if the perpetrator says that it was.
Look at it this way. If your response to any suggestion of a motivation of racism is that the speaker is “playing the race card,” it can be very hard to accept that racism actually was the motive in a specific case. Even if the perpetrator says that it was.
@Brett: http://mediamatters.org/video/2015/06/18/foxs-steve-doocy-its-extraordinary-that-charles/204043
4 minute clip discussing shooting as an “attack on faith.”
@Brett: http://mediamatters.org/video/2015/06/18/foxs-steve-doocy-its-extraordinary-that-charles/204043
4 minute clip discussing shooting as an “attack on faith.”
@Brett: http://mediamatters.org/video/2015/06/18/foxs-steve-doocy-its-extraordinary-that-charles/204043
4 minute clip discussing shooting as an “attack on faith.”
Denying the denial is meta-weird.
Denying the denial is meta-weird.
Denying the denial is meta-weird.
Hypothetically, that could happen. I haven’t seen any evidence it’s happening. I don’t know ANYBODY who’s denying the dude is a racist, and did it because he was a racist.
Hypothetically, that could happen. I haven’t seen any evidence it’s happening. I don’t know ANYBODY who’s denying the dude is a racist, and did it because he was a racist.
Hypothetically, that could happen. I haven’t seen any evidence it’s happening. I don’t know ANYBODY who’s denying the dude is a racist, and did it because he was a racist.
I see there’s an essay at National Review on this exact topic:
Dylann Roof’s Racist Massacre Was Universally Condemned — Why Are Liberal Pundits Pretending Otherwise?
“Dylann Roof’s Racist Massacre Was Universally Condemned — Why Are Liberal Pundits Pretending Otherwise? Visitors pray together at the Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, S.C. (Joe Readle/Getty) SHARE ARTICLE ON FACEBOOKSHARE TWEET ARTICLETWEET PLUS ONE ARTICLE ON GOOGLE PLUS+1 PRINT ARTICLE EMAIL ARTICLE ADJUST FONT SIZEAA by CHARLES C. W. COOKE June 19, 2015 1:50 PM @CHARLESCWCOOKE The young man who, on Wednesday evening of this week, shot nine black parishioners of Charleston’s Emmanuel AME Church, was motivated by pronounced racial animus. Explaining to the murdered why he was taking their lives, he told them stupidly, “I have to do it. You rape our women, and you are taking over our country. And you have to go.” He was, his former roommate informed the press with a disgraceful understatement of tone, “big into segregation and stuff” — intent, even, upon starting “a civil war.” A much-circulated photograph, taken appropriately next to a filthy swamp, depicts him wearing a jacket that boasts two unmistakable signs of white supremacy: an apartheid-era flag from South Africa, and the segregationist colors that once flew ignominiously over Rhodesia. There, as now, he resembles a silly and angry child — a fool and an ignoramus who has managed to adopt as his own some of the worst instincts within our culture.”
I see there’s an essay at National Review on this exact topic:
Dylann Roof’s Racist Massacre Was Universally Condemned — Why Are Liberal Pundits Pretending Otherwise?
“Dylann Roof’s Racist Massacre Was Universally Condemned — Why Are Liberal Pundits Pretending Otherwise? Visitors pray together at the Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, S.C. (Joe Readle/Getty) SHARE ARTICLE ON FACEBOOKSHARE TWEET ARTICLETWEET PLUS ONE ARTICLE ON GOOGLE PLUS+1 PRINT ARTICLE EMAIL ARTICLE ADJUST FONT SIZEAA by CHARLES C. W. COOKE June 19, 2015 1:50 PM @CHARLESCWCOOKE The young man who, on Wednesday evening of this week, shot nine black parishioners of Charleston’s Emmanuel AME Church, was motivated by pronounced racial animus. Explaining to the murdered why he was taking their lives, he told them stupidly, “I have to do it. You rape our women, and you are taking over our country. And you have to go.” He was, his former roommate informed the press with a disgraceful understatement of tone, “big into segregation and stuff” — intent, even, upon starting “a civil war.” A much-circulated photograph, taken appropriately next to a filthy swamp, depicts him wearing a jacket that boasts two unmistakable signs of white supremacy: an apartheid-era flag from South Africa, and the segregationist colors that once flew ignominiously over Rhodesia. There, as now, he resembles a silly and angry child — a fool and an ignoramus who has managed to adopt as his own some of the worst instincts within our culture.”
I see there’s an essay at National Review on this exact topic:
Dylann Roof’s Racist Massacre Was Universally Condemned — Why Are Liberal Pundits Pretending Otherwise?
“Dylann Roof’s Racist Massacre Was Universally Condemned — Why Are Liberal Pundits Pretending Otherwise? Visitors pray together at the Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, S.C. (Joe Readle/Getty) SHARE ARTICLE ON FACEBOOKSHARE TWEET ARTICLETWEET PLUS ONE ARTICLE ON GOOGLE PLUS+1 PRINT ARTICLE EMAIL ARTICLE ADJUST FONT SIZEAA by CHARLES C. W. COOKE June 19, 2015 1:50 PM @CHARLESCWCOOKE The young man who, on Wednesday evening of this week, shot nine black parishioners of Charleston’s Emmanuel AME Church, was motivated by pronounced racial animus. Explaining to the murdered why he was taking their lives, he told them stupidly, “I have to do it. You rape our women, and you are taking over our country. And you have to go.” He was, his former roommate informed the press with a disgraceful understatement of tone, “big into segregation and stuff” — intent, even, upon starting “a civil war.” A much-circulated photograph, taken appropriately next to a filthy swamp, depicts him wearing a jacket that boasts two unmistakable signs of white supremacy: an apartheid-era flag from South Africa, and the segregationist colors that once flew ignominiously over Rhodesia. There, as now, he resembles a silly and angry child — a fool and an ignoramus who has managed to adopt as his own some of the worst instincts within our culture.”
Brett, my Facebook feed and an image board I read both have large swathes of individuals counseling us to not be too hasty about attributing motives to Roof. Still. Now. After his self-professed motives have been broadcast far and wide.
There really, truly are a lot of people out there denying that it’s about race, even if by what I’ve seen they’re mostly doing via concern-trolling about hastily and unduly jumping to conclusions before we’ve got a clear picture of what happened.
Brett, my Facebook feed and an image board I read both have large swathes of individuals counseling us to not be too hasty about attributing motives to Roof. Still. Now. After his self-professed motives have been broadcast far and wide.
There really, truly are a lot of people out there denying that it’s about race, even if by what I’ve seen they’re mostly doing via concern-trolling about hastily and unduly jumping to conclusions before we’ve got a clear picture of what happened.
Brett, my Facebook feed and an image board I read both have large swathes of individuals counseling us to not be too hasty about attributing motives to Roof. Still. Now. After his self-professed motives have been broadcast far and wide.
There really, truly are a lot of people out there denying that it’s about race, even if by what I’ve seen they’re mostly doing via concern-trolling about hastily and unduly jumping to conclusions before we’ve got a clear picture of what happened.
Maybe it isn’t outright denial in many cases. It’s just a very quick acknowledgement that leads directly into changing the subject.
Maybe it isn’t outright denial in many cases. It’s just a very quick acknowledgement that leads directly into changing the subject.
Maybe it isn’t outright denial in many cases. It’s just a very quick acknowledgement that leads directly into changing the subject.
Brett,
The NR piece is BS. See Santorum. See Haley. See Jeb Bush. See Fox.
They are scurrying like mad to define the shooting as anything but a pure racist incident.
Brett,
The NR piece is BS. See Santorum. See Haley. See Jeb Bush. See Fox.
They are scurrying like mad to define the shooting as anything but a pure racist incident.
Brett,
The NR piece is BS. See Santorum. See Haley. See Jeb Bush. See Fox.
They are scurrying like mad to define the shooting as anything but a pure racist incident.
Jon Stewart had no jokes last night.
Other comedians (in the Graham Greene sense) filled in:
It was an accident. He was a guy looking to kill Christians but he bypassed probably a couple hundred white churches on his way to a historic black church. It was not enough guns. It was Obama’s bad attitude.
http://www.balloon-juice.com/2015/06/19/portraits-in-cowardice/
We don’t know why it happened:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/jeb-bush-charleston-shooting-remarks
It was Caitlan Jenner’s mental condition was why:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/erick-erickson-charleston-shooting-transgender
It happened because the Pastor of the Church, in his role as a Democratic lawmaker, put forth legislation to restrict firearms. It was because there aren’t enough guns. The Pastor murdered his own parishioners was what happened:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/nra-officals-blames-pastor-charleston-church-shooting-article-1.2263911
Jon Stewart had no jokes last night.
Other comedians (in the Graham Greene sense) filled in:
It was an accident. He was a guy looking to kill Christians but he bypassed probably a couple hundred white churches on his way to a historic black church. It was not enough guns. It was Obama’s bad attitude.
http://www.balloon-juice.com/2015/06/19/portraits-in-cowardice/
We don’t know why it happened:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/jeb-bush-charleston-shooting-remarks
It was Caitlan Jenner’s mental condition was why:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/erick-erickson-charleston-shooting-transgender
It happened because the Pastor of the Church, in his role as a Democratic lawmaker, put forth legislation to restrict firearms. It was because there aren’t enough guns. The Pastor murdered his own parishioners was what happened:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/nra-officals-blames-pastor-charleston-church-shooting-article-1.2263911
Jon Stewart had no jokes last night.
Other comedians (in the Graham Greene sense) filled in:
It was an accident. He was a guy looking to kill Christians but he bypassed probably a couple hundred white churches on his way to a historic black church. It was not enough guns. It was Obama’s bad attitude.
http://www.balloon-juice.com/2015/06/19/portraits-in-cowardice/
We don’t know why it happened:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/jeb-bush-charleston-shooting-remarks
It was Caitlan Jenner’s mental condition was why:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/erick-erickson-charleston-shooting-transgender
It happened because the Pastor of the Church, in his role as a Democratic lawmaker, put forth legislation to restrict firearms. It was because there aren’t enough guns. The Pastor murdered his own parishioners was what happened:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/nra-officals-blames-pastor-charleston-church-shooting-article-1.2263911
That’s kinda the idea I get with the “let’s wait ’til all the facts are in” line, only larger scale – if this can be kept from becoming a narrative that can stand on its own for long enough, the media will change the subject, so try to keep denying that all the facts are in and counsel against intemperate judgement until the media gets bored and sees some new shiny object.
That’s kinda the idea I get with the “let’s wait ’til all the facts are in” line, only larger scale – if this can be kept from becoming a narrative that can stand on its own for long enough, the media will change the subject, so try to keep denying that all the facts are in and counsel against intemperate judgement until the media gets bored and sees some new shiny object.
That’s kinda the idea I get with the “let’s wait ’til all the facts are in” line, only larger scale – if this can be kept from becoming a narrative that can stand on its own for long enough, the media will change the subject, so try to keep denying that all the facts are in and counsel against intemperate judgement until the media gets bored and sees some new shiny object.
(“That” = hsh’s 7:55)
(“That” = hsh’s 7:55)
(“That” = hsh’s 7:55)
It may have been solar flares.
It may have been solar flares.
It may have been solar flares.
I want to get banned. From this thread, from this blog, I don’t give a cream pie at this point.
Brett can suck my cream pie dry. He can take his fncking 2nd-Amendment cream pies and cram them up his nether pie hole.
You don’t have to shout “N*gger, n*gger, n*gger!” to be a racist. You don’t have to change the subject to prove you’re an [expletive deleted]. Some of us can connect the dots, even if it’s not polite to do so.
Nikki Hailey can suck my cream pie, too. Weepy little gun-loving conservadolls may think they’re fooling somebody when they talk about “broken hearts” one day and dismiss the culpability of redneck gun culture the next, but they don’t fool me.
And now Jeb! is on the teevee, telling the Faith and Freedom conference that he can’t know what was in the gun-toting racist redneck’s mind, proving that Jeb! “thinks he can hide behind his little finger”, to borrow my late father’s favorite description of transparent charlatans. Eat cream pie, Jeb!
Had I lost a brother, a mother, a daughter to the premeditated actions of a racist gun-toting redneck, I might well “forgive” the little sh1t because I’d go insane if I didn’t. As it is, I am completely indifferent: lock him up forever, drop him in a vat of acid, I don’t give a crap.
And also, as it is, I harbor an intense hatred for the following:
1) Whoever taught the murderous little gun-toting redneck drop-out to find Rhodesia on the map;
2) Whoever gave or sold a Glock to a shiftless racist redneck a$$hole;
3) Whoever refuses to acknowledge that the “right to keep and bear arms” has nothing to do with Mother Emmanuel, Sandy Hook, Aurora, Phoenix, etc. etc. ad nauseam; and
4) Whoever even tries to pretend that white racist hatred is confined to a few bad apples.
And, as it is, I forgive none of those people. They are not beneath my contempt; they need to know that I despise them.
If you, gentle reader, feel included in my contempt and hatred, all I can say is “If the shoe fits …”
–TP
I want to get banned. From this thread, from this blog, I don’t give a cream pie at this point.
Brett can suck my cream pie dry. He can take his fncking 2nd-Amendment cream pies and cram them up his nether pie hole.
You don’t have to shout “N*gger, n*gger, n*gger!” to be a racist. You don’t have to change the subject to prove you’re an [expletive deleted]. Some of us can connect the dots, even if it’s not polite to do so.
Nikki Hailey can suck my cream pie, too. Weepy little gun-loving conservadolls may think they’re fooling somebody when they talk about “broken hearts” one day and dismiss the culpability of redneck gun culture the next, but they don’t fool me.
And now Jeb! is on the teevee, telling the Faith and Freedom conference that he can’t know what was in the gun-toting racist redneck’s mind, proving that Jeb! “thinks he can hide behind his little finger”, to borrow my late father’s favorite description of transparent charlatans. Eat cream pie, Jeb!
Had I lost a brother, a mother, a daughter to the premeditated actions of a racist gun-toting redneck, I might well “forgive” the little sh1t because I’d go insane if I didn’t. As it is, I am completely indifferent: lock him up forever, drop him in a vat of acid, I don’t give a crap.
And also, as it is, I harbor an intense hatred for the following:
1) Whoever taught the murderous little gun-toting redneck drop-out to find Rhodesia on the map;
2) Whoever gave or sold a Glock to a shiftless racist redneck a$$hole;
3) Whoever refuses to acknowledge that the “right to keep and bear arms” has nothing to do with Mother Emmanuel, Sandy Hook, Aurora, Phoenix, etc. etc. ad nauseam; and
4) Whoever even tries to pretend that white racist hatred is confined to a few bad apples.
And, as it is, I forgive none of those people. They are not beneath my contempt; they need to know that I despise them.
If you, gentle reader, feel included in my contempt and hatred, all I can say is “If the shoe fits …”
–TP
I want to get banned. From this thread, from this blog, I don’t give a cream pie at this point.
Brett can suck my cream pie dry. He can take his fncking 2nd-Amendment cream pies and cram them up his nether pie hole.
You don’t have to shout “N*gger, n*gger, n*gger!” to be a racist. You don’t have to change the subject to prove you’re an [expletive deleted]. Some of us can connect the dots, even if it’s not polite to do so.
Nikki Hailey can suck my cream pie, too. Weepy little gun-loving conservadolls may think they’re fooling somebody when they talk about “broken hearts” one day and dismiss the culpability of redneck gun culture the next, but they don’t fool me.
And now Jeb! is on the teevee, telling the Faith and Freedom conference that he can’t know what was in the gun-toting racist redneck’s mind, proving that Jeb! “thinks he can hide behind his little finger”, to borrow my late father’s favorite description of transparent charlatans. Eat cream pie, Jeb!
Had I lost a brother, a mother, a daughter to the premeditated actions of a racist gun-toting redneck, I might well “forgive” the little sh1t because I’d go insane if I didn’t. As it is, I am completely indifferent: lock him up forever, drop him in a vat of acid, I don’t give a crap.
And also, as it is, I harbor an intense hatred for the following:
1) Whoever taught the murderous little gun-toting redneck drop-out to find Rhodesia on the map;
2) Whoever gave or sold a Glock to a shiftless racist redneck a$$hole;
3) Whoever refuses to acknowledge that the “right to keep and bear arms” has nothing to do with Mother Emmanuel, Sandy Hook, Aurora, Phoenix, etc. etc. ad nauseam; and
4) Whoever even tries to pretend that white racist hatred is confined to a few bad apples.
And, as it is, I forgive none of those people. They are not beneath my contempt; they need to know that I despise them.
If you, gentle reader, feel included in my contempt and hatred, all I can say is “If the shoe fits …”
–TP
3) Whoever refuses to acknowledge that the “right to keep and bear arms” has
nothingsomething to do with …–TP
3) Whoever refuses to acknowledge that the “right to keep and bear arms” has
nothingsomething to do with …–TP
3) Whoever refuses to acknowledge that the “right to keep and bear arms” has
nothingsomething to do with …–TP
There’s a whole long list of prominent conservatives who are denying that this has to do with racism. Jeb Bush is one.
As to why? Well they have been using racist dog whistles ever since Lee Atwater’s day as a political ploy. Maybe some glimmer of a guilty conscience?
There’s a whole long list of prominent conservatives who are denying that this has to do with racism. Jeb Bush is one.
As to why? Well they have been using racist dog whistles ever since Lee Atwater’s day as a political ploy. Maybe some glimmer of a guilty conscience?
There’s a whole long list of prominent conservatives who are denying that this has to do with racism. Jeb Bush is one.
As to why? Well they have been using racist dog whistles ever since Lee Atwater’s day as a political ploy. Maybe some glimmer of a guilty conscience?
he can hide behind his little finger
I always heard that there was a bit of a different meaning behind holding up the little finger:
“When you don’t care enough to send the very best.”
he can hide behind his little finger
I always heard that there was a bit of a different meaning behind holding up the little finger:
“When you don’t care enough to send the very best.”
he can hide behind his little finger
I always heard that there was a bit of a different meaning behind holding up the little finger:
“When you don’t care enough to send the very best.”
Indeed, a whole long list of prominent conservatives — although, to be fair, some of them are walking back their refusal and calling it racism now.
Rick Perry takes the obtuseness prize. He described the shootings as an accident due to prescription drugs. He’ll probably back off from that soon, if he hasn’t already. But I doubt that he’ll stop blaming Obama for allegedly wanting to take away our guns.
As wonkie said, conservative politicians have a history of racist remarks they cannot afford to admit. Small wonder to me that they try to avoid talking about racism at all, and accuse those who do of “playing the race card.”
I read a book about this a while back. My review discusses it and provides some useful links.
Indeed, a whole long list of prominent conservatives — although, to be fair, some of them are walking back their refusal and calling it racism now.
Rick Perry takes the obtuseness prize. He described the shootings as an accident due to prescription drugs. He’ll probably back off from that soon, if he hasn’t already. But I doubt that he’ll stop blaming Obama for allegedly wanting to take away our guns.
As wonkie said, conservative politicians have a history of racist remarks they cannot afford to admit. Small wonder to me that they try to avoid talking about racism at all, and accuse those who do of “playing the race card.”
I read a book about this a while back. My review discusses it and provides some useful links.
Indeed, a whole long list of prominent conservatives — although, to be fair, some of them are walking back their refusal and calling it racism now.
Rick Perry takes the obtuseness prize. He described the shootings as an accident due to prescription drugs. He’ll probably back off from that soon, if he hasn’t already. But I doubt that he’ll stop blaming Obama for allegedly wanting to take away our guns.
As wonkie said, conservative politicians have a history of racist remarks they cannot afford to admit. Small wonder to me that they try to avoid talking about racism at all, and accuse those who do of “playing the race card.”
I read a book about this a while back. My review discusses it and provides some useful links.
I was right about Rick Perry: http://www.businessinsider.com/rick-perry-misspoke-about-charleston-shooting-2015-6
But that was an easy call.
I was right about Rick Perry: http://www.businessinsider.com/rick-perry-misspoke-about-charleston-shooting-2015-6
But that was an easy call.
I was right about Rick Perry: http://www.businessinsider.com/rick-perry-misspoke-about-charleston-shooting-2015-6
But that was an easy call.
One other possibility for conservative denial might – underscore, might – be what wonkie suggests. That is, there may be the creeping discomfort that at least some of them know, deep down, that while they may not see themselves as extremists, that they have encouraged a narrative of extremism, fueled by their own refusal to face facts about their complicity in their playing of this card over and over, and their refusal to deal with a president who otherwise has been the most respectable and reasonable – shortcomings, flaws and all – that our politics can currently allow. They see that their privileged perch has been threatened, and while they don’t have the courage to act themselves, they have created a climate where those ignorant/rabid/gullible enough to do so will. Add into this mix that old redoubt full of vile racist rape tropes, which say far more about the tellers than the told-upon, and you have a pretty toxic mix waiting to boil over.
That they’re scurrying like rats from it may be proof of this (I say “may,” as I don’t know how much this adds to the current debate). If it went “well,” whatever “well” means to them, they’ll rally round it and bear it triumphantly. If it goes “bad” – as it is now – they hide, distance themselves, and go off and skulk over it.
This really is the most gutless, politics they can muster. But I doubt this will change them. They have far too much – in reputation, time, history, and money – invested in all this. They’ve gone from being lousy investors in a political pyramid scheme into gambling addicts bullying each other at a non-stop crap shoot who don’t know when to stop even if they want to.
One other possibility for conservative denial might – underscore, might – be what wonkie suggests. That is, there may be the creeping discomfort that at least some of them know, deep down, that while they may not see themselves as extremists, that they have encouraged a narrative of extremism, fueled by their own refusal to face facts about their complicity in their playing of this card over and over, and their refusal to deal with a president who otherwise has been the most respectable and reasonable – shortcomings, flaws and all – that our politics can currently allow. They see that their privileged perch has been threatened, and while they don’t have the courage to act themselves, they have created a climate where those ignorant/rabid/gullible enough to do so will. Add into this mix that old redoubt full of vile racist rape tropes, which say far more about the tellers than the told-upon, and you have a pretty toxic mix waiting to boil over.
That they’re scurrying like rats from it may be proof of this (I say “may,” as I don’t know how much this adds to the current debate). If it went “well,” whatever “well” means to them, they’ll rally round it and bear it triumphantly. If it goes “bad” – as it is now – they hide, distance themselves, and go off and skulk over it.
This really is the most gutless, politics they can muster. But I doubt this will change them. They have far too much – in reputation, time, history, and money – invested in all this. They’ve gone from being lousy investors in a political pyramid scheme into gambling addicts bullying each other at a non-stop crap shoot who don’t know when to stop even if they want to.
One other possibility for conservative denial might – underscore, might – be what wonkie suggests. That is, there may be the creeping discomfort that at least some of them know, deep down, that while they may not see themselves as extremists, that they have encouraged a narrative of extremism, fueled by their own refusal to face facts about their complicity in their playing of this card over and over, and their refusal to deal with a president who otherwise has been the most respectable and reasonable – shortcomings, flaws and all – that our politics can currently allow. They see that their privileged perch has been threatened, and while they don’t have the courage to act themselves, they have created a climate where those ignorant/rabid/gullible enough to do so will. Add into this mix that old redoubt full of vile racist rape tropes, which say far more about the tellers than the told-upon, and you have a pretty toxic mix waiting to boil over.
That they’re scurrying like rats from it may be proof of this (I say “may,” as I don’t know how much this adds to the current debate). If it went “well,” whatever “well” means to them, they’ll rally round it and bear it triumphantly. If it goes “bad” – as it is now – they hide, distance themselves, and go off and skulk over it.
This really is the most gutless, politics they can muster. But I doubt this will change them. They have far too much – in reputation, time, history, and money – invested in all this. They’ve gone from being lousy investors in a political pyramid scheme into gambling addicts bullying each other at a non-stop crap shoot who don’t know when to stop even if they want to.
Maybe it’s because none of the racists they know (including, perhaps, themselves) would actually go into a church and murder people. So they figure that the motivation must have been something in addition to the racism that they know and tolerate.
Or maybe they’re just trying to change the subject.
Maybe it’s because none of the racists they know (including, perhaps, themselves) would actually go into a church and murder people. So they figure that the motivation must have been something in addition to the racism that they know and tolerate.
Or maybe they’re just trying to change the subject.
Maybe it’s because none of the racists they know (including, perhaps, themselves) would actually go into a church and murder people. So they figure that the motivation must have been something in addition to the racism that they know and tolerate.
Or maybe they’re just trying to change the subject.
1- Maybe we need to define racism. Some say it is fear and loathing of the other. Others say racism is systemic oppression. If racism is systemic oppression, then a pathetic gun nut shooting up a church is not racism.
2- Jesus worship religion is violent. It is obsessed with the gruesome execution of Jesus. Believers enjoy verbal abuse. We don’t know what happened to Dylann Roof.(The spell check suggestion for Dylann is Landlady.)
3- The easy availability of deadly force is a problem. There are reports that Dylann Roof did not have the legal right to own a gun, because of some drug charges. Maybe having more gun laws is not the answer, if we don’t enforce the ones we already have.
4- As for the whining in the media about what the other says about this, and how the media covers events… that is a good distraction from the trade agreements, global warming, the national debt, drone warfare, and the Kardashians.
1- Maybe we need to define racism. Some say it is fear and loathing of the other. Others say racism is systemic oppression. If racism is systemic oppression, then a pathetic gun nut shooting up a church is not racism.
2- Jesus worship religion is violent. It is obsessed with the gruesome execution of Jesus. Believers enjoy verbal abuse. We don’t know what happened to Dylann Roof.(The spell check suggestion for Dylann is Landlady.)
3- The easy availability of deadly force is a problem. There are reports that Dylann Roof did not have the legal right to own a gun, because of some drug charges. Maybe having more gun laws is not the answer, if we don’t enforce the ones we already have.
4- As for the whining in the media about what the other says about this, and how the media covers events… that is a good distraction from the trade agreements, global warming, the national debt, drone warfare, and the Kardashians.
1- Maybe we need to define racism. Some say it is fear and loathing of the other. Others say racism is systemic oppression. If racism is systemic oppression, then a pathetic gun nut shooting up a church is not racism.
2- Jesus worship religion is violent. It is obsessed with the gruesome execution of Jesus. Believers enjoy verbal abuse. We don’t know what happened to Dylann Roof.(The spell check suggestion for Dylann is Landlady.)
3- The easy availability of deadly force is a problem. There are reports that Dylann Roof did not have the legal right to own a gun, because of some drug charges. Maybe having more gun laws is not the answer, if we don’t enforce the ones we already have.
4- As for the whining in the media about what the other says about this, and how the media covers events… that is a good distraction from the trade agreements, global warming, the national debt, drone warfare, and the Kardashians.
“Maybe some glimmer of a guilty conscience?”
If only.
“Maybe some glimmer of a guilty conscience?”
If only.
“Maybe some glimmer of a guilty conscience?”
If only.
Now, now. Brett has previously claimed that Faux News is more a cynical capitalist’s view of conservatism than a sincere version of it. It seems fairly credible that he could not know what the TV is saying.
I mean, this requires him to ignore most US conservatism, especially the older citizens who believe everything they see on FNC. Remove the enthusiastic Faux News fans and America probably becomes ‘far-left’ (centrist to moderate-leftist by world standards) overnight. But someone that far underneath his safety blanket could honestly not think “ANYBODY” is denying the racism.
Now, now. Brett has previously claimed that Faux News is more a cynical capitalist’s view of conservatism than a sincere version of it. It seems fairly credible that he could not know what the TV is saying.
I mean, this requires him to ignore most US conservatism, especially the older citizens who believe everything they see on FNC. Remove the enthusiastic Faux News fans and America probably becomes ‘far-left’ (centrist to moderate-leftist by world standards) overnight. But someone that far underneath his safety blanket could honestly not think “ANYBODY” is denying the racism.
Now, now. Brett has previously claimed that Faux News is more a cynical capitalist’s view of conservatism than a sincere version of it. It seems fairly credible that he could not know what the TV is saying.
I mean, this requires him to ignore most US conservatism, especially the older citizens who believe everything they see on FNC. Remove the enthusiastic Faux News fans and America probably becomes ‘far-left’ (centrist to moderate-leftist by world standards) overnight. But someone that far underneath his safety blanket could honestly not think “ANYBODY” is denying the racism.
And here, courtesy of TPM, is Erick Erickson somehow equating the Charleston shootings with Caitlyn Jenner.
Yeah, Brett. The right takes it seriously. What a joke.
And here, courtesy of TPM, is Erick Erickson somehow equating the Charleston shootings with Caitlyn Jenner.
Yeah, Brett. The right takes it seriously. What a joke.
And here, courtesy of TPM, is Erick Erickson somehow equating the Charleston shootings with Caitlyn Jenner.
Yeah, Brett. The right takes it seriously. What a joke.
Actually, if you read Erickson’s full post, he’s *trying* to do some moral growing, IMHO.
I mean, he starts by making an important point not enough people are emphasizing:
Aside from his mis-phrasing (that would be “suffer from mental *illness*, Erick), I actually agree with this *completely*.
He also says:
— which is really important, because he’s saying it up front: a *white* male loner. Not many on the right have the guts to say that.
Then, yeah, he goes off the rails:
Dogs and cats, living together, mass hysteria.
But at least Erickson is revealing how his sense of morality is put together, so you can see the nuts & bolts. For him, and IMHO many, many like him, gender distinctions (and a gender hierarchy) are the first and foundational human distinction. You can’t tell good from evil unless you can tell men from women … which makes absolutely zero logical sense, but great sense from the POV of child development.
In Erickson’s psyche, the distinction between girl and boy, mommy and daddy, was first and solidest, earlier and more solid than the distinction between right and wrong, good and evil. Instead of gender being one distinction among others, other dichotomies have been psychologically laid on top of gender and supported by it.
So he can’t get make gender flexible without making EVERYTHING flexible, in his mind — including good and evil.
Actually, if you read Erickson’s full post, he’s *trying* to do some moral growing, IMHO.
I mean, he starts by making an important point not enough people are emphasizing:
Aside from his mis-phrasing (that would be “suffer from mental *illness*, Erick), I actually agree with this *completely*.
He also says:
— which is really important, because he’s saying it up front: a *white* male loner. Not many on the right have the guts to say that.
Then, yeah, he goes off the rails:
Dogs and cats, living together, mass hysteria.
But at least Erickson is revealing how his sense of morality is put together, so you can see the nuts & bolts. For him, and IMHO many, many like him, gender distinctions (and a gender hierarchy) are the first and foundational human distinction. You can’t tell good from evil unless you can tell men from women … which makes absolutely zero logical sense, but great sense from the POV of child development.
In Erickson’s psyche, the distinction between girl and boy, mommy and daddy, was first and solidest, earlier and more solid than the distinction between right and wrong, good and evil. Instead of gender being one distinction among others, other dichotomies have been psychologically laid on top of gender and supported by it.
So he can’t get make gender flexible without making EVERYTHING flexible, in his mind — including good and evil.
Actually, if you read Erickson’s full post, he’s *trying* to do some moral growing, IMHO.
I mean, he starts by making an important point not enough people are emphasizing:
Aside from his mis-phrasing (that would be “suffer from mental *illness*, Erick), I actually agree with this *completely*.
He also says:
— which is really important, because he’s saying it up front: a *white* male loner. Not many on the right have the guts to say that.
Then, yeah, he goes off the rails:
Dogs and cats, living together, mass hysteria.
But at least Erickson is revealing how his sense of morality is put together, so you can see the nuts & bolts. For him, and IMHO many, many like him, gender distinctions (and a gender hierarchy) are the first and foundational human distinction. You can’t tell good from evil unless you can tell men from women … which makes absolutely zero logical sense, but great sense from the POV of child development.
In Erickson’s psyche, the distinction between girl and boy, mommy and daddy, was first and solidest, earlier and more solid than the distinction between right and wrong, good and evil. Instead of gender being one distinction among others, other dichotomies have been psychologically laid on top of gender and supported by it.
So he can’t get make gender flexible without making EVERYTHING flexible, in his mind — including good and evil.
It’s far past time to recognize who the real terrorists are.
It’s far past time to recognize who the real terrorists are.
It’s far past time to recognize who the real terrorists are.
To address your question, russell: Why don’t they? Well, they have been touting the line for about 40 years or so that racism has effectively ended in this country.
That’s why.
To address your question, russell: Why don’t they? Well, they have been touting the line for about 40 years or so that racism has effectively ended in this country.
That’s why.
To address your question, russell: Why don’t they? Well, they have been touting the line for about 40 years or so that racism has effectively ended in this country.
That’s why.
To Erickson’s points, I don’t think anybody has a problem describing Roof’s actions as evil.
It is, at this point, not at all clear that Roof is insane. He’s arguably delusional, in the sense that he thought his actions would spark a race war. But being deluded is not really the same as being insane.
Roof appears to have had an enormous animus toward black people, and decided to shoot some of them. Because they were black. Erickson makes some interesting points, but all of his interesting points appear to be in the service of making the events in Charleston about something – anything, in fact almost everything – other than what it actually was about.
People are not unable to recognize evil, nor are they unable to recognize insanity. Not everyone shares Erickson’s opinion about whether Jenner’s desire to live as a woman qualifies as either. Not the same thing.
My concern, or puzzlement, in all of this is sort of along the lines of the issues that Areala raises. If you can’t recognize something for what it plainly is, and name it as such, how do you possibly go about dealing with it?
I recognize that everybody has their blind spots, and I am, really and truly, not interested in ascribing bad motives to folks like Bush, or Erickson, or any number of others. Certainly not all of them.
It just seems like an astounding blind spot, and an astounding exercise in some kind of mass denial. I’d like to understand it, because I’d like for us, as a nation, to be able to deal with stuff like this candidly.
Frankly, I’d like to know if there isn’t a way to walk what appears to be the conservative position back to one that is able to countenance the reality of racial animus. Not as an isolated or fringe thing, but as a really deep, persistent, and ongoing thing. Because it seems to me that it *is* deep, persistent, and ongoing.
As noted, I’m sure conservatives have their long list of liberal blind spots and points of denial. I’d welcome a discussion of those as well *IN ANOTHER THREAD*. We have conservative front-pagers, they are welcome to kick that off.
What I’d be interested in in *this* thread would be any comments or insights that conservatives here could share to shed some light on the general high-visibility conservative response to the shooting in Charleston.
I’m really not looking to judge, I’m trying to understand what’s going on here.
Thanks to everyone for your comments here.
To Erickson’s points, I don’t think anybody has a problem describing Roof’s actions as evil.
It is, at this point, not at all clear that Roof is insane. He’s arguably delusional, in the sense that he thought his actions would spark a race war. But being deluded is not really the same as being insane.
Roof appears to have had an enormous animus toward black people, and decided to shoot some of them. Because they were black. Erickson makes some interesting points, but all of his interesting points appear to be in the service of making the events in Charleston about something – anything, in fact almost everything – other than what it actually was about.
People are not unable to recognize evil, nor are they unable to recognize insanity. Not everyone shares Erickson’s opinion about whether Jenner’s desire to live as a woman qualifies as either. Not the same thing.
My concern, or puzzlement, in all of this is sort of along the lines of the issues that Areala raises. If you can’t recognize something for what it plainly is, and name it as such, how do you possibly go about dealing with it?
I recognize that everybody has their blind spots, and I am, really and truly, not interested in ascribing bad motives to folks like Bush, or Erickson, or any number of others. Certainly not all of them.
It just seems like an astounding blind spot, and an astounding exercise in some kind of mass denial. I’d like to understand it, because I’d like for us, as a nation, to be able to deal with stuff like this candidly.
Frankly, I’d like to know if there isn’t a way to walk what appears to be the conservative position back to one that is able to countenance the reality of racial animus. Not as an isolated or fringe thing, but as a really deep, persistent, and ongoing thing. Because it seems to me that it *is* deep, persistent, and ongoing.
As noted, I’m sure conservatives have their long list of liberal blind spots and points of denial. I’d welcome a discussion of those as well *IN ANOTHER THREAD*. We have conservative front-pagers, they are welcome to kick that off.
What I’d be interested in in *this* thread would be any comments or insights that conservatives here could share to shed some light on the general high-visibility conservative response to the shooting in Charleston.
I’m really not looking to judge, I’m trying to understand what’s going on here.
Thanks to everyone for your comments here.
To Erickson’s points, I don’t think anybody has a problem describing Roof’s actions as evil.
It is, at this point, not at all clear that Roof is insane. He’s arguably delusional, in the sense that he thought his actions would spark a race war. But being deluded is not really the same as being insane.
Roof appears to have had an enormous animus toward black people, and decided to shoot some of them. Because they were black. Erickson makes some interesting points, but all of his interesting points appear to be in the service of making the events in Charleston about something – anything, in fact almost everything – other than what it actually was about.
People are not unable to recognize evil, nor are they unable to recognize insanity. Not everyone shares Erickson’s opinion about whether Jenner’s desire to live as a woman qualifies as either. Not the same thing.
My concern, or puzzlement, in all of this is sort of along the lines of the issues that Areala raises. If you can’t recognize something for what it plainly is, and name it as such, how do you possibly go about dealing with it?
I recognize that everybody has their blind spots, and I am, really and truly, not interested in ascribing bad motives to folks like Bush, or Erickson, or any number of others. Certainly not all of them.
It just seems like an astounding blind spot, and an astounding exercise in some kind of mass denial. I’d like to understand it, because I’d like for us, as a nation, to be able to deal with stuff like this candidly.
Frankly, I’d like to know if there isn’t a way to walk what appears to be the conservative position back to one that is able to countenance the reality of racial animus. Not as an isolated or fringe thing, but as a really deep, persistent, and ongoing thing. Because it seems to me that it *is* deep, persistent, and ongoing.
As noted, I’m sure conservatives have their long list of liberal blind spots and points of denial. I’d welcome a discussion of those as well *IN ANOTHER THREAD*. We have conservative front-pagers, they are welcome to kick that off.
What I’d be interested in in *this* thread would be any comments or insights that conservatives here could share to shed some light on the general high-visibility conservative response to the shooting in Charleston.
I’m really not looking to judge, I’m trying to understand what’s going on here.
Thanks to everyone for your comments here.
From the string of denials I conclude that the motive for the reaction is not the same for everyone and neither is the degree of good/bad faith. E.g. the NRA reaction to me looks like 100% bad faith while some of the Kristian(TM) reaction imo has a large degree of delusion (preculding bad faith, though not in a good way).
In general I see a subdivide between
I) ‘this has to be about us’ and
II) ‘this cannot be about us’
I leave out for the moment:
III) ‘this is a godsend to be used against X’
The first groups wants to identify with the victims and won’t allow any other factors
=> this must be solely about the faith of the victims since WE are not black (or liberal or…)and thus the only thing we have in common with the victims is our professed faith.
From that almost automatically flow conclusions about the perpetrator: Since it is about OUR faith, HE must be an enemy of Kristianity(TM) => he must be liberal/atheist/etc.
But racism cannot be a factor since it would dilute the pure anti-Kristian(TM) motive so sorely desired in the perpetrator
Group II comes from the other direction but ends in more or less the same place. Since for whatever reason they cannot identify with the victims and neutrality is never an option, they have to avoid to be associated with the perpetrator. But all reasonable attributes crash with some part of their clientele and thus have to be denied. And the perpetrator looks awfully like ‘one of US’ (white Southern male, ‘patriotic’, gun-loving etc.). That leaves in essence only two exits (three, if claiming ignorance is included):
1) the guy must have been insane
2) the guy must be none of the above
For 1) the discussion ends there unless his insanity can be blamed on the enemy du jour.
For 2) all kinds of insane theories can and will be spun like ‘false flag operation’, ‘the media lie about the perpetrator because they are all liberal’. => Obama did it and the killer was actually a black Marxist Muslim transgendered female from Mexico while the victims were all conservative Southern whites participating in a good ol’ minstrel show (a traditional Southern appreciation of their black compatriots).
From the string of denials I conclude that the motive for the reaction is not the same for everyone and neither is the degree of good/bad faith. E.g. the NRA reaction to me looks like 100% bad faith while some of the Kristian(TM) reaction imo has a large degree of delusion (preculding bad faith, though not in a good way).
In general I see a subdivide between
I) ‘this has to be about us’ and
II) ‘this cannot be about us’
I leave out for the moment:
III) ‘this is a godsend to be used against X’
The first groups wants to identify with the victims and won’t allow any other factors
=> this must be solely about the faith of the victims since WE are not black (or liberal or…)and thus the only thing we have in common with the victims is our professed faith.
From that almost automatically flow conclusions about the perpetrator: Since it is about OUR faith, HE must be an enemy of Kristianity(TM) => he must be liberal/atheist/etc.
But racism cannot be a factor since it would dilute the pure anti-Kristian(TM) motive so sorely desired in the perpetrator
Group II comes from the other direction but ends in more or less the same place. Since for whatever reason they cannot identify with the victims and neutrality is never an option, they have to avoid to be associated with the perpetrator. But all reasonable attributes crash with some part of their clientele and thus have to be denied. And the perpetrator looks awfully like ‘one of US’ (white Southern male, ‘patriotic’, gun-loving etc.). That leaves in essence only two exits (three, if claiming ignorance is included):
1) the guy must have been insane
2) the guy must be none of the above
For 1) the discussion ends there unless his insanity can be blamed on the enemy du jour.
For 2) all kinds of insane theories can and will be spun like ‘false flag operation’, ‘the media lie about the perpetrator because they are all liberal’. => Obama did it and the killer was actually a black Marxist Muslim transgendered female from Mexico while the victims were all conservative Southern whites participating in a good ol’ minstrel show (a traditional Southern appreciation of their black compatriots).
From the string of denials I conclude that the motive for the reaction is not the same for everyone and neither is the degree of good/bad faith. E.g. the NRA reaction to me looks like 100% bad faith while some of the Kristian(TM) reaction imo has a large degree of delusion (preculding bad faith, though not in a good way).
In general I see a subdivide between
I) ‘this has to be about us’ and
II) ‘this cannot be about us’
I leave out for the moment:
III) ‘this is a godsend to be used against X’
The first groups wants to identify with the victims and won’t allow any other factors
=> this must be solely about the faith of the victims since WE are not black (or liberal or…)and thus the only thing we have in common with the victims is our professed faith.
From that almost automatically flow conclusions about the perpetrator: Since it is about OUR faith, HE must be an enemy of Kristianity(TM) => he must be liberal/atheist/etc.
But racism cannot be a factor since it would dilute the pure anti-Kristian(TM) motive so sorely desired in the perpetrator
Group II comes from the other direction but ends in more or less the same place. Since for whatever reason they cannot identify with the victims and neutrality is never an option, they have to avoid to be associated with the perpetrator. But all reasonable attributes crash with some part of their clientele and thus have to be denied. And the perpetrator looks awfully like ‘one of US’ (white Southern male, ‘patriotic’, gun-loving etc.). That leaves in essence only two exits (three, if claiming ignorance is included):
1) the guy must have been insane
2) the guy must be none of the above
For 1) the discussion ends there unless his insanity can be blamed on the enemy du jour.
For 2) all kinds of insane theories can and will be spun like ‘false flag operation’, ‘the media lie about the perpetrator because they are all liberal’. => Obama did it and the killer was actually a black Marxist Muslim transgendered female from Mexico while the victims were all conservative Southern whites participating in a good ol’ minstrel show (a traditional Southern appreciation of their black compatriots).
re Erickson: I congratulate Doctor Science for extending to that vicious creature something he would would never extend to her — some, at least initial, understanding.
Moral growth? Looks like metastasis to me.
If any concern of the Doc’s ever comes before any scarcely funded government entity Erickson’s fingerprints are on, good luck.
The defendant in this case will be shackled and driven down streets named after Confederate heroes to stand trial under a Confederate flag, under this Judge, whose categories of humans beings seem to slop over into what might be construed as moral growth too, if we consider what it could be and was not too awfully long ago:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/06/dylann-roof-judge
No doubt the defendant will be condemned to death by the State and if carried out, the winner, according to all of the conservative suspects mentioned thus far in this thread, will be their hallowed death penalty by State action, which will be celebrated with an enthusiasm of much greater authentic feeling than their touching grief over these latest murders.
It won’t be a deterrent to further mass murders, racial or otherwise, perpetrated by citizens armed by the same people and the governments they run.
That will be followed by certain states’ Governors, including South Carolina no doubt, rushing to execute those now on Death Row, including blacks whose guilt may be in question.
It’s all one face behind one conservative Death Mask.
re Erickson: I congratulate Doctor Science for extending to that vicious creature something he would would never extend to her — some, at least initial, understanding.
Moral growth? Looks like metastasis to me.
If any concern of the Doc’s ever comes before any scarcely funded government entity Erickson’s fingerprints are on, good luck.
The defendant in this case will be shackled and driven down streets named after Confederate heroes to stand trial under a Confederate flag, under this Judge, whose categories of humans beings seem to slop over into what might be construed as moral growth too, if we consider what it could be and was not too awfully long ago:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/06/dylann-roof-judge
No doubt the defendant will be condemned to death by the State and if carried out, the winner, according to all of the conservative suspects mentioned thus far in this thread, will be their hallowed death penalty by State action, which will be celebrated with an enthusiasm of much greater authentic feeling than their touching grief over these latest murders.
It won’t be a deterrent to further mass murders, racial or otherwise, perpetrated by citizens armed by the same people and the governments they run.
That will be followed by certain states’ Governors, including South Carolina no doubt, rushing to execute those now on Death Row, including blacks whose guilt may be in question.
It’s all one face behind one conservative Death Mask.
re Erickson: I congratulate Doctor Science for extending to that vicious creature something he would would never extend to her — some, at least initial, understanding.
Moral growth? Looks like metastasis to me.
If any concern of the Doc’s ever comes before any scarcely funded government entity Erickson’s fingerprints are on, good luck.
The defendant in this case will be shackled and driven down streets named after Confederate heroes to stand trial under a Confederate flag, under this Judge, whose categories of humans beings seem to slop over into what might be construed as moral growth too, if we consider what it could be and was not too awfully long ago:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/06/dylann-roof-judge
No doubt the defendant will be condemned to death by the State and if carried out, the winner, according to all of the conservative suspects mentioned thus far in this thread, will be their hallowed death penalty by State action, which will be celebrated with an enthusiasm of much greater authentic feeling than their touching grief over these latest murders.
It won’t be a deterrent to further mass murders, racial or otherwise, perpetrated by citizens armed by the same people and the governments they run.
That will be followed by certain states’ Governors, including South Carolina no doubt, rushing to execute those now on Death Row, including blacks whose guilt may be in question.
It’s all one face behind one conservative Death Mask.
Well, I’m back. Just in case you think I’ve been avoiding this, I’ve actually been at an astronomy party a friend held over on Paris Mountain, where my son got to see a transit of Io, and the rings of Saturn. (My friend has a REALLY good telescope, 10″ reflector.) Got back about midnight, crashed, and woke a few minutes ago.
Basically, I dropped off the edge of the Earth 13 hours ago, and am only now catching up.
My first impression, on googling “Jeb Bush Roof” is that somebody put a REALLY big buy in for result placement with Google. I was two pages into the results before I found anything that wasn’t from a liberal group, and that was a roofing ad.
My second impression is that Jeb Bush is not ready for prime time, if he didn’t have somebody brief him on this topic even for a substantial time after the “Republicans can’t admit Roof was racist” talking point was distributed. And isn’t aware that refusing to be certain about something you haven’t yet looked into is going to be interpreted as denial.
Once he got briefed he said, “It just breaks my hear that someone – a racist – would do what he did. It just breaks my heart, and I know it breaks your heart as well,”. Which is fine, but somebody who plans to be President has got to be able to get up to speed on events faster than THAT.
My third move was to check my facebook feed, which does after all have a fair number of conservative friends on it. None of whom were denying this was motivated by racism, which is not surprising, ’cause nobody at my workplace, which is pretty darned conservative, was either.
It seems to me that you’re equating not wanting to commit before getting informed, and nuance, with denial. It also seems to me this was very well orchestrated.
But, hey, politics isn’t beanbag, so I’ve got no basis for complaining on THAT score.
Well, I’m back. Just in case you think I’ve been avoiding this, I’ve actually been at an astronomy party a friend held over on Paris Mountain, where my son got to see a transit of Io, and the rings of Saturn. (My friend has a REALLY good telescope, 10″ reflector.) Got back about midnight, crashed, and woke a few minutes ago.
Basically, I dropped off the edge of the Earth 13 hours ago, and am only now catching up.
My first impression, on googling “Jeb Bush Roof” is that somebody put a REALLY big buy in for result placement with Google. I was two pages into the results before I found anything that wasn’t from a liberal group, and that was a roofing ad.
My second impression is that Jeb Bush is not ready for prime time, if he didn’t have somebody brief him on this topic even for a substantial time after the “Republicans can’t admit Roof was racist” talking point was distributed. And isn’t aware that refusing to be certain about something you haven’t yet looked into is going to be interpreted as denial.
Once he got briefed he said, “It just breaks my hear that someone – a racist – would do what he did. It just breaks my heart, and I know it breaks your heart as well,”. Which is fine, but somebody who plans to be President has got to be able to get up to speed on events faster than THAT.
My third move was to check my facebook feed, which does after all have a fair number of conservative friends on it. None of whom were denying this was motivated by racism, which is not surprising, ’cause nobody at my workplace, which is pretty darned conservative, was either.
It seems to me that you’re equating not wanting to commit before getting informed, and nuance, with denial. It also seems to me this was very well orchestrated.
But, hey, politics isn’t beanbag, so I’ve got no basis for complaining on THAT score.
Well, I’m back. Just in case you think I’ve been avoiding this, I’ve actually been at an astronomy party a friend held over on Paris Mountain, where my son got to see a transit of Io, and the rings of Saturn. (My friend has a REALLY good telescope, 10″ reflector.) Got back about midnight, crashed, and woke a few minutes ago.
Basically, I dropped off the edge of the Earth 13 hours ago, and am only now catching up.
My first impression, on googling “Jeb Bush Roof” is that somebody put a REALLY big buy in for result placement with Google. I was two pages into the results before I found anything that wasn’t from a liberal group, and that was a roofing ad.
My second impression is that Jeb Bush is not ready for prime time, if he didn’t have somebody brief him on this topic even for a substantial time after the “Republicans can’t admit Roof was racist” talking point was distributed. And isn’t aware that refusing to be certain about something you haven’t yet looked into is going to be interpreted as denial.
Once he got briefed he said, “It just breaks my hear that someone – a racist – would do what he did. It just breaks my heart, and I know it breaks your heart as well,”. Which is fine, but somebody who plans to be President has got to be able to get up to speed on events faster than THAT.
My third move was to check my facebook feed, which does after all have a fair number of conservative friends on it. None of whom were denying this was motivated by racism, which is not surprising, ’cause nobody at my workplace, which is pretty darned conservative, was either.
It seems to me that you’re equating not wanting to commit before getting informed, and nuance, with denial. It also seems to me this was very well orchestrated.
But, hey, politics isn’t beanbag, so I’ve got no basis for complaining on THAT score.
It seems to me that you’re equating not wanting to commit before getting informed, and nuance, with denial.
That’s possible.
The first thing I’ll say is that my point is limited to quote/unquote public conservatives – highly visible people, people holding elected office, people in broadcast media, etc. As far as personal acquaintances go, my experience is the same as yours – liberal / conservative / what have you, most folks recognize the stated and explicit racial motivation of the shootings.
There are a small handful of exceptions, mostly folks who assume this is some kind of “false flag” thing intended to provide a pretext for Taking Away Our Guns. Briefly, I just consider those people to be nuts – not necessarily clinically insane, just monomaniacally fixated on their obsession with imaginary liberal plots – and I basically ignore them.
The number of public figures who have asserted motivations other than racism for Roof’s actions is actually quite large. No, I won’t go Google them and enumerate them for you, suffice it to say I’m not making it up. And while it’s true that much has been made of it, it’s also true that they said the things they said.
I’m not looking to condemn them for it, I’m trying to understand what the hell they are thinking.
It seems to me that you’re equating not wanting to commit before getting informed, and nuance, with denial.
That’s possible.
The first thing I’ll say is that my point is limited to quote/unquote public conservatives – highly visible people, people holding elected office, people in broadcast media, etc. As far as personal acquaintances go, my experience is the same as yours – liberal / conservative / what have you, most folks recognize the stated and explicit racial motivation of the shootings.
There are a small handful of exceptions, mostly folks who assume this is some kind of “false flag” thing intended to provide a pretext for Taking Away Our Guns. Briefly, I just consider those people to be nuts – not necessarily clinically insane, just monomaniacally fixated on their obsession with imaginary liberal plots – and I basically ignore them.
The number of public figures who have asserted motivations other than racism for Roof’s actions is actually quite large. No, I won’t go Google them and enumerate them for you, suffice it to say I’m not making it up. And while it’s true that much has been made of it, it’s also true that they said the things they said.
I’m not looking to condemn them for it, I’m trying to understand what the hell they are thinking.
It seems to me that you’re equating not wanting to commit before getting informed, and nuance, with denial.
That’s possible.
The first thing I’ll say is that my point is limited to quote/unquote public conservatives – highly visible people, people holding elected office, people in broadcast media, etc. As far as personal acquaintances go, my experience is the same as yours – liberal / conservative / what have you, most folks recognize the stated and explicit racial motivation of the shootings.
There are a small handful of exceptions, mostly folks who assume this is some kind of “false flag” thing intended to provide a pretext for Taking Away Our Guns. Briefly, I just consider those people to be nuts – not necessarily clinically insane, just monomaniacally fixated on their obsession with imaginary liberal plots – and I basically ignore them.
The number of public figures who have asserted motivations other than racism for Roof’s actions is actually quite large. No, I won’t go Google them and enumerate them for you, suffice it to say I’m not making it up. And while it’s true that much has been made of it, it’s also true that they said the things they said.
I’m not looking to condemn them for it, I’m trying to understand what the hell they are thinking.
Conservative talking points:
All the statements by right wingers about this flow from the above.
Conservative talking points:
All the statements by right wingers about this flow from the above.
Conservative talking points:
All the statements by right wingers about this flow from the above.
Mostly what I’ve seen is an assumption that this was due to a combination of racism and (Fill in the blank), where the blank is filled in by something ranging from moderately reasonable, (Insanity, drugs) to just somebody’s favorite hobby horse.
Actual denial that racism was a large part of it? I’m not seeing that. Maybe I don’t get out enough.
“There are a small handful of exceptions, mostly folks who assume this is some kind of “false flag” thing intended to provide a pretext for Taking Away Our Guns.”
I wouldn’t assume the actual killing was a false flag operation. Rather, I’d assume that, just like the Pentagon has a filing cabinet full of contingency plans, (Grenada invades Hawaii? Third drawer down.) the anti-gun movement has these scripts ready to go, just waiting for a mass shooting.
You can’t predict the individual events, but you know that they’re going on at some (Pretty low) frequency. So you figure out everything you’re going to do, brainstorm different responses depending on the details of the hypothetical event, and then when something happens that matches one of your contingencies, it’s GO GO GO.
And a stupid meme pops up across the internet at every liberal outlet simultaneously, while the other side is floundering, thinking, “Where did THAT come from?”
That’s what I think went on here. Nobody made Roof go off on his rampage, but people were prepped for the next Roof, ready to go.
Mostly what I’ve seen is an assumption that this was due to a combination of racism and (Fill in the blank), where the blank is filled in by something ranging from moderately reasonable, (Insanity, drugs) to just somebody’s favorite hobby horse.
Actual denial that racism was a large part of it? I’m not seeing that. Maybe I don’t get out enough.
“There are a small handful of exceptions, mostly folks who assume this is some kind of “false flag” thing intended to provide a pretext for Taking Away Our Guns.”
I wouldn’t assume the actual killing was a false flag operation. Rather, I’d assume that, just like the Pentagon has a filing cabinet full of contingency plans, (Grenada invades Hawaii? Third drawer down.) the anti-gun movement has these scripts ready to go, just waiting for a mass shooting.
You can’t predict the individual events, but you know that they’re going on at some (Pretty low) frequency. So you figure out everything you’re going to do, brainstorm different responses depending on the details of the hypothetical event, and then when something happens that matches one of your contingencies, it’s GO GO GO.
And a stupid meme pops up across the internet at every liberal outlet simultaneously, while the other side is floundering, thinking, “Where did THAT come from?”
That’s what I think went on here. Nobody made Roof go off on his rampage, but people were prepped for the next Roof, ready to go.
Mostly what I’ve seen is an assumption that this was due to a combination of racism and (Fill in the blank), where the blank is filled in by something ranging from moderately reasonable, (Insanity, drugs) to just somebody’s favorite hobby horse.
Actual denial that racism was a large part of it? I’m not seeing that. Maybe I don’t get out enough.
“There are a small handful of exceptions, mostly folks who assume this is some kind of “false flag” thing intended to provide a pretext for Taking Away Our Guns.”
I wouldn’t assume the actual killing was a false flag operation. Rather, I’d assume that, just like the Pentagon has a filing cabinet full of contingency plans, (Grenada invades Hawaii? Third drawer down.) the anti-gun movement has these scripts ready to go, just waiting for a mass shooting.
You can’t predict the individual events, but you know that they’re going on at some (Pretty low) frequency. So you figure out everything you’re going to do, brainstorm different responses depending on the details of the hypothetical event, and then when something happens that matches one of your contingencies, it’s GO GO GO.
And a stupid meme pops up across the internet at every liberal outlet simultaneously, while the other side is floundering, thinking, “Where did THAT come from?”
That’s what I think went on here. Nobody made Roof go off on his rampage, but people were prepped for the next Roof, ready to go.
Why do they deny racism?
Because the magic of the free market makes racism impossible!
Why do they deny racism?
Because the magic of the free market makes racism impossible!
Why do they deny racism?
Because the magic of the free market makes racism impossible!
Well, the first thing I ran into about the whole affair was a string of videoclips of definite denials not tempered by ‘we have to wait for all facts’. Of course the compilation had been done by a liberal channel but the contents were clearly not ripped out of context. Jeb’s flub and Perry’s gaffe* were near the bottom of the list as far as outrageousness went.
And as descibed in my earlier post, it was a mix of delusional and obvious bad faith.
This does not mean that these guys represent all conservatives but neither were they just some kooks that no one would hear of without these outings (i.e. not the New Black Panthers or the last surviving member of the Marxist-Leninist Party of Western Nebraska).
The question of the whole post is, why are there those reactions in the upper echelons of the establishment on the Right and why do some of them seem to be genuine and not just a tool to bash the opposition in bad faith?
Btw, the same question could be asked about the absurdist “Perry And Abbott ended Texas’ drought by prayer and stricter abortion laws. California still suffers due to lack thereof.” spectacle that imo includes at least one ‘viable’ GOP POTUS candidate.
Btw, I agree about Jeb not being ready, and I am genuinely surprised. It’s not that he makes mistakes but the kind of silly and unnecessary ones he does. Romney minus the slime but plus an F in ‘Faking it’.
*I am inclined to believe that he really simply misspoke using ‘accident’ instead of ‘incident’. It says nothing about his agenda, just his general deficits.
Well, the first thing I ran into about the whole affair was a string of videoclips of definite denials not tempered by ‘we have to wait for all facts’. Of course the compilation had been done by a liberal channel but the contents were clearly not ripped out of context. Jeb’s flub and Perry’s gaffe* were near the bottom of the list as far as outrageousness went.
And as descibed in my earlier post, it was a mix of delusional and obvious bad faith.
This does not mean that these guys represent all conservatives but neither were they just some kooks that no one would hear of without these outings (i.e. not the New Black Panthers or the last surviving member of the Marxist-Leninist Party of Western Nebraska).
The question of the whole post is, why are there those reactions in the upper echelons of the establishment on the Right and why do some of them seem to be genuine and not just a tool to bash the opposition in bad faith?
Btw, the same question could be asked about the absurdist “Perry And Abbott ended Texas’ drought by prayer and stricter abortion laws. California still suffers due to lack thereof.” spectacle that imo includes at least one ‘viable’ GOP POTUS candidate.
Btw, I agree about Jeb not being ready, and I am genuinely surprised. It’s not that he makes mistakes but the kind of silly and unnecessary ones he does. Romney minus the slime but plus an F in ‘Faking it’.
*I am inclined to believe that he really simply misspoke using ‘accident’ instead of ‘incident’. It says nothing about his agenda, just his general deficits.
Well, the first thing I ran into about the whole affair was a string of videoclips of definite denials not tempered by ‘we have to wait for all facts’. Of course the compilation had been done by a liberal channel but the contents were clearly not ripped out of context. Jeb’s flub and Perry’s gaffe* were near the bottom of the list as far as outrageousness went.
And as descibed in my earlier post, it was a mix of delusional and obvious bad faith.
This does not mean that these guys represent all conservatives but neither were they just some kooks that no one would hear of without these outings (i.e. not the New Black Panthers or the last surviving member of the Marxist-Leninist Party of Western Nebraska).
The question of the whole post is, why are there those reactions in the upper echelons of the establishment on the Right and why do some of them seem to be genuine and not just a tool to bash the opposition in bad faith?
Btw, the same question could be asked about the absurdist “Perry And Abbott ended Texas’ drought by prayer and stricter abortion laws. California still suffers due to lack thereof.” spectacle that imo includes at least one ‘viable’ GOP POTUS candidate.
Btw, I agree about Jeb not being ready, and I am genuinely surprised. It’s not that he makes mistakes but the kind of silly and unnecessary ones he does. Romney minus the slime but plus an F in ‘Faking it’.
*I am inclined to believe that he really simply misspoke using ‘accident’ instead of ‘incident’. It says nothing about his agenda, just his general deficits.
Well, the first thing I ran into about the whole affair was a string of videoclips of definite denials not tempered by ‘we have to wait for all facts’. Of course the compilation had been done by a liberal channel but the contents were clearly not ripped out of context. Jeb’s flub and Perry’s gaffe* were near the bottom of the list as far as outrageousness went.
And as descibed in my earlier post, it was a mix of delusional and obvious bad faith.
This does not mean that these guys represent all conservatives but neither were they just some kooks that no one would hear of without these outings (i.e. not the New Black Panthers or the last surviving member of the Marxist-Leninist Party of Western Nebraska).
The question of the whole post is, why are there those reactions in the upper echelons of the establishment on the Right and why do some of them seem to be genuine and not just a tool to bash the opposition in bad faith?
Btw, the same question could be asked about the absurdist “Perry And Abbott ended Texas’ drought by prayer and stricter abortion laws. California still suffers due to lack thereof.” spectacle that imo includes at least one ‘viable’ GOP POTUS candidate.
Btw, I agree about Jeb not being ready, and I am genuinely surprised. It’s not that he makes mistakes but the kind of silly and unnecessary ones he does. Romney minus the slime but plus an F in ‘Faking it’.
*I am inclined to believe that he really simply misspoke using ‘accident’ instead of ‘incident’. It says nothing about his agenda, just his general deficits.
Well, the first thing I ran into about the whole affair was a string of videoclips of definite denials not tempered by ‘we have to wait for all facts’. Of course the compilation had been done by a liberal channel but the contents were clearly not ripped out of context. Jeb’s flub and Perry’s gaffe* were near the bottom of the list as far as outrageousness went.
And as descibed in my earlier post, it was a mix of delusional and obvious bad faith.
This does not mean that these guys represent all conservatives but neither were they just some kooks that no one would hear of without these outings (i.e. not the New Black Panthers or the last surviving member of the Marxist-Leninist Party of Western Nebraska).
The question of the whole post is, why are there those reactions in the upper echelons of the establishment on the Right and why do some of them seem to be genuine and not just a tool to bash the opposition in bad faith?
Btw, the same question could be asked about the absurdist “Perry And Abbott ended Texas’ drought by prayer and stricter abortion laws. California still suffers due to lack thereof.” spectacle that imo includes at least one ‘viable’ GOP POTUS candidate.
Btw, I agree about Jeb not being ready, and I am genuinely surprised. It’s not that he makes mistakes but the kind of silly and unnecessary ones he does. Romney minus the slime but plus an F in ‘Faking it’.
*I am inclined to believe that he really simply misspoke using ‘accident’ instead of ‘incident’. It says nothing about his agenda, just his general deficits.
Well, the first thing I ran into about the whole affair was a string of videoclips of definite denials not tempered by ‘we have to wait for all facts’. Of course the compilation had been done by a liberal channel but the contents were clearly not ripped out of context. Jeb’s flub and Perry’s gaffe* were near the bottom of the list as far as outrageousness went.
And as descibed in my earlier post, it was a mix of delusional and obvious bad faith.
This does not mean that these guys represent all conservatives but neither were they just some kooks that no one would hear of without these outings (i.e. not the New Black Panthers or the last surviving member of the Marxist-Leninist Party of Western Nebraska).
The question of the whole post is, why are there those reactions in the upper echelons of the establishment on the Right and why do some of them seem to be genuine and not just a tool to bash the opposition in bad faith?
Btw, the same question could be asked about the absurdist “Perry And Abbott ended Texas’ drought by prayer and stricter abortion laws. California still suffers due to lack thereof.” spectacle that imo includes at least one ‘viable’ GOP POTUS candidate.
Btw, I agree about Jeb not being ready, and I am genuinely surprised. It’s not that he makes mistakes but the kind of silly and unnecessary ones he does. Romney minus the slime but plus an F in ‘Faking it’.
*I am inclined to believe that he really simply misspoke using ‘accident’ instead of ‘incident’. It says nothing about his agenda, just his general deficits.
I’ll observe Russell’s request of me in the original post and see you folks in the funny papers at a later date.
I’ll observe Russell’s request of me in the original post and see you folks in the funny papers at a later date.
I’ll observe Russell’s request of me in the original post and see you folks in the funny papers at a later date.
Brett,
that’s some projection ya got going there. Liberal anti-gun groups, organized with contingency plans? Tell me, do the transits of Io look different from your planet?
You might try exploring some alternate explanations for the widespread responses you’ve observed. Just a hint.
Brett,
that’s some projection ya got going there. Liberal anti-gun groups, organized with contingency plans? Tell me, do the transits of Io look different from your planet?
You might try exploring some alternate explanations for the widespread responses you’ve observed. Just a hint.
Brett,
that’s some projection ya got going there. Liberal anti-gun groups, organized with contingency plans? Tell me, do the transits of Io look different from your planet?
You might try exploring some alternate explanations for the widespread responses you’ve observed. Just a hint.
Brett,
that’s some projection ya got going there. Liberal anti-gun groups, organized with contingency plans? Tell me, do the transits of Io look different from your planet?
You might try exploring some alternate explanations for the widespread responses you’ve observed. Just a hint.
Brett,
that’s some projection ya got going there. Liberal anti-gun groups, organized with contingency plans? Tell me, do the transits of Io look different from your planet?
You might try exploring some alternate explanations for the widespread responses you’ve observed. Just a hint.
Brett,
that’s some projection ya got going there. Liberal anti-gun groups, organized with contingency plans? Tell me, do the transits of Io look different from your planet?
You might try exploring some alternate explanations for the widespread responses you’ve observed. Just a hint.
That’s what I think went on here. Nobody made Roof go off on his rampage, but people were prepped for the next Roof, ready to go.
Since this seems now to have become at least a monthly occurrence, it would be silly not to. Event predictable*, reactions (from both sides) predictable. See ya for the next iteration about mid-July. Bets can be put on the specific circumstances: abortion clinic, gay wedding, black church, campaign event or headquarters of a Dem or RINO candidate, school/campus or some place where ‘illegals’ are expected to be, mosque (real or perceived) maybe even an assembly of ‘Israel-hating’ Jews.
*as occurring, unfortunately not where.
That’s what I think went on here. Nobody made Roof go off on his rampage, but people were prepped for the next Roof, ready to go.
Since this seems now to have become at least a monthly occurrence, it would be silly not to. Event predictable*, reactions (from both sides) predictable. See ya for the next iteration about mid-July. Bets can be put on the specific circumstances: abortion clinic, gay wedding, black church, campaign event or headquarters of a Dem or RINO candidate, school/campus or some place where ‘illegals’ are expected to be, mosque (real or perceived) maybe even an assembly of ‘Israel-hating’ Jews.
*as occurring, unfortunately not where.
That’s what I think went on here. Nobody made Roof go off on his rampage, but people were prepped for the next Roof, ready to go.
Since this seems now to have become at least a monthly occurrence, it would be silly not to. Event predictable*, reactions (from both sides) predictable. See ya for the next iteration about mid-July. Bets can be put on the specific circumstances: abortion clinic, gay wedding, black church, campaign event or headquarters of a Dem or RINO candidate, school/campus or some place where ‘illegals’ are expected to be, mosque (real or perceived) maybe even an assembly of ‘Israel-hating’ Jews.
*as occurring, unfortunately not where.
Actual denial that racism was a large part of it? I’m not seeing that.
Two meanings for denial in this context:
“Racism had nothing to do with it!”, vs. an apparent failure to recognize and acknowledge the racial aspect. I.e., denial meaning cognitive binders.
I’m referring to the latter.
What more or less astounds me in this case is the phenomenon of two different communities of people, living in the same country, looking at what appears to be a fairly unambiguous aspect of an event and seeing completely different things.
No doubt factors besides racism were involved here. Most racists don’t sit in a meeting with a bunch of people for an hour and then kill them in cold blood.
But the failure to acknowledge that Roof shot those folks *because they were black* just seems inexplicable. To me.
Likewise, to see the racial animus that Roof demonstrates as just some anomalous artifact of the aberrant mind of a disaffected loser also seems like a species of denial. To me. Perhaps that’s where the left and right perspectives on this part, at the point where racism is seen as something larger than just Roof’s pet grudge.
I got into the blogosphere because I was curious about what people who weren’t like me thought. What they believed, what they assumed about the world, what made them tick, why they thought the things they thought.
Still why I’m here. I already know what I think, I don’t need to hang out online to find that out.
Not sure there’s that much more to say about it than has been said so far on the thread. Thanks everyone for your comments.
Count, very much appreciated, thank you.
Actual denial that racism was a large part of it? I’m not seeing that.
Two meanings for denial in this context:
“Racism had nothing to do with it!”, vs. an apparent failure to recognize and acknowledge the racial aspect. I.e., denial meaning cognitive binders.
I’m referring to the latter.
What more or less astounds me in this case is the phenomenon of two different communities of people, living in the same country, looking at what appears to be a fairly unambiguous aspect of an event and seeing completely different things.
No doubt factors besides racism were involved here. Most racists don’t sit in a meeting with a bunch of people for an hour and then kill them in cold blood.
But the failure to acknowledge that Roof shot those folks *because they were black* just seems inexplicable. To me.
Likewise, to see the racial animus that Roof demonstrates as just some anomalous artifact of the aberrant mind of a disaffected loser also seems like a species of denial. To me. Perhaps that’s where the left and right perspectives on this part, at the point where racism is seen as something larger than just Roof’s pet grudge.
I got into the blogosphere because I was curious about what people who weren’t like me thought. What they believed, what they assumed about the world, what made them tick, why they thought the things they thought.
Still why I’m here. I already know what I think, I don’t need to hang out online to find that out.
Not sure there’s that much more to say about it than has been said so far on the thread. Thanks everyone for your comments.
Count, very much appreciated, thank you.
Actual denial that racism was a large part of it? I’m not seeing that.
Two meanings for denial in this context:
“Racism had nothing to do with it!”, vs. an apparent failure to recognize and acknowledge the racial aspect. I.e., denial meaning cognitive binders.
I’m referring to the latter.
What more or less astounds me in this case is the phenomenon of two different communities of people, living in the same country, looking at what appears to be a fairly unambiguous aspect of an event and seeing completely different things.
No doubt factors besides racism were involved here. Most racists don’t sit in a meeting with a bunch of people for an hour and then kill them in cold blood.
But the failure to acknowledge that Roof shot those folks *because they were black* just seems inexplicable. To me.
Likewise, to see the racial animus that Roof demonstrates as just some anomalous artifact of the aberrant mind of a disaffected loser also seems like a species of denial. To me. Perhaps that’s where the left and right perspectives on this part, at the point where racism is seen as something larger than just Roof’s pet grudge.
I got into the blogosphere because I was curious about what people who weren’t like me thought. What they believed, what they assumed about the world, what made them tick, why they thought the things they thought.
Still why I’m here. I already know what I think, I don’t need to hang out online to find that out.
Not sure there’s that much more to say about it than has been said so far on the thread. Thanks everyone for your comments.
Count, very much appreciated, thank you.
Well, there are other sorts of no less reprehensible, and rather more common events that my side doesn’t orchestrate media tsunamis over. But that might be lack of an institution like Journolist, (Which I conclude is back.) and not virtue.
But the topic here is explicitly the orchestrated meme, and I’m just going to reject it: There is no general phenomenon of conservatives denying Roof was motivated by racism. It’s just a stupid talking point.
Isolated instances, reluctance to commit before being briefed, and nuance are not the same thing as general denial.
Well, there are other sorts of no less reprehensible, and rather more common events that my side doesn’t orchestrate media tsunamis over. But that might be lack of an institution like Journolist, (Which I conclude is back.) and not virtue.
But the topic here is explicitly the orchestrated meme, and I’m just going to reject it: There is no general phenomenon of conservatives denying Roof was motivated by racism. It’s just a stupid talking point.
Isolated instances, reluctance to commit before being briefed, and nuance are not the same thing as general denial.
Well, there are other sorts of no less reprehensible, and rather more common events that my side doesn’t orchestrate media tsunamis over. But that might be lack of an institution like Journolist, (Which I conclude is back.) and not virtue.
But the topic here is explicitly the orchestrated meme, and I’m just going to reject it: There is no general phenomenon of conservatives denying Roof was motivated by racism. It’s just a stupid talking point.
Isolated instances, reluctance to commit before being briefed, and nuance are not the same thing as general denial.
The Republican party has a deliberate and conscious policy of encouraging racism. This diverts low-income whites from the actual plutocratic economic objectives of the party. The party deliberately took over this racism from Southern Democrats after the Civil-Rights era.
These politicians, and the talking heads on Fox News, are not idiots – they know what they’re doing and they will keep doing it as long as it pays off in elections. They are saying what the white racist audience wants to hear. And most of the older working-class racists will not change either. The hope is that younger whites will not continue on this path – otherwise change will just depend on shrinkage of the racist demographic as non-whites increase.
The Republican party has a deliberate and conscious policy of encouraging racism. This diverts low-income whites from the actual plutocratic economic objectives of the party. The party deliberately took over this racism from Southern Democrats after the Civil-Rights era.
These politicians, and the talking heads on Fox News, are not idiots – they know what they’re doing and they will keep doing it as long as it pays off in elections. They are saying what the white racist audience wants to hear. And most of the older working-class racists will not change either. The hope is that younger whites will not continue on this path – otherwise change will just depend on shrinkage of the racist demographic as non-whites increase.
The Republican party has a deliberate and conscious policy of encouraging racism. This diverts low-income whites from the actual plutocratic economic objectives of the party. The party deliberately took over this racism from Southern Democrats after the Civil-Rights era.
These politicians, and the talking heads on Fox News, are not idiots – they know what they’re doing and they will keep doing it as long as it pays off in elections. They are saying what the white racist audience wants to hear. And most of the older working-class racists will not change either. The hope is that younger whites will not continue on this path – otherwise change will just depend on shrinkage of the racist demographic as non-whites increase.
You just can’t understand these statements as other than racist pandering.
You just can’t understand these statements as other than racist pandering.
You just can’t understand these statements as other than racist pandering.
Brett,
I can easily believe that you and your friends and coworkers understand that this was racist violence.
Actually, I can easily believe that Jeb Bush understands it too, though I have my doubts about Santorum. But I ask you to be realistic about the public statements made by prominent Republicans where they pretend not to.
Here is Boehner,
‘On behalf of the whole House, let me say how shocked and heartbroken I am by the murder of innocent churchgoers in Charleston’; ‘Anyone who would do something so unspeakable is pure evil’
Yes, they were innocent churchgoers, but anyone with half a brain knows that they weren’t murdered for being churchgoers. So WTF can’t Boehner say something about that?
What I think those statements mean is that those leaders understand that their supporters don’t want to hear it and refuse to believe that there is real racism in the country, including violent racism.
Brett,
I can easily believe that you and your friends and coworkers understand that this was racist violence.
Actually, I can easily believe that Jeb Bush understands it too, though I have my doubts about Santorum. But I ask you to be realistic about the public statements made by prominent Republicans where they pretend not to.
Here is Boehner,
‘On behalf of the whole House, let me say how shocked and heartbroken I am by the murder of innocent churchgoers in Charleston’; ‘Anyone who would do something so unspeakable is pure evil’
Yes, they were innocent churchgoers, but anyone with half a brain knows that they weren’t murdered for being churchgoers. So WTF can’t Boehner say something about that?
What I think those statements mean is that those leaders understand that their supporters don’t want to hear it and refuse to believe that there is real racism in the country, including violent racism.
Brett,
I can easily believe that you and your friends and coworkers understand that this was racist violence.
Actually, I can easily believe that Jeb Bush understands it too, though I have my doubts about Santorum. But I ask you to be realistic about the public statements made by prominent Republicans where they pretend not to.
Here is Boehner,
‘On behalf of the whole House, let me say how shocked and heartbroken I am by the murder of innocent churchgoers in Charleston’; ‘Anyone who would do something so unspeakable is pure evil’
Yes, they were innocent churchgoers, but anyone with half a brain knows that they weren’t murdered for being churchgoers. So WTF can’t Boehner say something about that?
What I think those statements mean is that those leaders understand that their supporters don’t want to hear it and refuse to believe that there is real racism in the country, including violent racism.
But the topic here is explicitly the orchestrated meme, and I’m just going to reject it
OK, that’s one county heard from. Thanks for your input.
But the topic here is explicitly the orchestrated meme, and I’m just going to reject it
OK, that’s one county heard from. Thanks for your input.
But the topic here is explicitly the orchestrated meme, and I’m just going to reject it
OK, that’s one county heard from. Thanks for your input.
Charleston Shooter Dylann Roof’s Racist Manifesto: On what appears to be his website: “We have no skinheads, no real KKK, no one doing anything but talking on the internet.”
Charleston Shooter Dylann Roof’s Racist Manifesto: On what appears to be his website: “We have no skinheads, no real KKK, no one doing anything but talking on the internet.”
Charleston Shooter Dylann Roof’s Racist Manifesto: On what appears to be his website: “We have no skinheads, no real KKK, no one doing anything but talking on the internet.”
One thing I’ve seen in the National Review comment threads are people saying that liberals are hypocritical for saying we shouldn’t stigmatize Islam for the actions of a minority and then we turn around and stigmatize Confederate flag wavers for the actions of a few murderers.
I’ll take that as a victory in the struggle against Islamophobia except that I don’t think they really mean it. Anyway, in such cases it does show hat some conservatives are acutely aware that the stigmatizing they do can come back and bite them. (.though incidentally, a fair number of self-styled liberals are also Islamophobes but that is a different problem as generally such people don’t romanticize a group of people who starts a war to defend slavery.)
One thing I’ve seen in the National Review comment threads are people saying that liberals are hypocritical for saying we shouldn’t stigmatize Islam for the actions of a minority and then we turn around and stigmatize Confederate flag wavers for the actions of a few murderers.
I’ll take that as a victory in the struggle against Islamophobia except that I don’t think they really mean it. Anyway, in such cases it does show hat some conservatives are acutely aware that the stigmatizing they do can come back and bite them. (.though incidentally, a fair number of self-styled liberals are also Islamophobes but that is a different problem as generally such people don’t romanticize a group of people who starts a war to defend slavery.)
One thing I’ve seen in the National Review comment threads are people saying that liberals are hypocritical for saying we shouldn’t stigmatize Islam for the actions of a minority and then we turn around and stigmatize Confederate flag wavers for the actions of a few murderers.
I’ll take that as a victory in the struggle against Islamophobia except that I don’t think they really mean it. Anyway, in such cases it does show hat some conservatives are acutely aware that the stigmatizing they do can come back and bite them. (.though incidentally, a fair number of self-styled liberals are also Islamophobes but that is a different problem as generally such people don’t romanticize a group of people who starts a war to defend slavery.)
Either my fat fingers or my IPad’s correction program gets the blame for the typos above.
Either my fat fingers or my IPad’s correction program gets the blame for the typos above.
Either my fat fingers or my IPad’s correction program gets the blame for the typos above.
russell: No doubt factors besides racism were involved here.
Quite right. Lots of people are racist; very few of them shoot up black churches. For one thing, some racists probably don’t even own guns.
So it’s quite natural for a racist to think “Hey, racism could not be the main factor here because somebody like me would never do such a thing.” Same goes for gun nuts.
Politicians who cater to racists and gun nuts are no doubt aware of this phenomenon. Hence their “reluctance to commit before being briefed”.
Had Jeb! said, “Let’s face it, guys. The little twerp is a racist fnck, and I’m no scientist but I don’t think he was born that way”, I wonder what “orchestrated meme” we’d be hearing from such powerful institutions as Fox News or Journolist.
–TP
russell: No doubt factors besides racism were involved here.
Quite right. Lots of people are racist; very few of them shoot up black churches. For one thing, some racists probably don’t even own guns.
So it’s quite natural for a racist to think “Hey, racism could not be the main factor here because somebody like me would never do such a thing.” Same goes for gun nuts.
Politicians who cater to racists and gun nuts are no doubt aware of this phenomenon. Hence their “reluctance to commit before being briefed”.
Had Jeb! said, “Let’s face it, guys. The little twerp is a racist fnck, and I’m no scientist but I don’t think he was born that way”, I wonder what “orchestrated meme” we’d be hearing from such powerful institutions as Fox News or Journolist.
–TP
russell: No doubt factors besides racism were involved here.
Quite right. Lots of people are racist; very few of them shoot up black churches. For one thing, some racists probably don’t even own guns.
So it’s quite natural for a racist to think “Hey, racism could not be the main factor here because somebody like me would never do such a thing.” Same goes for gun nuts.
Politicians who cater to racists and gun nuts are no doubt aware of this phenomenon. Hence their “reluctance to commit before being briefed”.
Had Jeb! said, “Let’s face it, guys. The little twerp is a racist fnck, and I’m no scientist but I don’t think he was born that way”, I wonder what “orchestrated meme” we’d be hearing from such powerful institutions as Fox News or Journolist.
–TP
Brett’s doing exactly what all those prominent “conservatives” are doing: yadayadayada the racist murderer part and get right into the “But The Left….” part.
it’s the same play they’ve all used for every high-profile white-on-black murder: deflect and attack the left.
they know their own culture of fear, hate, paranoia and Guns4All! contributes to these events, but they aren’t going admit it. so they admit the bare facts and then spin spin spin away.
Brett’s doing exactly what all those prominent “conservatives” are doing: yadayadayada the racist murderer part and get right into the “But The Left….” part.
it’s the same play they’ve all used for every high-profile white-on-black murder: deflect and attack the left.
they know their own culture of fear, hate, paranoia and Guns4All! contributes to these events, but they aren’t going admit it. so they admit the bare facts and then spin spin spin away.
Brett’s doing exactly what all those prominent “conservatives” are doing: yadayadayada the racist murderer part and get right into the “But The Left….” part.
it’s the same play they’ve all used for every high-profile white-on-black murder: deflect and attack the left.
they know their own culture of fear, hate, paranoia and Guns4All! contributes to these events, but they aren’t going admit it. so they admit the bare facts and then spin spin spin away.
There is no general phenomenon of conservatives denying Roof was motivated by racism. It’s just a stupid talking point.
There is a general phenomenon of conservatives being far less willing to discuss it openly at any significant length or at any significant depth than non-conservatives. The thing is, they don’t really want to get into.
Denial might not be exactly the right word. Avoidance is possibly better.
There is no general phenomenon of conservatives denying Roof was motivated by racism. It’s just a stupid talking point.
There is a general phenomenon of conservatives being far less willing to discuss it openly at any significant length or at any significant depth than non-conservatives. The thing is, they don’t really want to get into.
Denial might not be exactly the right word. Avoidance is possibly better.
There is no general phenomenon of conservatives denying Roof was motivated by racism. It’s just a stupid talking point.
There is a general phenomenon of conservatives being far less willing to discuss it openly at any significant length or at any significant depth than non-conservatives. The thing is, they don’t really want to get into.
Denial might not be exactly the right word. Avoidance is possibly better.
The one conservative response I’d praise would be that Republican legislator who wants to take down the Confederate flag. I understand the fascination with the Civil War and even the romanticized whitewashing ( pun appropriate here) and read Shelby Foote’s trilogy a few years ago, but it is long past time–150 years past time– for all the Confederate flag wavers to say what Grant said, which ( paraphrasing from memory) was that a lot of southern men fought bravely for one of the worst causes in history.
The one conservative response I’d praise would be that Republican legislator who wants to take down the Confederate flag. I understand the fascination with the Civil War and even the romanticized whitewashing ( pun appropriate here) and read Shelby Foote’s trilogy a few years ago, but it is long past time–150 years past time– for all the Confederate flag wavers to say what Grant said, which ( paraphrasing from memory) was that a lot of southern men fought bravely for one of the worst causes in history.
The one conservative response I’d praise would be that Republican legislator who wants to take down the Confederate flag. I understand the fascination with the Civil War and even the romanticized whitewashing ( pun appropriate here) and read Shelby Foote’s trilogy a few years ago, but it is long past time–150 years past time– for all the Confederate flag wavers to say what Grant said, which ( paraphrasing from memory) was that a lot of southern men fought bravely for one of the worst causes in history.
I just visited Ta-Nehisi Coates’s blog. Worth reading as usual.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/06/take-down-the-confederate-flag-now/396290/
I just visited Ta-Nehisi Coates’s blog. Worth reading as usual.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/06/take-down-the-confederate-flag-now/396290/
I just visited Ta-Nehisi Coates’s blog. Worth reading as usual.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/06/take-down-the-confederate-flag-now/396290/
Speaking of the Civil War:
The Republican party has a deliberate and conscious policy of encouraging racism. This diverts low-income whites from the actual plutocratic economic objectives of the party.
Sounds familiar, no?
Speaking of the Civil War:
The Republican party has a deliberate and conscious policy of encouraging racism. This diverts low-income whites from the actual plutocratic economic objectives of the party.
Sounds familiar, no?
Speaking of the Civil War:
The Republican party has a deliberate and conscious policy of encouraging racism. This diverts low-income whites from the actual plutocratic economic objectives of the party.
Sounds familiar, no?
Either my fat fingers or my IPad’s correction program gets the blame for the typos above.
One thing left and right can definitely agree on: auto-“correction” programs are a nasty invention. And a simple way to disable them ought to be provided on any platform which decides to inflict them on users.
Either my fat fingers or my IPad’s correction program gets the blame for the typos above.
One thing left and right can definitely agree on: auto-“correction” programs are a nasty invention. And a simple way to disable them ought to be provided on any platform which decides to inflict them on users.
Either my fat fingers or my IPad’s correction program gets the blame for the typos above.
One thing left and right can definitely agree on: auto-“correction” programs are a nasty invention. And a simple way to disable them ought to be provided on any platform which decides to inflict them on users.
I hae noticed a positive development. Romney has come out against Confederate flags, acknowledging them as symbolic of “race hatred”. A SC Republican legislator wants the flag on their capital to come down. There was a prominent Republican politician other than Romeny who also spoke of the Confederate flag as a symbol of racism, but I cant remember who it was.
I hae noticed a positive development. Romney has come out against Confederate flags, acknowledging them as symbolic of “race hatred”. A SC Republican legislator wants the flag on their capital to come down. There was a prominent Republican politician other than Romeny who also spoke of the Confederate flag as a symbol of racism, but I cant remember who it was.
I hae noticed a positive development. Romney has come out against Confederate flags, acknowledging them as symbolic of “race hatred”. A SC Republican legislator wants the flag on their capital to come down. There was a prominent Republican politician other than Romeny who also spoke of the Confederate flag as a symbol of racism, but I cant remember who it was.
Sorry, Don, you beat me to it!
Sorry, Don, you beat me to it!
Sorry, Don, you beat me to it!
“There is a general phenomenon of conservatives being far less willing to discuss it openly at any significant length or at any significant depth than non-conservatives. The thing is, they don’t really want to get into.”
Republicans don’t want to embrace stupid Democratic talking points, news at 11.
“There is a general phenomenon of conservatives being far less willing to discuss it openly at any significant length or at any significant depth than non-conservatives. The thing is, they don’t really want to get into.”
Republicans don’t want to embrace stupid Democratic talking points, news at 11.
“There is a general phenomenon of conservatives being far less willing to discuss it openly at any significant length or at any significant depth than non-conservatives. The thing is, they don’t really want to get into.”
Republicans don’t want to embrace stupid Democratic talking points, news at 11.
addressing the poisonous culture that lead directly to this murder is embracing a stupid talking point.
addressing the poisonous culture that lead directly to this murder is embracing a stupid talking point.
addressing the poisonous culture that lead directly to this murder is embracing a stupid talking point.
I am a long-time lurker here at ObWi, and have always appreciated the level of discourse you folks generally maintain – in terms of quality, not just civility (which, after all, is kind of overrated – I personally prefer passionate conviction, even if it contains the occasional F-bomb or nasty crack, to mealy-mouthed polite condescension). That said, I am finally commenting because I would like to ask Brett Bellmore a question.
I note that you take issue with the original post and most of your fellow commenters because you don’t believe most of the Republican public figures, media conservatives and other right-wing commentators on the Charleston shooting have “denied” that the motive of the attack was racism. My question is, how are you defining “denial”?
What I mean is, you appear to be holding the definition to a very specific standard: i.e., unless a public figure has explicitly stated “I do not believe this event had anything to do with race,” he or she cannot be said to have “denied” that racism was involved.
But let me give you an example – a non-partisan one – and in all honesty, I would be most interested in any comment you might have about it.
Let’s say a young man murders his parents. We don’t know why – maybe they’d abused him his whole life, or maybe they were nothing but loving, and he killed them for money. But in any event the next day, the newspaper prints the story under the following headline: “Area Man, 27, Murders Elderly Couple.”
Wouldn’t it strike you as an astonishing omission of a crucial fact? Wouldn’t you think there MUST be a motive behind such an egregious omission?
Now, what if you then turned to the Op-Ed page of the same paper, and the editorial column was all about “the shameful epidemic of elder-hate crime,” and how nobody wants to talk about how elderly people are oppressed and under attack in elder-hating America. Would THAT strike you as dishonest? Doesn’t leaving out the fact that the murdered couple were the killer’s parents turn any discussion of “elder-hate crime” into a, what’s the word? DENIAL of the screamingly obvious?
When someone commits patri/matricide, they may have any number of other motives – personal hatred, vengeance for ill-treatment, greed, simple depravity, and, yes, possibly an ideological hatred of elderly people in general. But the very name of the crime tells us that, whatever other factors may have been at play, this man most certainly killed his parents because they were his parents.
The original post here is positing that the glaring omission of racism from the list of possible motives mentioned by most of the prominent conservative Republican commentators constitutes denial of same. You seem to be taking the position that unless an explicit denial has been verbally stated, it doesn’t exist.
Getting back to my example – would you also say that the newspaper can’t be described as “denying” the fact that the man killed his parents, because it didn’t print “Area Man, 27, Murders Elderly Couple Who Most Certainly Were Not His Parents”?
I am a long-time lurker here at ObWi, and have always appreciated the level of discourse you folks generally maintain – in terms of quality, not just civility (which, after all, is kind of overrated – I personally prefer passionate conviction, even if it contains the occasional F-bomb or nasty crack, to mealy-mouthed polite condescension). That said, I am finally commenting because I would like to ask Brett Bellmore a question.
I note that you take issue with the original post and most of your fellow commenters because you don’t believe most of the Republican public figures, media conservatives and other right-wing commentators on the Charleston shooting have “denied” that the motive of the attack was racism. My question is, how are you defining “denial”?
What I mean is, you appear to be holding the definition to a very specific standard: i.e., unless a public figure has explicitly stated “I do not believe this event had anything to do with race,” he or she cannot be said to have “denied” that racism was involved.
But let me give you an example – a non-partisan one – and in all honesty, I would be most interested in any comment you might have about it.
Let’s say a young man murders his parents. We don’t know why – maybe they’d abused him his whole life, or maybe they were nothing but loving, and he killed them for money. But in any event the next day, the newspaper prints the story under the following headline: “Area Man, 27, Murders Elderly Couple.”
Wouldn’t it strike you as an astonishing omission of a crucial fact? Wouldn’t you think there MUST be a motive behind such an egregious omission?
Now, what if you then turned to the Op-Ed page of the same paper, and the editorial column was all about “the shameful epidemic of elder-hate crime,” and how nobody wants to talk about how elderly people are oppressed and under attack in elder-hating America. Would THAT strike you as dishonest? Doesn’t leaving out the fact that the murdered couple were the killer’s parents turn any discussion of “elder-hate crime” into a, what’s the word? DENIAL of the screamingly obvious?
When someone commits patri/matricide, they may have any number of other motives – personal hatred, vengeance for ill-treatment, greed, simple depravity, and, yes, possibly an ideological hatred of elderly people in general. But the very name of the crime tells us that, whatever other factors may have been at play, this man most certainly killed his parents because they were his parents.
The original post here is positing that the glaring omission of racism from the list of possible motives mentioned by most of the prominent conservative Republican commentators constitutes denial of same. You seem to be taking the position that unless an explicit denial has been verbally stated, it doesn’t exist.
Getting back to my example – would you also say that the newspaper can’t be described as “denying” the fact that the man killed his parents, because it didn’t print “Area Man, 27, Murders Elderly Couple Who Most Certainly Were Not His Parents”?
I am a long-time lurker here at ObWi, and have always appreciated the level of discourse you folks generally maintain – in terms of quality, not just civility (which, after all, is kind of overrated – I personally prefer passionate conviction, even if it contains the occasional F-bomb or nasty crack, to mealy-mouthed polite condescension). That said, I am finally commenting because I would like to ask Brett Bellmore a question.
I note that you take issue with the original post and most of your fellow commenters because you don’t believe most of the Republican public figures, media conservatives and other right-wing commentators on the Charleston shooting have “denied” that the motive of the attack was racism. My question is, how are you defining “denial”?
What I mean is, you appear to be holding the definition to a very specific standard: i.e., unless a public figure has explicitly stated “I do not believe this event had anything to do with race,” he or she cannot be said to have “denied” that racism was involved.
But let me give you an example – a non-partisan one – and in all honesty, I would be most interested in any comment you might have about it.
Let’s say a young man murders his parents. We don’t know why – maybe they’d abused him his whole life, or maybe they were nothing but loving, and he killed them for money. But in any event the next day, the newspaper prints the story under the following headline: “Area Man, 27, Murders Elderly Couple.”
Wouldn’t it strike you as an astonishing omission of a crucial fact? Wouldn’t you think there MUST be a motive behind such an egregious omission?
Now, what if you then turned to the Op-Ed page of the same paper, and the editorial column was all about “the shameful epidemic of elder-hate crime,” and how nobody wants to talk about how elderly people are oppressed and under attack in elder-hating America. Would THAT strike you as dishonest? Doesn’t leaving out the fact that the murdered couple were the killer’s parents turn any discussion of “elder-hate crime” into a, what’s the word? DENIAL of the screamingly obvious?
When someone commits patri/matricide, they may have any number of other motives – personal hatred, vengeance for ill-treatment, greed, simple depravity, and, yes, possibly an ideological hatred of elderly people in general. But the very name of the crime tells us that, whatever other factors may have been at play, this man most certainly killed his parents because they were his parents.
The original post here is positing that the glaring omission of racism from the list of possible motives mentioned by most of the prominent conservative Republican commentators constitutes denial of same. You seem to be taking the position that unless an explicit denial has been verbally stated, it doesn’t exist.
Getting back to my example – would you also say that the newspaper can’t be described as “denying” the fact that the man killed his parents, because it didn’t print “Area Man, 27, Murders Elderly Couple Who Most Certainly Were Not His Parents”?
Excellent questions, Auntie.
Excellent questions, Auntie.
Excellent questions, Auntie.
If virulent and pervasive racial discrimination is still a thing, if innocent people of color are hurt or severely disadvantaged by its effects, then governments are justified in acting to oppose its effects.
Conservatives are in general opposed to the government offering help specifically to people of color, for any reason, with anything. They’ve been crying “reverse racism” about it since before Bakke.
So, reasoning backward from conservative axioms to reality, virulent and pervasive racism must not exist, because if it did, conservative opposition to government countermeasures would be exposed as what it is: racism hiding behind “conservative principles” that are pure rationalization for racial animus. Thus, it is is impossible that evidence would support the existence of virulent and pervasive racial discrimination by conservatives, because such evidence would contradict an axiomatic belief of conservatives. Therefore, such evidence can not be admitted to exist. It is invisible to conservatives.
I draw your attention to events in Kansas:
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2015/06/the-greatest-crime-one-can-commit-in-the-united-states-calling-racist-whites-racist
If virulent and pervasive racial discrimination is still a thing, if innocent people of color are hurt or severely disadvantaged by its effects, then governments are justified in acting to oppose its effects.
Conservatives are in general opposed to the government offering help specifically to people of color, for any reason, with anything. They’ve been crying “reverse racism” about it since before Bakke.
So, reasoning backward from conservative axioms to reality, virulent and pervasive racism must not exist, because if it did, conservative opposition to government countermeasures would be exposed as what it is: racism hiding behind “conservative principles” that are pure rationalization for racial animus. Thus, it is is impossible that evidence would support the existence of virulent and pervasive racial discrimination by conservatives, because such evidence would contradict an axiomatic belief of conservatives. Therefore, such evidence can not be admitted to exist. It is invisible to conservatives.
I draw your attention to events in Kansas:
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2015/06/the-greatest-crime-one-can-commit-in-the-united-states-calling-racist-whites-racist
If virulent and pervasive racial discrimination is still a thing, if innocent people of color are hurt or severely disadvantaged by its effects, then governments are justified in acting to oppose its effects.
Conservatives are in general opposed to the government offering help specifically to people of color, for any reason, with anything. They’ve been crying “reverse racism” about it since before Bakke.
So, reasoning backward from conservative axioms to reality, virulent and pervasive racism must not exist, because if it did, conservative opposition to government countermeasures would be exposed as what it is: racism hiding behind “conservative principles” that are pure rationalization for racial animus. Thus, it is is impossible that evidence would support the existence of virulent and pervasive racial discrimination by conservatives, because such evidence would contradict an axiomatic belief of conservatives. Therefore, such evidence can not be admitted to exist. It is invisible to conservatives.
I draw your attention to events in Kansas:
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2015/06/the-greatest-crime-one-can-commit-in-the-united-states-calling-racist-whites-racist
Added later: such evidence would also contradict a second key axiom of movement conservatism : the belief that white conservatives are the true victims in our society.
Added later: such evidence would also contradict a second key axiom of movement conservatism : the belief that white conservatives are the true victims in our society.
Added later: such evidence would also contradict a second key axiom of movement conservatism : the belief that white conservatives are the true victims in our society.
I’m not so sure that “white conservatives are victims” is really an axiom of movement conservatism. I think it may merely be part of their explanation for why their obviously correct (in their minds) views have not completely taken over the country.
I’m not so sure that “white conservatives are victims” is really an axiom of movement conservatism. I think it may merely be part of their explanation for why their obviously correct (in their minds) views have not completely taken over the country.
I’m not so sure that “white conservatives are victims” is really an axiom of movement conservatism. I think it may merely be part of their explanation for why their obviously correct (in their minds) views have not completely taken over the country.
Roof himself explains, both his actions and the witless, revolting conservative response:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2015_06/right_wing_media_and_their_rac056188.php#
“The event that truly awakened me was the Trayvon Martin case.”
Back to a quiet week.
Roof himself explains, both his actions and the witless, revolting conservative response:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2015_06/right_wing_media_and_their_rac056188.php#
“The event that truly awakened me was the Trayvon Martin case.”
Back to a quiet week.
Roof himself explains, both his actions and the witless, revolting conservative response:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2015_06/right_wing_media_and_their_rac056188.php#
“The event that truly awakened me was the Trayvon Martin case.”
Back to a quiet week.
I don’t think it’s that complicated. It was sheer political calculation. Republican politicians carefully cultivate the substantial racist segment of their base. They need them but they don’t want responsibility for them. Early on, when all we had was eyewitness accounts of the shooter’s clear statements that he was killing people because they were black, Republican politicians thought they still might be able to obscure that fact. Now that we have pictures and written statements that make it clear that trying to do that only makes you look either completely clueless or dishonest they are backing off.
I don’t think it’s that complicated. It was sheer political calculation. Republican politicians carefully cultivate the substantial racist segment of their base. They need them but they don’t want responsibility for them. Early on, when all we had was eyewitness accounts of the shooter’s clear statements that he was killing people because they were black, Republican politicians thought they still might be able to obscure that fact. Now that we have pictures and written statements that make it clear that trying to do that only makes you look either completely clueless or dishonest they are backing off.
I don’t think it’s that complicated. It was sheer political calculation. Republican politicians carefully cultivate the substantial racist segment of their base. They need them but they don’t want responsibility for them. Early on, when all we had was eyewitness accounts of the shooter’s clear statements that he was killing people because they were black, Republican politicians thought they still might be able to obscure that fact. Now that we have pictures and written statements that make it clear that trying to do that only makes you look either completely clueless or dishonest they are backing off.
Democrats used to be the ones making that calculation, of course, but after they made the decision to change and support civil rights legislation, angering that segment of their base, the Republicans of the time just couldn’t bring themselves to support moving away from our racist past when there was such a great political opportunity available. Hence the “southern strategy” and all that has come with it.
Democrats used to be the ones making that calculation, of course, but after they made the decision to change and support civil rights legislation, angering that segment of their base, the Republicans of the time just couldn’t bring themselves to support moving away from our racist past when there was such a great political opportunity available. Hence the “southern strategy” and all that has come with it.
Democrats used to be the ones making that calculation, of course, but after they made the decision to change and support civil rights legislation, angering that segment of their base, the Republicans of the time just couldn’t bring themselves to support moving away from our racist past when there was such a great political opportunity available. Hence the “southern strategy” and all that has come with it.
Auntie Social: Excellent question, except that it assumes, against all the evidence, that Brett Bellmore is arguing in good faith.
Auntie Social: Excellent question, except that it assumes, against all the evidence, that Brett Bellmore is arguing in good faith.
Auntie Social: Excellent question, except that it assumes, against all the evidence, that Brett Bellmore is arguing in good faith.
“My question is, how are you defining “denial”?”
The usual definition: Affirmatively asserting that something isn’t so.
Not, reserving judgment until you’ve had a chance to look into the matter, and certainly not suggesting that other factors were also present.
I think we can all agree that Root being a racist wasn’t the solitary cause of this; If every racist went on a homicidal rampage tomorrow, it would be an extinction level event.
So, you can’t just say, “He did it because he was a racist!”, and leave it at that. Not honestly, anyway.
But that seems that some here are determined to regard anything short of that as “denial”. That’s the rather sketchy basis of this mass denial claim, so far as I can tell. Least bit of hesitation to commit or nuance? Denial!
I think racism certainly dictated his target. That he wanted to/was willing to kill people? I think there had to be additional factors present. Drug use, mental problems.
You think that’s unreasonable?
“My question is, how are you defining “denial”?”
The usual definition: Affirmatively asserting that something isn’t so.
Not, reserving judgment until you’ve had a chance to look into the matter, and certainly not suggesting that other factors were also present.
I think we can all agree that Root being a racist wasn’t the solitary cause of this; If every racist went on a homicidal rampage tomorrow, it would be an extinction level event.
So, you can’t just say, “He did it because he was a racist!”, and leave it at that. Not honestly, anyway.
But that seems that some here are determined to regard anything short of that as “denial”. That’s the rather sketchy basis of this mass denial claim, so far as I can tell. Least bit of hesitation to commit or nuance? Denial!
I think racism certainly dictated his target. That he wanted to/was willing to kill people? I think there had to be additional factors present. Drug use, mental problems.
You think that’s unreasonable?
“My question is, how are you defining “denial”?”
The usual definition: Affirmatively asserting that something isn’t so.
Not, reserving judgment until you’ve had a chance to look into the matter, and certainly not suggesting that other factors were also present.
I think we can all agree that Root being a racist wasn’t the solitary cause of this; If every racist went on a homicidal rampage tomorrow, it would be an extinction level event.
So, you can’t just say, “He did it because he was a racist!”, and leave it at that. Not honestly, anyway.
But that seems that some here are determined to regard anything short of that as “denial”. That’s the rather sketchy basis of this mass denial claim, so far as I can tell. Least bit of hesitation to commit or nuance? Denial!
I think racism certainly dictated his target. That he wanted to/was willing to kill people? I think there had to be additional factors present. Drug use, mental problems.
You think that’s unreasonable?
“If virulent and pervasive racial discrimination is still a thing, if innocent people of color are hurt or severely disadvantaged by its effects, then governments are justified in acting to oppose its effects.”
That is getting closer to the heart of the matter, IMO….well, sort of….
There is a very real political war going on in this country and it doesn’t pay to give your opponent any edge.
Here is reality from a white conservative point of view, if you’re ready for it…. Blacks kill whites because the victim is white, but rarely, if ever, is it called racism. Black on white violent crime is far more common than the reverse, but racism and hate crime seems to be only something whites can be guilty of. Furthermore, any evidence of white racism is used as a rallying cry to transfer more unearned power to blacks and their white liberal handlers. When you set the game up this way, with that kind of stacked deck, there will, of course, be a reactionary denial of racism *even when everyone knows that real racism really was a factor; even if THE factor*.
That’s one reason and, it seems all to human and, actually, quite logical a response on the part of conservatives.
One racist little sissy white psychopath with a dumb haircut goes on a homicidal rampage and the mainstream media is immediately tarring all of Southern culture, lumping every white person South of the Mason Dixon into the same category as said sissy and calling for all kinds of sweeping reforms. Again, the reaction to such typical liberal hysteria power grabbing tactic is to deny the connection to racism. Again, this seems logical, or at least quite human.
Next, as someone(s) upstream has said, lots of people have racist views – whites, Blacks, Asians (especially Asians). Overwhelmingly they do not murder members of the race they do not like. So, it makes sense for a racist to want to distance her/himself from a murderer because murder is not typical of those who hold racist views. There must be another reason for the murder to have been committed (e.g. drugs, mental illness).
This is much like when Muslims murder in the name of their religion and then everyone denies that they are *real* Muslims and starts in with the whole “religion of peace” mumbo jumbo.
Ok?
“If virulent and pervasive racial discrimination is still a thing, if innocent people of color are hurt or severely disadvantaged by its effects, then governments are justified in acting to oppose its effects.”
That is getting closer to the heart of the matter, IMO….well, sort of….
There is a very real political war going on in this country and it doesn’t pay to give your opponent any edge.
Here is reality from a white conservative point of view, if you’re ready for it…. Blacks kill whites because the victim is white, but rarely, if ever, is it called racism. Black on white violent crime is far more common than the reverse, but racism and hate crime seems to be only something whites can be guilty of. Furthermore, any evidence of white racism is used as a rallying cry to transfer more unearned power to blacks and their white liberal handlers. When you set the game up this way, with that kind of stacked deck, there will, of course, be a reactionary denial of racism *even when everyone knows that real racism really was a factor; even if THE factor*.
That’s one reason and, it seems all to human and, actually, quite logical a response on the part of conservatives.
One racist little sissy white psychopath with a dumb haircut goes on a homicidal rampage and the mainstream media is immediately tarring all of Southern culture, lumping every white person South of the Mason Dixon into the same category as said sissy and calling for all kinds of sweeping reforms. Again, the reaction to such typical liberal hysteria power grabbing tactic is to deny the connection to racism. Again, this seems logical, or at least quite human.
Next, as someone(s) upstream has said, lots of people have racist views – whites, Blacks, Asians (especially Asians). Overwhelmingly they do not murder members of the race they do not like. So, it makes sense for a racist to want to distance her/himself from a murderer because murder is not typical of those who hold racist views. There must be another reason for the murder to have been committed (e.g. drugs, mental illness).
This is much like when Muslims murder in the name of their religion and then everyone denies that they are *real* Muslims and starts in with the whole “religion of peace” mumbo jumbo.
Ok?
“If virulent and pervasive racial discrimination is still a thing, if innocent people of color are hurt or severely disadvantaged by its effects, then governments are justified in acting to oppose its effects.”
That is getting closer to the heart of the matter, IMO….well, sort of….
There is a very real political war going on in this country and it doesn’t pay to give your opponent any edge.
Here is reality from a white conservative point of view, if you’re ready for it…. Blacks kill whites because the victim is white, but rarely, if ever, is it called racism. Black on white violent crime is far more common than the reverse, but racism and hate crime seems to be only something whites can be guilty of. Furthermore, any evidence of white racism is used as a rallying cry to transfer more unearned power to blacks and their white liberal handlers. When you set the game up this way, with that kind of stacked deck, there will, of course, be a reactionary denial of racism *even when everyone knows that real racism really was a factor; even if THE factor*.
That’s one reason and, it seems all to human and, actually, quite logical a response on the part of conservatives.
One racist little sissy white psychopath with a dumb haircut goes on a homicidal rampage and the mainstream media is immediately tarring all of Southern culture, lumping every white person South of the Mason Dixon into the same category as said sissy and calling for all kinds of sweeping reforms. Again, the reaction to such typical liberal hysteria power grabbing tactic is to deny the connection to racism. Again, this seems logical, or at least quite human.
Next, as someone(s) upstream has said, lots of people have racist views – whites, Blacks, Asians (especially Asians). Overwhelmingly they do not murder members of the race they do not like. So, it makes sense for a racist to want to distance her/himself from a murderer because murder is not typical of those who hold racist views. There must be another reason for the murder to have been committed (e.g. drugs, mental illness).
This is much like when Muslims murder in the name of their religion and then everyone denies that they are *real* Muslims and starts in with the whole “religion of peace” mumbo jumbo.
Ok?
Cerrtainly there are lots of people out there with racist views who do not engage in violence as a result of those views. But regardless of what pushes a specific individual over into violence, that doesn’t change the fact that his underlying motivation, and thus the root cause, was racism.
Would he have become violent in some other fashion without that cause? Unknown and unknowable. But that cause wasn’t absent. And, by his own words, it was his primary (if not sole) motivation.
Cerrtainly there are lots of people out there with racist views who do not engage in violence as a result of those views. But regardless of what pushes a specific individual over into violence, that doesn’t change the fact that his underlying motivation, and thus the root cause, was racism.
Would he have become violent in some other fashion without that cause? Unknown and unknowable. But that cause wasn’t absent. And, by his own words, it was his primary (if not sole) motivation.
Cerrtainly there are lots of people out there with racist views who do not engage in violence as a result of those views. But regardless of what pushes a specific individual over into violence, that doesn’t change the fact that his underlying motivation, and thus the root cause, was racism.
Would he have become violent in some other fashion without that cause? Unknown and unknowable. But that cause wasn’t absent. And, by his own words, it was his primary (if not sole) motivation.
I need to say this as well, there is a tone on this blog that feels like, “if you don’t agree with my far left point of view then you are a racist” or “…except that it assumes, against all the evidence, that Brett Bellmore is arguing in good faith.”
I mention this because it is line with my first comment; that there is a war going on in this country and it’s take no quarter given on all sides.
How is it conducive to open conversation with the aim of arriving at the truth of things to insinuate that people that disagree with you are not arguing in good faith? Assuming that honest open discusion is what Russell and others really want (hey, how does that feel?).
I need to say this as well, there is a tone on this blog that feels like, “if you don’t agree with my far left point of view then you are a racist” or “…except that it assumes, against all the evidence, that Brett Bellmore is arguing in good faith.”
I mention this because it is line with my first comment; that there is a war going on in this country and it’s take no quarter given on all sides.
How is it conducive to open conversation with the aim of arriving at the truth of things to insinuate that people that disagree with you are not arguing in good faith? Assuming that honest open discusion is what Russell and others really want (hey, how does that feel?).
I need to say this as well, there is a tone on this blog that feels like, “if you don’t agree with my far left point of view then you are a racist” or “…except that it assumes, against all the evidence, that Brett Bellmore is arguing in good faith.”
I mention this because it is line with my first comment; that there is a war going on in this country and it’s take no quarter given on all sides.
How is it conducive to open conversation with the aim of arriving at the truth of things to insinuate that people that disagree with you are not arguing in good faith? Assuming that honest open discusion is what Russell and others really want (hey, how does that feel?).
WJ, “And, by his own words, it was his primary (if not sole) motivation.”
Are you sure those are his own words? You know the providence of the site his alleged manifesto was lifted from? I sure don’t.
You’d think the left would have learned after their gentle giant being shot in the back with his hands up meme got deflated, but here we go again.
WJ, “And, by his own words, it was his primary (if not sole) motivation.”
Are you sure those are his own words? You know the providence of the site his alleged manifesto was lifted from? I sure don’t.
You’d think the left would have learned after their gentle giant being shot in the back with his hands up meme got deflated, but here we go again.
WJ, “And, by his own words, it was his primary (if not sole) motivation.”
Are you sure those are his own words? You know the providence of the site his alleged manifesto was lifted from? I sure don’t.
You’d think the left would have learned after their gentle giant being shot in the back with his hands up meme got deflated, but here we go again.
Brett,
“My question is, how are you defining “denial”?”
The usual definition: Affirmatively asserting that something isn’t so.
Well, OK. But doesn’t asserting that something else is so sometimes qualify?
Let me clarify. Santorum absurdly called the shooting an attack on religious liberty, or something of that nature. Now, maybe you don’t think that constitutes a “denial” that it was a racist act, but it sure sounds like it to me.
IOW, once you define the act as primarily something other than racist murder you deny, ISTM, that the racial aspect is the key motivation.
Or take Bush and Haley, among others, who claim not to know what motivated Roof. Given the evidence of Roof’s own words, ISTM that they are denying the racial aspect. Either that, or they are the most stupid people in the country.
So drop it.
Brett,
“My question is, how are you defining “denial”?”
The usual definition: Affirmatively asserting that something isn’t so.
Well, OK. But doesn’t asserting that something else is so sometimes qualify?
Let me clarify. Santorum absurdly called the shooting an attack on religious liberty, or something of that nature. Now, maybe you don’t think that constitutes a “denial” that it was a racist act, but it sure sounds like it to me.
IOW, once you define the act as primarily something other than racist murder you deny, ISTM, that the racial aspect is the key motivation.
Or take Bush and Haley, among others, who claim not to know what motivated Roof. Given the evidence of Roof’s own words, ISTM that they are denying the racial aspect. Either that, or they are the most stupid people in the country.
So drop it.
Brett,
“My question is, how are you defining “denial”?”
The usual definition: Affirmatively asserting that something isn’t so.
Well, OK. But doesn’t asserting that something else is so sometimes qualify?
Let me clarify. Santorum absurdly called the shooting an attack on religious liberty, or something of that nature. Now, maybe you don’t think that constitutes a “denial” that it was a racist act, but it sure sounds like it to me.
IOW, once you define the act as primarily something other than racist murder you deny, ISTM, that the racial aspect is the key motivation.
Or take Bush and Haley, among others, who claim not to know what motivated Roof. Given the evidence of Roof’s own words, ISTM that they are denying the racial aspect. Either that, or they are the most stupid people in the country.
So drop it.
What people say and do is not necessarily proof of their underling motivations. To know that would require a bit of mind reading.
What people say and do is not necessarily proof of their underling motivations. To know that would require a bit of mind reading.
What people say and do is not necessarily proof of their underling motivations. To know that would require a bit of mind reading.
“So, it makes sense for a racist to want to distance her/himself from a murderer because murder is not typical of those who hold racist views. There must be another reason for the murder to have been committed (e.g. drugs, mental illness)..”
Makes perfect sense for a racist to say that the Sun rises in the East, and sets in the West, too. Makes perfect sense, because, well, it does. The point is that it makes perfect sense for ANYBODY, racist or not, to claim that there had to be a reason besides racism for Root to start killing people, because if that were enough to make you go on a homicidal rampage, there’d be a lot more homicidal rampages going on.
I suppose one could argue that Root was just really, REALLY racist, and that’s enough, and the shortfall of racist homicidal rampages is due to most racists only being moderately racist. In fact, that’s plausible. Only problem is that research has shown that the vast majority of murderers actually ARE mentally ill.
So it’s quite a bit more plausible to think that Root was, yes, a sociopath, and that the racism just dictated who he felt like killing.
Gets a bit more complicated with Islam, I guess, in as much as it actually does teach you to go off and kill infidels. Thank goodness most Muslims aren’t very devout.
“So, it makes sense for a racist to want to distance her/himself from a murderer because murder is not typical of those who hold racist views. There must be another reason for the murder to have been committed (e.g. drugs, mental illness)..”
Makes perfect sense for a racist to say that the Sun rises in the East, and sets in the West, too. Makes perfect sense, because, well, it does. The point is that it makes perfect sense for ANYBODY, racist or not, to claim that there had to be a reason besides racism for Root to start killing people, because if that were enough to make you go on a homicidal rampage, there’d be a lot more homicidal rampages going on.
I suppose one could argue that Root was just really, REALLY racist, and that’s enough, and the shortfall of racist homicidal rampages is due to most racists only being moderately racist. In fact, that’s plausible. Only problem is that research has shown that the vast majority of murderers actually ARE mentally ill.
So it’s quite a bit more plausible to think that Root was, yes, a sociopath, and that the racism just dictated who he felt like killing.
Gets a bit more complicated with Islam, I guess, in as much as it actually does teach you to go off and kill infidels. Thank goodness most Muslims aren’t very devout.
“So, it makes sense for a racist to want to distance her/himself from a murderer because murder is not typical of those who hold racist views. There must be another reason for the murder to have been committed (e.g. drugs, mental illness)..”
Makes perfect sense for a racist to say that the Sun rises in the East, and sets in the West, too. Makes perfect sense, because, well, it does. The point is that it makes perfect sense for ANYBODY, racist or not, to claim that there had to be a reason besides racism for Root to start killing people, because if that were enough to make you go on a homicidal rampage, there’d be a lot more homicidal rampages going on.
I suppose one could argue that Root was just really, REALLY racist, and that’s enough, and the shortfall of racist homicidal rampages is due to most racists only being moderately racist. In fact, that’s plausible. Only problem is that research has shown that the vast majority of murderers actually ARE mentally ill.
So it’s quite a bit more plausible to think that Root was, yes, a sociopath, and that the racism just dictated who he felt like killing.
Gets a bit more complicated with Islam, I guess, in as much as it actually does teach you to go off and kill infidels. Thank goodness most Muslims aren’t very devout.
“Well, OK. But doesn’t asserting that something else is so sometimes qualify?”
If they’re mutually exclusive, sure. If I assert that it’s hot, I’m denying that it’s cold, for instance.
How many motives for killing are mutually exclusive with racism? Not many, I should think.
“Well, OK. But doesn’t asserting that something else is so sometimes qualify?”
If they’re mutually exclusive, sure. If I assert that it’s hot, I’m denying that it’s cold, for instance.
How many motives for killing are mutually exclusive with racism? Not many, I should think.
“Well, OK. But doesn’t asserting that something else is so sometimes qualify?”
If they’re mutually exclusive, sure. If I assert that it’s hot, I’m denying that it’s cold, for instance.
How many motives for killing are mutually exclusive with racism? Not many, I should think.
“Thank goodness most Muslims aren’t very devout.”
This is called bigotry. I have a devout Muslim accountant who does our taxes. He wears a T shirt with the word “love” on it. The New Yorker has an article this week about the devout and lovable Muslim students murdered in North Carolina a few months ago.
What the freaking fuck is the limit here? If Brett were a regular anti-Semite saying exactly the same things about Jews based on the actions of some settlers, generalizing to all Jews and about Judaism, how long would this be allowed? Both the Bible and the Koran have passages that can be and are used to justify every crime up to genocide and we all know this and it doesn’t mean every devout Muslim, Christian or Jew is a terrorist or would- be genocidal killer. This is Religion 101–it’s more basic than that. Any reasonably intelligent grade school kid could understand this point.
“Thank goodness most Muslims aren’t very devout.”
This is called bigotry. I have a devout Muslim accountant who does our taxes. He wears a T shirt with the word “love” on it. The New Yorker has an article this week about the devout and lovable Muslim students murdered in North Carolina a few months ago.
What the freaking fuck is the limit here? If Brett were a regular anti-Semite saying exactly the same things about Jews based on the actions of some settlers, generalizing to all Jews and about Judaism, how long would this be allowed? Both the Bible and the Koran have passages that can be and are used to justify every crime up to genocide and we all know this and it doesn’t mean every devout Muslim, Christian or Jew is a terrorist or would- be genocidal killer. This is Religion 101–it’s more basic than that. Any reasonably intelligent grade school kid could understand this point.
“Thank goodness most Muslims aren’t very devout.”
This is called bigotry. I have a devout Muslim accountant who does our taxes. He wears a T shirt with the word “love” on it. The New Yorker has an article this week about the devout and lovable Muslim students murdered in North Carolina a few months ago.
What the freaking fuck is the limit here? If Brett were a regular anti-Semite saying exactly the same things about Jews based on the actions of some settlers, generalizing to all Jews and about Judaism, how long would this be allowed? Both the Bible and the Koran have passages that can be and are used to justify every crime up to genocide and we all know this and it doesn’t mean every devout Muslim, Christian or Jew is a terrorist or would- be genocidal killer. This is Religion 101–it’s more basic than that. Any reasonably intelligent grade school kid could understand this point.
And btw, I saw this with some National Review thread commenters, with Brett, and with Eric. They all immediately seem to think of the parallel with Islamic terrorism and you can tell it eats at them, that many American conservatives could be stuck with having to deny a link to terror the same way that Muslims are. They obviously think that Muslims are fair game. Here is their problem. To the extent that they wave the Confederate flag around or pretend that the flag has nothing to do with terror, it is perfectly legitimate to suspect that they may have some sympathy with white terrorism against blacks.
And btw, I saw this with some National Review thread commenters, with Brett, and with Eric. They all immediately seem to think of the parallel with Islamic terrorism and you can tell it eats at them, that many American conservatives could be stuck with having to deny a link to terror the same way that Muslims are. They obviously think that Muslims are fair game. Here is their problem. To the extent that they wave the Confederate flag around or pretend that the flag has nothing to do with terror, it is perfectly legitimate to suspect that they may have some sympathy with white terrorism against blacks.
And btw, I saw this with some National Review thread commenters, with Brett, and with Eric. They all immediately seem to think of the parallel with Islamic terrorism and you can tell it eats at them, that many American conservatives could be stuck with having to deny a link to terror the same way that Muslims are. They obviously think that Muslims are fair game. Here is their problem. To the extent that they wave the Confederate flag around or pretend that the flag has nothing to do with terror, it is perfectly legitimate to suspect that they may have some sympathy with white terrorism against blacks.
Btw, I know that Brett isn’t a neo-confederate, or anyway I haven’t seen any hint of that. I don’t know about Eric. But the Republican embrace of the Southern strategy is well known and contrary to Eric’s belief, there is no actual war going on that would justify making excuses for racists because it might give one’s political opponents an advantage. At least some Republicans seem to understand this better than Eric.
Btw, I know that Brett isn’t a neo-confederate, or anyway I haven’t seen any hint of that. I don’t know about Eric. But the Republican embrace of the Southern strategy is well known and contrary to Eric’s belief, there is no actual war going on that would justify making excuses for racists because it might give one’s political opponents an advantage. At least some Republicans seem to understand this better than Eric.
Btw, I know that Brett isn’t a neo-confederate, or anyway I haven’t seen any hint of that. I don’t know about Eric. But the Republican embrace of the Southern strategy is well known and contrary to Eric’s belief, there is no actual war going on that would justify making excuses for racists because it might give one’s political opponents an advantage. At least some Republicans seem to understand this better than Eric.
Seems like Brett’s response to this topic is to change the subject.
Seems like Brett’s response to this topic is to change the subject.
Seems like Brett’s response to this topic is to change the subject.
“This is called bigotry.”
Well, hurrah. You’re wrong, but at least you didn’t say “racism”. Pisses me off when liberals call something utterly unrelated to race “racism”, at least you’ve got the category right.
“Both the Bible and the Koran have passages that can be and are used to justify every crime up to genocide”
And yet a Muslim can walk through Vatican city in perfect safety, while a Christian in Mecca would likely be murdered. And yet, Islam is legal in mostly Christian countries, and you can get executed in majority Muslim countries for converting to Islam. I could go on with the comparisons.
Probably has something to do with the fact that the Old Testament, where those passages are found, is supposed to be superseded by the new, while the murderous parts of the Koran are still in effect. With Mohammad, Islam’s officially perfect man, being a mad dog killer who converted people at sword point.
Yes, I’ve known some Muslims, and they were nice people. And an ounce of U235 in isolation is just a shiny piece of metal, while 25 kgs in one place is called an “atomic bomb”. I think the best way to put it is, Muslims have unfortunate social dynamics in large numbers.
“This is called bigotry.”
Well, hurrah. You’re wrong, but at least you didn’t say “racism”. Pisses me off when liberals call something utterly unrelated to race “racism”, at least you’ve got the category right.
“Both the Bible and the Koran have passages that can be and are used to justify every crime up to genocide”
And yet a Muslim can walk through Vatican city in perfect safety, while a Christian in Mecca would likely be murdered. And yet, Islam is legal in mostly Christian countries, and you can get executed in majority Muslim countries for converting to Islam. I could go on with the comparisons.
Probably has something to do with the fact that the Old Testament, where those passages are found, is supposed to be superseded by the new, while the murderous parts of the Koran are still in effect. With Mohammad, Islam’s officially perfect man, being a mad dog killer who converted people at sword point.
Yes, I’ve known some Muslims, and they were nice people. And an ounce of U235 in isolation is just a shiny piece of metal, while 25 kgs in one place is called an “atomic bomb”. I think the best way to put it is, Muslims have unfortunate social dynamics in large numbers.
“This is called bigotry.”
Well, hurrah. You’re wrong, but at least you didn’t say “racism”. Pisses me off when liberals call something utterly unrelated to race “racism”, at least you’ve got the category right.
“Both the Bible and the Koran have passages that can be and are used to justify every crime up to genocide”
And yet a Muslim can walk through Vatican city in perfect safety, while a Christian in Mecca would likely be murdered. And yet, Islam is legal in mostly Christian countries, and you can get executed in majority Muslim countries for converting to Islam. I could go on with the comparisons.
Probably has something to do with the fact that the Old Testament, where those passages are found, is supposed to be superseded by the new, while the murderous parts of the Koran are still in effect. With Mohammad, Islam’s officially perfect man, being a mad dog killer who converted people at sword point.
Yes, I’ve known some Muslims, and they were nice people. And an ounce of U235 in isolation is just a shiny piece of metal, while 25 kgs in one place is called an “atomic bomb”. I think the best way to put it is, Muslims have unfortunate social dynamics in large numbers.
“Seems like Brett’s response to this topic is to change the subject.”
Seems like my response is to deny the premise is true. I don’t see any reason to discuss why something that isn’t so is happening. Even if it IS the latest talking point that’s been handed out to everyone on your side of the aisle.
“Seems like Brett’s response to this topic is to change the subject.”
Seems like my response is to deny the premise is true. I don’t see any reason to discuss why something that isn’t so is happening. Even if it IS the latest talking point that’s been handed out to everyone on your side of the aisle.
“Seems like Brett’s response to this topic is to change the subject.”
Seems like my response is to deny the premise is true. I don’t see any reason to discuss why something that isn’t so is happening. Even if it IS the latest talking point that’s been handed out to everyone on your side of the aisle.
Anyway, good night, all.
Anyway, good night, all.
Anyway, good night, all.
“So – my question: why is it so apparently difficult for conservative spokespeople – people holding elected office, people running for elected office, conservative media organs like Fox – to acknowledge the racial motivation behind the shooting?”
If this is the actual question, you are just wrong. I did Google, I can’t find anyone that denies it. A few poorly phrased initial responses and the liberal machine in full voice to condemn the right for “what we know they really mean”. It is beyond tiresome.
As much as I love the Count in many ways.
“So – my question: why is it so apparently difficult for conservative spokespeople – people holding elected office, people running for elected office, conservative media organs like Fox – to acknowledge the racial motivation behind the shooting?”
If this is the actual question, you are just wrong. I did Google, I can’t find anyone that denies it. A few poorly phrased initial responses and the liberal machine in full voice to condemn the right for “what we know they really mean”. It is beyond tiresome.
As much as I love the Count in many ways.
“So – my question: why is it so apparently difficult for conservative spokespeople – people holding elected office, people running for elected office, conservative media organs like Fox – to acknowledge the racial motivation behind the shooting?”
If this is the actual question, you are just wrong. I did Google, I can’t find anyone that denies it. A few poorly phrased initial responses and the liberal machine in full voice to condemn the right for “what we know they really mean”. It is beyond tiresome.
As much as I love the Count in many ways.
you can get executed in majority Muslim countries for converting to Islam.
Actually no. Converting to Islam is entirely legal and allowed in all Muslim countries. Not a problem at all.
But perhaps you meant converting from Islam….
you can get executed in majority Muslim countries for converting to Islam.
Actually no. Converting to Islam is entirely legal and allowed in all Muslim countries. Not a problem at all.
But perhaps you meant converting from Islam….
you can get executed in majority Muslim countries for converting to Islam.
Actually no. Converting to Islam is entirely legal and allowed in all Muslim countries. Not a problem at all.
But perhaps you meant converting from Islam….
Brett, you said that the reason most Muslims aren’t killers is because they aren’t devout–now you change the subject to actual human rights violations one can find in many Muslim countries because your original claim, the one I criticized, is bigoted crap. If you know nice Muslims and any of them are devout, you just spat in their face with your earlier post.
Your superseccionist theory for why Christianity is allegedly superior to Islam is more crap. Apparently you think Christian religious wars ceased after the NT was written, or else Christians somehow hadn’t bothered to look at the later portion of the Bible until the Enlightenment
And even that is crap, because Christianity in some forms is still linked to ideological justifications for war–Latin American fascists thought they were defending Christian civilization against secularists, Marxists and in Argentina, Jews and rightwing Christians in America were their supporters in some cases. Oh, btw, ever hear of the connection between the NT and Antisemitism? I have–my rector preached on this just a few weeks ago. Try telling a Jew that Christianity is morally superior to Islam because of the NT. You obviously don’t have the faintest clue what you are saying.
And ironically enough, Christian Zionism now justifies whatever human rights violations the Israelis choose to inflict, while still seeing Jews as unconscious players in bringing about the End Times. yeah, no relationship between Christianity and violence at all. The fact that churchgoers in America are more likely to support the CIA’s interrogation program–nothing to do with Christianity. (Actually, as a Christian I don’t think any of these evils is part of what Christianity should be, but Christianity as it is–well. yes, some Christians continue to use their religion as an excuse to support horrific policies, just as some Muslims do. And some Jews also.)
And no, I don’t deny the horrific atrocities committed in the name of Islam, or the intolerance or the fanaticism, but somehow, Brett, I can do this without swimming in the sewer with you. I don’t have to make sweeping statements about people of a given faith or deny atrocities committed by any faction, but you do.
As for the difference between bigotry and racism, they are fundamentally the same type,of thing. In both cases people belonging to a certain category are all lumped together and labeled inferior. This can be done on the basis of religion or ethnicity or some nebulous category called race. It’s hard to say whether anti-semitism is racism or bigotry–it would depend on the individual antisemite and what sort of stupid notion he has about Jews.
Brett, you said that the reason most Muslims aren’t killers is because they aren’t devout–now you change the subject to actual human rights violations one can find in many Muslim countries because your original claim, the one I criticized, is bigoted crap. If you know nice Muslims and any of them are devout, you just spat in their face with your earlier post.
Your superseccionist theory for why Christianity is allegedly superior to Islam is more crap. Apparently you think Christian religious wars ceased after the NT was written, or else Christians somehow hadn’t bothered to look at the later portion of the Bible until the Enlightenment
And even that is crap, because Christianity in some forms is still linked to ideological justifications for war–Latin American fascists thought they were defending Christian civilization against secularists, Marxists and in Argentina, Jews and rightwing Christians in America were their supporters in some cases. Oh, btw, ever hear of the connection between the NT and Antisemitism? I have–my rector preached on this just a few weeks ago. Try telling a Jew that Christianity is morally superior to Islam because of the NT. You obviously don’t have the faintest clue what you are saying.
And ironically enough, Christian Zionism now justifies whatever human rights violations the Israelis choose to inflict, while still seeing Jews as unconscious players in bringing about the End Times. yeah, no relationship between Christianity and violence at all. The fact that churchgoers in America are more likely to support the CIA’s interrogation program–nothing to do with Christianity. (Actually, as a Christian I don’t think any of these evils is part of what Christianity should be, but Christianity as it is–well. yes, some Christians continue to use their religion as an excuse to support horrific policies, just as some Muslims do. And some Jews also.)
And no, I don’t deny the horrific atrocities committed in the name of Islam, or the intolerance or the fanaticism, but somehow, Brett, I can do this without swimming in the sewer with you. I don’t have to make sweeping statements about people of a given faith or deny atrocities committed by any faction, but you do.
As for the difference between bigotry and racism, they are fundamentally the same type,of thing. In both cases people belonging to a certain category are all lumped together and labeled inferior. This can be done on the basis of religion or ethnicity or some nebulous category called race. It’s hard to say whether anti-semitism is racism or bigotry–it would depend on the individual antisemite and what sort of stupid notion he has about Jews.
Brett, you said that the reason most Muslims aren’t killers is because they aren’t devout–now you change the subject to actual human rights violations one can find in many Muslim countries because your original claim, the one I criticized, is bigoted crap. If you know nice Muslims and any of them are devout, you just spat in their face with your earlier post.
Your superseccionist theory for why Christianity is allegedly superior to Islam is more crap. Apparently you think Christian religious wars ceased after the NT was written, or else Christians somehow hadn’t bothered to look at the later portion of the Bible until the Enlightenment
And even that is crap, because Christianity in some forms is still linked to ideological justifications for war–Latin American fascists thought they were defending Christian civilization against secularists, Marxists and in Argentina, Jews and rightwing Christians in America were their supporters in some cases. Oh, btw, ever hear of the connection between the NT and Antisemitism? I have–my rector preached on this just a few weeks ago. Try telling a Jew that Christianity is morally superior to Islam because of the NT. You obviously don’t have the faintest clue what you are saying.
And ironically enough, Christian Zionism now justifies whatever human rights violations the Israelis choose to inflict, while still seeing Jews as unconscious players in bringing about the End Times. yeah, no relationship between Christianity and violence at all. The fact that churchgoers in America are more likely to support the CIA’s interrogation program–nothing to do with Christianity. (Actually, as a Christian I don’t think any of these evils is part of what Christianity should be, but Christianity as it is–well. yes, some Christians continue to use their religion as an excuse to support horrific policies, just as some Muslims do. And some Jews also.)
And no, I don’t deny the horrific atrocities committed in the name of Islam, or the intolerance or the fanaticism, but somehow, Brett, I can do this without swimming in the sewer with you. I don’t have to make sweeping statements about people of a given faith or deny atrocities committed by any faction, but you do.
As for the difference between bigotry and racism, they are fundamentally the same type,of thing. In both cases people belonging to a certain category are all lumped together and labeled inferior. This can be done on the basis of religion or ethnicity or some nebulous category called race. It’s hard to say whether anti-semitism is racism or bigotry–it would depend on the individual antisemite and what sort of stupid notion he has about Jews.
Regarding Muslims in groups, I used to hear exactly the same argument from white southerners about black-ruled countries in sub-Saharan Africa. The detailed history didn’t interest them, only the fact that they could use atrocities as a justification for their bigotry. Oh, excuse me, their racism.
Regarding Muslims in groups, I used to hear exactly the same argument from white southerners about black-ruled countries in sub-Saharan Africa. The detailed history didn’t interest them, only the fact that they could use atrocities as a justification for their bigotry. Oh, excuse me, their racism.
Regarding Muslims in groups, I used to hear exactly the same argument from white southerners about black-ruled countries in sub-Saharan Africa. The detailed history didn’t interest them, only the fact that they could use atrocities as a justification for their bigotry. Oh, excuse me, their racism.
I’m not seeing any denial either in my google searches. Maybe Russell could link to some examples; and not just a line or two possibly taken out of context, but complete statements.
Otherwise, this seems like another liberal propaganda operation designed to keep the base of social justice warriors’ indignation level high enough to continue fighting the specter of systemic racism. Because, we all just know, that inside every Southerner is a Dylann Roof just waiting to emerge. Whatever.
And no, I am not a neo-confederate, whatever that is. My ancestors did fight in Lee’s Army. You will never get me to feel guilty about that; especially given how Blacks have done so well your “enlightened” Yankee cities, “Southern Strategy”…lol….you carpet baggers took the blacks from doing the sh!t work in the South so they could do your sh!t work in the north and, when the work ran out, you left them with crack rocks and welfare and you went off to live in protected neighbors while they kill each other off in the streets. And you advocate for immigration so Mexicans can do the work that whites don’t want (aka sh!t work).Go ahead and feel as morally superior as you want to though.
The war between the states had less to do with slavery/racism than you want to make believe it did.
All that said, since it seemed to be questioned, I am only concerned with a person’s character, not their color. What that little twerp did is wrong. I doubt, however, that he wrote that manifesto himself. Too well written for a 9th grade dropout moron like that; not the content, the form. It wouldn’t surprise me at all if a liberal wrote it to fan the flames – or maybe it was written by a racist conspirator. Unlike the liberal media, I’m not rushing to make assumptions.
I’m not seeing any denial either in my google searches. Maybe Russell could link to some examples; and not just a line or two possibly taken out of context, but complete statements.
Otherwise, this seems like another liberal propaganda operation designed to keep the base of social justice warriors’ indignation level high enough to continue fighting the specter of systemic racism. Because, we all just know, that inside every Southerner is a Dylann Roof just waiting to emerge. Whatever.
And no, I am not a neo-confederate, whatever that is. My ancestors did fight in Lee’s Army. You will never get me to feel guilty about that; especially given how Blacks have done so well your “enlightened” Yankee cities, “Southern Strategy”…lol….you carpet baggers took the blacks from doing the sh!t work in the South so they could do your sh!t work in the north and, when the work ran out, you left them with crack rocks and welfare and you went off to live in protected neighbors while they kill each other off in the streets. And you advocate for immigration so Mexicans can do the work that whites don’t want (aka sh!t work).Go ahead and feel as morally superior as you want to though.
The war between the states had less to do with slavery/racism than you want to make believe it did.
All that said, since it seemed to be questioned, I am only concerned with a person’s character, not their color. What that little twerp did is wrong. I doubt, however, that he wrote that manifesto himself. Too well written for a 9th grade dropout moron like that; not the content, the form. It wouldn’t surprise me at all if a liberal wrote it to fan the flames – or maybe it was written by a racist conspirator. Unlike the liberal media, I’m not rushing to make assumptions.
I’m not seeing any denial either in my google searches. Maybe Russell could link to some examples; and not just a line or two possibly taken out of context, but complete statements.
Otherwise, this seems like another liberal propaganda operation designed to keep the base of social justice warriors’ indignation level high enough to continue fighting the specter of systemic racism. Because, we all just know, that inside every Southerner is a Dylann Roof just waiting to emerge. Whatever.
And no, I am not a neo-confederate, whatever that is. My ancestors did fight in Lee’s Army. You will never get me to feel guilty about that; especially given how Blacks have done so well your “enlightened” Yankee cities, “Southern Strategy”…lol….you carpet baggers took the blacks from doing the sh!t work in the South so they could do your sh!t work in the north and, when the work ran out, you left them with crack rocks and welfare and you went off to live in protected neighbors while they kill each other off in the streets. And you advocate for immigration so Mexicans can do the work that whites don’t want (aka sh!t work).Go ahead and feel as morally superior as you want to though.
The war between the states had less to do with slavery/racism than you want to make believe it did.
All that said, since it seemed to be questioned, I am only concerned with a person’s character, not their color. What that little twerp did is wrong. I doubt, however, that he wrote that manifesto himself. Too well written for a 9th grade dropout moron like that; not the content, the form. It wouldn’t surprise me at all if a liberal wrote it to fan the flames – or maybe it was written by a racist conspirator. Unlike the liberal media, I’m not rushing to make assumptions.
look, for fuck’s sake.
Here is what happened: a white person went to, not just a black church, but a church that is historically notable as a black church, shot nine black people in cold blood, told the folks he was shooting that he was doing it because they were black, wrote a manifesto about his animus toward non-whites and Jews, posted pictures of himself wearing the flags of the world’s most notorious apartheid regimes, and apparently planned the murders for several months before carrying them out.
Roof is a racist, and he killed nine people because they were black, and he wanted to precipitate a race war.
The response from prominent conservatives have included statements that it was an attack on Christians and/or religious liberty, that Roof’s motives were not racial but that he was simply “whacked out”, that it was the drugs, that it was the pastor’s fault because he opposed concealed carry. Also, that the real issue here is mental illness not racism, and that liberals are just using this as an excuse to Take Our Guns.
There are *also* some conservatives who have acknowledged Roof’s racial motivations, Jeb Bush among them, to his credit.
But there are a large number of conservatives who seem intent on discussing every aspect of the situation *except* the act that Roof was explicitly and blatantly a racist, and killed the folks he killed *because they were black*.
I find that weird. So, I was curious if anyone could unpack it for me.
In particular, I was hoping that some of the conservative folks on this board might offer their thoughts. Do conservatives simply disagree that racism is a significant factor in the murders? Are they reluctant to wade into the whole freaking tiresome issue of racism yet again? Are there other issues that they see as being more relevant, or more important, in this particular case, and so that is their emphasis?
I’m not making any assumptions that I “know what they really mean”, at all. I would like to know WTF they really mean, so I’m asking anyone who thinks they might have an insight to give me a clue.
What this case looks like, to me, is a stupid loser drop-out kid whose head has been filled with racist bullshit, who has embraced that, and who went and got himself a gun and killed some n****rs.
Because he thought they should die.
That’s what it looks like to me. Not just “looks like”, but manifestly and obviously *is*.
Why the reluctance to acknowledge that? Why the focus on 1,000 peripheral issues?
That’s my question.
Why do I ask? Because I live here, and for my sins I have to share my political, social, economic, physical, and every other kind of environment with conservative people whose point of view makes no sense to me at all.
On my way home tonight, I was listening to a Ted Cruz rally. I don’t know why, it was on the radio. Trust me, I won’t make that mistake again. Every time the guy opened his mouth, giant exclamation points and question marks exploded around my head. I have NO FREAKING IDEA what the guy is on about. None. He would make a statement that he apparently felt to be self-evidently so, and I would think, “Wait, what?!? WTF?!?!”
For, like, 15 minutes, until I finally just turned it off.
And, every time he opened his mouth, he was loudly cheered by what was apparently a large roomful of people *WHO LIVE IN MASSACHUSETTS* who thought he was the cat’s freaking meow.
I have to live with you all, and you make no f***king sense to me whatsoever. You all are like some kind of alien civilization that has come to live alongside us normal reasonable folks. You don’t seem to be going away, and I’m not going anywhere either, so I’d like to try to understand what the hell is going through your minds.
That’s why.
I’m not judging anybody, or condemning anybody, or calling anyone a bad person. I’m perfectly happy to acknowledge the human dignity and value of every conservative person.
Hell, it’s the first Unitarian Universalist principle. how can I do otherwise?
I just have no idea what the hell the conservative commentariat are on about. I have no idea how somebody responds to the Charleston shootings by saying “they’re coming after the Christians”, or “the pastor should have been packing”, or “sure there are some racists around, but that kid wasn’t one of them, he was just a whacked out kid”.
If you have any useful insights to share, I’m all ears. If your total contribution is “your question is totally bogus, that never happened”, then I’m not interested, because I have a fucking brain in my head, and it’s plainly clear to me that a significant number of conservatives want to talk about every other aspect of the Charleston shootings *except* the fact that Roof was motivated by his hatred of black people.
look, for fuck’s sake.
Here is what happened: a white person went to, not just a black church, but a church that is historically notable as a black church, shot nine black people in cold blood, told the folks he was shooting that he was doing it because they were black, wrote a manifesto about his animus toward non-whites and Jews, posted pictures of himself wearing the flags of the world’s most notorious apartheid regimes, and apparently planned the murders for several months before carrying them out.
Roof is a racist, and he killed nine people because they were black, and he wanted to precipitate a race war.
The response from prominent conservatives have included statements that it was an attack on Christians and/or religious liberty, that Roof’s motives were not racial but that he was simply “whacked out”, that it was the drugs, that it was the pastor’s fault because he opposed concealed carry. Also, that the real issue here is mental illness not racism, and that liberals are just using this as an excuse to Take Our Guns.
There are *also* some conservatives who have acknowledged Roof’s racial motivations, Jeb Bush among them, to his credit.
But there are a large number of conservatives who seem intent on discussing every aspect of the situation *except* the act that Roof was explicitly and blatantly a racist, and killed the folks he killed *because they were black*.
I find that weird. So, I was curious if anyone could unpack it for me.
In particular, I was hoping that some of the conservative folks on this board might offer their thoughts. Do conservatives simply disagree that racism is a significant factor in the murders? Are they reluctant to wade into the whole freaking tiresome issue of racism yet again? Are there other issues that they see as being more relevant, or more important, in this particular case, and so that is their emphasis?
I’m not making any assumptions that I “know what they really mean”, at all. I would like to know WTF they really mean, so I’m asking anyone who thinks they might have an insight to give me a clue.
What this case looks like, to me, is a stupid loser drop-out kid whose head has been filled with racist bullshit, who has embraced that, and who went and got himself a gun and killed some n****rs.
Because he thought they should die.
That’s what it looks like to me. Not just “looks like”, but manifestly and obviously *is*.
Why the reluctance to acknowledge that? Why the focus on 1,000 peripheral issues?
That’s my question.
Why do I ask? Because I live here, and for my sins I have to share my political, social, economic, physical, and every other kind of environment with conservative people whose point of view makes no sense to me at all.
On my way home tonight, I was listening to a Ted Cruz rally. I don’t know why, it was on the radio. Trust me, I won’t make that mistake again. Every time the guy opened his mouth, giant exclamation points and question marks exploded around my head. I have NO FREAKING IDEA what the guy is on about. None. He would make a statement that he apparently felt to be self-evidently so, and I would think, “Wait, what?!? WTF?!?!”
For, like, 15 minutes, until I finally just turned it off.
And, every time he opened his mouth, he was loudly cheered by what was apparently a large roomful of people *WHO LIVE IN MASSACHUSETTS* who thought he was the cat’s freaking meow.
I have to live with you all, and you make no f***king sense to me whatsoever. You all are like some kind of alien civilization that has come to live alongside us normal reasonable folks. You don’t seem to be going away, and I’m not going anywhere either, so I’d like to try to understand what the hell is going through your minds.
That’s why.
I’m not judging anybody, or condemning anybody, or calling anyone a bad person. I’m perfectly happy to acknowledge the human dignity and value of every conservative person.
Hell, it’s the first Unitarian Universalist principle. how can I do otherwise?
I just have no idea what the hell the conservative commentariat are on about. I have no idea how somebody responds to the Charleston shootings by saying “they’re coming after the Christians”, or “the pastor should have been packing”, or “sure there are some racists around, but that kid wasn’t one of them, he was just a whacked out kid”.
If you have any useful insights to share, I’m all ears. If your total contribution is “your question is totally bogus, that never happened”, then I’m not interested, because I have a fucking brain in my head, and it’s plainly clear to me that a significant number of conservatives want to talk about every other aspect of the Charleston shootings *except* the fact that Roof was motivated by his hatred of black people.
look, for fuck’s sake.
Here is what happened: a white person went to, not just a black church, but a church that is historically notable as a black church, shot nine black people in cold blood, told the folks he was shooting that he was doing it because they were black, wrote a manifesto about his animus toward non-whites and Jews, posted pictures of himself wearing the flags of the world’s most notorious apartheid regimes, and apparently planned the murders for several months before carrying them out.
Roof is a racist, and he killed nine people because they were black, and he wanted to precipitate a race war.
The response from prominent conservatives have included statements that it was an attack on Christians and/or religious liberty, that Roof’s motives were not racial but that he was simply “whacked out”, that it was the drugs, that it was the pastor’s fault because he opposed concealed carry. Also, that the real issue here is mental illness not racism, and that liberals are just using this as an excuse to Take Our Guns.
There are *also* some conservatives who have acknowledged Roof’s racial motivations, Jeb Bush among them, to his credit.
But there are a large number of conservatives who seem intent on discussing every aspect of the situation *except* the act that Roof was explicitly and blatantly a racist, and killed the folks he killed *because they were black*.
I find that weird. So, I was curious if anyone could unpack it for me.
In particular, I was hoping that some of the conservative folks on this board might offer their thoughts. Do conservatives simply disagree that racism is a significant factor in the murders? Are they reluctant to wade into the whole freaking tiresome issue of racism yet again? Are there other issues that they see as being more relevant, or more important, in this particular case, and so that is their emphasis?
I’m not making any assumptions that I “know what they really mean”, at all. I would like to know WTF they really mean, so I’m asking anyone who thinks they might have an insight to give me a clue.
What this case looks like, to me, is a stupid loser drop-out kid whose head has been filled with racist bullshit, who has embraced that, and who went and got himself a gun and killed some n****rs.
Because he thought they should die.
That’s what it looks like to me. Not just “looks like”, but manifestly and obviously *is*.
Why the reluctance to acknowledge that? Why the focus on 1,000 peripheral issues?
That’s my question.
Why do I ask? Because I live here, and for my sins I have to share my political, social, economic, physical, and every other kind of environment with conservative people whose point of view makes no sense to me at all.
On my way home tonight, I was listening to a Ted Cruz rally. I don’t know why, it was on the radio. Trust me, I won’t make that mistake again. Every time the guy opened his mouth, giant exclamation points and question marks exploded around my head. I have NO FREAKING IDEA what the guy is on about. None. He would make a statement that he apparently felt to be self-evidently so, and I would think, “Wait, what?!? WTF?!?!”
For, like, 15 minutes, until I finally just turned it off.
And, every time he opened his mouth, he was loudly cheered by what was apparently a large roomful of people *WHO LIVE IN MASSACHUSETTS* who thought he was the cat’s freaking meow.
I have to live with you all, and you make no f***king sense to me whatsoever. You all are like some kind of alien civilization that has come to live alongside us normal reasonable folks. You don’t seem to be going away, and I’m not going anywhere either, so I’d like to try to understand what the hell is going through your minds.
That’s why.
I’m not judging anybody, or condemning anybody, or calling anyone a bad person. I’m perfectly happy to acknowledge the human dignity and value of every conservative person.
Hell, it’s the first Unitarian Universalist principle. how can I do otherwise?
I just have no idea what the hell the conservative commentariat are on about. I have no idea how somebody responds to the Charleston shootings by saying “they’re coming after the Christians”, or “the pastor should have been packing”, or “sure there are some racists around, but that kid wasn’t one of them, he was just a whacked out kid”.
If you have any useful insights to share, I’m all ears. If your total contribution is “your question is totally bogus, that never happened”, then I’m not interested, because I have a fucking brain in my head, and it’s plainly clear to me that a significant number of conservatives want to talk about every other aspect of the Charleston shootings *except* the fact that Roof was motivated by his hatred of black people.
I’m not seeing any denial either in my google searches.
With the singular exception of Lindsey Graham, people are not denying that Roof was racially motivated. I’m not claiming that they are denying that he was racially motivated.
I’m pointing out that prominent conservative commentators are *not discussing his racial motivations at all*. They are, instead, talking about every other aspect of the event, including aspects that have nothing to do with the event at all, and which appear to simply be things they want to talk about.
To the degree that I refer to “denial” in this thread, it’s in the dreaded liberal psycho-babble sense of “ignoring things you don’t want to think about”.
But even that is a bit of a mind-read on my part. I don’t know why they want to talk about everything BUT Roof’s racism.
So, I thought I would ask.
I’m not seeing any denial either in my google searches.
With the singular exception of Lindsey Graham, people are not denying that Roof was racially motivated. I’m not claiming that they are denying that he was racially motivated.
I’m pointing out that prominent conservative commentators are *not discussing his racial motivations at all*. They are, instead, talking about every other aspect of the event, including aspects that have nothing to do with the event at all, and which appear to simply be things they want to talk about.
To the degree that I refer to “denial” in this thread, it’s in the dreaded liberal psycho-babble sense of “ignoring things you don’t want to think about”.
But even that is a bit of a mind-read on my part. I don’t know why they want to talk about everything BUT Roof’s racism.
So, I thought I would ask.
I’m not seeing any denial either in my google searches.
With the singular exception of Lindsey Graham, people are not denying that Roof was racially motivated. I’m not claiming that they are denying that he was racially motivated.
I’m pointing out that prominent conservative commentators are *not discussing his racial motivations at all*. They are, instead, talking about every other aspect of the event, including aspects that have nothing to do with the event at all, and which appear to simply be things they want to talk about.
To the degree that I refer to “denial” in this thread, it’s in the dreaded liberal psycho-babble sense of “ignoring things you don’t want to think about”.
But even that is a bit of a mind-read on my part. I don’t know why they want to talk about everything BUT Roof’s racism.
So, I thought I would ask.
It wouldn’t surprise me at all if a liberal wrote it to fan the flames
Hey Eric, having read the rest of your comment, I will now invite you to piss up a rope. Up your nose with a rubber hose. Or, more plainly, kiss my ass.
Dig?
Thanks for playing.
It wouldn’t surprise me at all if a liberal wrote it to fan the flames
Hey Eric, having read the rest of your comment, I will now invite you to piss up a rope. Up your nose with a rubber hose. Or, more plainly, kiss my ass.
Dig?
Thanks for playing.
It wouldn’t surprise me at all if a liberal wrote it to fan the flames
Hey Eric, having read the rest of your comment, I will now invite you to piss up a rope. Up your nose with a rubber hose. Or, more plainly, kiss my ass.
Dig?
Thanks for playing.
I grew up in Memphis, Eric. I think some of my dirt poor ancestors might have fought for the South, but I’d have to check with my sister who knows more of the family history. Your south vs north guilt contest is rrelevant to me–I have no problem admitting that white racism is a nationwide problem. But people who glorify the Confederacy are part of the problem, though maybe some are dumb enough to believe their own propaganda that it early wasn’t about slavery. I supposed someone that ignorant might be innocent of racism, but it’s more likely to be just Lost Cause BS
I enjoyed reading about the Civil War, but some of my white southern friends were racist about it when I was a child and apparently some people are still like that. They talked about the war as though it was a shame the south lost. Which is utterly asinine at best.
I grew up in Memphis, Eric. I think some of my dirt poor ancestors might have fought for the South, but I’d have to check with my sister who knows more of the family history. Your south vs north guilt contest is rrelevant to me–I have no problem admitting that white racism is a nationwide problem. But people who glorify the Confederacy are part of the problem, though maybe some are dumb enough to believe their own propaganda that it early wasn’t about slavery. I supposed someone that ignorant might be innocent of racism, but it’s more likely to be just Lost Cause BS
I enjoyed reading about the Civil War, but some of my white southern friends were racist about it when I was a child and apparently some people are still like that. They talked about the war as though it was a shame the south lost. Which is utterly asinine at best.
I grew up in Memphis, Eric. I think some of my dirt poor ancestors might have fought for the South, but I’d have to check with my sister who knows more of the family history. Your south vs north guilt contest is rrelevant to me–I have no problem admitting that white racism is a nationwide problem. But people who glorify the Confederacy are part of the problem, though maybe some are dumb enough to believe their own propaganda that it early wasn’t about slavery. I supposed someone that ignorant might be innocent of racism, but it’s more likely to be just Lost Cause BS
I enjoyed reading about the Civil War, but some of my white southern friends were racist about it when I was a child and apparently some people are still like that. They talked about the war as though it was a shame the south lost. Which is utterly asinine at best.
And do you know what the Southern Strategy is? I grew up watching it in action. My father said the south was traditionally Dmocratic, which confused me as a child because some of my white friends were racist as hell and their parents were Republican.
And do you know what the Southern Strategy is? I grew up watching it in action. My father said the south was traditionally Dmocratic, which confused me as a child because some of my white friends were racist as hell and their parents were Republican.
And do you know what the Southern Strategy is? I grew up watching it in action. My father said the south was traditionally Dmocratic, which confused me as a child because some of my white friends were racist as hell and their parents were Republican.
Yes, I meant from Islam. A part of my decision to go to bed.
“I’m pointing out that prominent conservative commentators are *not discussing his racial motivations at all*.”
Aside from that not really being true, not focusing like a laser on his racial motivations is sensible. Again, if racial motivations alone made you into a killer, (Rather than just determining WHO you kill.) we’d all be dead. There are too many racists, and not nearly enough deadly rampages, for that to be the only, or even the primary, factor.
So, this is kind of like gun control. Somebody kills, yes, with a gun. Liberals go mad about the gun. Conservatives point out that for every person with a gun who kills, there are hundreds, thousands, who don’t. And want to know why he killed, not what he killed with.
Ok, so a racist decided to kill blacks. Out of the insane belief that, if he just did so publicly, he could start a race war. As mentioned up-thread, there are blacks who kill whites because of their race. Proportionately, a hell of a lot more of them than whites who kill blacks. But you don’t want to talk about that.
This isn’t about what made Root kill. This is just about another excuse to claim Republicans are racists. And I don’t feel like cooperating in the farce.
Now, excuse me, I have to sneak off and buy the ingredients for waffles, and then get back to bed, because my son plans to make me waffles for breakfast.
Yes, I meant from Islam. A part of my decision to go to bed.
“I’m pointing out that prominent conservative commentators are *not discussing his racial motivations at all*.”
Aside from that not really being true, not focusing like a laser on his racial motivations is sensible. Again, if racial motivations alone made you into a killer, (Rather than just determining WHO you kill.) we’d all be dead. There are too many racists, and not nearly enough deadly rampages, for that to be the only, or even the primary, factor.
So, this is kind of like gun control. Somebody kills, yes, with a gun. Liberals go mad about the gun. Conservatives point out that for every person with a gun who kills, there are hundreds, thousands, who don’t. And want to know why he killed, not what he killed with.
Ok, so a racist decided to kill blacks. Out of the insane belief that, if he just did so publicly, he could start a race war. As mentioned up-thread, there are blacks who kill whites because of their race. Proportionately, a hell of a lot more of them than whites who kill blacks. But you don’t want to talk about that.
This isn’t about what made Root kill. This is just about another excuse to claim Republicans are racists. And I don’t feel like cooperating in the farce.
Now, excuse me, I have to sneak off and buy the ingredients for waffles, and then get back to bed, because my son plans to make me waffles for breakfast.
Yes, I meant from Islam. A part of my decision to go to bed.
“I’m pointing out that prominent conservative commentators are *not discussing his racial motivations at all*.”
Aside from that not really being true, not focusing like a laser on his racial motivations is sensible. Again, if racial motivations alone made you into a killer, (Rather than just determining WHO you kill.) we’d all be dead. There are too many racists, and not nearly enough deadly rampages, for that to be the only, or even the primary, factor.
So, this is kind of like gun control. Somebody kills, yes, with a gun. Liberals go mad about the gun. Conservatives point out that for every person with a gun who kills, there are hundreds, thousands, who don’t. And want to know why he killed, not what he killed with.
Ok, so a racist decided to kill blacks. Out of the insane belief that, if he just did so publicly, he could start a race war. As mentioned up-thread, there are blacks who kill whites because of their race. Proportionately, a hell of a lot more of them than whites who kill blacks. But you don’t want to talk about that.
This isn’t about what made Root kill. This is just about another excuse to claim Republicans are racists. And I don’t feel like cooperating in the farce.
Now, excuse me, I have to sneak off and buy the ingredients for waffles, and then get back to bed, because my son plans to make me waffles for breakfast.
The topic was “Why are so many prominent conservatives denying that Root was motivated by racism?
So the topic of discussion is the motivation of those conservatives–not Root’s motivations, or Islam, and so on.
Or one could be on topic and argue that some prominent conservatives are not denying Roots’ racism, and there are a few examples of that.
My own opinion, is that after using fear of the other, which includes racist dog whistles as a subset, as one of the Republican party’s main selling points for decades, it is embarrassing to Republican politicians that someone would take their message to its logical conclusion. After all, Republican politicians were not advocating that black people be shot: just marginalized in other ways including having their votes suppressed. And the Republican efforts to marginalize their fellow Americans could be excused as not specifically racist since they are perfectly happy to marginalize people who are not black. Right to work for less, voter suppression, blaming and shaming disabled people, destroying universities, creating deficits to use as a excuse to cut the life supports out from under the working poor–it doesn’t really matter to Republicans if the people they hurt are black or not. So I think that Republican policies are not specifically racist.
However to manipulate voters into voting against the well being of their nation and their neighbors a racist message implicit within a message that says “You are the real American and deserving of government programs which you shouldn’t have to pay for, and all those other people are to blame for everything that results fro your desire to get something for nothing, so vote for us because we will smite those other people for you because you are the real American and those other people must not be allowed to take over” is necessary.
Thus the embarrassment and denial when some stupid mean young man takes it all very seriously and decides to do the smiting on his own.
The topic was “Why are so many prominent conservatives denying that Root was motivated by racism?
So the topic of discussion is the motivation of those conservatives–not Root’s motivations, or Islam, and so on.
Or one could be on topic and argue that some prominent conservatives are not denying Roots’ racism, and there are a few examples of that.
My own opinion, is that after using fear of the other, which includes racist dog whistles as a subset, as one of the Republican party’s main selling points for decades, it is embarrassing to Republican politicians that someone would take their message to its logical conclusion. After all, Republican politicians were not advocating that black people be shot: just marginalized in other ways including having their votes suppressed. And the Republican efforts to marginalize their fellow Americans could be excused as not specifically racist since they are perfectly happy to marginalize people who are not black. Right to work for less, voter suppression, blaming and shaming disabled people, destroying universities, creating deficits to use as a excuse to cut the life supports out from under the working poor–it doesn’t really matter to Republicans if the people they hurt are black or not. So I think that Republican policies are not specifically racist.
However to manipulate voters into voting against the well being of their nation and their neighbors a racist message implicit within a message that says “You are the real American and deserving of government programs which you shouldn’t have to pay for, and all those other people are to blame for everything that results fro your desire to get something for nothing, so vote for us because we will smite those other people for you because you are the real American and those other people must not be allowed to take over” is necessary.
Thus the embarrassment and denial when some stupid mean young man takes it all very seriously and decides to do the smiting on his own.
The topic was “Why are so many prominent conservatives denying that Root was motivated by racism?
So the topic of discussion is the motivation of those conservatives–not Root’s motivations, or Islam, and so on.
Or one could be on topic and argue that some prominent conservatives are not denying Roots’ racism, and there are a few examples of that.
My own opinion, is that after using fear of the other, which includes racist dog whistles as a subset, as one of the Republican party’s main selling points for decades, it is embarrassing to Republican politicians that someone would take their message to its logical conclusion. After all, Republican politicians were not advocating that black people be shot: just marginalized in other ways including having their votes suppressed. And the Republican efforts to marginalize their fellow Americans could be excused as not specifically racist since they are perfectly happy to marginalize people who are not black. Right to work for less, voter suppression, blaming and shaming disabled people, destroying universities, creating deficits to use as a excuse to cut the life supports out from under the working poor–it doesn’t really matter to Republicans if the people they hurt are black or not. So I think that Republican policies are not specifically racist.
However to manipulate voters into voting against the well being of their nation and their neighbors a racist message implicit within a message that says “You are the real American and deserving of government programs which you shouldn’t have to pay for, and all those other people are to blame for everything that results fro your desire to get something for nothing, so vote for us because we will smite those other people for you because you are the real American and those other people must not be allowed to take over” is necessary.
Thus the embarrassment and denial when some stupid mean young man takes it all very seriously and decides to do the smiting on his own.
Actually, it’s the Democratic party that’s using fear of the other. Desperately trying to convince blacks that Republicans are just Roots in Suits, and that the only thing protecting blacks from genocide is the Democratic party.
Desperate, because if blacks don’t turn out for the white shrew with ethics problems the way they did for The One, Democrats are going to lose control of both elected branches at the same time. The desperation is understandable.
The tactics are deplorable.
Actually, it’s the Democratic party that’s using fear of the other. Desperately trying to convince blacks that Republicans are just Roots in Suits, and that the only thing protecting blacks from genocide is the Democratic party.
Desperate, because if blacks don’t turn out for the white shrew with ethics problems the way they did for The One, Democrats are going to lose control of both elected branches at the same time. The desperation is understandable.
The tactics are deplorable.
Actually, it’s the Democratic party that’s using fear of the other. Desperately trying to convince blacks that Republicans are just Roots in Suits, and that the only thing protecting blacks from genocide is the Democratic party.
Desperate, because if blacks don’t turn out for the white shrew with ethics problems the way they did for The One, Democrats are going to lose control of both elected branches at the same time. The desperation is understandable.
The tactics are deplorable.
The war between the states had less to do with slavery/racism than you want to make believe it did.
Orly? The actual political entities that succeeded likely would not have agreed with your revisionist apologia…
…
…
…
…
As an aside, might someone with the wherewithal to check IPs have a look at Eric’s? I may be seeing shadows, but there are certain aspects of his writing style which – as he writes more and more – cannot but increasingly recall the writings of a certain Blackhawk, and that fine soul has not yet discharged their sacred duty – to wit, the duty to enlighten the benighted fools at ObWi following each and every major racial in the US – as it pertains to the SC shootings.
The war between the states had less to do with slavery/racism than you want to make believe it did.
Orly? The actual political entities that succeeded likely would not have agreed with your revisionist apologia…
…
…
…
…
As an aside, might someone with the wherewithal to check IPs have a look at Eric’s? I may be seeing shadows, but there are certain aspects of his writing style which – as he writes more and more – cannot but increasingly recall the writings of a certain Blackhawk, and that fine soul has not yet discharged their sacred duty – to wit, the duty to enlighten the benighted fools at ObWi following each and every major racial in the US – as it pertains to the SC shootings.
The war between the states had less to do with slavery/racism than you want to make believe it did.
Orly? The actual political entities that succeeded likely would not have agreed with your revisionist apologia…
…
…
…
…
As an aside, might someone with the wherewithal to check IPs have a look at Eric’s? I may be seeing shadows, but there are certain aspects of his writing style which – as he writes more and more – cannot but increasingly recall the writings of a certain Blackhawk, and that fine soul has not yet discharged their sacred duty – to wit, the duty to enlighten the benighted fools at ObWi following each and every major racial in the US – as it pertains to the SC shootings.
and this is where i leave.
and this is where i leave.
and this is where i leave.
Could someone check the spam filter? You’re free to leave my comment there if you feel it wanders too far afield, but if nothing else consider the meta-comment in the final paragraph.
(And if that comment is gone, when I carefully considered and decided against backing it up, I will be thoroughly annoyed and like as not only replicate that last paragraph.)
Could someone check the spam filter? You’re free to leave my comment there if you feel it wanders too far afield, but if nothing else consider the meta-comment in the final paragraph.
(And if that comment is gone, when I carefully considered and decided against backing it up, I will be thoroughly annoyed and like as not only replicate that last paragraph.)
Could someone check the spam filter? You’re free to leave my comment there if you feel it wanders too far afield, but if nothing else consider the meta-comment in the final paragraph.
(And if that comment is gone, when I carefully considered and decided against backing it up, I will be thoroughly annoyed and like as not only replicate that last paragraph.)
The topic was “Why are so many prominent conservatives denying that Root was motivated by racism?
No.
The topic is not why are conservatives DENYING Root’s racist motivations. The topic is why are prominent conservatives FAILING TO ACKNOWLEDGE Root’s racist motivations.
Those are not the same thing.
What struck me in the conservative response to the shootings was the plethora of aspects of it that they chose to discuss, which included almost everything imaginable including Caitlyn Jenner, EXCEPT for his obvious and blatant animus toward black people. And others, but the ones he actually shot were black.
It would be like, for example, discussing the bombing of Wall Street by Galleanist anarchists in 1920 and failing to note that the bombers were motivated by animosity toward wealthy people and capitalism.
Right?
Brett offers his opinion that not focusing on his racial motivations is sensible, because there are lots of racists but most of them don’t kill people. Which I guess makes sense if the question on the table was “why did Roof kill them, as opposed to just call them names?”, but that really wasn’t the question. Nonetheless, I appreciate the reply.
What I don’t appreciate are claims that my asking the question is just another attempt to call conservatives racists.
I AM NOT CALLING CONSERVATIVES RACISTS. I know lots of conservative people, and lots of not-conservative people, and both groups of people include folks at a wide variety of points along the “racist” spectrum.
To be honest, I don’t think it’s possible at this point in time to discuss stuff like this candidly, so perhaps it’s best to just withdraw the question. I’m not gonna close the thread, though, if folks want to continue to discuss.
The topic was “Why are so many prominent conservatives denying that Root was motivated by racism?
No.
The topic is not why are conservatives DENYING Root’s racist motivations. The topic is why are prominent conservatives FAILING TO ACKNOWLEDGE Root’s racist motivations.
Those are not the same thing.
What struck me in the conservative response to the shootings was the plethora of aspects of it that they chose to discuss, which included almost everything imaginable including Caitlyn Jenner, EXCEPT for his obvious and blatant animus toward black people. And others, but the ones he actually shot were black.
It would be like, for example, discussing the bombing of Wall Street by Galleanist anarchists in 1920 and failing to note that the bombers were motivated by animosity toward wealthy people and capitalism.
Right?
Brett offers his opinion that not focusing on his racial motivations is sensible, because there are lots of racists but most of them don’t kill people. Which I guess makes sense if the question on the table was “why did Roof kill them, as opposed to just call them names?”, but that really wasn’t the question. Nonetheless, I appreciate the reply.
What I don’t appreciate are claims that my asking the question is just another attempt to call conservatives racists.
I AM NOT CALLING CONSERVATIVES RACISTS. I know lots of conservative people, and lots of not-conservative people, and both groups of people include folks at a wide variety of points along the “racist” spectrum.
To be honest, I don’t think it’s possible at this point in time to discuss stuff like this candidly, so perhaps it’s best to just withdraw the question. I’m not gonna close the thread, though, if folks want to continue to discuss.
The topic was “Why are so many prominent conservatives denying that Root was motivated by racism?
No.
The topic is not why are conservatives DENYING Root’s racist motivations. The topic is why are prominent conservatives FAILING TO ACKNOWLEDGE Root’s racist motivations.
Those are not the same thing.
What struck me in the conservative response to the shootings was the plethora of aspects of it that they chose to discuss, which included almost everything imaginable including Caitlyn Jenner, EXCEPT for his obvious and blatant animus toward black people. And others, but the ones he actually shot were black.
It would be like, for example, discussing the bombing of Wall Street by Galleanist anarchists in 1920 and failing to note that the bombers were motivated by animosity toward wealthy people and capitalism.
Right?
Brett offers his opinion that not focusing on his racial motivations is sensible, because there are lots of racists but most of them don’t kill people. Which I guess makes sense if the question on the table was “why did Roof kill them, as opposed to just call them names?”, but that really wasn’t the question. Nonetheless, I appreciate the reply.
What I don’t appreciate are claims that my asking the question is just another attempt to call conservatives racists.
I AM NOT CALLING CONSERVATIVES RACISTS. I know lots of conservative people, and lots of not-conservative people, and both groups of people include folks at a wide variety of points along the “racist” spectrum.
To be honest, I don’t think it’s possible at this point in time to discuss stuff like this candidly, so perhaps it’s best to just withdraw the question. I’m not gonna close the thread, though, if folks want to continue to discuss.
Hey NV, I just checked the comment stream and I’m sorry to say that I don’t see your post there.
Hey NV, I just checked the comment stream and I’m sorry to say that I don’t see your post there.
Hey NV, I just checked the comment stream and I’m sorry to say that I don’t see your post there.
Sorry, just reading through the comments and found the earlier posts from Eric Newhill.
it makes sense for a racist to want to distance her/himself from a murderer because murder is not typical of those who hold racist views.
This actually does make sense to me, but it assumes that the folks who don’t want to acknowledge Roof’s racism are themselves racist, which I’m not sure is so.
there is a war going on in this country and it’s take no quarter given on all sides.
No, there isn’t a war going on in this country. And most folks, overwhelmingly, don’t want there to be a war going on in this country.
Sorry, just reading through the comments and found the earlier posts from Eric Newhill.
it makes sense for a racist to want to distance her/himself from a murderer because murder is not typical of those who hold racist views.
This actually does make sense to me, but it assumes that the folks who don’t want to acknowledge Roof’s racism are themselves racist, which I’m not sure is so.
there is a war going on in this country and it’s take no quarter given on all sides.
No, there isn’t a war going on in this country. And most folks, overwhelmingly, don’t want there to be a war going on in this country.
Sorry, just reading through the comments and found the earlier posts from Eric Newhill.
it makes sense for a racist to want to distance her/himself from a murderer because murder is not typical of those who hold racist views.
This actually does make sense to me, but it assumes that the folks who don’t want to acknowledge Roof’s racism are themselves racist, which I’m not sure is so.
there is a war going on in this country and it’s take no quarter given on all sides.
No, there isn’t a war going on in this country. And most folks, overwhelmingly, don’t want there to be a war going on in this country.
No worries; it was mostly just lol-orly-ing Eric’s revisionist apologia about the “real” causes of the American Civil War and then unsportingly throwing out blockquotes from the actual text of the statements of succession to back up my incredulity, but we can do without the blockquotes; the link is plenty damning w/o inlining it.
The other matter, and this might be me being nasty, mean-spirited, and suspicious but… there was a major racially-contentious event in the US; we are therefore due to be blessed with a denunciatory visit from Blackhawk/etc. Again, ungenerous thought here, but perhaps someone who is able might want to verify that, uh, we haven’t already received it? As he’s gone on longer, there are certain aspects of Eric’s writing style which cannot but begin to recall to me that esteemed personage…
No worries; it was mostly just lol-orly-ing Eric’s revisionist apologia about the “real” causes of the American Civil War and then unsportingly throwing out blockquotes from the actual text of the statements of succession to back up my incredulity, but we can do without the blockquotes; the link is plenty damning w/o inlining it.
The other matter, and this might be me being nasty, mean-spirited, and suspicious but… there was a major racially-contentious event in the US; we are therefore due to be blessed with a denunciatory visit from Blackhawk/etc. Again, ungenerous thought here, but perhaps someone who is able might want to verify that, uh, we haven’t already received it? As he’s gone on longer, there are certain aspects of Eric’s writing style which cannot but begin to recall to me that esteemed personage…
No worries; it was mostly just lol-orly-ing Eric’s revisionist apologia about the “real” causes of the American Civil War and then unsportingly throwing out blockquotes from the actual text of the statements of succession to back up my incredulity, but we can do without the blockquotes; the link is plenty damning w/o inlining it.
The other matter, and this might be me being nasty, mean-spirited, and suspicious but… there was a major racially-contentious event in the US; we are therefore due to be blessed with a denunciatory visit from Blackhawk/etc. Again, ungenerous thought here, but perhaps someone who is able might want to verify that, uh, we haven’t already received it? As he’s gone on longer, there are certain aspects of Eric’s writing style which cannot but begin to recall to me that esteemed personage…
Grumble, grumble. Two down, and this one vanished into the ether just as I had remembered to copy it. Fool me once, etc. Well, I’ll be succinct and split it in two.
There was a major contentious racial incident in the US; tradition dictates that we’re therefore due a visit from Blackhawk/etc. Um, I may be paranoid, but perhaps someone should look at IPs and ensure we haven’t already received it, as certain aspects of Eric’s style seemed a bit familiar the longer he went on. I may be being unreasonable and uncharitable in saying that, but…
Grumble, grumble. Two down, and this one vanished into the ether just as I had remembered to copy it. Fool me once, etc. Well, I’ll be succinct and split it in two.
There was a major contentious racial incident in the US; tradition dictates that we’re therefore due a visit from Blackhawk/etc. Um, I may be paranoid, but perhaps someone should look at IPs and ensure we haven’t already received it, as certain aspects of Eric’s style seemed a bit familiar the longer he went on. I may be being unreasonable and uncharitable in saying that, but…
Grumble, grumble. Two down, and this one vanished into the ether just as I had remembered to copy it. Fool me once, etc. Well, I’ll be succinct and split it in two.
There was a major contentious racial incident in the US; tradition dictates that we’re therefore due a visit from Blackhawk/etc. Um, I may be paranoid, but perhaps someone should look at IPs and ensure we haven’t already received it, as certain aspects of Eric’s style seemed a bit familiar the longer he went on. I may be being unreasonable and uncharitable in saying that, but…
Grumble, grumble. Two down, and this one vanished into the ether just as I had remembered to copy it. Fool me once, etc. Well, I’ll be succinct and split it in two. (Make that three, but I actually saved this one!)
There was a major contentious racial incident in the US; tradition dictates that we’re therefore due a visit from a certain darkened raptor who pointedly roosts on thin walls (I’m wondering if naming he-who-shall-not-be-named may have been related to my posts vanishing; as the preceding line shows, I’m sufficiently superstitious as to entertain that line of thought). Um, I may be paranoid, but perhaps someone should look at IPs and ensure we haven’t already received it, as certain aspects of Eric’s style seemed a bit familiar the longer he went on. I may be being unreasonable and uncharitable in saying that, but…
Grumble, grumble. Two down, and this one vanished into the ether just as I had remembered to copy it. Fool me once, etc. Well, I’ll be succinct and split it in two. (Make that three, but I actually saved this one!)
There was a major contentious racial incident in the US; tradition dictates that we’re therefore due a visit from a certain darkened raptor who pointedly roosts on thin walls (I’m wondering if naming he-who-shall-not-be-named may have been related to my posts vanishing; as the preceding line shows, I’m sufficiently superstitious as to entertain that line of thought). Um, I may be paranoid, but perhaps someone should look at IPs and ensure we haven’t already received it, as certain aspects of Eric’s style seemed a bit familiar the longer he went on. I may be being unreasonable and uncharitable in saying that, but…
Grumble, grumble. Two down, and this one vanished into the ether just as I had remembered to copy it. Fool me once, etc. Well, I’ll be succinct and split it in two. (Make that three, but I actually saved this one!)
There was a major contentious racial incident in the US; tradition dictates that we’re therefore due a visit from a certain darkened raptor who pointedly roosts on thin walls (I’m wondering if naming he-who-shall-not-be-named may have been related to my posts vanishing; as the preceding line shows, I’m sufficiently superstitious as to entertain that line of thought). Um, I may be paranoid, but perhaps someone should look at IPs and ensure we haven’t already received it, as certain aspects of Eric’s style seemed a bit familiar the longer he went on. I may be being unreasonable and uncharitable in saying that, but…
“I’m pointing out that prominent conservative commentators are *not discussing his racial motivations at all*. They are, instead, talking about every other aspect of the event, including aspects that have nothing to do with the event at all..”
Well, here’s a possible explanation for what confuses you, Russell; Once or twice every so often since Columbine we have these mass shooting perpetrated by little sissy gamers with dumb hair cuts. This last time, and only this time, the little sissy with the dumb hair cut was apparently spouting racist crap. Otherwise, he is almost exactly the as all the other little sissies. He even looks like he could be Lanza’s or Kliebold’s brother. The others, well their motivations have ranged from revenge for alleged “bullying” to emulating “the Joker” to “remains unknown”. So some people want to understand this phenomenon from a broader perspective. Others, like you, want to focus in on the racist element in this specific case; I suspect because it fits neatly with your politics.
Personally, I find Roofs racist ideology to be abhorrent. But I acknowledge that most racists don’t murder. So I focus on the psychological and or other factors that drove Roof to commit an atrocity.
“I’m pointing out that prominent conservative commentators are *not discussing his racial motivations at all*. They are, instead, talking about every other aspect of the event, including aspects that have nothing to do with the event at all..”
Well, here’s a possible explanation for what confuses you, Russell; Once or twice every so often since Columbine we have these mass shooting perpetrated by little sissy gamers with dumb hair cuts. This last time, and only this time, the little sissy with the dumb hair cut was apparently spouting racist crap. Otherwise, he is almost exactly the as all the other little sissies. He even looks like he could be Lanza’s or Kliebold’s brother. The others, well their motivations have ranged from revenge for alleged “bullying” to emulating “the Joker” to “remains unknown”. So some people want to understand this phenomenon from a broader perspective. Others, like you, want to focus in on the racist element in this specific case; I suspect because it fits neatly with your politics.
Personally, I find Roofs racist ideology to be abhorrent. But I acknowledge that most racists don’t murder. So I focus on the psychological and or other factors that drove Roof to commit an atrocity.
“I’m pointing out that prominent conservative commentators are *not discussing his racial motivations at all*. They are, instead, talking about every other aspect of the event, including aspects that have nothing to do with the event at all..”
Well, here’s a possible explanation for what confuses you, Russell; Once or twice every so often since Columbine we have these mass shooting perpetrated by little sissy gamers with dumb hair cuts. This last time, and only this time, the little sissy with the dumb hair cut was apparently spouting racist crap. Otherwise, he is almost exactly the as all the other little sissies. He even looks like he could be Lanza’s or Kliebold’s brother. The others, well their motivations have ranged from revenge for alleged “bullying” to emulating “the Joker” to “remains unknown”. So some people want to understand this phenomenon from a broader perspective. Others, like you, want to focus in on the racist element in this specific case; I suspect because it fits neatly with your politics.
Personally, I find Roofs racist ideology to be abhorrent. But I acknowledge that most racists don’t murder. So I focus on the psychological and or other factors that drove Roof to commit an atrocity.
The war between the states had less to do with slavery/racism than you want to make believe it did.
Lol orly? I’ll spare readers who are familiar with these august documents the unsightlyness of blockquoting them in-line, but let’s just say that the actual texts of the various states’ statements of succession don’t really line up with your revisionist apologia…
The war between the states had less to do with slavery/racism than you want to make believe it did.
Lol orly? I’ll spare readers who are familiar with these august documents the unsightlyness of blockquoting them in-line, but let’s just say that the actual texts of the various states’ statements of succession don’t really line up with your revisionist apologia…
The war between the states had less to do with slavery/racism than you want to make believe it did.
Lol orly? I’ll spare readers who are familiar with these august documents the unsightlyness of blockquoting them in-line, but let’s just say that the actual texts of the various states’ statements of succession don’t really line up with your revisionist apologia…
Ok Russell, they all agree he was racist and the killings were primarily racially motivated. What is the next sentence about that you are looking for? What us left to discuss?
The other things: Christian targets, he could have shot any 9 random black people so why a church?
Was he stoned or crazy, lots of people are racist, why kill people?
Should a crazy stoner gave a gun, how did he get one?
There can be a hundred things to discuss, the racial motivation is a given.
Ok Russell, they all agree he was racist and the killings were primarily racially motivated. What is the next sentence about that you are looking for? What us left to discuss?
The other things: Christian targets, he could have shot any 9 random black people so why a church?
Was he stoned or crazy, lots of people are racist, why kill people?
Should a crazy stoner gave a gun, how did he get one?
There can be a hundred things to discuss, the racial motivation is a given.
Ok Russell, they all agree he was racist and the killings were primarily racially motivated. What is the next sentence about that you are looking for? What us left to discuss?
The other things: Christian targets, he could have shot any 9 random black people so why a church?
Was he stoned or crazy, lots of people are racist, why kill people?
Should a crazy stoner gave a gun, how did he get one?
There can be a hundred things to discuss, the racial motivation is a given.
Okay, really, I’m seeing more and more shades of Bl@ckh@wk. I know that particular strain isn’t unique, but an IP check wouldn’t be the worst idea.
Okay, really, I’m seeing more and more shades of Bl@ckh@wk. I know that particular strain isn’t unique, but an IP check wouldn’t be the worst idea.
Okay, really, I’m seeing more and more shades of Bl@ckh@wk. I know that particular strain isn’t unique, but an IP check wouldn’t be the worst idea.
Historically these are major pillars of the community, and if he was looking to “spark a race war”, he wanted it to feel hurtful, plus get a large, non-mixed-race crowd of targets. Nothing suggests it was – let alone had to be – motivated by anti-Christian sentiments.
Historically these are major pillars of the community, and if he was looking to “spark a race war”, he wanted it to feel hurtful, plus get a large, non-mixed-race crowd of targets. Nothing suggests it was – let alone had to be – motivated by anti-Christian sentiments.
Historically these are major pillars of the community, and if he was looking to “spark a race war”, he wanted it to feel hurtful, plus get a large, non-mixed-race crowd of targets. Nothing suggests it was – let alone had to be – motivated by anti-Christian sentiments.
Conservatives don’t want to recognize racism because they fear we all will try to solve the racism problem. The most notorious solution so far has been affirmative action, but reparations for slavery keeps popping up, too.
If we try to address racism via affirmative action we will cut into white privilege, something conservatives cannot abide. They even deny it exists.
So it’s better for them to deny that racism matters, or to try to redefine “racist” to mean “anyone who mentions race or racial problems.”
Conservatives don’t want to recognize racism because they fear we all will try to solve the racism problem. The most notorious solution so far has been affirmative action, but reparations for slavery keeps popping up, too.
If we try to address racism via affirmative action we will cut into white privilege, something conservatives cannot abide. They even deny it exists.
So it’s better for them to deny that racism matters, or to try to redefine “racist” to mean “anyone who mentions race or racial problems.”
Conservatives don’t want to recognize racism because they fear we all will try to solve the racism problem. The most notorious solution so far has been affirmative action, but reparations for slavery keeps popping up, too.
If we try to address racism via affirmative action we will cut into white privilege, something conservatives cannot abide. They even deny it exists.
So it’s better for them to deny that racism matters, or to try to redefine “racist” to mean “anyone who mentions race or racial problems.”
(@Marty’s “The other things: Christian targets, he could have shot any 9 random black people so why a church?”)
(@Marty’s “The other things: Christian targets, he could have shot any 9 random black people so why a church?”)
(@Marty’s “The other things: Christian targets, he could have shot any 9 random black people so why a church?”)
Good point NV. I was curious to know if he knew or had had contact with the Pastor/ State Senator. As a young and well respected leader in the community I thought he might have been a particular target, terrorists often target highly visible people.
Good point NV. I was curious to know if he knew or had had contact with the Pastor/ State Senator. As a young and well respected leader in the community I thought he might have been a particular target, terrorists often target highly visible people.
Good point NV. I was curious to know if he knew or had had contact with the Pastor/ State Senator. As a young and well respected leader in the community I thought he might have been a particular target, terrorists often target highly visible people.
If we try to address racism via affirmative action we will cut into white privilege, something conservatives cannot abide. They even deny it exists.
These days, affirmative action seems to cut more into Asian “privilege.”
If we try to address racism via affirmative action we will cut into white privilege, something conservatives cannot abide. They even deny it exists.
These days, affirmative action seems to cut more into Asian “privilege.”
If we try to address racism via affirmative action we will cut into white privilege, something conservatives cannot abide. They even deny it exists.
These days, affirmative action seems to cut more into Asian “privilege.”
“terrorists often target highly visible people.
An apt choice of wording. Historically, terrorists are members/believers/followers/hangers-on of a political and/or social movement that has a political belief system, and political goals.
How is it that the movement that this young man is associated with goes unremarked in conservative circles?
“terrorists often target highly visible people.
An apt choice of wording. Historically, terrorists are members/believers/followers/hangers-on of a political and/or social movement that has a political belief system, and political goals.
How is it that the movement that this young man is associated with goes unremarked in conservative circles?
“terrorists often target highly visible people.
An apt choice of wording. Historically, terrorists are members/believers/followers/hangers-on of a political and/or social movement that has a political belief system, and political goals.
How is it that the movement that this young man is associated with goes unremarked in conservative circles?
And now we know why we don’t discuss it. It’s not racism or a nut, he’s just another conservative.
There’s your answer Russell.
And now we know why we don’t discuss it. It’s not racism or a nut, he’s just another conservative.
There’s your answer Russell.
And now we know why we don’t discuss it. It’s not racism or a nut, he’s just another conservative.
There’s your answer Russell.
Eric makes an interesting point above: mass shootings are getting common enough that one can ask “how do they differ”, and “what features do they have in common”?
A federal law that prohibits possession by “young males with bad haircuts” is long overdue, it seems.
Eric makes an interesting point above: mass shootings are getting common enough that one can ask “how do they differ”, and “what features do they have in common”?
A federal law that prohibits possession by “young males with bad haircuts” is long overdue, it seems.
Eric makes an interesting point above: mass shootings are getting common enough that one can ask “how do they differ”, and “what features do they have in common”?
A federal law that prohibits possession by “young males with bad haircuts” is long overdue, it seems.
..that’s FIREARMS possession…
..that’s FIREARMS possession…
..that’s FIREARMS possession…
If you go with designating Roof as a “terrorist”, then you start asking the same questions that one asks about other “terrorists”.
Like: “how did they become radicalized?”
If you go with designating Roof as a “terrorist”, then you start asking the same questions that one asks about other “terrorists”.
Like: “how did they become radicalized?”
If you go with designating Roof as a “terrorist”, then you start asking the same questions that one asks about other “terrorists”.
Like: “how did they become radicalized?”
There is most certainly a radical racist element in this country. They aren’t Republican radicals or conservative radicals, or even southern radicals. They are racists, they have existed in this country for hundreds of years, for a lot of that time they were ignored, if not supported, by the authorities. That is much less today, though it still exists. But to become s radical racist doesn’t require much more than becoming s radical terrorist of any kind. An inclination and an internet connection.
There is most certainly a radical racist element in this country. They aren’t Republican radicals or conservative radicals, or even southern radicals. They are racists, they have existed in this country for hundreds of years, for a lot of that time they were ignored, if not supported, by the authorities. That is much less today, though it still exists. But to become s radical racist doesn’t require much more than becoming s radical terrorist of any kind. An inclination and an internet connection.
There is most certainly a radical racist element in this country. They aren’t Republican radicals or conservative radicals, or even southern radicals. They are racists, they have existed in this country for hundreds of years, for a lot of that time they were ignored, if not supported, by the authorities. That is much less today, though it still exists. But to become s radical racist doesn’t require much more than becoming s radical terrorist of any kind. An inclination and an internet connection.
The kid had a manifesto of some sort. I haven’t read it, but I’m guessing if he were after Christians, it would be in there, and that would have made the news by now.
The other thing about this is that the kid was steeped in traditional white-supremacist symbols and ideas. He didn’t make it up out of whole cloth all by himself. I’m not sure why asking further questions about why this happened and how his racism brought him to murder 9 people is so controversial.
The discussion has been going on for less than a week. Is that so undue?
The kid had a manifesto of some sort. I haven’t read it, but I’m guessing if he were after Christians, it would be in there, and that would have made the news by now.
The other thing about this is that the kid was steeped in traditional white-supremacist symbols and ideas. He didn’t make it up out of whole cloth all by himself. I’m not sure why asking further questions about why this happened and how his racism brought him to murder 9 people is so controversial.
The discussion has been going on for less than a week. Is that so undue?
The kid had a manifesto of some sort. I haven’t read it, but I’m guessing if he were after Christians, it would be in there, and that would have made the news by now.
The other thing about this is that the kid was steeped in traditional white-supremacist symbols and ideas. He didn’t make it up out of whole cloth all by himself. I’m not sure why asking further questions about why this happened and how his racism brought him to murder 9 people is so controversial.
The discussion has been going on for less than a week. Is that so undue?
Conservatives point out that for every person with a gun who kills, there are hundreds, thousands, who don’t. And want to know why he killed, not what he killed with.
But here’s the thing. If we don’t look at guns as the problem, and controlling them as the solution, where are we? It seems like, if we thing that the insanity (or other mental health problems) of the attacker are the problem, we have only two options:
1) we can decide that we will do an extensive mental health program. (AKA, at least for conservatives, as government mind control.) or
2) we can decide that we are just as happy to live with the current situation.
Is there a third option? One that would address the “real problem” of why he killed?
Conservatives point out that for every person with a gun who kills, there are hundreds, thousands, who don’t. And want to know why he killed, not what he killed with.
But here’s the thing. If we don’t look at guns as the problem, and controlling them as the solution, where are we? It seems like, if we thing that the insanity (or other mental health problems) of the attacker are the problem, we have only two options:
1) we can decide that we will do an extensive mental health program. (AKA, at least for conservatives, as government mind control.) or
2) we can decide that we are just as happy to live with the current situation.
Is there a third option? One that would address the “real problem” of why he killed?
Conservatives point out that for every person with a gun who kills, there are hundreds, thousands, who don’t. And want to know why he killed, not what he killed with.
But here’s the thing. If we don’t look at guns as the problem, and controlling them as the solution, where are we? It seems like, if we thing that the insanity (or other mental health problems) of the attacker are the problem, we have only two options:
1) we can decide that we will do an extensive mental health program. (AKA, at least for conservatives, as government mind control.) or
2) we can decide that we are just as happy to live with the current situation.
Is there a third option? One that would address the “real problem” of why he killed?
wj, in no way a real answer to your question, when people here talk about 9/11 and other terrorist activity and the governments response it is very often to mock the response as unhelpful and “theater. More than once someone has described Americans as wimps. Other countries have terrorist attacks with significantly less reaction. So their answer is, to some extent we live with the risk to have a free society.
Some of those same people take the opportunity in homegrown mass killing situations to advocate a significant intrusion of rights by the government, banning of guns. The impact of that would be somewhat greater, but still statistically pretty small.
The other side takes the opposite two contrary positions.
It’s an odd discussion.
wj, in no way a real answer to your question, when people here talk about 9/11 and other terrorist activity and the governments response it is very often to mock the response as unhelpful and “theater. More than once someone has described Americans as wimps. Other countries have terrorist attacks with significantly less reaction. So their answer is, to some extent we live with the risk to have a free society.
Some of those same people take the opportunity in homegrown mass killing situations to advocate a significant intrusion of rights by the government, banning of guns. The impact of that would be somewhat greater, but still statistically pretty small.
The other side takes the opposite two contrary positions.
It’s an odd discussion.
wj, in no way a real answer to your question, when people here talk about 9/11 and other terrorist activity and the governments response it is very often to mock the response as unhelpful and “theater. More than once someone has described Americans as wimps. Other countries have terrorist attacks with significantly less reaction. So their answer is, to some extent we live with the risk to have a free society.
Some of those same people take the opportunity in homegrown mass killing situations to advocate a significant intrusion of rights by the government, banning of guns. The impact of that would be somewhat greater, but still statistically pretty small.
The other side takes the opposite two contrary positions.
It’s an odd discussion.
I’m not sure discussing other countries is the best way to make the point that proposed gun-control measures would be “theater” or that free societies must have lax gun laws. If anything, doing so would tend to make the usual American conservative positions on terrorism and guns look far more contradictory than the positions usually taken by American liberals.
I’m not sure discussing other countries is the best way to make the point that proposed gun-control measures would be “theater” or that free societies must have lax gun laws. If anything, doing so would tend to make the usual American conservative positions on terrorism and guns look far more contradictory than the positions usually taken by American liberals.
I’m not sure discussing other countries is the best way to make the point that proposed gun-control measures would be “theater” or that free societies must have lax gun laws. If anything, doing so would tend to make the usual American conservative positions on terrorism and guns look far more contradictory than the positions usually taken by American liberals.
Marty,
if the response to domestic terrorists were the same as for 9/11, the US would be doing drone strikes on FOX news and Limbaugh as “propagandists”, and invading someplace that had nothing to do with the attack.
IIRC, much of the 9/11 response from the non-hawkish left, roundly mocked by BushCo, was that the correct way to deal with terrorism is in the context of a police/law enforcement response.
Marty,
if the response to domestic terrorists were the same as for 9/11, the US would be doing drone strikes on FOX news and Limbaugh as “propagandists”, and invading someplace that had nothing to do with the attack.
IIRC, much of the 9/11 response from the non-hawkish left, roundly mocked by BushCo, was that the correct way to deal with terrorism is in the context of a police/law enforcement response.
Marty,
if the response to domestic terrorists were the same as for 9/11, the US would be doing drone strikes on FOX news and Limbaugh as “propagandists”, and invading someplace that had nothing to do with the attack.
IIRC, much of the 9/11 response from the non-hawkish left, roundly mocked by BushCo, was that the correct way to deal with terrorism is in the context of a police/law enforcement response.
There are various types of hate filled ideologies in the world–neo-Nazis, radical Islamists, radical Hindu nationalists, Burmese nationalists who hate the Royhinga, white power types, etc…
And I think it is safe to say that only a fraction of the adherents of any particular hateful ideology actually go on to murder someone. And yes, sometimes it is important to determine why some take that next step, but until this thread I never saw people arguing vehemently that since most radical haters of ideology X don’t kill people, we shouldn’t be saying that ideology X is not the primary cause for the crimes that some adherents do commit.
There are various types of hate filled ideologies in the world–neo-Nazis, radical Islamists, radical Hindu nationalists, Burmese nationalists who hate the Royhinga, white power types, etc…
And I think it is safe to say that only a fraction of the adherents of any particular hateful ideology actually go on to murder someone. And yes, sometimes it is important to determine why some take that next step, but until this thread I never saw people arguing vehemently that since most radical haters of ideology X don’t kill people, we shouldn’t be saying that ideology X is not the primary cause for the crimes that some adherents do commit.
There are various types of hate filled ideologies in the world–neo-Nazis, radical Islamists, radical Hindu nationalists, Burmese nationalists who hate the Royhinga, white power types, etc…
And I think it is safe to say that only a fraction of the adherents of any particular hateful ideology actually go on to murder someone. And yes, sometimes it is important to determine why some take that next step, but until this thread I never saw people arguing vehemently that since most radical haters of ideology X don’t kill people, we shouldn’t be saying that ideology X is not the primary cause for the crimes that some adherents do commit.
There is a mistake above I can’t blame on my IPad, but I’m guessing what I meant is clear enough–I meant people who hate because of some ideology, and not people who hate the ideology. Only a small percentage of haters of any variety go on to commit murder, but we don’t usually make a big point of absolving the ideology for the crime. But since appeals to racism have been a subtext of a lot ( not all) conservative thinking and Republican Party campaigning for decades, there is a need to establish distance between the crime and the ideology.
There is a mistake above I can’t blame on my IPad, but I’m guessing what I meant is clear enough–I meant people who hate because of some ideology, and not people who hate the ideology. Only a small percentage of haters of any variety go on to commit murder, but we don’t usually make a big point of absolving the ideology for the crime. But since appeals to racism have been a subtext of a lot ( not all) conservative thinking and Republican Party campaigning for decades, there is a need to establish distance between the crime and the ideology.
There is a mistake above I can’t blame on my IPad, but I’m guessing what I meant is clear enough–I meant people who hate because of some ideology, and not people who hate the ideology. Only a small percentage of haters of any variety go on to commit murder, but we don’t usually make a big point of absolving the ideology for the crime. But since appeals to racism have been a subtext of a lot ( not all) conservative thinking and Republican Party campaigning for decades, there is a need to establish distance between the crime and the ideology.
I sure hope Iowans and Texans don’t take offense at Ted Cruz comparing the South Carolinian racist murderer to master gun controllers like them:
“You know the great thing about the state of Iowa is, I’m pretty sure you all define gun control the same way we do in Texas — hitting what you aim at,” Cruz said at a town hall meeting Friday in Red Oak.
Meanwhile, Sheriff Arpaio is sending his posses to churches today whether they like or not:
http://www.12news.com/story/news/local/valley/2015/06/19/arpaio-to-send-armed-posse-to-african-american-churches/28968479/
No word on whether the posses will search/frisk churchgoers for firearms BEFORE they enter the church as a judicious preventative measure or whether they’ll wait until the shooting starts to piss their pants.
Maybe they’ll just let the people WITH guns in as a sort of Sunday go-to-meeting local Russian roulette.
He didn’t seem too concerned when armed racist wanna-be murderers showed up at a local Mosque a month ago, natch:
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/05/30/3664337/armed-protesters-stage-anti-muslim-demonstration-phoenix/
I sure hope Iowans and Texans don’t take offense at Ted Cruz comparing the South Carolinian racist murderer to master gun controllers like them:
“You know the great thing about the state of Iowa is, I’m pretty sure you all define gun control the same way we do in Texas — hitting what you aim at,” Cruz said at a town hall meeting Friday in Red Oak.
Meanwhile, Sheriff Arpaio is sending his posses to churches today whether they like or not:
http://www.12news.com/story/news/local/valley/2015/06/19/arpaio-to-send-armed-posse-to-african-american-churches/28968479/
No word on whether the posses will search/frisk churchgoers for firearms BEFORE they enter the church as a judicious preventative measure or whether they’ll wait until the shooting starts to piss their pants.
Maybe they’ll just let the people WITH guns in as a sort of Sunday go-to-meeting local Russian roulette.
He didn’t seem too concerned when armed racist wanna-be murderers showed up at a local Mosque a month ago, natch:
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/05/30/3664337/armed-protesters-stage-anti-muslim-demonstration-phoenix/
I sure hope Iowans and Texans don’t take offense at Ted Cruz comparing the South Carolinian racist murderer to master gun controllers like them:
“You know the great thing about the state of Iowa is, I’m pretty sure you all define gun control the same way we do in Texas — hitting what you aim at,” Cruz said at a town hall meeting Friday in Red Oak.
Meanwhile, Sheriff Arpaio is sending his posses to churches today whether they like or not:
http://www.12news.com/story/news/local/valley/2015/06/19/arpaio-to-send-armed-posse-to-african-american-churches/28968479/
No word on whether the posses will search/frisk churchgoers for firearms BEFORE they enter the church as a judicious preventative measure or whether they’ll wait until the shooting starts to piss their pants.
Maybe they’ll just let the people WITH guns in as a sort of Sunday go-to-meeting local Russian roulette.
He didn’t seem too concerned when armed racist wanna-be murderers showed up at a local Mosque a month ago, natch:
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/05/30/3664337/armed-protesters-stage-anti-muslim-demonstration-phoenix/
One possible reason to choose that specific location could have been that the pastor was also an elected representative with a D attached to his name and certain positions on firearms. That the church itself had played a historical role racists disapprove of might have just been the icing on the cake. If it had just been the latter, he could have chosen arson as the traditional means of expression of his disapproval.
The above is speculation on my part and should not be interpreted as claims of hard facts.
One possible reason to choose that specific location could have been that the pastor was also an elected representative with a D attached to his name and certain positions on firearms. That the church itself had played a historical role racists disapprove of might have just been the icing on the cake. If it had just been the latter, he could have chosen arson as the traditional means of expression of his disapproval.
The above is speculation on my part and should not be interpreted as claims of hard facts.
One possible reason to choose that specific location could have been that the pastor was also an elected representative with a D attached to his name and certain positions on firearms. That the church itself had played a historical role racists disapprove of might have just been the icing on the cake. If it had just been the latter, he could have chosen arson as the traditional means of expression of his disapproval.
The above is speculation on my part and should not be interpreted as claims of hard facts.
“But here’s the thing. If we don’t look at guns as the problem, and controlling them as the solution, where are we?”
Looking at why one person wants to kill another?
Seriously, if in your fantasy world, you’d managed to keep an adult who was able to get drugs from getting a gun, what would have kept him from just driving into the church parking lot after mass, and running people over?
The ultimate cause of people being murdered is people wanting to murder, not the means they used, which are capable of substitution, and in any event difficult to control. What are you aiming for here, anyway? A country full of frustrated would be mass murderers, who are seething with the desire to kill, but just somehow kept from getting any of the many means of doing that?
Is that what you want? If not, why are you focusing on one particular means, and not motive?
Because it’s a means you want to take away from the innocent, and Roof just provided you with an excuse for what you wanted to do anyway.
“But here’s the thing. If we don’t look at guns as the problem, and controlling them as the solution, where are we?”
Looking at why one person wants to kill another?
Seriously, if in your fantasy world, you’d managed to keep an adult who was able to get drugs from getting a gun, what would have kept him from just driving into the church parking lot after mass, and running people over?
The ultimate cause of people being murdered is people wanting to murder, not the means they used, which are capable of substitution, and in any event difficult to control. What are you aiming for here, anyway? A country full of frustrated would be mass murderers, who are seething with the desire to kill, but just somehow kept from getting any of the many means of doing that?
Is that what you want? If not, why are you focusing on one particular means, and not motive?
Because it’s a means you want to take away from the innocent, and Roof just provided you with an excuse for what you wanted to do anyway.
“But here’s the thing. If we don’t look at guns as the problem, and controlling them as the solution, where are we?”
Looking at why one person wants to kill another?
Seriously, if in your fantasy world, you’d managed to keep an adult who was able to get drugs from getting a gun, what would have kept him from just driving into the church parking lot after mass, and running people over?
The ultimate cause of people being murdered is people wanting to murder, not the means they used, which are capable of substitution, and in any event difficult to control. What are you aiming for here, anyway? A country full of frustrated would be mass murderers, who are seething with the desire to kill, but just somehow kept from getting any of the many means of doing that?
Is that what you want? If not, why are you focusing on one particular means, and not motive?
Because it’s a means you want to take away from the innocent, and Roof just provided you with an excuse for what you wanted to do anyway.
Has it ever occurred to you, Brett, that if people didn’t shoot each other, no one would care about anyone else having guns? People shooting each other isn’t the excuse for gun control; it’s the reason.
Please explain why we don’t already have high murder-by-vehicle rates, since vehicles are ubiquitous. Please also explain why militaries around the world don’t run their enemies over with cars when engaged in battle. Please also tell use how many people were killed by the homicidal maniac in China who used knife in an attempt at mass murder a few years ago.
Has it ever occurred to you, Brett, that if people didn’t shoot each other, no one would care about anyone else having guns? People shooting each other isn’t the excuse for gun control; it’s the reason.
Please explain why we don’t already have high murder-by-vehicle rates, since vehicles are ubiquitous. Please also explain why militaries around the world don’t run their enemies over with cars when engaged in battle. Please also tell use how many people were killed by the homicidal maniac in China who used knife in an attempt at mass murder a few years ago.
Has it ever occurred to you, Brett, that if people didn’t shoot each other, no one would care about anyone else having guns? People shooting each other isn’t the excuse for gun control; it’s the reason.
Please explain why we don’t already have high murder-by-vehicle rates, since vehicles are ubiquitous. Please also explain why militaries around the world don’t run their enemies over with cars when engaged in battle. Please also tell use how many people were killed by the homicidal maniac in China who used knife in an attempt at mass murder a few years ago.
Is that what you want? If not, why are you focusing on one particular means, and not motive?
OK, so we focus on the motive. What do we do about it, if anything, once we figure it out?
Is that what you want? If not, why are you focusing on one particular means, and not motive?
OK, so we focus on the motive. What do we do about it, if anything, once we figure it out?
Is that what you want? If not, why are you focusing on one particular means, and not motive?
OK, so we focus on the motive. What do we do about it, if anything, once we figure it out?
If the motive is racism, we shouldn’t bother, because it’s not the only cause. The means is irrelevant, and so is the motive. Let it be.
If the motive is racism, we shouldn’t bother, because it’s not the only cause. The means is irrelevant, and so is the motive. Let it be.
If the motive is racism, we shouldn’t bother, because it’s not the only cause. The means is irrelevant, and so is the motive. Let it be.
I can’t help but wonder, though, why we have to choose between looking into the motive and looking at the means. I have this crazy idea that you can do both.
I can’t help but wonder, though, why we have to choose between looking into the motive and looking at the means. I have this crazy idea that you can do both.
I can’t help but wonder, though, why we have to choose between looking into the motive and looking at the means. I have this crazy idea that you can do both.
Many conservative politicians must know they have racist supporters. What could they possibly gain by criticizing racist behavior? It’s better to change the subject if at all possible.
Many conservative politicians must know they have racist supporters. What could they possibly gain by criticizing racist behavior? It’s better to change the subject if at all possible.
Many conservative politicians must know they have racist supporters. What could they possibly gain by criticizing racist behavior? It’s better to change the subject if at all possible.
NV:
I think I got all your comments out of the spam filter.
And your instincts about Eric were correct. That IP is blocked, now.
NV:
I think I got all your comments out of the spam filter.
And your instincts about Eric were correct. That IP is blocked, now.
NV:
I think I got all your comments out of the spam filter.
And your instincts about Eric were correct. That IP is blocked, now.
“Has it ever occurred to you, Brett, that if people didn’t shoot each other, no one would care about anyone else having guns? People shooting each other isn’t the excuse for gun control; it’s the reason.”
Not gonna go there. I’m actually trying to not hijack this into a gun control thread. Or, rather, to not cooperate into so hijacking it.
“OK, so we focus on the motive. What do we do about it, if anything, once we figure it out?”
I don’t think motive is precisely where we ought to focus, either. Motive, too, is vastly more common than murder. Most people, given motive, don’t kill anyway. My view of Islam, for instance, which distresses Donald so much, is very common in the US. Mosques, conspicuously, are not getting attacked left and right.
One person, pissed off, seethes for a bit, and then calms down and drops it. Another person, pissed off, decides to kill. What’s the difference between them?
Morality. The problem is not an excess of guns, it is a deficit of morality.
In some ways that’s not a very happy answer, because it’s not all that evident how you can fix a morality deficit by passing a law, and a lot of people want passing a law to be the answer to everything.
But I think it’s an answer which has the virtue of being true, and you need to know the nature of a problem before you have any hope of fixing it.
We’re not successfully passing morality on to too many people. Why? Forgotten how to teach it? Some subtle virus inducing sociopathy? (Not a joke, that could be.)
This is where, IMO, we need to concentrate. Why do so many people not blink at killing?
“Has it ever occurred to you, Brett, that if people didn’t shoot each other, no one would care about anyone else having guns? People shooting each other isn’t the excuse for gun control; it’s the reason.”
Not gonna go there. I’m actually trying to not hijack this into a gun control thread. Or, rather, to not cooperate into so hijacking it.
“OK, so we focus on the motive. What do we do about it, if anything, once we figure it out?”
I don’t think motive is precisely where we ought to focus, either. Motive, too, is vastly more common than murder. Most people, given motive, don’t kill anyway. My view of Islam, for instance, which distresses Donald so much, is very common in the US. Mosques, conspicuously, are not getting attacked left and right.
One person, pissed off, seethes for a bit, and then calms down and drops it. Another person, pissed off, decides to kill. What’s the difference between them?
Morality. The problem is not an excess of guns, it is a deficit of morality.
In some ways that’s not a very happy answer, because it’s not all that evident how you can fix a morality deficit by passing a law, and a lot of people want passing a law to be the answer to everything.
But I think it’s an answer which has the virtue of being true, and you need to know the nature of a problem before you have any hope of fixing it.
We’re not successfully passing morality on to too many people. Why? Forgotten how to teach it? Some subtle virus inducing sociopathy? (Not a joke, that could be.)
This is where, IMO, we need to concentrate. Why do so many people not blink at killing?
“Has it ever occurred to you, Brett, that if people didn’t shoot each other, no one would care about anyone else having guns? People shooting each other isn’t the excuse for gun control; it’s the reason.”
Not gonna go there. I’m actually trying to not hijack this into a gun control thread. Or, rather, to not cooperate into so hijacking it.
“OK, so we focus on the motive. What do we do about it, if anything, once we figure it out?”
I don’t think motive is precisely where we ought to focus, either. Motive, too, is vastly more common than murder. Most people, given motive, don’t kill anyway. My view of Islam, for instance, which distresses Donald so much, is very common in the US. Mosques, conspicuously, are not getting attacked left and right.
One person, pissed off, seethes for a bit, and then calms down and drops it. Another person, pissed off, decides to kill. What’s the difference between them?
Morality. The problem is not an excess of guns, it is a deficit of morality.
In some ways that’s not a very happy answer, because it’s not all that evident how you can fix a morality deficit by passing a law, and a lot of people want passing a law to be the answer to everything.
But I think it’s an answer which has the virtue of being true, and you need to know the nature of a problem before you have any hope of fixing it.
We’re not successfully passing morality on to too many people. Why? Forgotten how to teach it? Some subtle virus inducing sociopathy? (Not a joke, that could be.)
This is where, IMO, we need to concentrate. Why do so many people not blink at killing?
Brett,
“But here’s the thing. If we don’t look at guns as the problem, and controlling them as the solution, where are we?”
Looking at why one person wants to kill another?
Seriously, if in your fantasy world, you’d managed to keep an adult who was able to get drugs from getting a gun, what would have kept him from just driving into the church parking lot after mass, and running people over?
Indeed. It is very important to look at why one person wants to kill another, or several. I couldn’t agree more.
So here is the question Russell is asking. Why are there so many prominent conservatives who seem to be unable to say what is plain as day – Roof killed these people because he hates blacks – he is a racist. Not because he wanted to kill Christians, not for the mysterious unknown reasons alluded to by Haley and others. Because he hates black people. Pretty simple. Pretty obvious. I mean, he said so, among other evidence.
In other words why are people refusing to look at what you say they should be looking at?
Brett,
“But here’s the thing. If we don’t look at guns as the problem, and controlling them as the solution, where are we?”
Looking at why one person wants to kill another?
Seriously, if in your fantasy world, you’d managed to keep an adult who was able to get drugs from getting a gun, what would have kept him from just driving into the church parking lot after mass, and running people over?
Indeed. It is very important to look at why one person wants to kill another, or several. I couldn’t agree more.
So here is the question Russell is asking. Why are there so many prominent conservatives who seem to be unable to say what is plain as day – Roof killed these people because he hates blacks – he is a racist. Not because he wanted to kill Christians, not for the mysterious unknown reasons alluded to by Haley and others. Because he hates black people. Pretty simple. Pretty obvious. I mean, he said so, among other evidence.
In other words why are people refusing to look at what you say they should be looking at?
Brett,
“But here’s the thing. If we don’t look at guns as the problem, and controlling them as the solution, where are we?”
Looking at why one person wants to kill another?
Seriously, if in your fantasy world, you’d managed to keep an adult who was able to get drugs from getting a gun, what would have kept him from just driving into the church parking lot after mass, and running people over?
Indeed. It is very important to look at why one person wants to kill another, or several. I couldn’t agree more.
So here is the question Russell is asking. Why are there so many prominent conservatives who seem to be unable to say what is plain as day – Roof killed these people because he hates blacks – he is a racist. Not because he wanted to kill Christians, not for the mysterious unknown reasons alluded to by Haley and others. Because he hates black people. Pretty simple. Pretty obvious. I mean, he said so, among other evidence.
In other words why are people refusing to look at what you say they should be looking at?
Morality. The problem is not an excess of guns, it is a deficit of morality.
…
We’re not successfully passing morality on to too many people. Why? Forgotten how to teach it? Some subtle virus inducing sociopathy?
This assumes that there was a past Golden Age of morality in the South, in which Blacks and Whites lived in peace and harmony, and the problem is a failure to pass along those wonderful values.
Delusional. Racism isn’t new. Racist violence isn’t new. It’s less accepted now than previously, except that one. political. party. wants to change the subject whenever it comes up. Why?
Morality. The problem is not an excess of guns, it is a deficit of morality.
…
We’re not successfully passing morality on to too many people. Why? Forgotten how to teach it? Some subtle virus inducing sociopathy?
This assumes that there was a past Golden Age of morality in the South, in which Blacks and Whites lived in peace and harmony, and the problem is a failure to pass along those wonderful values.
Delusional. Racism isn’t new. Racist violence isn’t new. It’s less accepted now than previously, except that one. political. party. wants to change the subject whenever it comes up. Why?
Morality. The problem is not an excess of guns, it is a deficit of morality.
…
We’re not successfully passing morality on to too many people. Why? Forgotten how to teach it? Some subtle virus inducing sociopathy?
This assumes that there was a past Golden Age of morality in the South, in which Blacks and Whites lived in peace and harmony, and the problem is a failure to pass along those wonderful values.
Delusional. Racism isn’t new. Racist violence isn’t new. It’s less accepted now than previously, except that one. political. party. wants to change the subject whenever it comes up. Why?
Ok, first of all, I think I’ve already said that it’s not JUST a case of him killing those people because of racism, because, as has already been conceded, there are just too many racists around who don’t go on similar rampages.
Roof killed those people because of racism. He probably didn’t kill people because of racism. He killed people because he was the sort of person who didn’t have any objection to killing people. Might even have become a racist because he was looking for an excuse to kill people.
Now, it would be nice, unquestionably, if we could eliminate racism. I don’t see it happening any time soon, not the least because racism is politically useful. And, bluntly, not just useful for one party, as pleasant as somebody might find believing that is. Useful for both parties.
If racism isn’t going away, maybe we ought to direct our attention at what makes the difference between a racist who doesn’t kill, and a racist who does.
And, maybe that’s why Republicans won’t go along with the pretense that Roof did this just because he was a racist.
Because it’s likely not true, and not terribly useful in any case, because you’d get way too many false positives if you looked for potential killers on the basis of who was a racist.
Ok, first of all, I think I’ve already said that it’s not JUST a case of him killing those people because of racism, because, as has already been conceded, there are just too many racists around who don’t go on similar rampages.
Roof killed those people because of racism. He probably didn’t kill people because of racism. He killed people because he was the sort of person who didn’t have any objection to killing people. Might even have become a racist because he was looking for an excuse to kill people.
Now, it would be nice, unquestionably, if we could eliminate racism. I don’t see it happening any time soon, not the least because racism is politically useful. And, bluntly, not just useful for one party, as pleasant as somebody might find believing that is. Useful for both parties.
If racism isn’t going away, maybe we ought to direct our attention at what makes the difference between a racist who doesn’t kill, and a racist who does.
And, maybe that’s why Republicans won’t go along with the pretense that Roof did this just because he was a racist.
Because it’s likely not true, and not terribly useful in any case, because you’d get way too many false positives if you looked for potential killers on the basis of who was a racist.
Ok, first of all, I think I’ve already said that it’s not JUST a case of him killing those people because of racism, because, as has already been conceded, there are just too many racists around who don’t go on similar rampages.
Roof killed those people because of racism. He probably didn’t kill people because of racism. He killed people because he was the sort of person who didn’t have any objection to killing people. Might even have become a racist because he was looking for an excuse to kill people.
Now, it would be nice, unquestionably, if we could eliminate racism. I don’t see it happening any time soon, not the least because racism is politically useful. And, bluntly, not just useful for one party, as pleasant as somebody might find believing that is. Useful for both parties.
If racism isn’t going away, maybe we ought to direct our attention at what makes the difference between a racist who doesn’t kill, and a racist who does.
And, maybe that’s why Republicans won’t go along with the pretense that Roof did this just because he was a racist.
Because it’s likely not true, and not terribly useful in any case, because you’d get way too many false positives if you looked for potential killers on the basis of who was a racist.
OK, I can see the idea that the problem is a deficit of morality. So how do we teach that?
Or, to put it another way, how did we used to teach morality? My understanding is that, when we used to teach it, the lessons were heavily based on religion. Specifically, on Christainity. So do we expand to lessons based on all the various religions present in our schools today? (And even if we do that, how do we teach morality to those who don’t subscribe to any particular religion?)
Or do we need to find some other basis than religion on which to craft the lessons? And if so, what might be useful?
OK, I can see the idea that the problem is a deficit of morality. So how do we teach that?
Or, to put it another way, how did we used to teach morality? My understanding is that, when we used to teach it, the lessons were heavily based on religion. Specifically, on Christainity. So do we expand to lessons based on all the various religions present in our schools today? (And even if we do that, how do we teach morality to those who don’t subscribe to any particular religion?)
Or do we need to find some other basis than religion on which to craft the lessons? And if so, what might be useful?
OK, I can see the idea that the problem is a deficit of morality. So how do we teach that?
Or, to put it another way, how did we used to teach morality? My understanding is that, when we used to teach it, the lessons were heavily based on religion. Specifically, on Christainity. So do we expand to lessons based on all the various religions present in our schools today? (And even if we do that, how do we teach morality to those who don’t subscribe to any particular religion?)
Or do we need to find some other basis than religion on which to craft the lessons? And if so, what might be useful?
“This assumes that there was a past Golden Age of morality in the South, in which Blacks and Whites lived in peace and harmony, and the problem is a failure to pass along those wonderful values.”
I don’t particularly care if Blacks and Whites live in peace and harmony. I care if People live in peace and harmony.
But, to a large extent you’re right. Mass killings like this are a tiny, tiny fraction of the murder rate. And the murder rate is DOWN, not UP. If there’s a golden age, we’re in it.
We’re suffering under an illusion that we have an increasing problem, because each separate instance is getting more and more publicity as time goes on.
But, you know, while killings like Roof committed are a small fraction of a declining problem, they’re still worth doing something about, so long as it’s sensible. So, let me suggest something:
Mass killers do it for the publicity. Deny them the publicity. Just start referring to mass killers as “that asshole”, instead of by name, in all but court records. Refuse to publicize their agendas and statements.
Take away their big reason for doing it. And take away the trigger for chains of copy-cat killings.
You want to attack a civil liberty to deal with people like Roof? I think you picked the wrong one.
“This assumes that there was a past Golden Age of morality in the South, in which Blacks and Whites lived in peace and harmony, and the problem is a failure to pass along those wonderful values.”
I don’t particularly care if Blacks and Whites live in peace and harmony. I care if People live in peace and harmony.
But, to a large extent you’re right. Mass killings like this are a tiny, tiny fraction of the murder rate. And the murder rate is DOWN, not UP. If there’s a golden age, we’re in it.
We’re suffering under an illusion that we have an increasing problem, because each separate instance is getting more and more publicity as time goes on.
But, you know, while killings like Roof committed are a small fraction of a declining problem, they’re still worth doing something about, so long as it’s sensible. So, let me suggest something:
Mass killers do it for the publicity. Deny them the publicity. Just start referring to mass killers as “that asshole”, instead of by name, in all but court records. Refuse to publicize their agendas and statements.
Take away their big reason for doing it. And take away the trigger for chains of copy-cat killings.
You want to attack a civil liberty to deal with people like Roof? I think you picked the wrong one.
“This assumes that there was a past Golden Age of morality in the South, in which Blacks and Whites lived in peace and harmony, and the problem is a failure to pass along those wonderful values.”
I don’t particularly care if Blacks and Whites live in peace and harmony. I care if People live in peace and harmony.
But, to a large extent you’re right. Mass killings like this are a tiny, tiny fraction of the murder rate. And the murder rate is DOWN, not UP. If there’s a golden age, we’re in it.
We’re suffering under an illusion that we have an increasing problem, because each separate instance is getting more and more publicity as time goes on.
But, you know, while killings like Roof committed are a small fraction of a declining problem, they’re still worth doing something about, so long as it’s sensible. So, let me suggest something:
Mass killers do it for the publicity. Deny them the publicity. Just start referring to mass killers as “that asshole”, instead of by name, in all but court records. Refuse to publicize their agendas and statements.
Take away their big reason for doing it. And take away the trigger for chains of copy-cat killings.
You want to attack a civil liberty to deal with people like Roof? I think you picked the wrong one.
Brett, I appreciate your not hijacking the thread or assisting me in doing so.
That aside, who do you think believes that the only reason this ass-hat shot 9 people was racism? Of course there were other factors involved. Racism alone is neither necessary nor sufficient for someone to commit murder.
But there’s no doubt this guy killed these people out of racist motives. He said so himself. It’s a painfully obvious fact. Why don’t some people want to talk about that? Why do think his choosing these particular people, as opposed to others, because of racism makes it such a non-subject? It’s a very strange, abstract distinction to be making.
If someone kills another to steal his wallet, would you say theft wasn’t the motive, simply because other people kill for other reasons or because other people steal people’s wallets without killing them? This whole line of reasoning strikes me as being very pretzel-like.
Brett, I appreciate your not hijacking the thread or assisting me in doing so.
That aside, who do you think believes that the only reason this ass-hat shot 9 people was racism? Of course there were other factors involved. Racism alone is neither necessary nor sufficient for someone to commit murder.
But there’s no doubt this guy killed these people out of racist motives. He said so himself. It’s a painfully obvious fact. Why don’t some people want to talk about that? Why do think his choosing these particular people, as opposed to others, because of racism makes it such a non-subject? It’s a very strange, abstract distinction to be making.
If someone kills another to steal his wallet, would you say theft wasn’t the motive, simply because other people kill for other reasons or because other people steal people’s wallets without killing them? This whole line of reasoning strikes me as being very pretzel-like.
Brett, I appreciate your not hijacking the thread or assisting me in doing so.
That aside, who do you think believes that the only reason this ass-hat shot 9 people was racism? Of course there were other factors involved. Racism alone is neither necessary nor sufficient for someone to commit murder.
But there’s no doubt this guy killed these people out of racist motives. He said so himself. It’s a painfully obvious fact. Why don’t some people want to talk about that? Why do think his choosing these particular people, as opposed to others, because of racism makes it such a non-subject? It’s a very strange, abstract distinction to be making.
If someone kills another to steal his wallet, would you say theft wasn’t the motive, simply because other people kill for other reasons or because other people steal people’s wallets without killing them? This whole line of reasoning strikes me as being very pretzel-like.
hsh,
If someone kills another to steal his wallet, would you say theft wasn’t the motive, simply because other people kill for other reasons or because other people steal people’s wallets without killing them? This whole line of reasoning strikes me as being very pretzel-like.
Exactly.
hsh,
If someone kills another to steal his wallet, would you say theft wasn’t the motive, simply because other people kill for other reasons or because other people steal people’s wallets without killing them? This whole line of reasoning strikes me as being very pretzel-like.
Exactly.
hsh,
If someone kills another to steal his wallet, would you say theft wasn’t the motive, simply because other people kill for other reasons or because other people steal people’s wallets without killing them? This whole line of reasoning strikes me as being very pretzel-like.
Exactly.
And who will be the arbiter of morality?
I always wonder who is worse, the bigot preaching inhuman morals he himself does not believe in or the saint who really embodies the same (the list of saints contains a significant number of genocidal maniacs and instigators of other genocodal maniacs)? Racism and genocide have been sold as moral successfully for ages and their absence as grave sin.
And there is no set of axioms that cannot be twisted into pure evil.
1) Love thy neighbour as you love yourself
2) Love of self = Selfishness = bad
—-
=(2)=> 3) Do not love yourself
=(1)=> 4) Do not love your neighbour
And who will be the arbiter of morality?
I always wonder who is worse, the bigot preaching inhuman morals he himself does not believe in or the saint who really embodies the same (the list of saints contains a significant number of genocidal maniacs and instigators of other genocodal maniacs)? Racism and genocide have been sold as moral successfully for ages and their absence as grave sin.
And there is no set of axioms that cannot be twisted into pure evil.
1) Love thy neighbour as you love yourself
2) Love of self = Selfishness = bad
—-
=(2)=> 3) Do not love yourself
=(1)=> 4) Do not love your neighbour
And who will be the arbiter of morality?
I always wonder who is worse, the bigot preaching inhuman morals he himself does not believe in or the saint who really embodies the same (the list of saints contains a significant number of genocidal maniacs and instigators of other genocodal maniacs)? Racism and genocide have been sold as moral successfully for ages and their absence as grave sin.
And there is no set of axioms that cannot be twisted into pure evil.
1) Love thy neighbour as you love yourself
2) Love of self = Selfishness = bad
—-
=(2)=> 3) Do not love yourself
=(1)=> 4) Do not love your neighbour
If I might engage in a short aside, only tangentially relevant to the post, I went to the store about an hour ago. In the parking lot, I saw a car with a bunch of bumper stickers on the back. I’ll list the ones I took note of in a particular order.
One read, “Obama sucks!” Not necessarily racist.
Another read, “If Obama ran a city, it would look like Detroit.” A bit more possibly racist.
The next was a confederate flag. Even more possibly racist, especially in the context of the others.
The last read, “Don’t blame me. I voted for the white guy.” Not as overtly racist as, say, “I didn’t vote for the n****r,” but still pretty strong.
What I wonder about is whether or not the owner of the car considers himself or herself to be racist. I somehow see the possiblilty that this person doesn’t necessarily, even though I don’t understand how.
If I might engage in a short aside, only tangentially relevant to the post, I went to the store about an hour ago. In the parking lot, I saw a car with a bunch of bumper stickers on the back. I’ll list the ones I took note of in a particular order.
One read, “Obama sucks!” Not necessarily racist.
Another read, “If Obama ran a city, it would look like Detroit.” A bit more possibly racist.
The next was a confederate flag. Even more possibly racist, especially in the context of the others.
The last read, “Don’t blame me. I voted for the white guy.” Not as overtly racist as, say, “I didn’t vote for the n****r,” but still pretty strong.
What I wonder about is whether or not the owner of the car considers himself or herself to be racist. I somehow see the possiblilty that this person doesn’t necessarily, even though I don’t understand how.
If I might engage in a short aside, only tangentially relevant to the post, I went to the store about an hour ago. In the parking lot, I saw a car with a bunch of bumper stickers on the back. I’ll list the ones I took note of in a particular order.
One read, “Obama sucks!” Not necessarily racist.
Another read, “If Obama ran a city, it would look like Detroit.” A bit more possibly racist.
The next was a confederate flag. Even more possibly racist, especially in the context of the others.
The last read, “Don’t blame me. I voted for the white guy.” Not as overtly racist as, say, “I didn’t vote for the n****r,” but still pretty strong.
What I wonder about is whether or not the owner of the car considers himself or herself to be racist. I somehow see the possiblilty that this person doesn’t necessarily, even though I don’t understand how.
How is pretty simple.
Even people we would all consider to be racists are aware that being one, or labeled as one, is a “bad thing.” Which is part of why they work so hard at denying that they (or their friends and associates) are racists.
How is pretty simple.
Even people we would all consider to be racists are aware that being one, or labeled as one, is a “bad thing.” Which is part of why they work so hard at denying that they (or their friends and associates) are racists.
How is pretty simple.
Even people we would all consider to be racists are aware that being one, or labeled as one, is a “bad thing.” Which is part of why they work so hard at denying that they (or their friends and associates) are racists.
Oops. Left off the final sentence:
Even to themselves.
Oops. Left off the final sentence:
Even to themselves.
Oops. Left off the final sentence:
Even to themselves.
Pretty much everybody is aware that being a racist, or being labeled as one, is a “bad thing”. Which is part of why people who don’t like somebody else’s views so frequently resort to labeling them “racists”, even if, in strict definition, they aren’t.
This isn’t one of those things where the only people denying they’re one are the people who are one. This is one of those things where false accusations are common currency.
Pretty much everybody is aware that being a racist, or being labeled as one, is a “bad thing”. Which is part of why people who don’t like somebody else’s views so frequently resort to labeling them “racists”, even if, in strict definition, they aren’t.
This isn’t one of those things where the only people denying they’re one are the people who are one. This is one of those things where false accusations are common currency.
Pretty much everybody is aware that being a racist, or being labeled as one, is a “bad thing”. Which is part of why people who don’t like somebody else’s views so frequently resort to labeling them “racists”, even if, in strict definition, they aren’t.
This isn’t one of those things where the only people denying they’re one are the people who are one. This is one of those things where false accusations are common currency.
racism is politically useful. And, bluntly, not just useful for one party, as pleasant as somebody might find believing that is. Useful for both parties.
Useful for ONE party to get the racist vote, and useful for the OTHER to say “vote for us, we oppose racists”?
If that’s what you mean as “useful for both parties”, okay. Is that what you mean?
racism is politically useful. And, bluntly, not just useful for one party, as pleasant as somebody might find believing that is. Useful for both parties.
Useful for ONE party to get the racist vote, and useful for the OTHER to say “vote for us, we oppose racists”?
If that’s what you mean as “useful for both parties”, okay. Is that what you mean?
racism is politically useful. And, bluntly, not just useful for one party, as pleasant as somebody might find believing that is. Useful for both parties.
Useful for ONE party to get the racist vote, and useful for the OTHER to say “vote for us, we oppose racists”?
If that’s what you mean as “useful for both parties”, okay. Is that what you mean?
No, that’s not what I mean. I mean what I said: Both parties find racism useful, and in their own constituencies.
Liberals are fond of specious definitions of racism, revolving around nominal power relations, designed to make sure that their favored groups can’t be ‘racist’. They’ve got ‘racism’ so bizarrely defined that it’s ‘racist’ to demand that people NOT discriminate on the basis of race, to treat people entirely on their merits, without regard to race.
Nobody else falls for this self-serving definition.
No, that’s not what I mean. I mean what I said: Both parties find racism useful, and in their own constituencies.
Liberals are fond of specious definitions of racism, revolving around nominal power relations, designed to make sure that their favored groups can’t be ‘racist’. They’ve got ‘racism’ so bizarrely defined that it’s ‘racist’ to demand that people NOT discriminate on the basis of race, to treat people entirely on their merits, without regard to race.
Nobody else falls for this self-serving definition.
No, that’s not what I mean. I mean what I said: Both parties find racism useful, and in their own constituencies.
Liberals are fond of specious definitions of racism, revolving around nominal power relations, designed to make sure that their favored groups can’t be ‘racist’. They’ve got ‘racism’ so bizarrely defined that it’s ‘racist’ to demand that people NOT discriminate on the basis of race, to treat people entirely on their merits, without regard to race.
Nobody else falls for this self-serving definition.
After discussion, we’ve blocked Brett for a short period of time, which will be followed by a longer period, and subsquently a longer one, so on, until it is no longer useful to keep track of how long. This is not to encourage a pile on, so we’d really prefer everyone keep their observations about this to themselves, this is simply to let everyone know what’s happening so they aren’t spending a lot of time responding to things that can’t be responded to.
After discussion, we’ve blocked Brett for a short period of time, which will be followed by a longer period, and subsquently a longer one, so on, until it is no longer useful to keep track of how long. This is not to encourage a pile on, so we’d really prefer everyone keep their observations about this to themselves, this is simply to let everyone know what’s happening so they aren’t spending a lot of time responding to things that can’t be responded to.
After discussion, we’ve blocked Brett for a short period of time, which will be followed by a longer period, and subsquently a longer one, so on, until it is no longer useful to keep track of how long. This is not to encourage a pile on, so we’d really prefer everyone keep their observations about this to themselves, this is simply to let everyone know what’s happening so they aren’t spending a lot of time responding to things that can’t be responded to.
A bit different slant.
Russell, I understand your dilemma — I have the same question as you. I’m not now, and never have been a conservative. But I work in a field surrounded by a large number of what were once called “country club conservatives.” They’ve been talking about this issue some in the lounge.
I think the prominent GOP politicians dancing around the issue is best explained as political calculation. They’re simply pandering to their base and trying to escape unscathed from the whole event. What they truly believe is hard to say, although for a few of them like Santorum they may actually believe the nonsense they put out.
I think your average republican is indignant at being called racist (all the time, in their view), even if the effect of the policies they support is demonstrably racist. What those around me believe is that racism is declining. They point to legal school desegregation (even though schools are still quite segregated), the Civil Rights Act (even though recently gutted by the Supreme Court), and to the fact that the current and past attorney generals and the president are African American. They regard the Charleston tragedy as the actions of a demented psychopath who just happened to be a racist.
They believe strident demands from the Left to confront racism NOW will derail all this great progress (sic) we’ve made. They think it’s like provoking a hibernating bear or a rattlesnake by poking them with a stick. They acknowledge racism is there, but they believe if we just be quiet about it things will continue (sic again) to get better and racism will ultimately fade away on its own. I think they’re wrong — history is not on their side — but there you have it.
Regarding all the Civil War subtexts in this, I’ve also talked with a few from this country club GOP faction who are also annoyed at the turn the historical consensus has taken in the past couple of decades. Even though it’s clear to historians the Civil War was about slavery, acknowledging this means recognizing the deep and dreadful stain in our past, the effects of which persist into the present. I don’t live in the South, but I think a lot of the denial of General Grant’s pithy observation (quoted upthread) comes from that.
Of course anecdotes are not data, etc.
A bit different slant.
Russell, I understand your dilemma — I have the same question as you. I’m not now, and never have been a conservative. But I work in a field surrounded by a large number of what were once called “country club conservatives.” They’ve been talking about this issue some in the lounge.
I think the prominent GOP politicians dancing around the issue is best explained as political calculation. They’re simply pandering to their base and trying to escape unscathed from the whole event. What they truly believe is hard to say, although for a few of them like Santorum they may actually believe the nonsense they put out.
I think your average republican is indignant at being called racist (all the time, in their view), even if the effect of the policies they support is demonstrably racist. What those around me believe is that racism is declining. They point to legal school desegregation (even though schools are still quite segregated), the Civil Rights Act (even though recently gutted by the Supreme Court), and to the fact that the current and past attorney generals and the president are African American. They regard the Charleston tragedy as the actions of a demented psychopath who just happened to be a racist.
They believe strident demands from the Left to confront racism NOW will derail all this great progress (sic) we’ve made. They think it’s like provoking a hibernating bear or a rattlesnake by poking them with a stick. They acknowledge racism is there, but they believe if we just be quiet about it things will continue (sic again) to get better and racism will ultimately fade away on its own. I think they’re wrong — history is not on their side — but there you have it.
Regarding all the Civil War subtexts in this, I’ve also talked with a few from this country club GOP faction who are also annoyed at the turn the historical consensus has taken in the past couple of decades. Even though it’s clear to historians the Civil War was about slavery, acknowledging this means recognizing the deep and dreadful stain in our past, the effects of which persist into the present. I don’t live in the South, but I think a lot of the denial of General Grant’s pithy observation (quoted upthread) comes from that.
Of course anecdotes are not data, etc.
A bit different slant.
Russell, I understand your dilemma — I have the same question as you. I’m not now, and never have been a conservative. But I work in a field surrounded by a large number of what were once called “country club conservatives.” They’ve been talking about this issue some in the lounge.
I think the prominent GOP politicians dancing around the issue is best explained as political calculation. They’re simply pandering to their base and trying to escape unscathed from the whole event. What they truly believe is hard to say, although for a few of them like Santorum they may actually believe the nonsense they put out.
I think your average republican is indignant at being called racist (all the time, in their view), even if the effect of the policies they support is demonstrably racist. What those around me believe is that racism is declining. They point to legal school desegregation (even though schools are still quite segregated), the Civil Rights Act (even though recently gutted by the Supreme Court), and to the fact that the current and past attorney generals and the president are African American. They regard the Charleston tragedy as the actions of a demented psychopath who just happened to be a racist.
They believe strident demands from the Left to confront racism NOW will derail all this great progress (sic) we’ve made. They think it’s like provoking a hibernating bear or a rattlesnake by poking them with a stick. They acknowledge racism is there, but they believe if we just be quiet about it things will continue (sic again) to get better and racism will ultimately fade away on its own. I think they’re wrong — history is not on their side — but there you have it.
Regarding all the Civil War subtexts in this, I’ve also talked with a few from this country club GOP faction who are also annoyed at the turn the historical consensus has taken in the past couple of decades. Even though it’s clear to historians the Civil War was about slavery, acknowledging this means recognizing the deep and dreadful stain in our past, the effects of which persist into the present. I don’t live in the South, but I think a lot of the denial of General Grant’s pithy observation (quoted upthread) comes from that.
Of course anecdotes are not data, etc.
I think Donald Johnson touched on this upthread. But I think conservatives have a hard time dealing with violent racists because they cannot admit they themselves are racist. I mean when a violent Muslim or Marxists kills in the name of the ideology, there are millions of Marxist and Muslims saying, “Hey, no, s/he does not represent me. I am a Marxist/Muslim and I would never do that.”
Where are the racists who are saying, “Hey, no, s/he does not represent me. I am a racist and I would never do that.”
Instead, you avoid admitting that you’re a relatively non-violent racist unlike that violent radical.
I think Donald Johnson touched on this upthread. But I think conservatives have a hard time dealing with violent racists because they cannot admit they themselves are racist. I mean when a violent Muslim or Marxists kills in the name of the ideology, there are millions of Marxist and Muslims saying, “Hey, no, s/he does not represent me. I am a Marxist/Muslim and I would never do that.”
Where are the racists who are saying, “Hey, no, s/he does not represent me. I am a racist and I would never do that.”
Instead, you avoid admitting that you’re a relatively non-violent racist unlike that violent radical.
I think Donald Johnson touched on this upthread. But I think conservatives have a hard time dealing with violent racists because they cannot admit they themselves are racist. I mean when a violent Muslim or Marxists kills in the name of the ideology, there are millions of Marxist and Muslims saying, “Hey, no, s/he does not represent me. I am a Marxist/Muslim and I would never do that.”
Where are the racists who are saying, “Hey, no, s/he does not represent me. I am a racist and I would never do that.”
Instead, you avoid admitting that you’re a relatively non-violent racist unlike that violent radical.
Actually, what they say is “I’m a conservative and I would never do that.” Of course, most of them are nothing of the kind. Even though they have sold their followers on embracing the label. Beats having to stand before the world and admit what they really are.
Happily, real conservatives (i.e. those who are not radical reactionaries under a false flag) don’t have that problem. Which lets us agree that folks like Roof are racist scum. No problem — it’s reality, after all.
Now if we could just reclaim the term from those other guys….
Actually, what they say is “I’m a conservative and I would never do that.” Of course, most of them are nothing of the kind. Even though they have sold their followers on embracing the label. Beats having to stand before the world and admit what they really are.
Happily, real conservatives (i.e. those who are not radical reactionaries under a false flag) don’t have that problem. Which lets us agree that folks like Roof are racist scum. No problem — it’s reality, after all.
Now if we could just reclaim the term from those other guys….
Actually, what they say is “I’m a conservative and I would never do that.” Of course, most of them are nothing of the kind. Even though they have sold their followers on embracing the label. Beats having to stand before the world and admit what they really are.
Happily, real conservatives (i.e. those who are not radical reactionaries under a false flag) don’t have that problem. Which lets us agree that folks like Roof are racist scum. No problem — it’s reality, after all.
Now if we could just reclaim the term from those other guys….
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/22/us/campaign-donations-linked-to-white-supremacist.html?_r=0
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/22/us/campaign-donations-linked-to-white-supremacist.html?_r=0
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/22/us/campaign-donations-linked-to-white-supremacist.html?_r=0
I wonder why they don’t give that money to the Emanuel A.M.E. Church instead of refunding it?
I wonder why they don’t give that money to the Emanuel A.M.E. Church instead of refunding it?
I wonder why they don’t give that money to the Emanuel A.M.E. Church instead of refunding it?
lj: yes, I thought the same thing. Perhaps it’s in the federal rules for campaign funds, but somehow I doubt it.
lj: yes, I thought the same thing. Perhaps it’s in the federal rules for campaign funds, but somehow I doubt it.
lj: yes, I thought the same thing. Perhaps it’s in the federal rules for campaign funds, but somehow I doubt it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/22/us/campaign-donations-linked-to-white-supremacist.html?partner=socialflow&smid=tw-nytimes&_r=1
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/22/us/campaign-donations-linked-to-white-supremacist.html?partner=socialflow&smid=tw-nytimes&_r=1
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/22/us/campaign-donations-linked-to-white-supremacist.html?partner=socialflow&smid=tw-nytimes&_r=1
Oops. I did it again. I need to stop reading threads from the bottom up.
Oops. I did it again. I need to stop reading threads from the bottom up.
Oops. I did it again. I need to stop reading threads from the bottom up.
We can go on and on about the ugly history of white supremacy in America but could this Charleston tragedy really just be a ‘butterfly effect’ of George being overly curious about what Trevon was up to?
We can go on and on about the ugly history of white supremacy in America but could this Charleston tragedy really just be a ‘butterfly effect’ of George being overly curious about what Trevon was up to?
We can go on and on about the ugly history of white supremacy in America but could this Charleston tragedy really just be a ‘butterfly effect’ of George being overly curious about what Trevon was up to?
at least one of the GOP candidates has no trouble seeing the racism:
but not being a white man, he’s probably biased.
at least one of the GOP candidates has no trouble seeing the racism:
but not being a white man, he’s probably biased.
at least one of the GOP candidates has no trouble seeing the racism:
but not being a white man, he’s probably biased.
What might be the butterfly effect of following John Oliver’s advise? http://crooksandliars.com/cltv/2015/06/john-oliver-has-suggestion-states#start=8Z7VVvZK|283
What might be the butterfly effect of following John Oliver’s advise? http://crooksandliars.com/cltv/2015/06/john-oliver-has-suggestion-states#start=8Z7VVvZK|283
What might be the butterfly effect of following John Oliver’s advise? http://crooksandliars.com/cltv/2015/06/john-oliver-has-suggestion-states#start=8Z7VVvZK|283
The problem is not an excess of guns, it is a deficit of morality.
Too vague. Besides, racism is immoral, is it not? So part of that deficit is due to racism.
In some ways that’s not a very happy answer, because it’s not all that evident how you can fix a morality deficit by passing a law, and a lot of people want passing a law to be the answer to everything.
You can in fact fix a morality deficit, or at least reduce its consequences, by passing a law. Wanting to steal is immoral. Laws against theft help deter would-be thieves.
Of course law is not the only weapon, though it is a weapon. Public condemnation of immoral acts helps too. Consider that driving while drunk is surely immoral. Attitudes changed enormously over time, with the result that the practice is much less common, and certainly not admired. Indeed, the law followed, rather than led, on this issue.
So it is useful to have leaders speak out firmly and clearly, to influence public opinion, to make it clear that some things are intolerable. So let’s hear it.
The problem is not an excess of guns, it is a deficit of morality.
Too vague. Besides, racism is immoral, is it not? So part of that deficit is due to racism.
In some ways that’s not a very happy answer, because it’s not all that evident how you can fix a morality deficit by passing a law, and a lot of people want passing a law to be the answer to everything.
You can in fact fix a morality deficit, or at least reduce its consequences, by passing a law. Wanting to steal is immoral. Laws against theft help deter would-be thieves.
Of course law is not the only weapon, though it is a weapon. Public condemnation of immoral acts helps too. Consider that driving while drunk is surely immoral. Attitudes changed enormously over time, with the result that the practice is much less common, and certainly not admired. Indeed, the law followed, rather than led, on this issue.
So it is useful to have leaders speak out firmly and clearly, to influence public opinion, to make it clear that some things are intolerable. So let’s hear it.
The problem is not an excess of guns, it is a deficit of morality.
Too vague. Besides, racism is immoral, is it not? So part of that deficit is due to racism.
In some ways that’s not a very happy answer, because it’s not all that evident how you can fix a morality deficit by passing a law, and a lot of people want passing a law to be the answer to everything.
You can in fact fix a morality deficit, or at least reduce its consequences, by passing a law. Wanting to steal is immoral. Laws against theft help deter would-be thieves.
Of course law is not the only weapon, though it is a weapon. Public condemnation of immoral acts helps too. Consider that driving while drunk is surely immoral. Attitudes changed enormously over time, with the result that the practice is much less common, and certainly not admired. Indeed, the law followed, rather than led, on this issue.
So it is useful to have leaders speak out firmly and clearly, to influence public opinion, to make it clear that some things are intolerable. So let’s hear it.
jeff:
‘butterfly effect’ of George being overly curious about what Trevon was up to
… I have no idea what you’re talking about. Who’s Trevon? Who’s George?
jeff:
‘butterfly effect’ of George being overly curious about what Trevon was up to
… I have no idea what you’re talking about. Who’s Trevon? Who’s George?
jeff:
‘butterfly effect’ of George being overly curious about what Trevon was up to
… I have no idea what you’re talking about. Who’s Trevon? Who’s George?
Trayvon
sorry for being stupid this morning
Trayvon
sorry for being stupid this morning
Trayvon
sorry for being stupid this morning
at least one of the GOP candidates has no trouble seeing the racism
Which may well have something to do with Dr Carson having probably had first hand experience being on the receiving end of racism himself. (Real racism. Not the “whites are being picked on by affirmative action” kind.)
at least one of the GOP candidates has no trouble seeing the racism
Which may well have something to do with Dr Carson having probably had first hand experience being on the receiving end of racism himself. (Real racism. Not the “whites are being picked on by affirmative action” kind.)
at least one of the GOP candidates has no trouble seeing the racism
Which may well have something to do with Dr Carson having probably had first hand experience being on the receiving end of racism himself. (Real racism. Not the “whites are being picked on by affirmative action” kind.)
So it is useful to have leaders speak out firmly and clearly, to influence public opinion, to make it clear that some things are intolerable. So let’s hear it.
Maybe the thread has come full circle back to the original post, after all the meandering. This is really what it’s about, if not necessarily passing some new law or other, be it about hate crimes or gun control or whatever. It’s about leaders leading in an effort to make this a better country, or failing to do so.
If talking about race or condenming racism is seen merely as a Democratic talking point, implying that racism is a non-problem, or at least not worthy of discussion – even in the wake of a racially motivated mass shooting – is that the fault of the Democrats for talking about it, or does the fault lie elsewhere?
So it is useful to have leaders speak out firmly and clearly, to influence public opinion, to make it clear that some things are intolerable. So let’s hear it.
Maybe the thread has come full circle back to the original post, after all the meandering. This is really what it’s about, if not necessarily passing some new law or other, be it about hate crimes or gun control or whatever. It’s about leaders leading in an effort to make this a better country, or failing to do so.
If talking about race or condenming racism is seen merely as a Democratic talking point, implying that racism is a non-problem, or at least not worthy of discussion – even in the wake of a racially motivated mass shooting – is that the fault of the Democrats for talking about it, or does the fault lie elsewhere?
So it is useful to have leaders speak out firmly and clearly, to influence public opinion, to make it clear that some things are intolerable. So let’s hear it.
Maybe the thread has come full circle back to the original post, after all the meandering. This is really what it’s about, if not necessarily passing some new law or other, be it about hate crimes or gun control or whatever. It’s about leaders leading in an effort to make this a better country, or failing to do so.
If talking about race or condenming racism is seen merely as a Democratic talking point, implying that racism is a non-problem, or at least not worthy of discussion – even in the wake of a racially motivated mass shooting – is that the fault of the Democrats for talking about it, or does the fault lie elsewhere?
I suppose one reasonable statement by a Republican Presidential candidate might be the beginning of a trend, but given the utterly batsh*t lying statements that have been puking from Dr. Carson’s mouth over the past year or so, I don’t think so:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/03/ben-carson-nazi-germany-slavery_n_6263508.html
How would he rank these murders, as the third worst thing since slavery, but still edged out by a nose by Obamacare?
I suspect his campaign’s recent disarray has cocked his desperate tin ear to some clever political strategist who has advised triangulating against the tiresome, but clumsily malevolent and racist misdirections of his cohort clowns trying to get the nomination.
The Carson statement linked to by cleek has a certain polished, professional whiff of oily, Machiavellian maneuvering to it that brings to mind Francis Underwood in House of Cards.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ben-carsons-campaign-faces-turmoil-after-staff-exits-and-super-pac-chaos/2015/06/05/ce08f9b2-0ba8-11e5-a7ad-b430fc1d3f5c_story.html
If you have the facility to do so, read Carson’s statement aloud to yourselves with the unctuous (I’m going to get this right this time), false flag sincerity and charming southern lilt Kevin Spacey affects in the role of Underwood.
A Republican candidate for any office will step over or, alternatively, mourn any dead bodies he or she needs to to get their taxes eliminated and further the Civil War they declared against liberalism.
I believe Carson likes to called F.U. by his associates, just like Underwood.
I suppose one reasonable statement by a Republican Presidential candidate might be the beginning of a trend, but given the utterly batsh*t lying statements that have been puking from Dr. Carson’s mouth over the past year or so, I don’t think so:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/03/ben-carson-nazi-germany-slavery_n_6263508.html
How would he rank these murders, as the third worst thing since slavery, but still edged out by a nose by Obamacare?
I suspect his campaign’s recent disarray has cocked his desperate tin ear to some clever political strategist who has advised triangulating against the tiresome, but clumsily malevolent and racist misdirections of his cohort clowns trying to get the nomination.
The Carson statement linked to by cleek has a certain polished, professional whiff of oily, Machiavellian maneuvering to it that brings to mind Francis Underwood in House of Cards.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ben-carsons-campaign-faces-turmoil-after-staff-exits-and-super-pac-chaos/2015/06/05/ce08f9b2-0ba8-11e5-a7ad-b430fc1d3f5c_story.html
If you have the facility to do so, read Carson’s statement aloud to yourselves with the unctuous (I’m going to get this right this time), false flag sincerity and charming southern lilt Kevin Spacey affects in the role of Underwood.
A Republican candidate for any office will step over or, alternatively, mourn any dead bodies he or she needs to to get their taxes eliminated and further the Civil War they declared against liberalism.
I believe Carson likes to called F.U. by his associates, just like Underwood.
I suppose one reasonable statement by a Republican Presidential candidate might be the beginning of a trend, but given the utterly batsh*t lying statements that have been puking from Dr. Carson’s mouth over the past year or so, I don’t think so:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/03/ben-carson-nazi-germany-slavery_n_6263508.html
How would he rank these murders, as the third worst thing since slavery, but still edged out by a nose by Obamacare?
I suspect his campaign’s recent disarray has cocked his desperate tin ear to some clever political strategist who has advised triangulating against the tiresome, but clumsily malevolent and racist misdirections of his cohort clowns trying to get the nomination.
The Carson statement linked to by cleek has a certain polished, professional whiff of oily, Machiavellian maneuvering to it that brings to mind Francis Underwood in House of Cards.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ben-carsons-campaign-faces-turmoil-after-staff-exits-and-super-pac-chaos/2015/06/05/ce08f9b2-0ba8-11e5-a7ad-b430fc1d3f5c_story.html
If you have the facility to do so, read Carson’s statement aloud to yourselves with the unctuous (I’m going to get this right this time), false flag sincerity and charming southern lilt Kevin Spacey affects in the role of Underwood.
A Republican candidate for any office will step over or, alternatively, mourn any dead bodies he or she needs to to get their taxes eliminated and further the Civil War they declared against liberalism.
I believe Carson likes to called F.U. by his associates, just like Underwood.
I’m basically chalking this post up as a failed experiment.
I don’t think conservatives are uniformly racist, or likely that much more racist than any other group of people.
I think that conservatives have a particular analysis of why black (and other) people find themselves at a disadvantage in US society, and I think that analysis tends in the direction of what I would consider blaming the victim.
And think that leads not-conservative people to see conservatives as racist. And, I think that leads to a tendency toward defensiveness on their part when the topic of race comes up.
And, I *suspect* that that is the likely reason for the (to me) remarkable avoidance of discussing Roof’s obvious racism in the Charleston shootings.
But, I don’t know that, so I thought I would ask. Both because the phenomenon itself – the failure to acknowledge Roof’s obvious racism – seems so glaring to me, and also because I thought the events presented a possible opportunity to talk about how different folks here in the US see the race issue.
It was probably a bad occasion to try the “can we talk about race..?” thing, and that’s on me. Because nine people are dead. It was an error in judgement, and it was my error in judgement.
In any case, I’m chalking this up as a failed experiment, a mis-judged attempt to try to have a candid conversation about a sensitive topic.
Next time I’ll try to pick a less fraught occasion for bringing up problematic issues.
Sorry folks.
I’m basically chalking this post up as a failed experiment.
I don’t think conservatives are uniformly racist, or likely that much more racist than any other group of people.
I think that conservatives have a particular analysis of why black (and other) people find themselves at a disadvantage in US society, and I think that analysis tends in the direction of what I would consider blaming the victim.
And think that leads not-conservative people to see conservatives as racist. And, I think that leads to a tendency toward defensiveness on their part when the topic of race comes up.
And, I *suspect* that that is the likely reason for the (to me) remarkable avoidance of discussing Roof’s obvious racism in the Charleston shootings.
But, I don’t know that, so I thought I would ask. Both because the phenomenon itself – the failure to acknowledge Roof’s obvious racism – seems so glaring to me, and also because I thought the events presented a possible opportunity to talk about how different folks here in the US see the race issue.
It was probably a bad occasion to try the “can we talk about race..?” thing, and that’s on me. Because nine people are dead. It was an error in judgement, and it was my error in judgement.
In any case, I’m chalking this up as a failed experiment, a mis-judged attempt to try to have a candid conversation about a sensitive topic.
Next time I’ll try to pick a less fraught occasion for bringing up problematic issues.
Sorry folks.
I’m basically chalking this post up as a failed experiment.
I don’t think conservatives are uniformly racist, or likely that much more racist than any other group of people.
I think that conservatives have a particular analysis of why black (and other) people find themselves at a disadvantage in US society, and I think that analysis tends in the direction of what I would consider blaming the victim.
And think that leads not-conservative people to see conservatives as racist. And, I think that leads to a tendency toward defensiveness on their part when the topic of race comes up.
And, I *suspect* that that is the likely reason for the (to me) remarkable avoidance of discussing Roof’s obvious racism in the Charleston shootings.
But, I don’t know that, so I thought I would ask. Both because the phenomenon itself – the failure to acknowledge Roof’s obvious racism – seems so glaring to me, and also because I thought the events presented a possible opportunity to talk about how different folks here in the US see the race issue.
It was probably a bad occasion to try the “can we talk about race..?” thing, and that’s on me. Because nine people are dead. It was an error in judgement, and it was my error in judgement.
In any case, I’m chalking this up as a failed experiment, a mis-judged attempt to try to have a candid conversation about a sensitive topic.
Next time I’ll try to pick a less fraught occasion for bringing up problematic issues.
Sorry folks.
Roof isn’t just a racist, though he clearly is that. He is disordered. Severely disordered. Is anyone on the left acknowledging this in a meaningful way?
Conservative pundits and politicians are as much victims of their narratives as progressives are of theirs.
It is a rare conservative that can do a racial mea culpa to the general approval of progressives. Whatever is said, it isn’t enough.
If ten conservatives acknowledge that Roof was a racist, it’s those who try to fit this horror into their narrative who are the only conservatives of record.
From the left, racism, sexism and militarism are what define America, past, present and future. This is as wrong as denying that racism, sexism and militarism exist. Neither side will give, so we have this bellowing at each other across a wide abyss.
The sanctimony and opportunism from many on the left is wearing. It really is.
Roof isn’t just a racist, though he clearly is that. He is disordered. Severely disordered. Is anyone on the left acknowledging this in a meaningful way?
Conservative pundits and politicians are as much victims of their narratives as progressives are of theirs.
It is a rare conservative that can do a racial mea culpa to the general approval of progressives. Whatever is said, it isn’t enough.
If ten conservatives acknowledge that Roof was a racist, it’s those who try to fit this horror into their narrative who are the only conservatives of record.
From the left, racism, sexism and militarism are what define America, past, present and future. This is as wrong as denying that racism, sexism and militarism exist. Neither side will give, so we have this bellowing at each other across a wide abyss.
The sanctimony and opportunism from many on the left is wearing. It really is.
Roof isn’t just a racist, though he clearly is that. He is disordered. Severely disordered. Is anyone on the left acknowledging this in a meaningful way?
Conservative pundits and politicians are as much victims of their narratives as progressives are of theirs.
It is a rare conservative that can do a racial mea culpa to the general approval of progressives. Whatever is said, it isn’t enough.
If ten conservatives acknowledge that Roof was a racist, it’s those who try to fit this horror into their narrative who are the only conservatives of record.
From the left, racism, sexism and militarism are what define America, past, present and future. This is as wrong as denying that racism, sexism and militarism exist. Neither side will give, so we have this bellowing at each other across a wide abyss.
The sanctimony and opportunism from many on the left is wearing. It really is.
Yes, Roof is a messed up individual. I’m not sure anyone neglected to acknowledge that, nor do I hear anyone saying the he is typical of conservatives.
I sure as hell am not doing so.
The sanctimony and opportunism from many on the left is wearing. It really is.
I’ll just speak for myself.
This post was my best shot at trying to talk about out differing understandings of the problem of race in the US, without pointing fingers, and without making any assumptions or judgements.
I found the failure to at least acknowledge Roof’s racism among prominent conservatives to be remarkable, so I wanted to ask about it.
It wasn’t a trick question, or a “gotcha” opportunity. It was, simply, me saying “this is weird”, and me asking “can somebody talk about this?”.
In general, I think the country is profoundly divided, and I think it’s nigh unto impossible to have anything remotely approaching a candid conversation without everybody thinking the other parties are being some version of assholes.
Sometimes my understanding of things is incorrect, so I thought I’d give it a shot.
My first instinct appears to have been correct, this just isn’t a topic we can talk about. At least not today.
More and more I think the whole USA project may be somewhat past it’s sell-by date. It might be time to carve it up into regional entities that can at least find enough internal agreement to get the basic functions of public life done.
I know I sure am sick of arguing about the stupid crap that we all seem to end up arguing about.
We won’t get to be a superpower anymore, but you can’t have everything. I’d be happy just to keep the bridges from falling down without having to have a great big freaking argument about it.
In any case, apologies for pushing folks’ buttons, it was not intended. It just seemed like an obvious question to ask.
Yes, Roof is a messed up individual. I’m not sure anyone neglected to acknowledge that, nor do I hear anyone saying the he is typical of conservatives.
I sure as hell am not doing so.
The sanctimony and opportunism from many on the left is wearing. It really is.
I’ll just speak for myself.
This post was my best shot at trying to talk about out differing understandings of the problem of race in the US, without pointing fingers, and without making any assumptions or judgements.
I found the failure to at least acknowledge Roof’s racism among prominent conservatives to be remarkable, so I wanted to ask about it.
It wasn’t a trick question, or a “gotcha” opportunity. It was, simply, me saying “this is weird”, and me asking “can somebody talk about this?”.
In general, I think the country is profoundly divided, and I think it’s nigh unto impossible to have anything remotely approaching a candid conversation without everybody thinking the other parties are being some version of assholes.
Sometimes my understanding of things is incorrect, so I thought I’d give it a shot.
My first instinct appears to have been correct, this just isn’t a topic we can talk about. At least not today.
More and more I think the whole USA project may be somewhat past it’s sell-by date. It might be time to carve it up into regional entities that can at least find enough internal agreement to get the basic functions of public life done.
I know I sure am sick of arguing about the stupid crap that we all seem to end up arguing about.
We won’t get to be a superpower anymore, but you can’t have everything. I’d be happy just to keep the bridges from falling down without having to have a great big freaking argument about it.
In any case, apologies for pushing folks’ buttons, it was not intended. It just seemed like an obvious question to ask.
Yes, Roof is a messed up individual. I’m not sure anyone neglected to acknowledge that, nor do I hear anyone saying the he is typical of conservatives.
I sure as hell am not doing so.
The sanctimony and opportunism from many on the left is wearing. It really is.
I’ll just speak for myself.
This post was my best shot at trying to talk about out differing understandings of the problem of race in the US, without pointing fingers, and without making any assumptions or judgements.
I found the failure to at least acknowledge Roof’s racism among prominent conservatives to be remarkable, so I wanted to ask about it.
It wasn’t a trick question, or a “gotcha” opportunity. It was, simply, me saying “this is weird”, and me asking “can somebody talk about this?”.
In general, I think the country is profoundly divided, and I think it’s nigh unto impossible to have anything remotely approaching a candid conversation without everybody thinking the other parties are being some version of assholes.
Sometimes my understanding of things is incorrect, so I thought I’d give it a shot.
My first instinct appears to have been correct, this just isn’t a topic we can talk about. At least not today.
More and more I think the whole USA project may be somewhat past it’s sell-by date. It might be time to carve it up into regional entities that can at least find enough internal agreement to get the basic functions of public life done.
I know I sure am sick of arguing about the stupid crap that we all seem to end up arguing about.
We won’t get to be a superpower anymore, but you can’t have everything. I’d be happy just to keep the bridges from falling down without having to have a great big freaking argument about it.
In any case, apologies for pushing folks’ buttons, it was not intended. It just seemed like an obvious question to ask.
He is disordered. Severely disordered. Is anyone on the left acknowledging this in a meaningful way?
anyone who kills a stranger for no [good] reason can be fairly described as ‘disordered’. personally, i think that goes without saying.
but the stats tell us we are up to our holsters in disordered individual, here in the US. since 2001, we are seeing a mass shooting every 64 days, on average.
so, that’s a problem. one we’re not allowed to discuss because “conservatives” need their guns.
so, that off the table, what else is there to say about Roof? well, in addition to being disordered, Roof is a vocal racist.
but “conservatives” don’t want to talk about that either. they, just as Brett did and just as you are, deflect back to their favorite target: the left.
He is disordered. Severely disordered. Is anyone on the left acknowledging this in a meaningful way?
anyone who kills a stranger for no [good] reason can be fairly described as ‘disordered’. personally, i think that goes without saying.
but the stats tell us we are up to our holsters in disordered individual, here in the US. since 2001, we are seeing a mass shooting every 64 days, on average.
so, that’s a problem. one we’re not allowed to discuss because “conservatives” need their guns.
so, that off the table, what else is there to say about Roof? well, in addition to being disordered, Roof is a vocal racist.
but “conservatives” don’t want to talk about that either. they, just as Brett did and just as you are, deflect back to their favorite target: the left.
He is disordered. Severely disordered. Is anyone on the left acknowledging this in a meaningful way?
anyone who kills a stranger for no [good] reason can be fairly described as ‘disordered’. personally, i think that goes without saying.
but the stats tell us we are up to our holsters in disordered individual, here in the US. since 2001, we are seeing a mass shooting every 64 days, on average.
so, that’s a problem. one we’re not allowed to discuss because “conservatives” need their guns.
so, that off the table, what else is there to say about Roof? well, in addition to being disordered, Roof is a vocal racist.
but “conservatives” don’t want to talk about that either. they, just as Brett did and just as you are, deflect back to their favorite target: the left.
I have seen no reaction from the left denying that the kid* was eff’ed up. What I have seen is a refusal (on the left) to reduce the whole affair to him being that and the opposite from parts of the Right.
The mainstream analyis was afaict that we have a kid with severe personal issues that got fed dangerous racist crap and (independently) got handed a gun by someone who knew** that he had issues.
Unstable person, given a target and given the means => Kaboom! aka The Fire Triangle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_triangle)
Absent the racist poison he might have killed himself or ‘just’ some relatives, absent a gun he might have stuck to racist rants or hitting (weaker) blacks in the face (and absent the personal issues we would have probably never heard of him at all unless he ran for office as part of some RW outfit).
*I know that he is not a teenager anymore
**according to statements on record by said person
I have seen no reaction from the left denying that the kid* was eff’ed up. What I have seen is a refusal (on the left) to reduce the whole affair to him being that and the opposite from parts of the Right.
The mainstream analyis was afaict that we have a kid with severe personal issues that got fed dangerous racist crap and (independently) got handed a gun by someone who knew** that he had issues.
Unstable person, given a target and given the means => Kaboom! aka The Fire Triangle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_triangle)
Absent the racist poison he might have killed himself or ‘just’ some relatives, absent a gun he might have stuck to racist rants or hitting (weaker) blacks in the face (and absent the personal issues we would have probably never heard of him at all unless he ran for office as part of some RW outfit).
*I know that he is not a teenager anymore
**according to statements on record by said person
I have seen no reaction from the left denying that the kid* was eff’ed up. What I have seen is a refusal (on the left) to reduce the whole affair to him being that and the opposite from parts of the Right.
The mainstream analyis was afaict that we have a kid with severe personal issues that got fed dangerous racist crap and (independently) got handed a gun by someone who knew** that he had issues.
Unstable person, given a target and given the means => Kaboom! aka The Fire Triangle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_triangle)
Absent the racist poison he might have killed himself or ‘just’ some relatives, absent a gun he might have stuck to racist rants or hitting (weaker) blacks in the face (and absent the personal issues we would have probably never heard of him at all unless he ran for office as part of some RW outfit).
*I know that he is not a teenager anymore
**according to statements on record by said person
The sanctimony and opportunism from many on the left is wearing. It really is.
Well, then…we musts be winning! 😉
Nice try, though, Russell. Perhaps the question was framed in such a way as to put conservatives immediately on the defensive…so, no movement. The reparations thread was better in this regard.
And tex, it goes both ways. Really, it does. Give it some thought.
Hope you enjoyed finish at Chambers.
The sanctimony and opportunism from many on the left is wearing. It really is.
Well, then…we musts be winning! 😉
Nice try, though, Russell. Perhaps the question was framed in such a way as to put conservatives immediately on the defensive…so, no movement. The reparations thread was better in this regard.
And tex, it goes both ways. Really, it does. Give it some thought.
Hope you enjoyed finish at Chambers.
The sanctimony and opportunism from many on the left is wearing. It really is.
Well, then…we musts be winning! 😉
Nice try, though, Russell. Perhaps the question was framed in such a way as to put conservatives immediately on the defensive…so, no movement. The reparations thread was better in this regard.
And tex, it goes both ways. Really, it does. Give it some thought.
Hope you enjoyed finish at Chambers.
What I got out of this discussion is that everybody agrees that Roof was crazy (however they phrased that diagnosis). Because no matter what your opinions are, on any subject, sane people just don’t go out and kill a bunch of other people. (Wars possibly excluded.)
However some (but only some) conservatives seem to have a problem saying that he was also a racist. Other conservatives are definitely saying that he was. Still, as the original post noted, a lot of the Republicans running for their party’s Presidential nomination seem to be having a lot of trouble figuring out what to say and how. Indeed, some of them are trying to blame anything but racism for his actions.
It also should be noted that there are conservatives who are making that same point: that anyone who wants to be President ought to be acknowledging that racism was a major factor. And condemning that racism.
What I got out of this discussion is that everybody agrees that Roof was crazy (however they phrased that diagnosis). Because no matter what your opinions are, on any subject, sane people just don’t go out and kill a bunch of other people. (Wars possibly excluded.)
However some (but only some) conservatives seem to have a problem saying that he was also a racist. Other conservatives are definitely saying that he was. Still, as the original post noted, a lot of the Republicans running for their party’s Presidential nomination seem to be having a lot of trouble figuring out what to say and how. Indeed, some of them are trying to blame anything but racism for his actions.
It also should be noted that there are conservatives who are making that same point: that anyone who wants to be President ought to be acknowledging that racism was a major factor. And condemning that racism.
What I got out of this discussion is that everybody agrees that Roof was crazy (however they phrased that diagnosis). Because no matter what your opinions are, on any subject, sane people just don’t go out and kill a bunch of other people. (Wars possibly excluded.)
However some (but only some) conservatives seem to have a problem saying that he was also a racist. Other conservatives are definitely saying that he was. Still, as the original post noted, a lot of the Republicans running for their party’s Presidential nomination seem to be having a lot of trouble figuring out what to say and how. Indeed, some of them are trying to blame anything but racism for his actions.
It also should be noted that there are conservatives who are making that same point: that anyone who wants to be President ought to be acknowledging that racism was a major factor. And condemning that racism.
It also should be noted that there are conservatives who are making that same point
So noted.
Thanks wj.
It also should be noted that there are conservatives who are making that same point
So noted.
Thanks wj.
It also should be noted that there are conservatives who are making that same point
So noted.
Thanks wj.
Because no matter what your opinions are, on any subject, sane people just don’t go out and kill a bunch of other people. (Wars possibly excluded.)
…except there’s no “possibly” about this as far as American popular opinion is concerned. There is a unequivocal and oft-stated opinion in the US, certainly loudest on the right, that it is absolutely not a priori “disordered”, let alone “severely disordered”, to hold the opinion that there are classes of people who need to be killed, and wanting to be the one to kill them may therefore be presented as wanting to do one’s duty so long as one isn’t so impolitic as to openly make a connection between wanting to do their duty and the uncomfortable fact that they’re hold their duty to be largely or foremost said killing. There is sometimes a countervailing opinion accompanying opinion that it’s still good and just and right to want the people “needing” killed to be killed, but anyone who does the killing is necessarily damaged if not disordered… but that’s a view that is more widely held on the left than the right, and in fact is sometimes used by the right as a bludgeon against real or imagined leftist anti-military/”anti-troop” sentiments; on the right it is more typical to reserve such judgement until and unless an individual is so gauche as to express an explicit desire to carry out the killing rather than simply a willingness (even if they define killing those who “need to die” as part of their duty, and show enthusiasm for “doing their duty”).
So no, I can’t agree with the assertion that everyone agrees only “deranged” individuals kill or want to kill. I flat-out deny that assertion. I personally feel that at a minimum anyone who desires and is willing to kill other people has a dearth of empathy and has successfully dehumanized certain categories of people, but sadly that really is a pretty normal way of thinking, and not in and of itself held to be “disordered” unless the individual doesn’t limit themself to dehumanizing socially acceptable targets.
Because no matter what your opinions are, on any subject, sane people just don’t go out and kill a bunch of other people. (Wars possibly excluded.)
…except there’s no “possibly” about this as far as American popular opinion is concerned. There is a unequivocal and oft-stated opinion in the US, certainly loudest on the right, that it is absolutely not a priori “disordered”, let alone “severely disordered”, to hold the opinion that there are classes of people who need to be killed, and wanting to be the one to kill them may therefore be presented as wanting to do one’s duty so long as one isn’t so impolitic as to openly make a connection between wanting to do their duty and the uncomfortable fact that they’re hold their duty to be largely or foremost said killing. There is sometimes a countervailing opinion accompanying opinion that it’s still good and just and right to want the people “needing” killed to be killed, but anyone who does the killing is necessarily damaged if not disordered… but that’s a view that is more widely held on the left than the right, and in fact is sometimes used by the right as a bludgeon against real or imagined leftist anti-military/”anti-troop” sentiments; on the right it is more typical to reserve such judgement until and unless an individual is so gauche as to express an explicit desire to carry out the killing rather than simply a willingness (even if they define killing those who “need to die” as part of their duty, and show enthusiasm for “doing their duty”).
So no, I can’t agree with the assertion that everyone agrees only “deranged” individuals kill or want to kill. I flat-out deny that assertion. I personally feel that at a minimum anyone who desires and is willing to kill other people has a dearth of empathy and has successfully dehumanized certain categories of people, but sadly that really is a pretty normal way of thinking, and not in and of itself held to be “disordered” unless the individual doesn’t limit themself to dehumanizing socially acceptable targets.
Because no matter what your opinions are, on any subject, sane people just don’t go out and kill a bunch of other people. (Wars possibly excluded.)
…except there’s no “possibly” about this as far as American popular opinion is concerned. There is a unequivocal and oft-stated opinion in the US, certainly loudest on the right, that it is absolutely not a priori “disordered”, let alone “severely disordered”, to hold the opinion that there are classes of people who need to be killed, and wanting to be the one to kill them may therefore be presented as wanting to do one’s duty so long as one isn’t so impolitic as to openly make a connection between wanting to do their duty and the uncomfortable fact that they’re hold their duty to be largely or foremost said killing. There is sometimes a countervailing opinion accompanying opinion that it’s still good and just and right to want the people “needing” killed to be killed, but anyone who does the killing is necessarily damaged if not disordered… but that’s a view that is more widely held on the left than the right, and in fact is sometimes used by the right as a bludgeon against real or imagined leftist anti-military/”anti-troop” sentiments; on the right it is more typical to reserve such judgement until and unless an individual is so gauche as to express an explicit desire to carry out the killing rather than simply a willingness (even if they define killing those who “need to die” as part of their duty, and show enthusiasm for “doing their duty”).
So no, I can’t agree with the assertion that everyone agrees only “deranged” individuals kill or want to kill. I flat-out deny that assertion. I personally feel that at a minimum anyone who desires and is willing to kill other people has a dearth of empathy and has successfully dehumanized certain categories of people, but sadly that really is a pretty normal way of thinking, and not in and of itself held to be “disordered” unless the individual doesn’t limit themself to dehumanizing socially acceptable targets.
“I found the failure to at least acknowledge Roof’s racism among prominent conservatives to be remarkable, so I wanted to ask about it.”
Problem being you never showed a single example of someone not acknowledging it. Days later. When asked you said you wouldn’t google. I did, didn’t find anyone not acknowledging it. So you found what you wanted, or someone else wanted you to.
“I found the failure to at least acknowledge Roof’s racism among prominent conservatives to be remarkable, so I wanted to ask about it.”
Problem being you never showed a single example of someone not acknowledging it. Days later. When asked you said you wouldn’t google. I did, didn’t find anyone not acknowledging it. So you found what you wanted, or someone else wanted you to.
“I found the failure to at least acknowledge Roof’s racism among prominent conservatives to be remarkable, so I wanted to ask about it.”
Problem being you never showed a single example of someone not acknowledging it. Days later. When asked you said you wouldn’t google. I did, didn’t find anyone not acknowledging it. So you found what you wanted, or someone else wanted you to.
NV, all I was trying to say was that some people think that killing a bunch of other people is always wrong, while others would make an exception for at least some wars. (And, admittedly, some glorify war to the point that they would like to start more so that more of those they dislike/fear can be killed.)
I admit that there is at least some difference, when discussing the topic, between “wrong” and “deranged.” But not, I suspect, an enormous difference — especially in the minds of those opposed to wars.
NV, all I was trying to say was that some people think that killing a bunch of other people is always wrong, while others would make an exception for at least some wars. (And, admittedly, some glorify war to the point that they would like to start more so that more of those they dislike/fear can be killed.)
I admit that there is at least some difference, when discussing the topic, between “wrong” and “deranged.” But not, I suspect, an enormous difference — especially in the minds of those opposed to wars.
NV, all I was trying to say was that some people think that killing a bunch of other people is always wrong, while others would make an exception for at least some wars. (And, admittedly, some glorify war to the point that they would like to start more so that more of those they dislike/fear can be killed.)
I admit that there is at least some difference, when discussing the topic, between “wrong” and “deranged.” But not, I suspect, an enormous difference — especially in the minds of those opposed to wars.
Problem being you never showed a single example of someone not acknowledging it.
presuming Ben Carson isn’t a liberal stooge, who is he talking about in his USA Today op-ed ?
Problem being you never showed a single example of someone not acknowledging it.
presuming Ben Carson isn’t a liberal stooge, who is he talking about in his USA Today op-ed ?
Problem being you never showed a single example of someone not acknowledging it.
presuming Ben Carson isn’t a liberal stooge, who is he talking about in his USA Today op-ed ?
Well, my point was an overly-long statement that it’s common for a lot of the US to view the killing of “bad people” as not just acceptable, but desirable or even noble. I really find it difficult to believe the occurrence of such thought would be viewed as uncommon (albeit likely fairly unreflective). And once we’ve conceded that there exist “bad people” who need to be killed, unless we’re openly condemning those who would volunteer to carry out such acts (whether possibly or definitely), well… we’ve already established that it’s acceptable and within normal bounds of mental health to volunteer to kill people; we’re just quibbling over which people need killed.
Well, my point was an overly-long statement that it’s common for a lot of the US to view the killing of “bad people” as not just acceptable, but desirable or even noble. I really find it difficult to believe the occurrence of such thought would be viewed as uncommon (albeit likely fairly unreflective). And once we’ve conceded that there exist “bad people” who need to be killed, unless we’re openly condemning those who would volunteer to carry out such acts (whether possibly or definitely), well… we’ve already established that it’s acceptable and within normal bounds of mental health to volunteer to kill people; we’re just quibbling over which people need killed.
Well, my point was an overly-long statement that it’s common for a lot of the US to view the killing of “bad people” as not just acceptable, but desirable or even noble. I really find it difficult to believe the occurrence of such thought would be viewed as uncommon (albeit likely fairly unreflective). And once we’ve conceded that there exist “bad people” who need to be killed, unless we’re openly condemning those who would volunteer to carry out such acts (whether possibly or definitely), well… we’ve already established that it’s acceptable and within normal bounds of mental health to volunteer to kill people; we’re just quibbling over which people need killed.
Conservative leadership on racism would sound like: “We don’t want racists in our party. We don’t want their vote, we don’t want their donations, we don’t want THEM. They are invited to take hold of their favorite handgun and self-deport to Hel.”
What one hears is very different.
Conservative leadership on racism would sound like: “We don’t want racists in our party. We don’t want their vote, we don’t want their donations, we don’t want THEM. They are invited to take hold of their favorite handgun and self-deport to Hel.”
What one hears is very different.
Conservative leadership on racism would sound like: “We don’t want racists in our party. We don’t want their vote, we don’t want their donations, we don’t want THEM. They are invited to take hold of their favorite handgun and self-deport to Hel.”
What one hears is very different.
Problem being you never showed a single example of someone not acknowledging it. Days later
Seriously, is that the objection?
Lindsey Graham stated that, while there were racists, Roof wasn’t motivated by racism, but was just a messed up kid.
Rick Perry started out with it being an “accident”, then figured out that it was a hate crime after a day or two.
Huckabee thought that what was really needed was more good guys with guns.
Santorum pronounced the attack an “assault on religious liberty”.
Rubio and Paul didn’t say much of anything other than that they were sad and upset.
Over on Fox and Friends, they were all about the assault on religion, but didn’t want to “jump to any conclusions” about the race aspect.
Ted Cruz and Jeb Bush acknowledged that there was a racial aspect to the killing.
I didn’t go Google all of this up for you all because it hardly seemed like something that needed doing.
Wrong again.
In any case, I’m done with this topic. I’m kinda feeling done with the whole “let’s try to have a conversation and understand each other” project, to be honest.
After trying to have these same conversations for almost fifteen years now, I’m tired of having to demonstrate, over and over and over again, that I’m not trying to trick anybody or call anybody names.
Prominent conservatives had many things to say about the Charleston shootings. Bush and Cruz managed to acknowledge that Roof was motivated by race. Carlson was the only one who expressed any sense that the killing was related in any way to broader issues of race in society.
I found that curious, so I asked the freaking question.
You all don’t want to discuss it beyond saying (a) the problem doesn’t exist, (b) I’m just making the whole thing up, or (c) you lefties are a bunch of superior self-righteous assholes.
So, f*** it. Let’s talk about recipes.
Over and out.
Problem being you never showed a single example of someone not acknowledging it. Days later
Seriously, is that the objection?
Lindsey Graham stated that, while there were racists, Roof wasn’t motivated by racism, but was just a messed up kid.
Rick Perry started out with it being an “accident”, then figured out that it was a hate crime after a day or two.
Huckabee thought that what was really needed was more good guys with guns.
Santorum pronounced the attack an “assault on religious liberty”.
Rubio and Paul didn’t say much of anything other than that they were sad and upset.
Over on Fox and Friends, they were all about the assault on religion, but didn’t want to “jump to any conclusions” about the race aspect.
Ted Cruz and Jeb Bush acknowledged that there was a racial aspect to the killing.
I didn’t go Google all of this up for you all because it hardly seemed like something that needed doing.
Wrong again.
In any case, I’m done with this topic. I’m kinda feeling done with the whole “let’s try to have a conversation and understand each other” project, to be honest.
After trying to have these same conversations for almost fifteen years now, I’m tired of having to demonstrate, over and over and over again, that I’m not trying to trick anybody or call anybody names.
Prominent conservatives had many things to say about the Charleston shootings. Bush and Cruz managed to acknowledge that Roof was motivated by race. Carlson was the only one who expressed any sense that the killing was related in any way to broader issues of race in society.
I found that curious, so I asked the freaking question.
You all don’t want to discuss it beyond saying (a) the problem doesn’t exist, (b) I’m just making the whole thing up, or (c) you lefties are a bunch of superior self-righteous assholes.
So, f*** it. Let’s talk about recipes.
Over and out.
Problem being you never showed a single example of someone not acknowledging it. Days later
Seriously, is that the objection?
Lindsey Graham stated that, while there were racists, Roof wasn’t motivated by racism, but was just a messed up kid.
Rick Perry started out with it being an “accident”, then figured out that it was a hate crime after a day or two.
Huckabee thought that what was really needed was more good guys with guns.
Santorum pronounced the attack an “assault on religious liberty”.
Rubio and Paul didn’t say much of anything other than that they were sad and upset.
Over on Fox and Friends, they were all about the assault on religion, but didn’t want to “jump to any conclusions” about the race aspect.
Ted Cruz and Jeb Bush acknowledged that there was a racial aspect to the killing.
I didn’t go Google all of this up for you all because it hardly seemed like something that needed doing.
Wrong again.
In any case, I’m done with this topic. I’m kinda feeling done with the whole “let’s try to have a conversation and understand each other” project, to be honest.
After trying to have these same conversations for almost fifteen years now, I’m tired of having to demonstrate, over and over and over again, that I’m not trying to trick anybody or call anybody names.
Prominent conservatives had many things to say about the Charleston shootings. Bush and Cruz managed to acknowledge that Roof was motivated by race. Carlson was the only one who expressed any sense that the killing was related in any way to broader issues of race in society.
I found that curious, so I asked the freaking question.
You all don’t want to discuss it beyond saying (a) the problem doesn’t exist, (b) I’m just making the whole thing up, or (c) you lefties are a bunch of superior self-righteous assholes.
So, f*** it. Let’s talk about recipes.
Over and out.
Even Ben Carson accused some of his fellow Republican presidential candidates of dancing around the part that race played in those murders. I think it’s safe to assume that his perception is not based on his being a liberal.
Brett’s constant refrain “I know you are but what am I” as he changes the subject on thread after thread “but what about the knockout game?” takes me right back to junior high–and that’s a heck of a long distance to travel at this point.
Even Ben Carson accused some of his fellow Republican presidential candidates of dancing around the part that race played in those murders. I think it’s safe to assume that his perception is not based on his being a liberal.
Brett’s constant refrain “I know you are but what am I” as he changes the subject on thread after thread “but what about the knockout game?” takes me right back to junior high–and that’s a heck of a long distance to travel at this point.
Even Ben Carson accused some of his fellow Republican presidential candidates of dancing around the part that race played in those murders. I think it’s safe to assume that his perception is not based on his being a liberal.
Brett’s constant refrain “I know you are but what am I” as he changes the subject on thread after thread “but what about the knockout game?” takes me right back to junior high–and that’s a heck of a long distance to travel at this point.
Cleek, you see an attack on the left every time someone parts from leftish orthodoxy. I’m happy to debate gun control. Tell me your plan and I’ll tell you why it won’t work unless you propose wholesale confiscation. Even that won’t work, but it would come the closest.
Hartmut et al–f’d up and severely disordered are separate concepts. Mel Gibson is f’d up. “Severely disorderd” is a clinical diagnosis. Some severely disordered people will kill X number of people for whatever reason. Here, the reason was race. If Roof had grown up being taught and believing that racism was the worst thing in the world, but if he was still severely disordered, his victims might have looked a lot more like conservatives than African Americans.
BP, I agree it goes both ways. I think a part of the right’ish narrative makes acknowledging racism very difficult. There are a lot of reasons for this, some being pretty venal. This was the discussion that Russell wanted to have, albeit he wanted a one-sided discussion. As you point out, both sides do it. A lot of Republican reticence has its roots in liberal rhetoric (and vice versa) but that was defined as off limits. The discussion got sidetracked for various reasons, some of which I alluded to above.
I’m conflicted on the finish. I am a Spieth and a Johnson fan. Johnson seems to have cleaned up his act, which I respect, and I’ve always admired his equanimity in the face that chickenshit at Whistling Straits. I’d much rather see someone win a tournament with a great shot than lose it when he should win or force a play off.
You’ve played Chambers, I assume. The course looked pretty ragged to me. What’s the story there?
we’ve already established that it’s acceptable and within normal bounds of mental health to volunteer to kill people; we’re just quibbling over which people need killed.
I probably should have quoted the entire thing. Seriously? What are you getting at? There are bad people (Osama Bin Laden) who need to be brought to justice. Does that make the people who volunteer to do so no different than Roof? If that is not what you are saying, then who are these ‘bad people’ and who is volunteering to kill them?
Cleek, you see an attack on the left every time someone parts from leftish orthodoxy. I’m happy to debate gun control. Tell me your plan and I’ll tell you why it won’t work unless you propose wholesale confiscation. Even that won’t work, but it would come the closest.
Hartmut et al–f’d up and severely disordered are separate concepts. Mel Gibson is f’d up. “Severely disorderd” is a clinical diagnosis. Some severely disordered people will kill X number of people for whatever reason. Here, the reason was race. If Roof had grown up being taught and believing that racism was the worst thing in the world, but if he was still severely disordered, his victims might have looked a lot more like conservatives than African Americans.
BP, I agree it goes both ways. I think a part of the right’ish narrative makes acknowledging racism very difficult. There are a lot of reasons for this, some being pretty venal. This was the discussion that Russell wanted to have, albeit he wanted a one-sided discussion. As you point out, both sides do it. A lot of Republican reticence has its roots in liberal rhetoric (and vice versa) but that was defined as off limits. The discussion got sidetracked for various reasons, some of which I alluded to above.
I’m conflicted on the finish. I am a Spieth and a Johnson fan. Johnson seems to have cleaned up his act, which I respect, and I’ve always admired his equanimity in the face that chickenshit at Whistling Straits. I’d much rather see someone win a tournament with a great shot than lose it when he should win or force a play off.
You’ve played Chambers, I assume. The course looked pretty ragged to me. What’s the story there?
we’ve already established that it’s acceptable and within normal bounds of mental health to volunteer to kill people; we’re just quibbling over which people need killed.
I probably should have quoted the entire thing. Seriously? What are you getting at? There are bad people (Osama Bin Laden) who need to be brought to justice. Does that make the people who volunteer to do so no different than Roof? If that is not what you are saying, then who are these ‘bad people’ and who is volunteering to kill them?
Cleek, you see an attack on the left every time someone parts from leftish orthodoxy. I’m happy to debate gun control. Tell me your plan and I’ll tell you why it won’t work unless you propose wholesale confiscation. Even that won’t work, but it would come the closest.
Hartmut et al–f’d up and severely disordered are separate concepts. Mel Gibson is f’d up. “Severely disorderd” is a clinical diagnosis. Some severely disordered people will kill X number of people for whatever reason. Here, the reason was race. If Roof had grown up being taught and believing that racism was the worst thing in the world, but if he was still severely disordered, his victims might have looked a lot more like conservatives than African Americans.
BP, I agree it goes both ways. I think a part of the right’ish narrative makes acknowledging racism very difficult. There are a lot of reasons for this, some being pretty venal. This was the discussion that Russell wanted to have, albeit he wanted a one-sided discussion. As you point out, both sides do it. A lot of Republican reticence has its roots in liberal rhetoric (and vice versa) but that was defined as off limits. The discussion got sidetracked for various reasons, some of which I alluded to above.
I’m conflicted on the finish. I am a Spieth and a Johnson fan. Johnson seems to have cleaned up his act, which I respect, and I’ve always admired his equanimity in the face that chickenshit at Whistling Straits. I’d much rather see someone win a tournament with a great shot than lose it when he should win or force a play off.
You’ve played Chambers, I assume. The course looked pretty ragged to me. What’s the story there?
we’ve already established that it’s acceptable and within normal bounds of mental health to volunteer to kill people; we’re just quibbling over which people need killed.
I probably should have quoted the entire thing. Seriously? What are you getting at? There are bad people (Osama Bin Laden) who need to be brought to justice. Does that make the people who volunteer to do so no different than Roof? If that is not what you are saying, then who are these ‘bad people’ and who is volunteering to kill them?
Snarki, I agree.
Liberal leadership on racism would sound like: racism is a fact of life. Much less so today than at any time in our past, but still a fact of life. Today, racism along with a truly sick mind produced another tragedy in a long list of tragedies. We mourn that tragedy and extend our hands to those victims. But, for those who seek to advance other interests using this as their lever, we say no. We will not exploit emotions to score policy or political points. Further, we say, this is America. Few people face an obstacle-free life. Racism is a fact, but it is not an excuse nor is it insurmountable. Millions of Americans, despite or regardless of skin color, have realized the American dream. What happened today or fifty years ago or 200 years ago is no excuse for any American to ignore the opportunity this country offers, from free education to freedom itself.
Snarki, I agree.
Liberal leadership on racism would sound like: racism is a fact of life. Much less so today than at any time in our past, but still a fact of life. Today, racism along with a truly sick mind produced another tragedy in a long list of tragedies. We mourn that tragedy and extend our hands to those victims. But, for those who seek to advance other interests using this as their lever, we say no. We will not exploit emotions to score policy or political points. Further, we say, this is America. Few people face an obstacle-free life. Racism is a fact, but it is not an excuse nor is it insurmountable. Millions of Americans, despite or regardless of skin color, have realized the American dream. What happened today or fifty years ago or 200 years ago is no excuse for any American to ignore the opportunity this country offers, from free education to freedom itself.
Snarki, I agree.
Liberal leadership on racism would sound like: racism is a fact of life. Much less so today than at any time in our past, but still a fact of life. Today, racism along with a truly sick mind produced another tragedy in a long list of tragedies. We mourn that tragedy and extend our hands to those victims. But, for those who seek to advance other interests using this as their lever, we say no. We will not exploit emotions to score policy or political points. Further, we say, this is America. Few people face an obstacle-free life. Racism is a fact, but it is not an excuse nor is it insurmountable. Millions of Americans, despite or regardless of skin color, have realized the American dream. What happened today or fifty years ago or 200 years ago is no excuse for any American to ignore the opportunity this country offers, from free education to freedom itself.
Cleek, you see an attack on the left every time someone parts from leftish orthodoxy.
seems unlikely. but, you know me better than i do, so who’s to argue?
Cleek, you see an attack on the left every time someone parts from leftish orthodoxy.
seems unlikely. but, you know me better than i do, so who’s to argue?
Cleek, you see an attack on the left every time someone parts from leftish orthodoxy.
seems unlikely. but, you know me better than i do, so who’s to argue?
This was the discussion that Russell wanted to have, albeit he wanted a one-sided discussion.
Bullshit.
If you have something to say, say it. Don’t tell me what I think.
If you find something I say objectionable, explain your objection. Or, maybe even extend the benefit of the doubt and assume, for one tiny moment, based on years of interaction here, that I might be acting in good faith, and ask me to unpack what I’m saying to see if in fact whether I’m really being a jerk, or you’re just misunderstanding me.
Right?
How many times do I have to make this simple request?
Don’t try to read my mind, because you can’t. Don’t make assumptions about my secret intentions and motivations, because they probably don’t exist.
I’m here because the topics that get discussed here are important to me, and I’d like to try to have a conversation with people who *don’t agree with me*.
If I wanted to just blab away and have everybody say “amen” I’d hang out somewhere else.
Believe it or not, this *is not* a knee-jerk liberal joint.
Did you read the freaking original post? How many times and how many ways do I have to state that I’m *not* trying to call anybody racist, and *not* trying to play “gotcha”, and *not* making any assumptions about anybody’s motives or point of view?
I just don’t think this is a topic that folks can talk about. Period.
So be it.
This was the discussion that Russell wanted to have, albeit he wanted a one-sided discussion.
Bullshit.
If you have something to say, say it. Don’t tell me what I think.
If you find something I say objectionable, explain your objection. Or, maybe even extend the benefit of the doubt and assume, for one tiny moment, based on years of interaction here, that I might be acting in good faith, and ask me to unpack what I’m saying to see if in fact whether I’m really being a jerk, or you’re just misunderstanding me.
Right?
How many times do I have to make this simple request?
Don’t try to read my mind, because you can’t. Don’t make assumptions about my secret intentions and motivations, because they probably don’t exist.
I’m here because the topics that get discussed here are important to me, and I’d like to try to have a conversation with people who *don’t agree with me*.
If I wanted to just blab away and have everybody say “amen” I’d hang out somewhere else.
Believe it or not, this *is not* a knee-jerk liberal joint.
Did you read the freaking original post? How many times and how many ways do I have to state that I’m *not* trying to call anybody racist, and *not* trying to play “gotcha”, and *not* making any assumptions about anybody’s motives or point of view?
I just don’t think this is a topic that folks can talk about. Period.
So be it.
This was the discussion that Russell wanted to have, albeit he wanted a one-sided discussion.
Bullshit.
If you have something to say, say it. Don’t tell me what I think.
If you find something I say objectionable, explain your objection. Or, maybe even extend the benefit of the doubt and assume, for one tiny moment, based on years of interaction here, that I might be acting in good faith, and ask me to unpack what I’m saying to see if in fact whether I’m really being a jerk, or you’re just misunderstanding me.
Right?
How many times do I have to make this simple request?
Don’t try to read my mind, because you can’t. Don’t make assumptions about my secret intentions and motivations, because they probably don’t exist.
I’m here because the topics that get discussed here are important to me, and I’d like to try to have a conversation with people who *don’t agree with me*.
If I wanted to just blab away and have everybody say “amen” I’d hang out somewhere else.
Believe it or not, this *is not* a knee-jerk liberal joint.
Did you read the freaking original post? How many times and how many ways do I have to state that I’m *not* trying to call anybody racist, and *not* trying to play “gotcha”, and *not* making any assumptions about anybody’s motives or point of view?
I just don’t think this is a topic that folks can talk about. Period.
So be it.
This was the discussion that Russell wanted to have, albeit he wanted a one-sided discussion.
Bullshit.
If you have something to say, say it. Don’t tell me what I think.
I did say it. Brett brought up a flip-side argument right out of the box. Here’s your reply:
(Brett): While we’re on the topic [Brett interjects the knock out game]
(Russell): The topic is the conservative response to the Charleston shootings [rejecting Brett’s introduction of another topic].
It looks pretty clear to me that you wanted to focus on the issue you defined: conservatives who couldn’t or wouldn’t acknowledge Roof’s racism. I base this on your response to Brett. Tell me what I got wrong. Moreover, I don’t think it’s bad faith to require folks to stay on topic, even if I think it limits the discussion.
This–racism in general, what it means, its effect, the remedy, etc–is a difficult topic. It is not an impossible one.
This was the discussion that Russell wanted to have, albeit he wanted a one-sided discussion.
Bullshit.
If you have something to say, say it. Don’t tell me what I think.
I did say it. Brett brought up a flip-side argument right out of the box. Here’s your reply:
(Brett): While we’re on the topic [Brett interjects the knock out game]
(Russell): The topic is the conservative response to the Charleston shootings [rejecting Brett’s introduction of another topic].
It looks pretty clear to me that you wanted to focus on the issue you defined: conservatives who couldn’t or wouldn’t acknowledge Roof’s racism. I base this on your response to Brett. Tell me what I got wrong. Moreover, I don’t think it’s bad faith to require folks to stay on topic, even if I think it limits the discussion.
This–racism in general, what it means, its effect, the remedy, etc–is a difficult topic. It is not an impossible one.
This was the discussion that Russell wanted to have, albeit he wanted a one-sided discussion.
Bullshit.
If you have something to say, say it. Don’t tell me what I think.
I did say it. Brett brought up a flip-side argument right out of the box. Here’s your reply:
(Brett): While we’re on the topic [Brett interjects the knock out game]
(Russell): The topic is the conservative response to the Charleston shootings [rejecting Brett’s introduction of another topic].
It looks pretty clear to me that you wanted to focus on the issue you defined: conservatives who couldn’t or wouldn’t acknowledge Roof’s racism. I base this on your response to Brett. Tell me what I got wrong. Moreover, I don’t think it’s bad faith to require folks to stay on topic, even if I think it limits the discussion.
This–racism in general, what it means, its effect, the remedy, etc–is a difficult topic. It is not an impossible one.
Yes, I shut Brett off, because Brett likes to jack threads and make them about whatever topic tickles his fancy.
Frankly, I didn’t see the relevance of the “knockout game” to the topic at hand, and didn’t feel like being Brett’s freaking monkey, so I shut that particular topic of conversation off.
To the point you raised – whether liberal rhetoric makes racism something that conservatives would just prefer to avoid, so they don’t have to listen to themselves called racist yet again – I note this in my original post:
Right?
The fact that liberals and lefties are prone to calling conservatives racist at any provocation is a point well worth discussing, and is *germane to the topic*.
Frankly, IMO it is a complaint that has some merit.
The “knockout game”, and in particular the “knockout game” when pulled from Brett’s butt, does not.
In my opinion.
If you want to discuss how liberal rhetoric makes race an unpalatable topic for conservatives to discuss, I’m all ears. It’s actually the kind of thing that I was hoping the thread would lead to.
Yes, I shut Brett off, because Brett likes to jack threads and make them about whatever topic tickles his fancy.
Frankly, I didn’t see the relevance of the “knockout game” to the topic at hand, and didn’t feel like being Brett’s freaking monkey, so I shut that particular topic of conversation off.
To the point you raised – whether liberal rhetoric makes racism something that conservatives would just prefer to avoid, so they don’t have to listen to themselves called racist yet again – I note this in my original post:
Right?
The fact that liberals and lefties are prone to calling conservatives racist at any provocation is a point well worth discussing, and is *germane to the topic*.
Frankly, IMO it is a complaint that has some merit.
The “knockout game”, and in particular the “knockout game” when pulled from Brett’s butt, does not.
In my opinion.
If you want to discuss how liberal rhetoric makes race an unpalatable topic for conservatives to discuss, I’m all ears. It’s actually the kind of thing that I was hoping the thread would lead to.
Yes, I shut Brett off, because Brett likes to jack threads and make them about whatever topic tickles his fancy.
Frankly, I didn’t see the relevance of the “knockout game” to the topic at hand, and didn’t feel like being Brett’s freaking monkey, so I shut that particular topic of conversation off.
To the point you raised – whether liberal rhetoric makes racism something that conservatives would just prefer to avoid, so they don’t have to listen to themselves called racist yet again – I note this in my original post:
Right?
The fact that liberals and lefties are prone to calling conservatives racist at any provocation is a point well worth discussing, and is *germane to the topic*.
Frankly, IMO it is a complaint that has some merit.
The “knockout game”, and in particular the “knockout game” when pulled from Brett’s butt, does not.
In my opinion.
If you want to discuss how liberal rhetoric makes race an unpalatable topic for conservatives to discuss, I’m all ears. It’s actually the kind of thing that I was hoping the thread would lead to.
Liberal leadership on racism would sound like:
what about that is different from what liberal leaders have said ?
granted, not every L.L. will have hit every point in what you wrote. but i’m 99% sure you could cobble together statements from a few L.L.s that would cover it all.
Liberal leadership on racism would sound like:
what about that is different from what liberal leaders have said ?
granted, not every L.L. will have hit every point in what you wrote. but i’m 99% sure you could cobble together statements from a few L.L.s that would cover it all.
Liberal leadership on racism would sound like:
what about that is different from what liberal leaders have said ?
granted, not every L.L. will have hit every point in what you wrote. but i’m 99% sure you could cobble together statements from a few L.L.s that would cover it all.
What are you getting at? There are bad people (Osama Bin Laden) who need to be brought to justice. Does that make the people who volunteer to do so no different than Roof? If that is not what you are saying, then who are these ‘bad people’ and who is volunteering to kill them?
McTX, please refrain from being simultaneously mealy-mouthed and sanctimonious. We are not talking about wanting to “bring people we deem bad to justice”. We’re talking about wanting to kill people we deem bad. Period, full stop. You yourself have said at great length that you viewed the atomic bombings of Japan to be necessary if not outright good, and I doubt even you would go so far as to try to conflate their killing with “bringing them to justice”, nor be so brash as to argue all our victims in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bad people. Was the Enola Gay‘s crew “severely disordered”? Truman? Please, do tell. Am I “severely disordered” for not only having voluntarily enlisted in the Army in a time of war – with zero delusions that I’d be unlikely to deploy – but for having actually volunteered for deployment? Does my avowed (indeed, sworn) willingness to kill indefinite numbers of people on the mere say-so of the painfully and obviously fallible people I worked for show grave derangement on my part? Am I only spared an accusation of derangement because I view such killing as bad? Am I deranged again because I think that it’s almost certainly not actually necessary? Were my peers who did not have those qualms, and indeed who wanted to get their boots on the ground and “bad people” in their crosshairs “severely deranged”?
Again, we’re not talking about wanting to “bring to justice”, and no amount of bad-faith equivocating can change that. We are talking about wanting to kill. We are talking about wanting certain people dead, and being not only willing to pull the trigger, but to do so gladly, and relish both the thought and memory, and to think that having done so would make/made you a better person. Are our servicemembers who think thusly (because they think their targets are “bad people” who deserve to die) “severely deranged”? Because there are a lot of troops who think like that, you know. Be clear, and don’t equivocate. It’s all right to think that a desire to kill people is a sign of mental illness, but if you do you’d best have a damned good explanation for why a desire to kill people the killer has judged by whatever criteria to be “bad” is “deranged”, but a desire to have others kill people that one has judged “bad” on one’s behalf is not. Otherwise, it sounds an awful damned lot like you’re saying we’re sane and moral for making other people deranged IOT keep our hands and consciences clean; i.e., that a desire to want people dead is laudable and normal so long as we’re not willing to do the dirty work ourselves, even if we are causally responsible for the killings occurring… but an actual willingness to “do what needs done” is a sign of derangement. Or, again, are you going to equivocate and walk back your blanket statement that an individual possessed of a willingness to kill some number of people they judge to merit killing is deranged?
What are you getting at? There are bad people (Osama Bin Laden) who need to be brought to justice. Does that make the people who volunteer to do so no different than Roof? If that is not what you are saying, then who are these ‘bad people’ and who is volunteering to kill them?
McTX, please refrain from being simultaneously mealy-mouthed and sanctimonious. We are not talking about wanting to “bring people we deem bad to justice”. We’re talking about wanting to kill people we deem bad. Period, full stop. You yourself have said at great length that you viewed the atomic bombings of Japan to be necessary if not outright good, and I doubt even you would go so far as to try to conflate their killing with “bringing them to justice”, nor be so brash as to argue all our victims in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bad people. Was the Enola Gay‘s crew “severely disordered”? Truman? Please, do tell. Am I “severely disordered” for not only having voluntarily enlisted in the Army in a time of war – with zero delusions that I’d be unlikely to deploy – but for having actually volunteered for deployment? Does my avowed (indeed, sworn) willingness to kill indefinite numbers of people on the mere say-so of the painfully and obviously fallible people I worked for show grave derangement on my part? Am I only spared an accusation of derangement because I view such killing as bad? Am I deranged again because I think that it’s almost certainly not actually necessary? Were my peers who did not have those qualms, and indeed who wanted to get their boots on the ground and “bad people” in their crosshairs “severely deranged”?
Again, we’re not talking about wanting to “bring to justice”, and no amount of bad-faith equivocating can change that. We are talking about wanting to kill. We are talking about wanting certain people dead, and being not only willing to pull the trigger, but to do so gladly, and relish both the thought and memory, and to think that having done so would make/made you a better person. Are our servicemembers who think thusly (because they think their targets are “bad people” who deserve to die) “severely deranged”? Because there are a lot of troops who think like that, you know. Be clear, and don’t equivocate. It’s all right to think that a desire to kill people is a sign of mental illness, but if you do you’d best have a damned good explanation for why a desire to kill people the killer has judged by whatever criteria to be “bad” is “deranged”, but a desire to have others kill people that one has judged “bad” on one’s behalf is not. Otherwise, it sounds an awful damned lot like you’re saying we’re sane and moral for making other people deranged IOT keep our hands and consciences clean; i.e., that a desire to want people dead is laudable and normal so long as we’re not willing to do the dirty work ourselves, even if we are causally responsible for the killings occurring… but an actual willingness to “do what needs done” is a sign of derangement. Or, again, are you going to equivocate and walk back your blanket statement that an individual possessed of a willingness to kill some number of people they judge to merit killing is deranged?
What are you getting at? There are bad people (Osama Bin Laden) who need to be brought to justice. Does that make the people who volunteer to do so no different than Roof? If that is not what you are saying, then who are these ‘bad people’ and who is volunteering to kill them?
McTX, please refrain from being simultaneously mealy-mouthed and sanctimonious. We are not talking about wanting to “bring people we deem bad to justice”. We’re talking about wanting to kill people we deem bad. Period, full stop. You yourself have said at great length that you viewed the atomic bombings of Japan to be necessary if not outright good, and I doubt even you would go so far as to try to conflate their killing with “bringing them to justice”, nor be so brash as to argue all our victims in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bad people. Was the Enola Gay‘s crew “severely disordered”? Truman? Please, do tell. Am I “severely disordered” for not only having voluntarily enlisted in the Army in a time of war – with zero delusions that I’d be unlikely to deploy – but for having actually volunteered for deployment? Does my avowed (indeed, sworn) willingness to kill indefinite numbers of people on the mere say-so of the painfully and obviously fallible people I worked for show grave derangement on my part? Am I only spared an accusation of derangement because I view such killing as bad? Am I deranged again because I think that it’s almost certainly not actually necessary? Were my peers who did not have those qualms, and indeed who wanted to get their boots on the ground and “bad people” in their crosshairs “severely deranged”?
Again, we’re not talking about wanting to “bring to justice”, and no amount of bad-faith equivocating can change that. We are talking about wanting to kill. We are talking about wanting certain people dead, and being not only willing to pull the trigger, but to do so gladly, and relish both the thought and memory, and to think that having done so would make/made you a better person. Are our servicemembers who think thusly (because they think their targets are “bad people” who deserve to die) “severely deranged”? Because there are a lot of troops who think like that, you know. Be clear, and don’t equivocate. It’s all right to think that a desire to kill people is a sign of mental illness, but if you do you’d best have a damned good explanation for why a desire to kill people the killer has judged by whatever criteria to be “bad” is “deranged”, but a desire to have others kill people that one has judged “bad” on one’s behalf is not. Otherwise, it sounds an awful damned lot like you’re saying we’re sane and moral for making other people deranged IOT keep our hands and consciences clean; i.e., that a desire to want people dead is laudable and normal so long as we’re not willing to do the dirty work ourselves, even if we are causally responsible for the killings occurring… but an actual willingness to “do what needs done” is a sign of derangement. Or, again, are you going to equivocate and walk back your blanket statement that an individual possessed of a willingness to kill some number of people they judge to merit killing is deranged?
Disclosure: I have never done military service but alternative civilian service as a conscientious objector*. So take my views on soldiers as a private non-professional opinion.
I think it is OK and not a sign of a mental disorder to join the military, if it seems to one to be something that has to be done and may involve killing people.
Once the killing turns from a regrettable but unavoidable part to something actually desired I get severe toothache (as we say over here) and one should at least consider ‘mental disorder’ as playing a part in this. Once the killing becomes the main ‘attraction’, this should imo count as a true disqualifier and draw significant suspicion of a mental disorder. From the military’s point of view that would of course be problematic since it is difficult enough to get a ‘normal’ person to kill, in particular to kill people he has no personal grudge against on order. The US military has even actively considered targeting sociopaths for recruitment, i.e. people that lack any killing impediment.Iirc that got only dropped because those guys would be as likely to shoot their superiors as the enemy. It’s a dilemma already discussed by Platon 2400 years ago btw.
Soldiers need to disable certain inbuilt safeguards of the normal brain to be able to do the active part of the job without losing control in the process, so they would actually need a more stable personality than the average human being. But unfortunately usually the ‘easier’ path is chosen by targeting those that already lack some of those safeguards resulting in the well-known bad effects in almost every war on record.
*that’s not the same as principled pacifist. In know some rather militant guys that would never touch a gun themselves but profess ideologies that would end in rather long butcher bills when applied in reality and not accidental ones. I myself can phantasize about having mass murder and atrocities** committed and that is one reason for me to keep away from things that lead in that direction.
**like bathing Rummy in mustard gas, slowly boiling Cheney in oil, waterboarding Bybee and Yoo to hell and breaking every joint in the bodies of some other guys from the same club (oh yes, and slow starvation for numerous GOPsters and a few selected Dems).You get the general idea.
Disclosure: I have never done military service but alternative civilian service as a conscientious objector*. So take my views on soldiers as a private non-professional opinion.
I think it is OK and not a sign of a mental disorder to join the military, if it seems to one to be something that has to be done and may involve killing people.
Once the killing turns from a regrettable but unavoidable part to something actually desired I get severe toothache (as we say over here) and one should at least consider ‘mental disorder’ as playing a part in this. Once the killing becomes the main ‘attraction’, this should imo count as a true disqualifier and draw significant suspicion of a mental disorder. From the military’s point of view that would of course be problematic since it is difficult enough to get a ‘normal’ person to kill, in particular to kill people he has no personal grudge against on order. The US military has even actively considered targeting sociopaths for recruitment, i.e. people that lack any killing impediment.Iirc that got only dropped because those guys would be as likely to shoot their superiors as the enemy. It’s a dilemma already discussed by Platon 2400 years ago btw.
Soldiers need to disable certain inbuilt safeguards of the normal brain to be able to do the active part of the job without losing control in the process, so they would actually need a more stable personality than the average human being. But unfortunately usually the ‘easier’ path is chosen by targeting those that already lack some of those safeguards resulting in the well-known bad effects in almost every war on record.
*that’s not the same as principled pacifist. In know some rather militant guys that would never touch a gun themselves but profess ideologies that would end in rather long butcher bills when applied in reality and not accidental ones. I myself can phantasize about having mass murder and atrocities** committed and that is one reason for me to keep away from things that lead in that direction.
**like bathing Rummy in mustard gas, slowly boiling Cheney in oil, waterboarding Bybee and Yoo to hell and breaking every joint in the bodies of some other guys from the same club (oh yes, and slow starvation for numerous GOPsters and a few selected Dems).You get the general idea.
Disclosure: I have never done military service but alternative civilian service as a conscientious objector*. So take my views on soldiers as a private non-professional opinion.
I think it is OK and not a sign of a mental disorder to join the military, if it seems to one to be something that has to be done and may involve killing people.
Once the killing turns from a regrettable but unavoidable part to something actually desired I get severe toothache (as we say over here) and one should at least consider ‘mental disorder’ as playing a part in this. Once the killing becomes the main ‘attraction’, this should imo count as a true disqualifier and draw significant suspicion of a mental disorder. From the military’s point of view that would of course be problematic since it is difficult enough to get a ‘normal’ person to kill, in particular to kill people he has no personal grudge against on order. The US military has even actively considered targeting sociopaths for recruitment, i.e. people that lack any killing impediment.Iirc that got only dropped because those guys would be as likely to shoot their superiors as the enemy. It’s a dilemma already discussed by Platon 2400 years ago btw.
Soldiers need to disable certain inbuilt safeguards of the normal brain to be able to do the active part of the job without losing control in the process, so they would actually need a more stable personality than the average human being. But unfortunately usually the ‘easier’ path is chosen by targeting those that already lack some of those safeguards resulting in the well-known bad effects in almost every war on record.
*that’s not the same as principled pacifist. In know some rather militant guys that would never touch a gun themselves but profess ideologies that would end in rather long butcher bills when applied in reality and not accidental ones. I myself can phantasize about having mass murder and atrocities** committed and that is one reason for me to keep away from things that lead in that direction.
**like bathing Rummy in mustard gas, slowly boiling Cheney in oil, waterboarding Bybee and Yoo to hell and breaking every joint in the bodies of some other guys from the same club (oh yes, and slow starvation for numerous GOPsters and a few selected Dems).You get the general idea.
The fact that liberals and lefties are prone to calling conservatives racist at any provocation is a point well worth discussing, and is *germane to the topic*.
Frankly, IMO it is a complaint that has some merit.
Ok, taking a step back, I’ll take a forlorn stab at this topic. I’ve had too many frank discussions with lefties who did not call me racist, but I know what you are saying. The phenomena is that too many activists and pundits–not the rank and file–on the left use charges of racism to end discussion (similar in vein to calling pro-choicers baby killers). And, quite frankly, they do so with more success than should be allowed. Some on the right push back, but until the left polices itself in this regard (there IS some movement), it will be a problem.
You can take it as a given that what I impute to the left has its analogue on the right.
Now, most of the lefties I interact with are over 50. From what I can see on campuses across the country, the younger lefties don’t tolerate folks like me at all. We are beyond the pale. If this persists, we have a whole other set of problems.
So, my first quibble is that there a plenty on the left who would have a discussion, but they are not the ones in control of the microphones.
This is a very rough, truncated version of a conservative’s analytical platform on race. A lot of conservatives see little evidence of visible racism (because, in their neighborhood, there is nothing there for them to see). At the same time and for many years, they’ve seen–and tend to obsess on–affirmative action, tons of money spent on welfare and other social spending, extraordinary crime rates in the African American community, widespread breakdown of the African American family and liberal audiences receptive to the racial grievance practiced by Jackson, Sharpton and others. They see but tend to over-emphasize substantial progress that is not acknowledged, or acknowledged mostly in passing. Being human and doing what humans do, they project their own experience and opportunities on to others, e.g. “I didn’t get all that stuff and I came out fine.”
As a result, they form a superficial and often wrong set of ideas about African Americans (and others), often confusing cause for effect, and making any number of other mistakes of reason and logic. All of which makes many conservatives unable to verbalize thoughts on racism without sounding stupid or demeaning or condescending or all three and others as well. Opportunists on the left flip gaffes into racism at light speed. Prudent conservatives have learned that talking about racism only gets them in trouble.
That’s one part of the problem.
Another part is a subset of the greater problem: neither side ever concedes a point, or part of a point, because if they did the other side would treat it as wholesale surrender.
Imagine a conservative candidate for president saying something like, “There is still prejudice in this country. Mostly against black people. It is a fraction of what it once was but it still affects lives. But I’m here to tell you that I don’t have a program in mind to address racism because I don’t think an effective anti-racism program, other than what people of good will are already doing which is trying to overcome their lesser inclinations, exists. The problem of racism will be solved on the individual level, one person at at time. The solution, and it is not perfect by any means, is the passage of time. In the meantime, my administration will zealously enforce the laws against discrimination. That’s the best we can do.”
He/she would be villified on the left and, in fairly short order, anyone subscribing to that view would be ipso facto racist, end of story. Which would tend to limit debate going forward.
Put differently, there is no upside and tons of downside to talking about racism from the right.
My personal view is that the same quarter on the left that defaults to calling dissenters racists or sexists or whatevers does so because they have no interest in and actively seek to cut off all debate.
A third issue is the right’s narrative on race, which is pretty much that the problem’s been fixed so what’s all the fuss about? Agile rightists can acknowledge episodic, one-off examples of racism and come off looking pretty good. Others, more hemmed in by the cumulative effects drinking only one brand of Cool Aid, are forced to find some other cause even when racism stares them in the face.
From my very small seat, most of the problems* have been fixed to the extent they are fixable without the cure being worse than the disease and the issues are structural: a huge gap in social, familial and economic skills, almost all of which flow from widespread uneducated women raising multiple children doomed to repeat the cycle. This is widespread in the African American community but outcomes from single family homes where the almost-always female parent is without education or job skills transcends race.
This is not something smart conservative (or liberal) politicians bring up publicly. They whisper it, or hint at it, privately.
Some 10-15% of conservatives (and independents and Democrats) think African Americans are inferior. I’m not sure that number will ever change much.
I’ve spent a lot of time on this and have proofed it several times. There are a lot of incomplete thoughts in this comment. I am painting with a very broad brush and leaving out a lot of detail and context. Please keep that in mind as you fire back.
*The single exception being our criminal justice system, which is worse than most conservatives will admit and not nearly as awful as many liberal contend. It is the one area where skin color matters to a noticeable degree.
The fact that liberals and lefties are prone to calling conservatives racist at any provocation is a point well worth discussing, and is *germane to the topic*.
Frankly, IMO it is a complaint that has some merit.
Ok, taking a step back, I’ll take a forlorn stab at this topic. I’ve had too many frank discussions with lefties who did not call me racist, but I know what you are saying. The phenomena is that too many activists and pundits–not the rank and file–on the left use charges of racism to end discussion (similar in vein to calling pro-choicers baby killers). And, quite frankly, they do so with more success than should be allowed. Some on the right push back, but until the left polices itself in this regard (there IS some movement), it will be a problem.
You can take it as a given that what I impute to the left has its analogue on the right.
Now, most of the lefties I interact with are over 50. From what I can see on campuses across the country, the younger lefties don’t tolerate folks like me at all. We are beyond the pale. If this persists, we have a whole other set of problems.
So, my first quibble is that there a plenty on the left who would have a discussion, but they are not the ones in control of the microphones.
This is a very rough, truncated version of a conservative’s analytical platform on race. A lot of conservatives see little evidence of visible racism (because, in their neighborhood, there is nothing there for them to see). At the same time and for many years, they’ve seen–and tend to obsess on–affirmative action, tons of money spent on welfare and other social spending, extraordinary crime rates in the African American community, widespread breakdown of the African American family and liberal audiences receptive to the racial grievance practiced by Jackson, Sharpton and others. They see but tend to over-emphasize substantial progress that is not acknowledged, or acknowledged mostly in passing. Being human and doing what humans do, they project their own experience and opportunities on to others, e.g. “I didn’t get all that stuff and I came out fine.”
As a result, they form a superficial and often wrong set of ideas about African Americans (and others), often confusing cause for effect, and making any number of other mistakes of reason and logic. All of which makes many conservatives unable to verbalize thoughts on racism without sounding stupid or demeaning or condescending or all three and others as well. Opportunists on the left flip gaffes into racism at light speed. Prudent conservatives have learned that talking about racism only gets them in trouble.
That’s one part of the problem.
Another part is a subset of the greater problem: neither side ever concedes a point, or part of a point, because if they did the other side would treat it as wholesale surrender.
Imagine a conservative candidate for president saying something like, “There is still prejudice in this country. Mostly against black people. It is a fraction of what it once was but it still affects lives. But I’m here to tell you that I don’t have a program in mind to address racism because I don’t think an effective anti-racism program, other than what people of good will are already doing which is trying to overcome their lesser inclinations, exists. The problem of racism will be solved on the individual level, one person at at time. The solution, and it is not perfect by any means, is the passage of time. In the meantime, my administration will zealously enforce the laws against discrimination. That’s the best we can do.”
He/she would be villified on the left and, in fairly short order, anyone subscribing to that view would be ipso facto racist, end of story. Which would tend to limit debate going forward.
Put differently, there is no upside and tons of downside to talking about racism from the right.
My personal view is that the same quarter on the left that defaults to calling dissenters racists or sexists or whatevers does so because they have no interest in and actively seek to cut off all debate.
A third issue is the right’s narrative on race, which is pretty much that the problem’s been fixed so what’s all the fuss about? Agile rightists can acknowledge episodic, one-off examples of racism and come off looking pretty good. Others, more hemmed in by the cumulative effects drinking only one brand of Cool Aid, are forced to find some other cause even when racism stares them in the face.
From my very small seat, most of the problems* have been fixed to the extent they are fixable without the cure being worse than the disease and the issues are structural: a huge gap in social, familial and economic skills, almost all of which flow from widespread uneducated women raising multiple children doomed to repeat the cycle. This is widespread in the African American community but outcomes from single family homes where the almost-always female parent is without education or job skills transcends race.
This is not something smart conservative (or liberal) politicians bring up publicly. They whisper it, or hint at it, privately.
Some 10-15% of conservatives (and independents and Democrats) think African Americans are inferior. I’m not sure that number will ever change much.
I’ve spent a lot of time on this and have proofed it several times. There are a lot of incomplete thoughts in this comment. I am painting with a very broad brush and leaving out a lot of detail and context. Please keep that in mind as you fire back.
*The single exception being our criminal justice system, which is worse than most conservatives will admit and not nearly as awful as many liberal contend. It is the one area where skin color matters to a noticeable degree.
The fact that liberals and lefties are prone to calling conservatives racist at any provocation is a point well worth discussing, and is *germane to the topic*.
Frankly, IMO it is a complaint that has some merit.
Ok, taking a step back, I’ll take a forlorn stab at this topic. I’ve had too many frank discussions with lefties who did not call me racist, but I know what you are saying. The phenomena is that too many activists and pundits–not the rank and file–on the left use charges of racism to end discussion (similar in vein to calling pro-choicers baby killers). And, quite frankly, they do so with more success than should be allowed. Some on the right push back, but until the left polices itself in this regard (there IS some movement), it will be a problem.
You can take it as a given that what I impute to the left has its analogue on the right.
Now, most of the lefties I interact with are over 50. From what I can see on campuses across the country, the younger lefties don’t tolerate folks like me at all. We are beyond the pale. If this persists, we have a whole other set of problems.
So, my first quibble is that there a plenty on the left who would have a discussion, but they are not the ones in control of the microphones.
This is a very rough, truncated version of a conservative’s analytical platform on race. A lot of conservatives see little evidence of visible racism (because, in their neighborhood, there is nothing there for them to see). At the same time and for many years, they’ve seen–and tend to obsess on–affirmative action, tons of money spent on welfare and other social spending, extraordinary crime rates in the African American community, widespread breakdown of the African American family and liberal audiences receptive to the racial grievance practiced by Jackson, Sharpton and others. They see but tend to over-emphasize substantial progress that is not acknowledged, or acknowledged mostly in passing. Being human and doing what humans do, they project their own experience and opportunities on to others, e.g. “I didn’t get all that stuff and I came out fine.”
As a result, they form a superficial and often wrong set of ideas about African Americans (and others), often confusing cause for effect, and making any number of other mistakes of reason and logic. All of which makes many conservatives unable to verbalize thoughts on racism without sounding stupid or demeaning or condescending or all three and others as well. Opportunists on the left flip gaffes into racism at light speed. Prudent conservatives have learned that talking about racism only gets them in trouble.
That’s one part of the problem.
Another part is a subset of the greater problem: neither side ever concedes a point, or part of a point, because if they did the other side would treat it as wholesale surrender.
Imagine a conservative candidate for president saying something like, “There is still prejudice in this country. Mostly against black people. It is a fraction of what it once was but it still affects lives. But I’m here to tell you that I don’t have a program in mind to address racism because I don’t think an effective anti-racism program, other than what people of good will are already doing which is trying to overcome their lesser inclinations, exists. The problem of racism will be solved on the individual level, one person at at time. The solution, and it is not perfect by any means, is the passage of time. In the meantime, my administration will zealously enforce the laws against discrimination. That’s the best we can do.”
He/she would be villified on the left and, in fairly short order, anyone subscribing to that view would be ipso facto racist, end of story. Which would tend to limit debate going forward.
Put differently, there is no upside and tons of downside to talking about racism from the right.
My personal view is that the same quarter on the left that defaults to calling dissenters racists or sexists or whatevers does so because they have no interest in and actively seek to cut off all debate.
A third issue is the right’s narrative on race, which is pretty much that the problem’s been fixed so what’s all the fuss about? Agile rightists can acknowledge episodic, one-off examples of racism and come off looking pretty good. Others, more hemmed in by the cumulative effects drinking only one brand of Cool Aid, are forced to find some other cause even when racism stares them in the face.
From my very small seat, most of the problems* have been fixed to the extent they are fixable without the cure being worse than the disease and the issues are structural: a huge gap in social, familial and economic skills, almost all of which flow from widespread uneducated women raising multiple children doomed to repeat the cycle. This is widespread in the African American community but outcomes from single family homes where the almost-always female parent is without education or job skills transcends race.
This is not something smart conservative (or liberal) politicians bring up publicly. They whisper it, or hint at it, privately.
Some 10-15% of conservatives (and independents and Democrats) think African Americans are inferior. I’m not sure that number will ever change much.
I’ve spent a lot of time on this and have proofed it several times. There are a lot of incomplete thoughts in this comment. I am painting with a very broad brush and leaving out a lot of detail and context. Please keep that in mind as you fire back.
*The single exception being our criminal justice system, which is worse than most conservatives will admit and not nearly as awful as many liberal contend. It is the one area where skin color matters to a noticeable degree.
Once the killing turns from a regrettable but unavoidable part to something actually desired I get severe toothache (as we say over here) and one should at least consider ‘mental disorder’ as playing a part in this. Once the killing becomes the main ‘attraction’, this should imo count as a true disqualifier and draw significant suspicion of a mental disorder.
This. Nicely put.
We’re talking about wanting to kill people we deem bad. Period, full stop. You yourself have said at great length that you viewed the atomic bombings of Japan to be necessary if not outright good, and I doubt even you would go so far as to try to conflate their killing with “bringing them to justice”
Ok, you are still confusing me. Are you saying that volunteering for the Marines after Pearl Harbor is morally equivalent to deciding blacks are ruining the country and killing some random number in church in order to start a race?
Once the killing turns from a regrettable but unavoidable part to something actually desired I get severe toothache (as we say over here) and one should at least consider ‘mental disorder’ as playing a part in this. Once the killing becomes the main ‘attraction’, this should imo count as a true disqualifier and draw significant suspicion of a mental disorder.
This. Nicely put.
We’re talking about wanting to kill people we deem bad. Period, full stop. You yourself have said at great length that you viewed the atomic bombings of Japan to be necessary if not outright good, and I doubt even you would go so far as to try to conflate their killing with “bringing them to justice”
Ok, you are still confusing me. Are you saying that volunteering for the Marines after Pearl Harbor is morally equivalent to deciding blacks are ruining the country and killing some random number in church in order to start a race?
Once the killing turns from a regrettable but unavoidable part to something actually desired I get severe toothache (as we say over here) and one should at least consider ‘mental disorder’ as playing a part in this. Once the killing becomes the main ‘attraction’, this should imo count as a true disqualifier and draw significant suspicion of a mental disorder.
This. Nicely put.
We’re talking about wanting to kill people we deem bad. Period, full stop. You yourself have said at great length that you viewed the atomic bombings of Japan to be necessary if not outright good, and I doubt even you would go so far as to try to conflate their killing with “bringing them to justice”
Ok, you are still confusing me. Are you saying that volunteering for the Marines after Pearl Harbor is morally equivalent to deciding blacks are ruining the country and killing some random number in church in order to start a race?
Yes, I shut Brett off, because Brett likes to jack threads and make them about whatever topic tickles his fancy.
Just to make one thing clear here, It may sound like Russell made the decision to give Brett the boot, (because he’s the only one among the front pagers with enough stamina to keep this thread going and he’s not the kind of person to try and deflect responsibility) but it was a considered decision by all the front pagers. And that decision was because
-Brett thread jacks all the time
-His participation drives out other people who just don’t want to deal with him
He was warned numerous times, but he kept doing it and all of us finally got sick of it. That this happened on a thread about race has nothing to do with race, it has to do with the way Brett participated here.
I should also add that when I wrote to Brett offlist to tell him, he said not to bother unbanning him, the thread was ‘imbecilic’ and he bid us to enjoy our ‘echo chamber’.
FWIW
Yes, I shut Brett off, because Brett likes to jack threads and make them about whatever topic tickles his fancy.
Just to make one thing clear here, It may sound like Russell made the decision to give Brett the boot, (because he’s the only one among the front pagers with enough stamina to keep this thread going and he’s not the kind of person to try and deflect responsibility) but it was a considered decision by all the front pagers. And that decision was because
-Brett thread jacks all the time
-His participation drives out other people who just don’t want to deal with him
He was warned numerous times, but he kept doing it and all of us finally got sick of it. That this happened on a thread about race has nothing to do with race, it has to do with the way Brett participated here.
I should also add that when I wrote to Brett offlist to tell him, he said not to bother unbanning him, the thread was ‘imbecilic’ and he bid us to enjoy our ‘echo chamber’.
FWIW
Yes, I shut Brett off, because Brett likes to jack threads and make them about whatever topic tickles his fancy.
Just to make one thing clear here, It may sound like Russell made the decision to give Brett the boot, (because he’s the only one among the front pagers with enough stamina to keep this thread going and he’s not the kind of person to try and deflect responsibility) but it was a considered decision by all the front pagers. And that decision was because
-Brett thread jacks all the time
-His participation drives out other people who just don’t want to deal with him
He was warned numerous times, but he kept doing it and all of us finally got sick of it. That this happened on a thread about race has nothing to do with race, it has to do with the way Brett participated here.
I should also add that when I wrote to Brett offlist to tell him, he said not to bother unbanning him, the thread was ‘imbecilic’ and he bid us to enjoy our ‘echo chamber’.
FWIW
McKinney, I agree with almost all of what you have said. The exceptions being two.
First, both left and right have people with megaphones ranting about race. And, as a result, their politicians tend to say similar things — going with what they are hearing loudest. But how many regular people, on each side, actually buy that ranting? My sense is that, while it is a minority of both, it is a rather larger minority on the right. Being a conservative myself, I really really wish that were not the case. But from what I can see, it is.
Second, I’m a bit dubious of the assertion that “10-15% of conservatives (and independents and Democrats) think African Americans are inferior. I’m not sure that number will ever change much.” I think that is much too pessimistic. Certainly it will never reach zero. But I think our experience over the last few decades shows that it can come down further than that.
Partly that is because some of the worst bigots, on both sides, will eventually die off. But more because we have seen that individual people can change. C.f. the guy who argued vigorously, a couple of decades ago, for keeping the Confederate battle flag flying over the South Carolina state house. And this week has spoken out in favor of removing it from the state house grounds altogether. People can, and do, change.
Granted, the easiest changes are behind us; those most able to change on the subject of race have already done so. But I’m not ready to give up on anywhere near 10% of the population. After all, you could have gotten almost equal levels of belief that Asians were inferior not all that long ago. And today, that belief remains in maybe 1% of the population, probably substantially less.
McKinney, I agree with almost all of what you have said. The exceptions being two.
First, both left and right have people with megaphones ranting about race. And, as a result, their politicians tend to say similar things — going with what they are hearing loudest. But how many regular people, on each side, actually buy that ranting? My sense is that, while it is a minority of both, it is a rather larger minority on the right. Being a conservative myself, I really really wish that were not the case. But from what I can see, it is.
Second, I’m a bit dubious of the assertion that “10-15% of conservatives (and independents and Democrats) think African Americans are inferior. I’m not sure that number will ever change much.” I think that is much too pessimistic. Certainly it will never reach zero. But I think our experience over the last few decades shows that it can come down further than that.
Partly that is because some of the worst bigots, on both sides, will eventually die off. But more because we have seen that individual people can change. C.f. the guy who argued vigorously, a couple of decades ago, for keeping the Confederate battle flag flying over the South Carolina state house. And this week has spoken out in favor of removing it from the state house grounds altogether. People can, and do, change.
Granted, the easiest changes are behind us; those most able to change on the subject of race have already done so. But I’m not ready to give up on anywhere near 10% of the population. After all, you could have gotten almost equal levels of belief that Asians were inferior not all that long ago. And today, that belief remains in maybe 1% of the population, probably substantially less.
McKinney, I agree with almost all of what you have said. The exceptions being two.
First, both left and right have people with megaphones ranting about race. And, as a result, their politicians tend to say similar things — going with what they are hearing loudest. But how many regular people, on each side, actually buy that ranting? My sense is that, while it is a minority of both, it is a rather larger minority on the right. Being a conservative myself, I really really wish that were not the case. But from what I can see, it is.
Second, I’m a bit dubious of the assertion that “10-15% of conservatives (and independents and Democrats) think African Americans are inferior. I’m not sure that number will ever change much.” I think that is much too pessimistic. Certainly it will never reach zero. But I think our experience over the last few decades shows that it can come down further than that.
Partly that is because some of the worst bigots, on both sides, will eventually die off. But more because we have seen that individual people can change. C.f. the guy who argued vigorously, a couple of decades ago, for keeping the Confederate battle flag flying over the South Carolina state house. And this week has spoken out in favor of removing it from the state house grounds altogether. People can, and do, change.
Granted, the easiest changes are behind us; those most able to change on the subject of race have already done so. But I’m not ready to give up on anywhere near 10% of the population. After all, you could have gotten almost equal levels of belief that Asians were inferior not all that long ago. And today, that belief remains in maybe 1% of the population, probably substantially less.
McTx: Imagine a conservative candidate for president saying something like, “There is still prejudice in this country. Mostly against black people. It is a fraction of what it once was but it still affects lives. But I’m here to tell you that I don’t have a program in mind to address racism because I don’t think an effective anti-racism program, other than what people of good will are already doing which is trying to overcome their lesser inclinations, exists. The problem of racism will be solved on the individual level, one person at at time. The solution, and it is not perfect by any means, is the passage of time. In the meantime, my administration will zealously enforce the laws against discrimination. That’s the best we can do.”
That, to my mind, would be an honest and admirable position, worthy of support. Guess I’m not lefty enough or something.
My bet is that any politician on the right that announced a position like that would be termed a “RINO” and primaried, but I would be very, VERY glad to be wrong.
The best way to avoid being called a racist? Don’t be racist. Don’t pal around with racists. Don’t cover for them, don’t dogwhistle to them. I’m absolutely sure that many on the left are operating at DEFCON5 ‘launch on warning’ for racism, much like the NRA does for anything that even HINTS as tightening gun laws. But the Southern Strategy is still going strong, while gun laws have been monotonically loosened over the past 20-odd years. So not quite symmetric situations.
McTx: Imagine a conservative candidate for president saying something like, “There is still prejudice in this country. Mostly against black people. It is a fraction of what it once was but it still affects lives. But I’m here to tell you that I don’t have a program in mind to address racism because I don’t think an effective anti-racism program, other than what people of good will are already doing which is trying to overcome their lesser inclinations, exists. The problem of racism will be solved on the individual level, one person at at time. The solution, and it is not perfect by any means, is the passage of time. In the meantime, my administration will zealously enforce the laws against discrimination. That’s the best we can do.”
That, to my mind, would be an honest and admirable position, worthy of support. Guess I’m not lefty enough or something.
My bet is that any politician on the right that announced a position like that would be termed a “RINO” and primaried, but I would be very, VERY glad to be wrong.
The best way to avoid being called a racist? Don’t be racist. Don’t pal around with racists. Don’t cover for them, don’t dogwhistle to them. I’m absolutely sure that many on the left are operating at DEFCON5 ‘launch on warning’ for racism, much like the NRA does for anything that even HINTS as tightening gun laws. But the Southern Strategy is still going strong, while gun laws have been monotonically loosened over the past 20-odd years. So not quite symmetric situations.
McTx: Imagine a conservative candidate for president saying something like, “There is still prejudice in this country. Mostly against black people. It is a fraction of what it once was but it still affects lives. But I’m here to tell you that I don’t have a program in mind to address racism because I don’t think an effective anti-racism program, other than what people of good will are already doing which is trying to overcome their lesser inclinations, exists. The problem of racism will be solved on the individual level, one person at at time. The solution, and it is not perfect by any means, is the passage of time. In the meantime, my administration will zealously enforce the laws against discrimination. That’s the best we can do.”
That, to my mind, would be an honest and admirable position, worthy of support. Guess I’m not lefty enough or something.
My bet is that any politician on the right that announced a position like that would be termed a “RINO” and primaried, but I would be very, VERY glad to be wrong.
The best way to avoid being called a racist? Don’t be racist. Don’t pal around with racists. Don’t cover for them, don’t dogwhistle to them. I’m absolutely sure that many on the left are operating at DEFCON5 ‘launch on warning’ for racism, much like the NRA does for anything that even HINTS as tightening gun laws. But the Southern Strategy is still going strong, while gun laws have been monotonically loosened over the past 20-odd years. So not quite symmetric situations.
McK, thanks for your thoughtful, thorough, and generally excellent reply.
I don’t have time right now to respond, but will do so as soon as I can. I have a few thoughts, and even if I didn’t your comments deserve as close to an equally thoughtful reply as I can muster.
Many thanks.
McK, thanks for your thoughtful, thorough, and generally excellent reply.
I don’t have time right now to respond, but will do so as soon as I can. I have a few thoughts, and even if I didn’t your comments deserve as close to an equally thoughtful reply as I can muster.
Many thanks.
McK, thanks for your thoughtful, thorough, and generally excellent reply.
I don’t have time right now to respond, but will do so as soon as I can. I have a few thoughts, and even if I didn’t your comments deserve as close to an equally thoughtful reply as I can muster.
Many thanks.
But I’m not ready to give up on anywhere near 10% of the population.
I thought 10-15% was pretty optimistic.
My bet is that any politician on the right that announced a position like that would be termed a “RINO” and primaried, but I would be very, VERY glad to be wrong.
I think not, but we’re debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. No one is going to say that on either side. Imagine H Clinton saying that.
McK, thanks for your thoughtful, thorough, and generally excellent reply.
Happy to oblige. This is a relatively slow week for me, after a very, very crazy year (six trials in 12 months–that is a lot in my business), so I’ll be part of the conversation for the next couple of days.
But I’m not ready to give up on anywhere near 10% of the population.
I thought 10-15% was pretty optimistic.
My bet is that any politician on the right that announced a position like that would be termed a “RINO” and primaried, but I would be very, VERY glad to be wrong.
I think not, but we’re debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. No one is going to say that on either side. Imagine H Clinton saying that.
McK, thanks for your thoughtful, thorough, and generally excellent reply.
Happy to oblige. This is a relatively slow week for me, after a very, very crazy year (six trials in 12 months–that is a lot in my business), so I’ll be part of the conversation for the next couple of days.
But I’m not ready to give up on anywhere near 10% of the population.
I thought 10-15% was pretty optimistic.
My bet is that any politician on the right that announced a position like that would be termed a “RINO” and primaried, but I would be very, VERY glad to be wrong.
I think not, but we’re debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. No one is going to say that on either side. Imagine H Clinton saying that.
McK, thanks for your thoughtful, thorough, and generally excellent reply.
Happy to oblige. This is a relatively slow week for me, after a very, very crazy year (six trials in 12 months–that is a lot in my business), so I’ll be part of the conversation for the next couple of days.
The phenomena is that too many activists and pundits–not the rank and file–on the left use charges of racism to end discussion (similar in vein to calling pro-choicers baby killers).
definitely.
The phenomena is that too many activists and pundits–not the rank and file–on the left use charges of racism to end discussion (similar in vein to calling pro-choicers baby killers).
definitely.
The phenomena is that too many activists and pundits–not the rank and file–on the left use charges of racism to end discussion (similar in vein to calling pro-choicers baby killers).
definitely.
You acknowledge that the criminal justice system is an area where ‘skin color matters to a noticable degree’. Why is it hard to say ‘the US criminal justice system is racist’? Especially when you have stories like this
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/04/racial-disparities-criminal-justice_n_4045144.html
And, if this is the case, how can it not have a knock-on effect all the way up? Yes, “outcomes from single family homes where the almost-always female parent is without education or job skills transcends race.” (pointing to the pernicious effects of sexism, right?) but if you have an incarceration rate of 60% AA males (as they do in the NY prison system), isn’t the impact going to be disparately on the African American community?
I’m not in the US, so I can only speak about what I see from over here, and as a rule, I’m not too interested in what politicians say, but it seems to me that the problem is not some sort of hair trigger on accusations of racism, it’s an inability to see that it is baked into the structure of US society.
You acknowledge that the criminal justice system is an area where ‘skin color matters to a noticable degree’. Why is it hard to say ‘the US criminal justice system is racist’? Especially when you have stories like this
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/04/racial-disparities-criminal-justice_n_4045144.html
And, if this is the case, how can it not have a knock-on effect all the way up? Yes, “outcomes from single family homes where the almost-always female parent is without education or job skills transcends race.” (pointing to the pernicious effects of sexism, right?) but if you have an incarceration rate of 60% AA males (as they do in the NY prison system), isn’t the impact going to be disparately on the African American community?
I’m not in the US, so I can only speak about what I see from over here, and as a rule, I’m not too interested in what politicians say, but it seems to me that the problem is not some sort of hair trigger on accusations of racism, it’s an inability to see that it is baked into the structure of US society.
You acknowledge that the criminal justice system is an area where ‘skin color matters to a noticable degree’. Why is it hard to say ‘the US criminal justice system is racist’? Especially when you have stories like this
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/04/racial-disparities-criminal-justice_n_4045144.html
And, if this is the case, how can it not have a knock-on effect all the way up? Yes, “outcomes from single family homes where the almost-always female parent is without education or job skills transcends race.” (pointing to the pernicious effects of sexism, right?) but if you have an incarceration rate of 60% AA males (as they do in the NY prison system), isn’t the impact going to be disparately on the African American community?
I’m not in the US, so I can only speak about what I see from over here, and as a rule, I’m not too interested in what politicians say, but it seems to me that the problem is not some sort of hair trigger on accusations of racism, it’s an inability to see that it is baked into the structure of US society.
good for Gov Haley
good for Gov Haley
good for Gov Haley
Ok, you are still confusing me. Are you saying that volunteering for the Marines after Pearl Harbor is morally equivalent to deciding blacks are ruining the country and killing some random number in church in order to start a race?
No, McK. In fact, I’m saying something entirely orthogonal to that. You jumped into a crossfire of nitpicking between myself and wj. wj made the assertion that wanting and being willing to kill people is something our society deems to be a sign of a disordered mind. I dispute that point because, well, it’s not. Our society absolutely does not view a desire and willingness to kill people one thinks are in need of killing to be a sign of dubious mental health; they view it as pretty damned normal. Now, they may rapidly start having other ideas upon seeing what happens to a non-trivial portion of the individuals who go forth and do what society deemed necessary. But that’s something akin to buyer’s remorse; we absolutely do not view the desire or even willingness to kill people by itself as being an indicator of a deranged mind. wj’s statement that I was disputing was that everyone agrees sane people don’t go out and kill large numbers of other people. The caveat of “except maybe war” was added. However, the caveat changes nothing, really. It’s just saying “sane people don’t go out and kill people unless it’s been deemed necessary to do so”. And that’s a useless statement bordering on tautology.
Look, I’m not willing to concede Roof was deranged simply on the basis that he went on a shooting spree. That’s the main point I was getting at, and the line of reasoning that I was objecting to from wj. It’s question-begging. The point is that we as a culture absolutely do not have a problem with calling killing sprees sane so long as we judge them to be righteous and needful. Which makes the assertion I objected to not only tautological, but also a red herring. If we have a segment of citizens who question the legitimacy of the government, and do not agree with the majority of the body-politic as to what constitutes an existential threat, there is absolutely no reason to expect them to judge it to be unthinkable or beyond the pale to kill fellow citizens who they feel are a threat to their way of life and/or their country/family/race/whatever simply because the gov’t does not sanction their killing. Our society is quite quick to deem summary execution justified if it’s means towards a noble end. So when someone who doesn’t view the gov’t as authoritative engages in illegal killing we cannot seriously use that alone as an indicator of insanity unless we really are willing, as I effusively and digressively argued, to e.g. likewise deem all who volunteer to kill in socially-sanctioned manners such as war to be insane.
tl;dr: If Roof is “seriously deranged”, the proof of that is that he has psychological and/or psycho-chemical imbalances, not that he engaged in mass murder; arguing otherwise reduces the insanity of mass-murderers to a tautology.
Ok, you are still confusing me. Are you saying that volunteering for the Marines after Pearl Harbor is morally equivalent to deciding blacks are ruining the country and killing some random number in church in order to start a race?
No, McK. In fact, I’m saying something entirely orthogonal to that. You jumped into a crossfire of nitpicking between myself and wj. wj made the assertion that wanting and being willing to kill people is something our society deems to be a sign of a disordered mind. I dispute that point because, well, it’s not. Our society absolutely does not view a desire and willingness to kill people one thinks are in need of killing to be a sign of dubious mental health; they view it as pretty damned normal. Now, they may rapidly start having other ideas upon seeing what happens to a non-trivial portion of the individuals who go forth and do what society deemed necessary. But that’s something akin to buyer’s remorse; we absolutely do not view the desire or even willingness to kill people by itself as being an indicator of a deranged mind. wj’s statement that I was disputing was that everyone agrees sane people don’t go out and kill large numbers of other people. The caveat of “except maybe war” was added. However, the caveat changes nothing, really. It’s just saying “sane people don’t go out and kill people unless it’s been deemed necessary to do so”. And that’s a useless statement bordering on tautology.
Look, I’m not willing to concede Roof was deranged simply on the basis that he went on a shooting spree. That’s the main point I was getting at, and the line of reasoning that I was objecting to from wj. It’s question-begging. The point is that we as a culture absolutely do not have a problem with calling killing sprees sane so long as we judge them to be righteous and needful. Which makes the assertion I objected to not only tautological, but also a red herring. If we have a segment of citizens who question the legitimacy of the government, and do not agree with the majority of the body-politic as to what constitutes an existential threat, there is absolutely no reason to expect them to judge it to be unthinkable or beyond the pale to kill fellow citizens who they feel are a threat to their way of life and/or their country/family/race/whatever simply because the gov’t does not sanction their killing. Our society is quite quick to deem summary execution justified if it’s means towards a noble end. So when someone who doesn’t view the gov’t as authoritative engages in illegal killing we cannot seriously use that alone as an indicator of insanity unless we really are willing, as I effusively and digressively argued, to e.g. likewise deem all who volunteer to kill in socially-sanctioned manners such as war to be insane.
tl;dr: If Roof is “seriously deranged”, the proof of that is that he has psychological and/or psycho-chemical imbalances, not that he engaged in mass murder; arguing otherwise reduces the insanity of mass-murderers to a tautology.
Ok, you are still confusing me. Are you saying that volunteering for the Marines after Pearl Harbor is morally equivalent to deciding blacks are ruining the country and killing some random number in church in order to start a race?
No, McK. In fact, I’m saying something entirely orthogonal to that. You jumped into a crossfire of nitpicking between myself and wj. wj made the assertion that wanting and being willing to kill people is something our society deems to be a sign of a disordered mind. I dispute that point because, well, it’s not. Our society absolutely does not view a desire and willingness to kill people one thinks are in need of killing to be a sign of dubious mental health; they view it as pretty damned normal. Now, they may rapidly start having other ideas upon seeing what happens to a non-trivial portion of the individuals who go forth and do what society deemed necessary. But that’s something akin to buyer’s remorse; we absolutely do not view the desire or even willingness to kill people by itself as being an indicator of a deranged mind. wj’s statement that I was disputing was that everyone agrees sane people don’t go out and kill large numbers of other people. The caveat of “except maybe war” was added. However, the caveat changes nothing, really. It’s just saying “sane people don’t go out and kill people unless it’s been deemed necessary to do so”. And that’s a useless statement bordering on tautology.
Look, I’m not willing to concede Roof was deranged simply on the basis that he went on a shooting spree. That’s the main point I was getting at, and the line of reasoning that I was objecting to from wj. It’s question-begging. The point is that we as a culture absolutely do not have a problem with calling killing sprees sane so long as we judge them to be righteous and needful. Which makes the assertion I objected to not only tautological, but also a red herring. If we have a segment of citizens who question the legitimacy of the government, and do not agree with the majority of the body-politic as to what constitutes an existential threat, there is absolutely no reason to expect them to judge it to be unthinkable or beyond the pale to kill fellow citizens who they feel are a threat to their way of life and/or their country/family/race/whatever simply because the gov’t does not sanction their killing. Our society is quite quick to deem summary execution justified if it’s means towards a noble end. So when someone who doesn’t view the gov’t as authoritative engages in illegal killing we cannot seriously use that alone as an indicator of insanity unless we really are willing, as I effusively and digressively argued, to e.g. likewise deem all who volunteer to kill in socially-sanctioned manners such as war to be insane.
tl;dr: If Roof is “seriously deranged”, the proof of that is that he has psychological and/or psycho-chemical imbalances, not that he engaged in mass murder; arguing otherwise reduces the insanity of mass-murderers to a tautology.
Yes, cleek…kudos for Gov. Haley. It’s a good (if only symbolic) step.
Now to see if she suffers for it, politically.
Yes, cleek…kudos for Gov. Haley. It’s a good (if only symbolic) step.
Now to see if she suffers for it, politically.
Yes, cleek…kudos for Gov. Haley. It’s a good (if only symbolic) step.
Now to see if she suffers for it, politically.
Lots of people will kill for ideology or for a set of beliefs about how a society ought to be and it is only considered deranged if the belief system is unpopular or not officially sanctioned.
Sometimes killing for a set of beliefs about society is popular and officially sanctioned at one point in time and later is viewed as a sort of national psychosis. I’m thinking of Nazis.
Sometimes people who really are deranged will latch onto a set of beliefs and incorporate it into their derangement. I think that describes the guy who shot Gabby Griffords.
But killing in the context of a set of beliefs doesn’t by itself mean that the killer is deranged.
Lots of people will kill for ideology or for a set of beliefs about how a society ought to be and it is only considered deranged if the belief system is unpopular or not officially sanctioned.
Sometimes killing for a set of beliefs about society is popular and officially sanctioned at one point in time and later is viewed as a sort of national psychosis. I’m thinking of Nazis.
Sometimes people who really are deranged will latch onto a set of beliefs and incorporate it into their derangement. I think that describes the guy who shot Gabby Griffords.
But killing in the context of a set of beliefs doesn’t by itself mean that the killer is deranged.
Lots of people will kill for ideology or for a set of beliefs about how a society ought to be and it is only considered deranged if the belief system is unpopular or not officially sanctioned.
Sometimes killing for a set of beliefs about society is popular and officially sanctioned at one point in time and later is viewed as a sort of national psychosis. I’m thinking of Nazis.
Sometimes people who really are deranged will latch onto a set of beliefs and incorporate it into their derangement. I think that describes the guy who shot Gabby Griffords.
But killing in the context of a set of beliefs doesn’t by itself mean that the killer is deranged.
And, yes, good for Governor Haley.
And, yes, good for Governor Haley.
And, yes, good for Governor Haley.
McKinney,
Nice post @ 5:32 above. Clearly, it is difficult to have a reasoned discussion when there is essential disagreement as to what is, or even if there is–a problem.
Pre-civil war, there was also vitriolic disagreement about “race”, but everybody pretty much knew what was at stake. Either slavery would survive, necessitating its expansion into the new territories to maintain the political balancing act, or the institution would be abolished.
We live with the aftermath. Certainly one can laud our upward mobility and our individualistic ethos of self striving, keeping your nose clean, getting an education, etc., etc.
But black america continues to lag. The statistics are dismal.
So it comes down to this, do we continue to do more or less nothing (“we’ve done what we can, now it’s up to you”) or are there public policies that can be adopted that would work to ameliorate this?…and yes, frankly, it may come down to “who gets what”, because in the end that is what politics is all about.
And that is what makes it so intractable.
As a group, the white community has robbed, raped, and repeatedly denied the black community means to accumulate wealth (again, via public policies) or simply stolen what little they managed to grasp for 400 years.
To me, this bald fact is what is driving the outcomes we witness.
It is the failure to widely recognize this fact that gives rise to throwing out the “r” word. Nearly all (white) individuals do not see themselves as racists, but they benefit in many ways from a racist system.
It is difficult to change a system one person at a time. It is the systemic nature of the problem that drives, Coates, for one, to despair.
But to important matters: I have played there twice, and it is so different from what one usually encounters, that is is like playing on the moon. The sheer scale and rolling nature of the fairways and greens is disorienting. This is not helped by not knowing where the greens end and the fairways begin. And boy is that ground hard….no lushness at all. Every lie is tight. The courses look ragged at the British Open, too. It’s the grass, man! That’s the way it was designed.
Thank you for your thoughts.
McKinney,
Nice post @ 5:32 above. Clearly, it is difficult to have a reasoned discussion when there is essential disagreement as to what is, or even if there is–a problem.
Pre-civil war, there was also vitriolic disagreement about “race”, but everybody pretty much knew what was at stake. Either slavery would survive, necessitating its expansion into the new territories to maintain the political balancing act, or the institution would be abolished.
We live with the aftermath. Certainly one can laud our upward mobility and our individualistic ethos of self striving, keeping your nose clean, getting an education, etc., etc.
But black america continues to lag. The statistics are dismal.
So it comes down to this, do we continue to do more or less nothing (“we’ve done what we can, now it’s up to you”) or are there public policies that can be adopted that would work to ameliorate this?…and yes, frankly, it may come down to “who gets what”, because in the end that is what politics is all about.
And that is what makes it so intractable.
As a group, the white community has robbed, raped, and repeatedly denied the black community means to accumulate wealth (again, via public policies) or simply stolen what little they managed to grasp for 400 years.
To me, this bald fact is what is driving the outcomes we witness.
It is the failure to widely recognize this fact that gives rise to throwing out the “r” word. Nearly all (white) individuals do not see themselves as racists, but they benefit in many ways from a racist system.
It is difficult to change a system one person at a time. It is the systemic nature of the problem that drives, Coates, for one, to despair.
But to important matters: I have played there twice, and it is so different from what one usually encounters, that is is like playing on the moon. The sheer scale and rolling nature of the fairways and greens is disorienting. This is not helped by not knowing where the greens end and the fairways begin. And boy is that ground hard….no lushness at all. Every lie is tight. The courses look ragged at the British Open, too. It’s the grass, man! That’s the way it was designed.
Thank you for your thoughts.
McKinney,
Nice post @ 5:32 above. Clearly, it is difficult to have a reasoned discussion when there is essential disagreement as to what is, or even if there is–a problem.
Pre-civil war, there was also vitriolic disagreement about “race”, but everybody pretty much knew what was at stake. Either slavery would survive, necessitating its expansion into the new territories to maintain the political balancing act, or the institution would be abolished.
We live with the aftermath. Certainly one can laud our upward mobility and our individualistic ethos of self striving, keeping your nose clean, getting an education, etc., etc.
But black america continues to lag. The statistics are dismal.
So it comes down to this, do we continue to do more or less nothing (“we’ve done what we can, now it’s up to you”) or are there public policies that can be adopted that would work to ameliorate this?…and yes, frankly, it may come down to “who gets what”, because in the end that is what politics is all about.
And that is what makes it so intractable.
As a group, the white community has robbed, raped, and repeatedly denied the black community means to accumulate wealth (again, via public policies) or simply stolen what little they managed to grasp for 400 years.
To me, this bald fact is what is driving the outcomes we witness.
It is the failure to widely recognize this fact that gives rise to throwing out the “r” word. Nearly all (white) individuals do not see themselves as racists, but they benefit in many ways from a racist system.
It is difficult to change a system one person at a time. It is the systemic nature of the problem that drives, Coates, for one, to despair.
But to important matters: I have played there twice, and it is so different from what one usually encounters, that is is like playing on the moon. The sheer scale and rolling nature of the fairways and greens is disorienting. This is not helped by not knowing where the greens end and the fairways begin. And boy is that ground hard….no lushness at all. Every lie is tight. The courses look ragged at the British Open, too. It’s the grass, man! That’s the way it was designed.
Thank you for your thoughts.
But killing in the context of a set of beliefs doesn’t by itself mean that the killer is deranged.
An interesting question. But consider, do we not, via rigorous military training, enable soldiers to get temporarily “deranged” in order to willingly enter into battle?
Were those climbing the trenches in 1916 facing a lethal hail of machine gun bullets not “deranged” in some sense? And were not those firing the machine guns similarly deranged?
War is organized madness.
But killing in the context of a set of beliefs doesn’t by itself mean that the killer is deranged.
An interesting question. But consider, do we not, via rigorous military training, enable soldiers to get temporarily “deranged” in order to willingly enter into battle?
Were those climbing the trenches in 1916 facing a lethal hail of machine gun bullets not “deranged” in some sense? And were not those firing the machine guns similarly deranged?
War is organized madness.
But killing in the context of a set of beliefs doesn’t by itself mean that the killer is deranged.
An interesting question. But consider, do we not, via rigorous military training, enable soldiers to get temporarily “deranged” in order to willingly enter into battle?
Were those climbing the trenches in 1916 facing a lethal hail of machine gun bullets not “deranged” in some sense? And were not those firing the machine guns similarly deranged?
War is organized madness.
I don’t agree with some of what McT says, but this isn’t “my” issue, and by that I mean I think there are others here who could present the liberal view of America and racism much better than I could. But in particular, I don’t agree with this–
“ew people face an obstacle-free life. Racism is a fact, but it is not an excuse nor is it insurmountable. Millions of Americans, despite or regardless of skin color, have realized the American dream. What happened today or fifty years ago or 200 years ago is no excuse for any American to ignore the opportunity this country offers, from free education to freedom itself.”
I realize some blacks would agree with this-before his own personal life tripped him up, I suspect Bill Cosby might have said things along these lines or anyway that was my impression. (I’m not gloating over Cosby’s fall and don’t think his sins mean that his political stance is thereby discredited–it depressed me, actually, that someone I’d always liked turned out to be a creep.) But I lean more towards the Coates view.
I don’t agree with some of what McT says, but this isn’t “my” issue, and by that I mean I think there are others here who could present the liberal view of America and racism much better than I could. But in particular, I don’t agree with this–
“ew people face an obstacle-free life. Racism is a fact, but it is not an excuse nor is it insurmountable. Millions of Americans, despite or regardless of skin color, have realized the American dream. What happened today or fifty years ago or 200 years ago is no excuse for any American to ignore the opportunity this country offers, from free education to freedom itself.”
I realize some blacks would agree with this-before his own personal life tripped him up, I suspect Bill Cosby might have said things along these lines or anyway that was my impression. (I’m not gloating over Cosby’s fall and don’t think his sins mean that his political stance is thereby discredited–it depressed me, actually, that someone I’d always liked turned out to be a creep.) But I lean more towards the Coates view.
I don’t agree with some of what McT says, but this isn’t “my” issue, and by that I mean I think there are others here who could present the liberal view of America and racism much better than I could. But in particular, I don’t agree with this–
“ew people face an obstacle-free life. Racism is a fact, but it is not an excuse nor is it insurmountable. Millions of Americans, despite or regardless of skin color, have realized the American dream. What happened today or fifty years ago or 200 years ago is no excuse for any American to ignore the opportunity this country offers, from free education to freedom itself.”
I realize some blacks would agree with this-before his own personal life tripped him up, I suspect Bill Cosby might have said things along these lines or anyway that was my impression. (I’m not gloating over Cosby’s fall and don’t think his sins mean that his political stance is thereby discredited–it depressed me, actually, that someone I’d always liked turned out to be a creep.) But I lean more towards the Coates view.
Hey McK –
Thanks again for your thoughtful comments here. Some thoughts of my own.
Agreed that the criminal justice system is skewed against blacks, and maybe minorities in general. Differences in how police interact with blacks, differences in sentencing, to start.
The war on drugs implementation in particular IMO targets blacks and other minorities disproportionately to the actual criminal activity, and the sentencing regimes in that area are, again IMO, insane.
All of that contributes to things like the concentration of black populations in poor and poorly-served areas, and also contributes to single-parent family structures.
I also think that American blacks suffer from many generations of not being able to build family wealth, which in turn is very much a result of public (government) and private (retail banking and real estate especially) policies, many of which endured well beyond the civil rights era.
I also think American blacks are regularly subject to stupid, garden-variety insults along the lines of being followed around in stores, having white people be visibly afraid of them in public places, being stopped by cops while driving, and not being able to hail cabs, etc etc etc. I think those things really happen, and really happen without any cause other than the folks in question being black in places where black people aren’t expected to be.
Long story short, I think the experience of being black in the US is not like being white in the US, and a lot of it is not caused by black folks.
Some is. A lot, I think, is not.
I raise all these points simply to balance or perhaps counter the position that the source of the problem, and the real place to find the solution, is in family structure and self-discipline. It seems to me that that point of view is factually correct as far as it goes, but also kind of begs the question.
I do recognize that there is a limit to what can be addressed by public programs, of whatever kind.
In the end, I think black people are going to have to make things happen for themselves, because anything they get from the public sector or charitable sources is just going to be held against them.
Schools, stores, banks and credit unions, industrial concerns, all of it, black or minority owned and operated. Build wealth and build community institutions over time. Not in the weird Black Muslim separatist sense, but just for the purpose of building accomplishment, and ownership, and financial stability security and wealth.
Blacks have actually done all this, multiple times, so there’s nothing new about all of this. They’ve also had it destroyed, multiple times, so there’s that. But I don’t see another way forward.
In any case, I can understand why anything remotely related to race is a hot potato for conservatives. Some of that they have, I think, brought on themselves, but not all.
There needs to be room for candor, which means there needs to be some kind of space where defensiveness can be put aside, which means there needs to be some space where folks can speak without immediately being judged.
Hey McK –
Thanks again for your thoughtful comments here. Some thoughts of my own.
Agreed that the criminal justice system is skewed against blacks, and maybe minorities in general. Differences in how police interact with blacks, differences in sentencing, to start.
The war on drugs implementation in particular IMO targets blacks and other minorities disproportionately to the actual criminal activity, and the sentencing regimes in that area are, again IMO, insane.
All of that contributes to things like the concentration of black populations in poor and poorly-served areas, and also contributes to single-parent family structures.
I also think that American blacks suffer from many generations of not being able to build family wealth, which in turn is very much a result of public (government) and private (retail banking and real estate especially) policies, many of which endured well beyond the civil rights era.
I also think American blacks are regularly subject to stupid, garden-variety insults along the lines of being followed around in stores, having white people be visibly afraid of them in public places, being stopped by cops while driving, and not being able to hail cabs, etc etc etc. I think those things really happen, and really happen without any cause other than the folks in question being black in places where black people aren’t expected to be.
Long story short, I think the experience of being black in the US is not like being white in the US, and a lot of it is not caused by black folks.
Some is. A lot, I think, is not.
I raise all these points simply to balance or perhaps counter the position that the source of the problem, and the real place to find the solution, is in family structure and self-discipline. It seems to me that that point of view is factually correct as far as it goes, but also kind of begs the question.
I do recognize that there is a limit to what can be addressed by public programs, of whatever kind.
In the end, I think black people are going to have to make things happen for themselves, because anything they get from the public sector or charitable sources is just going to be held against them.
Schools, stores, banks and credit unions, industrial concerns, all of it, black or minority owned and operated. Build wealth and build community institutions over time. Not in the weird Black Muslim separatist sense, but just for the purpose of building accomplishment, and ownership, and financial stability security and wealth.
Blacks have actually done all this, multiple times, so there’s nothing new about all of this. They’ve also had it destroyed, multiple times, so there’s that. But I don’t see another way forward.
In any case, I can understand why anything remotely related to race is a hot potato for conservatives. Some of that they have, I think, brought on themselves, but not all.
There needs to be room for candor, which means there needs to be some kind of space where defensiveness can be put aside, which means there needs to be some space where folks can speak without immediately being judged.
Hey McK –
Thanks again for your thoughtful comments here. Some thoughts of my own.
Agreed that the criminal justice system is skewed against blacks, and maybe minorities in general. Differences in how police interact with blacks, differences in sentencing, to start.
The war on drugs implementation in particular IMO targets blacks and other minorities disproportionately to the actual criminal activity, and the sentencing regimes in that area are, again IMO, insane.
All of that contributes to things like the concentration of black populations in poor and poorly-served areas, and also contributes to single-parent family structures.
I also think that American blacks suffer from many generations of not being able to build family wealth, which in turn is very much a result of public (government) and private (retail banking and real estate especially) policies, many of which endured well beyond the civil rights era.
I also think American blacks are regularly subject to stupid, garden-variety insults along the lines of being followed around in stores, having white people be visibly afraid of them in public places, being stopped by cops while driving, and not being able to hail cabs, etc etc etc. I think those things really happen, and really happen without any cause other than the folks in question being black in places where black people aren’t expected to be.
Long story short, I think the experience of being black in the US is not like being white in the US, and a lot of it is not caused by black folks.
Some is. A lot, I think, is not.
I raise all these points simply to balance or perhaps counter the position that the source of the problem, and the real place to find the solution, is in family structure and self-discipline. It seems to me that that point of view is factually correct as far as it goes, but also kind of begs the question.
I do recognize that there is a limit to what can be addressed by public programs, of whatever kind.
In the end, I think black people are going to have to make things happen for themselves, because anything they get from the public sector or charitable sources is just going to be held against them.
Schools, stores, banks and credit unions, industrial concerns, all of it, black or minority owned and operated. Build wealth and build community institutions over time. Not in the weird Black Muslim separatist sense, but just for the purpose of building accomplishment, and ownership, and financial stability security and wealth.
Blacks have actually done all this, multiple times, so there’s nothing new about all of this. They’ve also had it destroyed, multiple times, so there’s that. But I don’t see another way forward.
In any case, I can understand why anything remotely related to race is a hot potato for conservatives. Some of that they have, I think, brought on themselves, but not all.
There needs to be room for candor, which means there needs to be some kind of space where defensiveness can be put aside, which means there needs to be some space where folks can speak without immediately being judged.
if paragraph four seems like a non-sequitur, it’s because it should follow, rather precede, paragraph five.
d’oh.
it’s been that kind of day.
if paragraph four seems like a non-sequitur, it’s because it should follow, rather precede, paragraph five.
d’oh.
it’s been that kind of day.
if paragraph four seems like a non-sequitur, it’s because it should follow, rather precede, paragraph five.
d’oh.
it’s been that kind of day.
Well, “deranged” isn’t a clinical term. I was using it to mean “has an actual mental illness”. So, just because a person kills in he belief that they are acting in accordance with some ideology, or cause, does not mean the person is mentally ill in a way that a psychologist or psychiatrist would recognize.
Well, “deranged” isn’t a clinical term. I was using it to mean “has an actual mental illness”. So, just because a person kills in he belief that they are acting in accordance with some ideology, or cause, does not mean the person is mentally ill in a way that a psychologist or psychiatrist would recognize.
Well, “deranged” isn’t a clinical term. I was using it to mean “has an actual mental illness”. So, just because a person kills in he belief that they are acting in accordance with some ideology, or cause, does not mean the person is mentally ill in a way that a psychologist or psychiatrist would recognize.
I raise all these points simply to balance or perhaps counter the position that the source of the problem, and the real place to find the solution, is in family structure and self-discipline.
Carts & horses: 1.) The disintegration of the family structure cause the deplorable social outcomes we routinely observe; solutions: Moral exhortation, criticism of “black culture”, and charity or 2.) The social disintegration is due to the systemic denial of opportunity to the black race inhibiting, most importantly, wealth accumulation and the ability to pass that wealth to subsequent generations; solutions: Systemic ones….Anti-discrimination laws; reverse ‘preferential treatment’; reparations.
One can see how readily these may be seen to conflict, but in a society that was honest about racial disparities-they absolutely are not.
my 4 cents.
I raise all these points simply to balance or perhaps counter the position that the source of the problem, and the real place to find the solution, is in family structure and self-discipline.
Carts & horses: 1.) The disintegration of the family structure cause the deplorable social outcomes we routinely observe; solutions: Moral exhortation, criticism of “black culture”, and charity or 2.) The social disintegration is due to the systemic denial of opportunity to the black race inhibiting, most importantly, wealth accumulation and the ability to pass that wealth to subsequent generations; solutions: Systemic ones….Anti-discrimination laws; reverse ‘preferential treatment’; reparations.
One can see how readily these may be seen to conflict, but in a society that was honest about racial disparities-they absolutely are not.
my 4 cents.
I raise all these points simply to balance or perhaps counter the position that the source of the problem, and the real place to find the solution, is in family structure and self-discipline.
Carts & horses: 1.) The disintegration of the family structure cause the deplorable social outcomes we routinely observe; solutions: Moral exhortation, criticism of “black culture”, and charity or 2.) The social disintegration is due to the systemic denial of opportunity to the black race inhibiting, most importantly, wealth accumulation and the ability to pass that wealth to subsequent generations; solutions: Systemic ones….Anti-discrimination laws; reverse ‘preferential treatment’; reparations.
One can see how readily these may be seen to conflict, but in a society that was honest about racial disparities-they absolutely are not.
my 4 cents.
But I’m not ready to give up on anywhere near 10% of the population.
I thought 10-15% was pretty optimistic.
For sometime in the next 10-20 years, yes it would be optimistic. I agree. But 40 or 50 years from now (which I would take to be included in “always”)? I think we can do better than that.
Consider another deeply engranged prejudice: that against homosexuality. 30-40 years ago, you could still get jailed in a lot of states, just for having homosexual sex. Now, an ever-increasing number of states let homosexuals marry each other. Yes, there is still a lot of prejudice out there. But the extent of the change in views is simply enormous. And, from what I am reading, it is even larger amongst the next generation — where even very conservative school-age kids can’t understand why their elders are getting so worked up about it.
Maybe I am being unduely optimistic. But I sure wouldn’t bet the ranch on it in the long run.
But I’m not ready to give up on anywhere near 10% of the population.
I thought 10-15% was pretty optimistic.
For sometime in the next 10-20 years, yes it would be optimistic. I agree. But 40 or 50 years from now (which I would take to be included in “always”)? I think we can do better than that.
Consider another deeply engranged prejudice: that against homosexuality. 30-40 years ago, you could still get jailed in a lot of states, just for having homosexual sex. Now, an ever-increasing number of states let homosexuals marry each other. Yes, there is still a lot of prejudice out there. But the extent of the change in views is simply enormous. And, from what I am reading, it is even larger amongst the next generation — where even very conservative school-age kids can’t understand why their elders are getting so worked up about it.
Maybe I am being unduely optimistic. But I sure wouldn’t bet the ranch on it in the long run.
But I’m not ready to give up on anywhere near 10% of the population.
I thought 10-15% was pretty optimistic.
For sometime in the next 10-20 years, yes it would be optimistic. I agree. But 40 or 50 years from now (which I would take to be included in “always”)? I think we can do better than that.
Consider another deeply engranged prejudice: that against homosexuality. 30-40 years ago, you could still get jailed in a lot of states, just for having homosexual sex. Now, an ever-increasing number of states let homosexuals marry each other. Yes, there is still a lot of prejudice out there. But the extent of the change in views is simply enormous. And, from what I am reading, it is even larger amongst the next generation — where even very conservative school-age kids can’t understand why their elders are getting so worked up about it.
Maybe I am being unduely optimistic. But I sure wouldn’t bet the ranch on it in the long run.
With respect to whether going out and killing a bunch of people is crazy. I would note that the military has spent a lot of time and effort devising programs which will take new recruits and make them willing to do so. They can be trained that way. But if many of them came that way, much of that training would be unnecessary.
That’s why I tossed in the caveat about war. It isn’t that sane people don’t kill others. It’s that getting otherwise sane people to do so in job lots takes a lot of focused training.
With respect to whether going out and killing a bunch of people is crazy. I would note that the military has spent a lot of time and effort devising programs which will take new recruits and make them willing to do so. They can be trained that way. But if many of them came that way, much of that training would be unnecessary.
That’s why I tossed in the caveat about war. It isn’t that sane people don’t kill others. It’s that getting otherwise sane people to do so in job lots takes a lot of focused training.
With respect to whether going out and killing a bunch of people is crazy. I would note that the military has spent a lot of time and effort devising programs which will take new recruits and make them willing to do so. They can be trained that way. But if many of them came that way, much of that training would be unnecessary.
That’s why I tossed in the caveat about war. It isn’t that sane people don’t kill others. It’s that getting otherwise sane people to do so in job lots takes a lot of focused training.
The 10-15% number seems to be a bit of a constant as far as ‘traditional prejudices’ go. The rule of thumb seems to be 1 in 7 (for Germany for example that’s the antisemites or the believers in witchcraft). So, it seems to me that reducing the prejudices further is more or less futile. The goal should be their suppression in deeds. If society makes it clear that it will not tolerate prejudice-based actions or attempts to exploit the prejudices (while acknowledging that the prejudices themselves are immune to change) that seems to me to the best achievable outcome.
As far as racism goes, the US still fall significantly short of that (while e.g. Germany has a growing problem with nativism, so we are no angels either).
The 10-15% number seems to be a bit of a constant as far as ‘traditional prejudices’ go. The rule of thumb seems to be 1 in 7 (for Germany for example that’s the antisemites or the believers in witchcraft). So, it seems to me that reducing the prejudices further is more or less futile. The goal should be their suppression in deeds. If society makes it clear that it will not tolerate prejudice-based actions or attempts to exploit the prejudices (while acknowledging that the prejudices themselves are immune to change) that seems to me to the best achievable outcome.
As far as racism goes, the US still fall significantly short of that (while e.g. Germany has a growing problem with nativism, so we are no angels either).
The 10-15% number seems to be a bit of a constant as far as ‘traditional prejudices’ go. The rule of thumb seems to be 1 in 7 (for Germany for example that’s the antisemites or the believers in witchcraft). So, it seems to me that reducing the prejudices further is more or less futile. The goal should be their suppression in deeds. If society makes it clear that it will not tolerate prejudice-based actions or attempts to exploit the prejudices (while acknowledging that the prejudices themselves are immune to change) that seems to me to the best achievable outcome.
As far as racism goes, the US still fall significantly short of that (while e.g. Germany has a growing problem with nativism, so we are no angels either).
The one thing I’d note with that is that the military wants recruits who can reliably go out and kill repeatedly, and if they break mentally the military will have to pick up the pieces. A lone private citizen who comes to the conclusion that some killing needs done does not perforce think about sustainability, and may just assume it’ll be easy, only to crack up in short order. Being able to go out and conduct one mass shooting doesn’t show disorder, and even multiple shootings may show discipline instead of disorder.
The point being that it’s fairly unhelpful to hold out conclusions like “mass murderer => insane, because only someone insane could conduct mass murder”, even if it feels reassuring to “know” that there’s something fundamentally different about someone who would do such a thing. Beyond that trap, it can encourage obfuscation of motives, as in the case at hand. I’ve certainly seen more than a few people on social media pouncing onto nice, comfortable, familiar, straightforward demonization of mental health issues to avoid having to grapple with complex causes. Another reason it’s unhelpful is it’s “identifying” “disorder” entirely by noting effects after the fact, and not even attempting to look at causes; it’s a sufficiently shallow observation as to be of essentially no value predictively speaking to say we can recognize a deranged individual who’s a risk of conducting a shooting by observing who conducts shootings. Finally, it’s cleaving very closely to the idea that mental disorders are strictly a matter of deviating from a norm, and that’s problematic for a whole host of reasons.
The one thing I’d note with that is that the military wants recruits who can reliably go out and kill repeatedly, and if they break mentally the military will have to pick up the pieces. A lone private citizen who comes to the conclusion that some killing needs done does not perforce think about sustainability, and may just assume it’ll be easy, only to crack up in short order. Being able to go out and conduct one mass shooting doesn’t show disorder, and even multiple shootings may show discipline instead of disorder.
The point being that it’s fairly unhelpful to hold out conclusions like “mass murderer => insane, because only someone insane could conduct mass murder”, even if it feels reassuring to “know” that there’s something fundamentally different about someone who would do such a thing. Beyond that trap, it can encourage obfuscation of motives, as in the case at hand. I’ve certainly seen more than a few people on social media pouncing onto nice, comfortable, familiar, straightforward demonization of mental health issues to avoid having to grapple with complex causes. Another reason it’s unhelpful is it’s “identifying” “disorder” entirely by noting effects after the fact, and not even attempting to look at causes; it’s a sufficiently shallow observation as to be of essentially no value predictively speaking to say we can recognize a deranged individual who’s a risk of conducting a shooting by observing who conducts shootings. Finally, it’s cleaving very closely to the idea that mental disorders are strictly a matter of deviating from a norm, and that’s problematic for a whole host of reasons.
The one thing I’d note with that is that the military wants recruits who can reliably go out and kill repeatedly, and if they break mentally the military will have to pick up the pieces. A lone private citizen who comes to the conclusion that some killing needs done does not perforce think about sustainability, and may just assume it’ll be easy, only to crack up in short order. Being able to go out and conduct one mass shooting doesn’t show disorder, and even multiple shootings may show discipline instead of disorder.
The point being that it’s fairly unhelpful to hold out conclusions like “mass murderer => insane, because only someone insane could conduct mass murder”, even if it feels reassuring to “know” that there’s something fundamentally different about someone who would do such a thing. Beyond that trap, it can encourage obfuscation of motives, as in the case at hand. I’ve certainly seen more than a few people on social media pouncing onto nice, comfortable, familiar, straightforward demonization of mental health issues to avoid having to grapple with complex causes. Another reason it’s unhelpful is it’s “identifying” “disorder” entirely by noting effects after the fact, and not even attempting to look at causes; it’s a sufficiently shallow observation as to be of essentially no value predictively speaking to say we can recognize a deranged individual who’s a risk of conducting a shooting by observing who conducts shootings. Finally, it’s cleaving very closely to the idea that mental disorders are strictly a matter of deviating from a norm, and that’s problematic for a whole host of reasons.
Concerning homosexuality I think the key word is tolerance. I doubt that the number of people considering gay sex icky is going down but more and more people now have come to “I may find it disgusting but it does not concern me personally, so why should I care?”, and that’s enough for a society to function.
I would include myself there (with a higher tolerance for lesbian prawn* but that’s quite common I hear).
*misspelled to fool the filter
Concerning homosexuality I think the key word is tolerance. I doubt that the number of people considering gay sex icky is going down but more and more people now have come to “I may find it disgusting but it does not concern me personally, so why should I care?”, and that’s enough for a society to function.
I would include myself there (with a higher tolerance for lesbian prawn* but that’s quite common I hear).
*misspelled to fool the filter
Concerning homosexuality I think the key word is tolerance. I doubt that the number of people considering gay sex icky is going down but more and more people now have come to “I may find it disgusting but it does not concern me personally, so why should I care?”, and that’s enough for a society to function.
I would include myself there (with a higher tolerance for lesbian prawn* but that’s quite common I hear).
*misspelled to fool the filter
“From the left, racism, sexism and militarism are what define America, past, present and future.”
That’s typical Fox News BS.
Yes, there are some lefties who think that way. Unlike what has happened on the right, there aren’t that many of them, they don’t dominate the left, they aren’t the major force amongst Dems in the House or Senate.
Yes, racism and sexism are clearly a part of our past and present, and if General/President Eisenhower could name militarism as a problem for us it’s a little hard to argue with that.
The lefties in my circle get a little wacky about GMOs and fluoridated water but not one of them thinks your trifecta *define* the country, although they agree they are serious problems that need fixing. That’s also my experience of the majority of lefties on ObWi. And every one of them just wants to see those problems disappear from our future so we, and the rest of the world, can enjoy the good things about the USA.
That statement is a good old straw man, invented, I suspect, so you can draw parallels that don’t exist so you don’t have to confront how seriously off it is that so many people on your side don’t think those things are problems at all.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-charleston-shooting-1434669812
“From the left, racism, sexism and militarism are what define America, past, present and future.”
That’s typical Fox News BS.
Yes, there are some lefties who think that way. Unlike what has happened on the right, there aren’t that many of them, they don’t dominate the left, they aren’t the major force amongst Dems in the House or Senate.
Yes, racism and sexism are clearly a part of our past and present, and if General/President Eisenhower could name militarism as a problem for us it’s a little hard to argue with that.
The lefties in my circle get a little wacky about GMOs and fluoridated water but not one of them thinks your trifecta *define* the country, although they agree they are serious problems that need fixing. That’s also my experience of the majority of lefties on ObWi. And every one of them just wants to see those problems disappear from our future so we, and the rest of the world, can enjoy the good things about the USA.
That statement is a good old straw man, invented, I suspect, so you can draw parallels that don’t exist so you don’t have to confront how seriously off it is that so many people on your side don’t think those things are problems at all.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-charleston-shooting-1434669812
“From the left, racism, sexism and militarism are what define America, past, present and future.”
That’s typical Fox News BS.
Yes, there are some lefties who think that way. Unlike what has happened on the right, there aren’t that many of them, they don’t dominate the left, they aren’t the major force amongst Dems in the House or Senate.
Yes, racism and sexism are clearly a part of our past and present, and if General/President Eisenhower could name militarism as a problem for us it’s a little hard to argue with that.
The lefties in my circle get a little wacky about GMOs and fluoridated water but not one of them thinks your trifecta *define* the country, although they agree they are serious problems that need fixing. That’s also my experience of the majority of lefties on ObWi. And every one of them just wants to see those problems disappear from our future so we, and the rest of the world, can enjoy the good things about the USA.
That statement is a good old straw man, invented, I suspect, so you can draw parallels that don’t exist so you don’t have to confront how seriously off it is that so many people on your side don’t think those things are problems at all.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-charleston-shooting-1434669812
That statement is a good old straw man
Actually, I’d say that racism is definitely one of the critical lenses for thinking about US history and identity.
Sexism less so, if only because it’s not particular to the US.
Militarism less so, if only because we came to it later than some others. But certainly for the last 100+ years, yes, militarism.
I’d add corporatism.
So, without wishing to dispute your own experience, I would also say that McK’s characterization applies fairly well to at least some lefties.
I’m probably among the “some lefties” you refer to.
That statement is a good old straw man
Actually, I’d say that racism is definitely one of the critical lenses for thinking about US history and identity.
Sexism less so, if only because it’s not particular to the US.
Militarism less so, if only because we came to it later than some others. But certainly for the last 100+ years, yes, militarism.
I’d add corporatism.
So, without wishing to dispute your own experience, I would also say that McK’s characterization applies fairly well to at least some lefties.
I’m probably among the “some lefties” you refer to.
That statement is a good old straw man
Actually, I’d say that racism is definitely one of the critical lenses for thinking about US history and identity.
Sexism less so, if only because it’s not particular to the US.
Militarism less so, if only because we came to it later than some others. But certainly for the last 100+ years, yes, militarism.
I’d add corporatism.
So, without wishing to dispute your own experience, I would also say that McK’s characterization applies fairly well to at least some lefties.
I’m probably among the “some lefties” you refer to.
I really like this line, and I think it sums up a lot of what needs to be done to improve discourse in this country:
There needs to be room for candor, which means there needs to be some kind of space where defensiveness can be put aside, which means there needs to be some space where folks can speak without immediately being judged.
To me, that’s right out of the ‘there’s no bad ideas in brainstorming’ handbook. If people aren’t free to be publicly wrong, they don’t speak. Their bad ideas don’t get challenged and overturned, and their good ideas don’t get disseminated.
I think this clicks into the point that McK made (and I think someone else, as well, but its a long thread and I can’t find the posts I’m thinking of) about narrative. Racism isn’t part of the ‘conservative narrative’ which can make it uncomfortable to speak about it. I don’t mean in the sense they feel guilty about their views, just that it is incredibly challenging to communicate complex views succinctly and with clarity. Like all things, practice makes perfect. Effectively conveying complex topics takes time and iteration.
Anyway, I originally didn’t post on this thread because I’ve been busy, but also because I anticipated it being more heat than light. I’ve been proved wrong, however, and I just wanted to say I’m very impressed with what this thread has become.
I really like this line, and I think it sums up a lot of what needs to be done to improve discourse in this country:
There needs to be room for candor, which means there needs to be some kind of space where defensiveness can be put aside, which means there needs to be some space where folks can speak without immediately being judged.
To me, that’s right out of the ‘there’s no bad ideas in brainstorming’ handbook. If people aren’t free to be publicly wrong, they don’t speak. Their bad ideas don’t get challenged and overturned, and their good ideas don’t get disseminated.
I think this clicks into the point that McK made (and I think someone else, as well, but its a long thread and I can’t find the posts I’m thinking of) about narrative. Racism isn’t part of the ‘conservative narrative’ which can make it uncomfortable to speak about it. I don’t mean in the sense they feel guilty about their views, just that it is incredibly challenging to communicate complex views succinctly and with clarity. Like all things, practice makes perfect. Effectively conveying complex topics takes time and iteration.
Anyway, I originally didn’t post on this thread because I’ve been busy, but also because I anticipated it being more heat than light. I’ve been proved wrong, however, and I just wanted to say I’m very impressed with what this thread has become.
I really like this line, and I think it sums up a lot of what needs to be done to improve discourse in this country:
There needs to be room for candor, which means there needs to be some kind of space where defensiveness can be put aside, which means there needs to be some space where folks can speak without immediately being judged.
To me, that’s right out of the ‘there’s no bad ideas in brainstorming’ handbook. If people aren’t free to be publicly wrong, they don’t speak. Their bad ideas don’t get challenged and overturned, and their good ideas don’t get disseminated.
I think this clicks into the point that McK made (and I think someone else, as well, but its a long thread and I can’t find the posts I’m thinking of) about narrative. Racism isn’t part of the ‘conservative narrative’ which can make it uncomfortable to speak about it. I don’t mean in the sense they feel guilty about their views, just that it is incredibly challenging to communicate complex views succinctly and with clarity. Like all things, practice makes perfect. Effectively conveying complex topics takes time and iteration.
Anyway, I originally didn’t post on this thread because I’ve been busy, but also because I anticipated it being more heat than light. I’ve been proved wrong, however, and I just wanted to say I’m very impressed with what this thread has become.
it is incredibly challenging to communicate complex views succinctly and with clarity.
Amen.
Thanks everyone for hanging in, I agree that the thread ended up in a pretty good place.
I wasn’t sure it would happen, and I wasn’t sure I should even try to post anything on the topic. Sometimes you gotta take a chance. I’m glad it worked out.
it is incredibly challenging to communicate complex views succinctly and with clarity.
Amen.
Thanks everyone for hanging in, I agree that the thread ended up in a pretty good place.
I wasn’t sure it would happen, and I wasn’t sure I should even try to post anything on the topic. Sometimes you gotta take a chance. I’m glad it worked out.
it is incredibly challenging to communicate complex views succinctly and with clarity.
Amen.
Thanks everyone for hanging in, I agree that the thread ended up in a pretty good place.
I wasn’t sure it would happen, and I wasn’t sure I should even try to post anything on the topic. Sometimes you gotta take a chance. I’m glad it worked out.
I doubt that the number of people considering gay sex icky is going down but more and more people now have come to “I may find it disgusting but it does not concern me personally, so why should I care?”
Hartmut, I can really relate to that, because that is pretty much where my mind is. I know it’s a matter of being a product of the culture I was raised in, but the skin crawling feeling remains. (And the second part of what you wrote is why I am in favor of gay marriage . . . and have been since the late 1980s actually.)
As with a lot of things, the critical issue is really tolerance of differences. You don’t have to embrace, or even like, those differences — no matter what they are. But you do have to be OK with other people doing so, so long as they likewise do not insist on you adopting them.
I doubt that the number of people considering gay sex icky is going down but more and more people now have come to “I may find it disgusting but it does not concern me personally, so why should I care?”
Hartmut, I can really relate to that, because that is pretty much where my mind is. I know it’s a matter of being a product of the culture I was raised in, but the skin crawling feeling remains. (And the second part of what you wrote is why I am in favor of gay marriage . . . and have been since the late 1980s actually.)
As with a lot of things, the critical issue is really tolerance of differences. You don’t have to embrace, or even like, those differences — no matter what they are. But you do have to be OK with other people doing so, so long as they likewise do not insist on you adopting them.
I doubt that the number of people considering gay sex icky is going down but more and more people now have come to “I may find it disgusting but it does not concern me personally, so why should I care?”
Hartmut, I can really relate to that, because that is pretty much where my mind is. I know it’s a matter of being a product of the culture I was raised in, but the skin crawling feeling remains. (And the second part of what you wrote is why I am in favor of gay marriage . . . and have been since the late 1980s actually.)
As with a lot of things, the critical issue is really tolerance of differences. You don’t have to embrace, or even like, those differences — no matter what they are. But you do have to be OK with other people doing so, so long as they likewise do not insist on you adopting them.
There needs to be room for candor
i agree.
but most political discussion is scalp-collecting and gotcha!. there’s too much at stake to let the other side get an inch. (yes, i play that game far too much, personally)
There needs to be room for candor
i agree.
but most political discussion is scalp-collecting and gotcha!. there’s too much at stake to let the other side get an inch. (yes, i play that game far too much, personally)
There needs to be room for candor
i agree.
but most political discussion is scalp-collecting and gotcha!. there’s too much at stake to let the other side get an inch. (yes, i play that game far too much, personally)
Why is it hard to say ‘the US criminal justice system is racist’?
Because it grossly overstates the case. Do you think the criminal justice systems in DC, Atlanta, Detroit or San Francisco are racist? Houston? Dallas?
The more accurate statements are (1) racist individuals can blend very effectively on the enforcement side of law enforcement because of the over-representation of young black males in the criminal population and (2) the over-representation of young black males in the criminal population produces over-representation in those apprehended and convicted.
The trend, for at least the last thirty years, in urban law enforcement (in large cities, less so suburbs, ergo McKinney, a suburb of Dallas) has been community outreach and participation. Individual racists can and do hide among better officers and prosecutors. Systemic racism would be called out, one would have to believe, by the number of minorities one sees in places like Houston and Dallas at all levels of the process.
Young black males commit way more crime than any other demographic. Table 43 (FBI Crime Stats by Race) shows black committing half of homicides and more than half of armed robberies. The RNC didn’t make those numbers up and they hold steady year in and year out. Overall, blacks account for about a third of all crime in the US. The underlying cause(s) are not a matter of consensus and delving into this topic is uncomfortable. Dismissals from bigots “that’s what blacks do” or from leftish ideologues “racism, full stop” won’t change the numbers or address the issue.
As a group, the white community has robbed, raped, and repeatedly denied the black community means to accumulate wealth (again, via public policies) or simply stolen what little they managed to grasp for 400 years.
Coates makes this statement, or one very much like it, a lot. Russell makes a similar statement above. I get the “raped” part if you are talking about slavery. I am totally missing the ‘public policies’ that rob or deny blacks the means to accumulate wealth.
I would like specifics.
The war on drugs implementation in particular IMO targets blacks and other minorities disproportionately to the actual criminal activity, and the sentencing regimes in that area are, again IMO, insane.
I agree with the sentencing part, I have a qualified concern with the targeting part. Referring back to crime statistics, the parts of town that need the most police protection are the parts of town with the highest crime rate. That will include the parts of town in which blacks are concentrated. A by-product of higher police activity is a higher arrest rate for lesser crimes. You could and probably would find the same amount of pot on most college campuses, but you won’t find the rest of the crime and therefore police presence is reduced.
There needs to be room for candor, which means there needs to be some kind of space where defensiveness can be put aside, which means there needs to be some space where folks can speak without immediately being judged.
I agree but that’s not going to happen. And, it’s not going to happen because the talking heads on the left aren’t going to let it happen. We are having this discussion because I’ve been at ObWi a long time and have enough standing to be able to say things that someone commenting here for the first time might not be given the benefit of the doubt. Conservatives with political aspirations, or who want to stay employed, are not going to speak candidly for fear of a twitter campaign or public branding. It is a form of cowardice, in one sense, but it is also a sound survival instinct.
We can make, and I would likely agree with, a long list of issues on the right that need fixing. Particularly peripheral issues like open carry and the Confederate battle flag (I am adamantly opposed to open carry and the battle flag, regardless of what the waver says he/she intends, sends only one message to blacks). Gay marriage on a more immediate and significant level. If I was making a list of issues of leftish deficiencies, it would be the growing intolerance for conflicting or dissenting ideas.
Carts & horses: 1.) The disintegration of the family structure cause the deplorable social outcomes we routinely observe; solutions: Moral exhortation, criticism of “black culture”, and charity or 2.) The social disintegration is due to the systemic denial of opportunity to the black race inhibiting, most importantly, wealth accumulation and the ability to pass that wealth to subsequent generations; solutions: Systemic ones….Anti-discrimination laws; reverse ‘preferential treatment’; reparations.
BP, if it were 2, then there never would have been a black family structure in the first place.
The arc of black history in America is roughly (1) slavery, (2) quasi-emancipation, (3) Jim Crow, (4) post WWII transition, (5) Civil Rights Era and (6) post Civil Rights Era.
At what point in this arc do we see the black family begin to disintegrate?
In order to have disintegration, you first have to have formation. When did black families become stable? When did they begin to disintegrate?
To what policies do you attribute the disintegration of the black family? And when were these adopted?
I submit the stats show that the disintegration phenomena is congruent with the Civil Rights Era and the attendant War on Poverty.
We can discuss cause and effect later. The point I’m trying to make is that both sides are going to have to re-examine their own talking points. Whatever we are doing today isn’t working. The answer may be ‘more cowbell’ or it may be something completely different. Achieving anything even remotely approaching a consensus means first getting to the when, what and why.
Moral exhortation, criticism of “black culture”, and charity
This merits a separate comment. With respect, it misses the point. A child who drops out of school and who never acquires a marketable skill will, in nearly every instance, never be more than a reliable unskilled or semi-skilled worker. These are fine entry level positions. I worked my share of them and more back in the day, but it is not a good plan for a successful life.
Regardless of how you choose to characterize the solution, unless a child is raised to apply him/herself in school, to understand the importance of hard work and is taught and understands that it is that child’s responsibility as an adult to be self-supporting, regardless of race, the child is doomed.
I am pretty sure that message is not getting home in the subset of children raised by uneducated, unskilled mothers.
It isn’t race. White people with no assets are still without assets.
A huge part of my success in life was having two parents who both went to college. So, good grades and college were base level givens in our home. As it happened, neither my mom nor my dad were particularly ambitious or entrepreneurial. As it happened, an uncle I was close to was ahead of his time. He did well in life and was a great example to me and my sister. Our kids are doing well, in large part because of the examples set by my wife and me.
This is my fundamental point: kids with no example to live up to, to show them how to get from here to there, have a very rough row to hoe. That is the cycle that needs to be addressed.
I’d like to see the federal policy that turns a generation of children without a chance into a viable members of society building off of the same single parent paradigm we now have.
Why is it hard to say ‘the US criminal justice system is racist’?
Because it grossly overstates the case. Do you think the criminal justice systems in DC, Atlanta, Detroit or San Francisco are racist? Houston? Dallas?
The more accurate statements are (1) racist individuals can blend very effectively on the enforcement side of law enforcement because of the over-representation of young black males in the criminal population and (2) the over-representation of young black males in the criminal population produces over-representation in those apprehended and convicted.
The trend, for at least the last thirty years, in urban law enforcement (in large cities, less so suburbs, ergo McKinney, a suburb of Dallas) has been community outreach and participation. Individual racists can and do hide among better officers and prosecutors. Systemic racism would be called out, one would have to believe, by the number of minorities one sees in places like Houston and Dallas at all levels of the process.
Young black males commit way more crime than any other demographic. Table 43 (FBI Crime Stats by Race) shows black committing half of homicides and more than half of armed robberies. The RNC didn’t make those numbers up and they hold steady year in and year out. Overall, blacks account for about a third of all crime in the US. The underlying cause(s) are not a matter of consensus and delving into this topic is uncomfortable. Dismissals from bigots “that’s what blacks do” or from leftish ideologues “racism, full stop” won’t change the numbers or address the issue.
As a group, the white community has robbed, raped, and repeatedly denied the black community means to accumulate wealth (again, via public policies) or simply stolen what little they managed to grasp for 400 years.
Coates makes this statement, or one very much like it, a lot. Russell makes a similar statement above. I get the “raped” part if you are talking about slavery. I am totally missing the ‘public policies’ that rob or deny blacks the means to accumulate wealth.
I would like specifics.
The war on drugs implementation in particular IMO targets blacks and other minorities disproportionately to the actual criminal activity, and the sentencing regimes in that area are, again IMO, insane.
I agree with the sentencing part, I have a qualified concern with the targeting part. Referring back to crime statistics, the parts of town that need the most police protection are the parts of town with the highest crime rate. That will include the parts of town in which blacks are concentrated. A by-product of higher police activity is a higher arrest rate for lesser crimes. You could and probably would find the same amount of pot on most college campuses, but you won’t find the rest of the crime and therefore police presence is reduced.
There needs to be room for candor, which means there needs to be some kind of space where defensiveness can be put aside, which means there needs to be some space where folks can speak without immediately being judged.
I agree but that’s not going to happen. And, it’s not going to happen because the talking heads on the left aren’t going to let it happen. We are having this discussion because I’ve been at ObWi a long time and have enough standing to be able to say things that someone commenting here for the first time might not be given the benefit of the doubt. Conservatives with political aspirations, or who want to stay employed, are not going to speak candidly for fear of a twitter campaign or public branding. It is a form of cowardice, in one sense, but it is also a sound survival instinct.
We can make, and I would likely agree with, a long list of issues on the right that need fixing. Particularly peripheral issues like open carry and the Confederate battle flag (I am adamantly opposed to open carry and the battle flag, regardless of what the waver says he/she intends, sends only one message to blacks). Gay marriage on a more immediate and significant level. If I was making a list of issues of leftish deficiencies, it would be the growing intolerance for conflicting or dissenting ideas.
Carts & horses: 1.) The disintegration of the family structure cause the deplorable social outcomes we routinely observe; solutions: Moral exhortation, criticism of “black culture”, and charity or 2.) The social disintegration is due to the systemic denial of opportunity to the black race inhibiting, most importantly, wealth accumulation and the ability to pass that wealth to subsequent generations; solutions: Systemic ones….Anti-discrimination laws; reverse ‘preferential treatment’; reparations.
BP, if it were 2, then there never would have been a black family structure in the first place.
The arc of black history in America is roughly (1) slavery, (2) quasi-emancipation, (3) Jim Crow, (4) post WWII transition, (5) Civil Rights Era and (6) post Civil Rights Era.
At what point in this arc do we see the black family begin to disintegrate?
In order to have disintegration, you first have to have formation. When did black families become stable? When did they begin to disintegrate?
To what policies do you attribute the disintegration of the black family? And when were these adopted?
I submit the stats show that the disintegration phenomena is congruent with the Civil Rights Era and the attendant War on Poverty.
We can discuss cause and effect later. The point I’m trying to make is that both sides are going to have to re-examine their own talking points. Whatever we are doing today isn’t working. The answer may be ‘more cowbell’ or it may be something completely different. Achieving anything even remotely approaching a consensus means first getting to the when, what and why.
Moral exhortation, criticism of “black culture”, and charity
This merits a separate comment. With respect, it misses the point. A child who drops out of school and who never acquires a marketable skill will, in nearly every instance, never be more than a reliable unskilled or semi-skilled worker. These are fine entry level positions. I worked my share of them and more back in the day, but it is not a good plan for a successful life.
Regardless of how you choose to characterize the solution, unless a child is raised to apply him/herself in school, to understand the importance of hard work and is taught and understands that it is that child’s responsibility as an adult to be self-supporting, regardless of race, the child is doomed.
I am pretty sure that message is not getting home in the subset of children raised by uneducated, unskilled mothers.
It isn’t race. White people with no assets are still without assets.
A huge part of my success in life was having two parents who both went to college. So, good grades and college were base level givens in our home. As it happened, neither my mom nor my dad were particularly ambitious or entrepreneurial. As it happened, an uncle I was close to was ahead of his time. He did well in life and was a great example to me and my sister. Our kids are doing well, in large part because of the examples set by my wife and me.
This is my fundamental point: kids with no example to live up to, to show them how to get from here to there, have a very rough row to hoe. That is the cycle that needs to be addressed.
I’d like to see the federal policy that turns a generation of children without a chance into a viable members of society building off of the same single parent paradigm we now have.
Why is it hard to say ‘the US criminal justice system is racist’?
Because it grossly overstates the case. Do you think the criminal justice systems in DC, Atlanta, Detroit or San Francisco are racist? Houston? Dallas?
The more accurate statements are (1) racist individuals can blend very effectively on the enforcement side of law enforcement because of the over-representation of young black males in the criminal population and (2) the over-representation of young black males in the criminal population produces over-representation in those apprehended and convicted.
The trend, for at least the last thirty years, in urban law enforcement (in large cities, less so suburbs, ergo McKinney, a suburb of Dallas) has been community outreach and participation. Individual racists can and do hide among better officers and prosecutors. Systemic racism would be called out, one would have to believe, by the number of minorities one sees in places like Houston and Dallas at all levels of the process.
Young black males commit way more crime than any other demographic. Table 43 (FBI Crime Stats by Race) shows black committing half of homicides and more than half of armed robberies. The RNC didn’t make those numbers up and they hold steady year in and year out. Overall, blacks account for about a third of all crime in the US. The underlying cause(s) are not a matter of consensus and delving into this topic is uncomfortable. Dismissals from bigots “that’s what blacks do” or from leftish ideologues “racism, full stop” won’t change the numbers or address the issue.
As a group, the white community has robbed, raped, and repeatedly denied the black community means to accumulate wealth (again, via public policies) or simply stolen what little they managed to grasp for 400 years.
Coates makes this statement, or one very much like it, a lot. Russell makes a similar statement above. I get the “raped” part if you are talking about slavery. I am totally missing the ‘public policies’ that rob or deny blacks the means to accumulate wealth.
I would like specifics.
The war on drugs implementation in particular IMO targets blacks and other minorities disproportionately to the actual criminal activity, and the sentencing regimes in that area are, again IMO, insane.
I agree with the sentencing part, I have a qualified concern with the targeting part. Referring back to crime statistics, the parts of town that need the most police protection are the parts of town with the highest crime rate. That will include the parts of town in which blacks are concentrated. A by-product of higher police activity is a higher arrest rate for lesser crimes. You could and probably would find the same amount of pot on most college campuses, but you won’t find the rest of the crime and therefore police presence is reduced.
There needs to be room for candor, which means there needs to be some kind of space where defensiveness can be put aside, which means there needs to be some space where folks can speak without immediately being judged.
I agree but that’s not going to happen. And, it’s not going to happen because the talking heads on the left aren’t going to let it happen. We are having this discussion because I’ve been at ObWi a long time and have enough standing to be able to say things that someone commenting here for the first time might not be given the benefit of the doubt. Conservatives with political aspirations, or who want to stay employed, are not going to speak candidly for fear of a twitter campaign or public branding. It is a form of cowardice, in one sense, but it is also a sound survival instinct.
We can make, and I would likely agree with, a long list of issues on the right that need fixing. Particularly peripheral issues like open carry and the Confederate battle flag (I am adamantly opposed to open carry and the battle flag, regardless of what the waver says he/she intends, sends only one message to blacks). Gay marriage on a more immediate and significant level. If I was making a list of issues of leftish deficiencies, it would be the growing intolerance for conflicting or dissenting ideas.
Carts & horses: 1.) The disintegration of the family structure cause the deplorable social outcomes we routinely observe; solutions: Moral exhortation, criticism of “black culture”, and charity or 2.) The social disintegration is due to the systemic denial of opportunity to the black race inhibiting, most importantly, wealth accumulation and the ability to pass that wealth to subsequent generations; solutions: Systemic ones….Anti-discrimination laws; reverse ‘preferential treatment’; reparations.
BP, if it were 2, then there never would have been a black family structure in the first place.
The arc of black history in America is roughly (1) slavery, (2) quasi-emancipation, (3) Jim Crow, (4) post WWII transition, (5) Civil Rights Era and (6) post Civil Rights Era.
At what point in this arc do we see the black family begin to disintegrate?
In order to have disintegration, you first have to have formation. When did black families become stable? When did they begin to disintegrate?
To what policies do you attribute the disintegration of the black family? And when were these adopted?
I submit the stats show that the disintegration phenomena is congruent with the Civil Rights Era and the attendant War on Poverty.
We can discuss cause and effect later. The point I’m trying to make is that both sides are going to have to re-examine their own talking points. Whatever we are doing today isn’t working. The answer may be ‘more cowbell’ or it may be something completely different. Achieving anything even remotely approaching a consensus means first getting to the when, what and why.
Moral exhortation, criticism of “black culture”, and charity
This merits a separate comment. With respect, it misses the point. A child who drops out of school and who never acquires a marketable skill will, in nearly every instance, never be more than a reliable unskilled or semi-skilled worker. These are fine entry level positions. I worked my share of them and more back in the day, but it is not a good plan for a successful life.
Regardless of how you choose to characterize the solution, unless a child is raised to apply him/herself in school, to understand the importance of hard work and is taught and understands that it is that child’s responsibility as an adult to be self-supporting, regardless of race, the child is doomed.
I am pretty sure that message is not getting home in the subset of children raised by uneducated, unskilled mothers.
It isn’t race. White people with no assets are still without assets.
A huge part of my success in life was having two parents who both went to college. So, good grades and college were base level givens in our home. As it happened, neither my mom nor my dad were particularly ambitious or entrepreneurial. As it happened, an uncle I was close to was ahead of his time. He did well in life and was a great example to me and my sister. Our kids are doing well, in large part because of the examples set by my wife and me.
This is my fundamental point: kids with no example to live up to, to show them how to get from here to there, have a very rough row to hoe. That is the cycle that needs to be addressed.
I’d like to see the federal policy that turns a generation of children without a chance into a viable members of society building off of the same single parent paradigm we now have.
“So – my question: why is it so apparently difficult for conservative spokespeople – people holding elected office, people running for elected office, conservative media organs like Fox – to acknowledge the racial motivation behind the shooting?”
They profit from it. Their whole political scheme is based on the fact that they can cry ‘N*gger! N*gger’ and f*ck over the majority of people in the USA.
In addition some of them are gleefully racist for fun. For example, on this very blog we’ve seen a guy – call him Drat Dingmost – who looks at a young black teen brutally murdered by a man out ‘n*gger hunting’, and defend it.
In a way that’s worse, because it’s done for sheer pleasure, like the story of a weasel getting into a henhouse and killing all of the chickens in a horrible frenzy.
“So – my question: why is it so apparently difficult for conservative spokespeople – people holding elected office, people running for elected office, conservative media organs like Fox – to acknowledge the racial motivation behind the shooting?”
They profit from it. Their whole political scheme is based on the fact that they can cry ‘N*gger! N*gger’ and f*ck over the majority of people in the USA.
In addition some of them are gleefully racist for fun. For example, on this very blog we’ve seen a guy – call him Drat Dingmost – who looks at a young black teen brutally murdered by a man out ‘n*gger hunting’, and defend it.
In a way that’s worse, because it’s done for sheer pleasure, like the story of a weasel getting into a henhouse and killing all of the chickens in a horrible frenzy.
“So – my question: why is it so apparently difficult for conservative spokespeople – people holding elected office, people running for elected office, conservative media organs like Fox – to acknowledge the racial motivation behind the shooting?”
They profit from it. Their whole political scheme is based on the fact that they can cry ‘N*gger! N*gger’ and f*ck over the majority of people in the USA.
In addition some of them are gleefully racist for fun. For example, on this very blog we’ve seen a guy – call him Drat Dingmost – who looks at a young black teen brutally murdered by a man out ‘n*gger hunting’, and defend it.
In a way that’s worse, because it’s done for sheer pleasure, like the story of a weasel getting into a henhouse and killing all of the chickens in a horrible frenzy.
This is my fundamental point: kids with no example to live up to, to show them how to get from here to there, have a very rough row to hoe. That is the cycle that needs to be addressed.
There is truth in this. However, it needs to be said that a good example is not enough. If you have two hard-working parents who can’t make ends meet for whatever reason, and as a result you have children living in conditions where they’re malnourished and unable to properly rest and study, good grades and all that follow from that are not a likely outcome for them. Even just having a good breakfast on the day of a test has a dramatic and statistically significant affect on outcomes. Poverty is a big deal, and good examples aren’t enough to break its cycle; poor children are systematically at a disadvantage compared to those in higher socio-economic classes, and will be far more likely to have poor children of their own. It applies to members of all races, but it’s cumulative and cyclic, and as much or more of it starts with financial stability as culture and values.
This is my fundamental point: kids with no example to live up to, to show them how to get from here to there, have a very rough row to hoe. That is the cycle that needs to be addressed.
There is truth in this. However, it needs to be said that a good example is not enough. If you have two hard-working parents who can’t make ends meet for whatever reason, and as a result you have children living in conditions where they’re malnourished and unable to properly rest and study, good grades and all that follow from that are not a likely outcome for them. Even just having a good breakfast on the day of a test has a dramatic and statistically significant affect on outcomes. Poverty is a big deal, and good examples aren’t enough to break its cycle; poor children are systematically at a disadvantage compared to those in higher socio-economic classes, and will be far more likely to have poor children of their own. It applies to members of all races, but it’s cumulative and cyclic, and as much or more of it starts with financial stability as culture and values.
This is my fundamental point: kids with no example to live up to, to show them how to get from here to there, have a very rough row to hoe. That is the cycle that needs to be addressed.
There is truth in this. However, it needs to be said that a good example is not enough. If you have two hard-working parents who can’t make ends meet for whatever reason, and as a result you have children living in conditions where they’re malnourished and unable to properly rest and study, good grades and all that follow from that are not a likely outcome for them. Even just having a good breakfast on the day of a test has a dramatic and statistically significant affect on outcomes. Poverty is a big deal, and good examples aren’t enough to break its cycle; poor children are systematically at a disadvantage compared to those in higher socio-economic classes, and will be far more likely to have poor children of their own. It applies to members of all races, but it’s cumulative and cyclic, and as much or more of it starts with financial stability as culture and values.
I’m not seeing the difference between ‘racist’ and ‘where skin color matters to a noticeable degree’.
At any rate
DC
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/study-cites-racial-disparities-in-dc-arrests/2013/07/11/02a46260-ea18-11e2-8f22-de4bd2a2bd39_story.html
Atlanta
http://www.assatashakur.org/forum/atlanta-ga/28159-georgia-no-2-percentage-prison-inmates.html
Georgia’s Legislature in the 1990s imposed more mandatory sentences and reduced eligibility for parole, requiring longer prison stays for many inmates before they could be considered for parole.
“For some groups, the incarceration numbers are especially startling,” the report said. “While one in 30 men between the ages of 20 and 34 is behind bars, for black males in that age group the figure is one in nine.”
San Francisco
http://www.cjcj.org/uploads/cjcj/documents/race_and_incarceration_in_san_francisco-two_years_later.pdf
and
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/S-F-jail-inmates-56-black-4744799.php
Dallas (well, Texas)
http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/upload/05-02_rep_txraceimprisonment_ac-rd.pdf
There are more African American men of all ages in prison in Texas (66,300) than in the Texas higher education system (40,800)
http://www.dallasobserver.com/news/texas-puts-a-lot-of-people-in-jail-for-weed-especially-black-and-probably-brown-people-7123563
Is there any reason for that selection of cities? I can make some guesses, but I’d prefer to ask.
Again, I’m seeing this from the outside, but I’m perplexed how one cannot identify the system as racist. I’m sure there are people who are within the system who are trying to do their best, and maybe there is not possibility of changing the system so that it is no longer racist, but that doesn’t nullify the observation.
I’d love to comment on the other points, but this is probably long enough and I’m sure that russell and BP will be able to do a better job than me. But sincere thanks for continuing to discuss this.
I’m not seeing the difference between ‘racist’ and ‘where skin color matters to a noticeable degree’.
At any rate
DC
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/study-cites-racial-disparities-in-dc-arrests/2013/07/11/02a46260-ea18-11e2-8f22-de4bd2a2bd39_story.html
Atlanta
http://www.assatashakur.org/forum/atlanta-ga/28159-georgia-no-2-percentage-prison-inmates.html
Georgia’s Legislature in the 1990s imposed more mandatory sentences and reduced eligibility for parole, requiring longer prison stays for many inmates before they could be considered for parole.
“For some groups, the incarceration numbers are especially startling,” the report said. “While one in 30 men between the ages of 20 and 34 is behind bars, for black males in that age group the figure is one in nine.”
San Francisco
http://www.cjcj.org/uploads/cjcj/documents/race_and_incarceration_in_san_francisco-two_years_later.pdf
and
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/S-F-jail-inmates-56-black-4744799.php
Dallas (well, Texas)
http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/upload/05-02_rep_txraceimprisonment_ac-rd.pdf
There are more African American men of all ages in prison in Texas (66,300) than in the Texas higher education system (40,800)
http://www.dallasobserver.com/news/texas-puts-a-lot-of-people-in-jail-for-weed-especially-black-and-probably-brown-people-7123563
Is there any reason for that selection of cities? I can make some guesses, but I’d prefer to ask.
Again, I’m seeing this from the outside, but I’m perplexed how one cannot identify the system as racist. I’m sure there are people who are within the system who are trying to do their best, and maybe there is not possibility of changing the system so that it is no longer racist, but that doesn’t nullify the observation.
I’d love to comment on the other points, but this is probably long enough and I’m sure that russell and BP will be able to do a better job than me. But sincere thanks for continuing to discuss this.
I’m not seeing the difference between ‘racist’ and ‘where skin color matters to a noticeable degree’.
At any rate
DC
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/study-cites-racial-disparities-in-dc-arrests/2013/07/11/02a46260-ea18-11e2-8f22-de4bd2a2bd39_story.html
Atlanta
http://www.assatashakur.org/forum/atlanta-ga/28159-georgia-no-2-percentage-prison-inmates.html
Georgia’s Legislature in the 1990s imposed more mandatory sentences and reduced eligibility for parole, requiring longer prison stays for many inmates before they could be considered for parole.
“For some groups, the incarceration numbers are especially startling,” the report said. “While one in 30 men between the ages of 20 and 34 is behind bars, for black males in that age group the figure is one in nine.”
San Francisco
http://www.cjcj.org/uploads/cjcj/documents/race_and_incarceration_in_san_francisco-two_years_later.pdf
and
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/S-F-jail-inmates-56-black-4744799.php
Dallas (well, Texas)
http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/upload/05-02_rep_txraceimprisonment_ac-rd.pdf
There are more African American men of all ages in prison in Texas (66,300) than in the Texas higher education system (40,800)
http://www.dallasobserver.com/news/texas-puts-a-lot-of-people-in-jail-for-weed-especially-black-and-probably-brown-people-7123563
Is there any reason for that selection of cities? I can make some guesses, but I’d prefer to ask.
Again, I’m seeing this from the outside, but I’m perplexed how one cannot identify the system as racist. I’m sure there are people who are within the system who are trying to do their best, and maybe there is not possibility of changing the system so that it is no longer racist, but that doesn’t nullify the observation.
I’d love to comment on the other points, but this is probably long enough and I’m sure that russell and BP will be able to do a better job than me. But sincere thanks for continuing to discuss this.
I would like specifics.
see Coates. he’s written about it extensively.
IIRC, though, you dismissed everything he said, the last time this stuff came up. try to read past the headline.
but black ‘culture’ doesn’t (can’t) exist in isolation from the dominant (white) culture. to some degree, what black culture is depends on what white culture allows or forces it to be.
This is my fundamental point: kids with no example to live up to, to show them how to get from here to there, have a very rough row to hoe. That is the cycle that needs to be addressed.
we could start by addressing the radical disparities in stops, arrests, charges, prosecutions and sentence lengths. if we applied the white rules to black people, millions of young black would avoid jail.
or, we could apply the black rules to white people! that would probably put many millions of young white men in jail.
either way, it would even the playing field.
I would like specifics.
see Coates. he’s written about it extensively.
IIRC, though, you dismissed everything he said, the last time this stuff came up. try to read past the headline.
but black ‘culture’ doesn’t (can’t) exist in isolation from the dominant (white) culture. to some degree, what black culture is depends on what white culture allows or forces it to be.
This is my fundamental point: kids with no example to live up to, to show them how to get from here to there, have a very rough row to hoe. That is the cycle that needs to be addressed.
we could start by addressing the radical disparities in stops, arrests, charges, prosecutions and sentence lengths. if we applied the white rules to black people, millions of young black would avoid jail.
or, we could apply the black rules to white people! that would probably put many millions of young white men in jail.
either way, it would even the playing field.
I would like specifics.
see Coates. he’s written about it extensively.
IIRC, though, you dismissed everything he said, the last time this stuff came up. try to read past the headline.
but black ‘culture’ doesn’t (can’t) exist in isolation from the dominant (white) culture. to some degree, what black culture is depends on what white culture allows or forces it to be.
This is my fundamental point: kids with no example to live up to, to show them how to get from here to there, have a very rough row to hoe. That is the cycle that needs to be addressed.
we could start by addressing the radical disparities in stops, arrests, charges, prosecutions and sentence lengths. if we applied the white rules to black people, millions of young black would avoid jail.
or, we could apply the black rules to white people! that would probably put many millions of young white men in jail.
either way, it would even the playing field.
McKinney,
Thanks for the reply.
(1.) Many things to reply to, but let’s start with this: BP, if it were 2, then there never would have been a black family structure in the first place.
To clarify, you aver that young black women having children out of wedlock is the “cause” of the disproportionate amount of poverty we observe when broken down by race. Correct me if this understanding is incorrect.
My position is you are reversing the causation.
As for systemic factors consider this: Whites used the government purse (public policy) for several decades after WWII to subsidize the great move to the suburbs. Blacks were not allowed to follow (the history of this is well known, cf “sundowner laws”). Whites took the jobs with them.
Perhaps this is why you see the “disintegration” in more recent decades. Coupled with a “drug war” waged primarily in black communities (yet another public policy), the results are simply catastrophic.
Lastly,
And, it’s not going to happen because the talking heads on the left aren’t going to let it happen.
Generally speaking my blood pressure goes up quite a bit when I read shit like this, but I’ll let it go since you are so obviously engaging, and you are a fellow golfer.
More to follow.
McKinney,
Thanks for the reply.
(1.) Many things to reply to, but let’s start with this: BP, if it were 2, then there never would have been a black family structure in the first place.
To clarify, you aver that young black women having children out of wedlock is the “cause” of the disproportionate amount of poverty we observe when broken down by race. Correct me if this understanding is incorrect.
My position is you are reversing the causation.
As for systemic factors consider this: Whites used the government purse (public policy) for several decades after WWII to subsidize the great move to the suburbs. Blacks were not allowed to follow (the history of this is well known, cf “sundowner laws”). Whites took the jobs with them.
Perhaps this is why you see the “disintegration” in more recent decades. Coupled with a “drug war” waged primarily in black communities (yet another public policy), the results are simply catastrophic.
Lastly,
And, it’s not going to happen because the talking heads on the left aren’t going to let it happen.
Generally speaking my blood pressure goes up quite a bit when I read shit like this, but I’ll let it go since you are so obviously engaging, and you are a fellow golfer.
More to follow.
McKinney,
Thanks for the reply.
(1.) Many things to reply to, but let’s start with this: BP, if it were 2, then there never would have been a black family structure in the first place.
To clarify, you aver that young black women having children out of wedlock is the “cause” of the disproportionate amount of poverty we observe when broken down by race. Correct me if this understanding is incorrect.
My position is you are reversing the causation.
As for systemic factors consider this: Whites used the government purse (public policy) for several decades after WWII to subsidize the great move to the suburbs. Blacks were not allowed to follow (the history of this is well known, cf “sundowner laws”). Whites took the jobs with them.
Perhaps this is why you see the “disintegration” in more recent decades. Coupled with a “drug war” waged primarily in black communities (yet another public policy), the results are simply catastrophic.
Lastly,
And, it’s not going to happen because the talking heads on the left aren’t going to let it happen.
Generally speaking my blood pressure goes up quite a bit when I read shit like this, but I’ll let it go since you are so obviously engaging, and you are a fellow golfer.
More to follow.
Again, I’m seeing this from the outside, but I’m perplexed how one cannot identify the system as racist. I’m sure there are people who are within the system who are trying to do their best, and maybe there is not possibility of changing the system so that it is no longer racist, but that doesn’t nullify the observation.
If blacks commit a disproportionate number of crime, they will be arrested and convicted disproportionately. That isn’t racism, that’s law enforcement. Outcome does not equal intent.
Racism is when whites, committing the same crime as blacks, are treated preferentially based on being white.
Or, when blacks are given longer sentences for the same crime as whites.
Or other similar ‘apples to apples’ comparisons.
Overall arrest or incarceration rates don’t tell us much because the underlying crime stats will play a dominant role in conviction rates. That blacks are arrested more for relatively lesser crimes is driven to a significant but as yet unmeasured degree by the fact that black neighborhoods are over-policed due to the high crime incidence.
You’d have to have comparable figures, e.g. white youths charged with pot possession getting X treatment and blacks charged with same crime in the same jurisdiction getting Y treatment, to have evidence of racism. Racism as opposed to a racially disparate outcome.
Again, I’m seeing this from the outside, but I’m perplexed how one cannot identify the system as racist. I’m sure there are people who are within the system who are trying to do their best, and maybe there is not possibility of changing the system so that it is no longer racist, but that doesn’t nullify the observation.
If blacks commit a disproportionate number of crime, they will be arrested and convicted disproportionately. That isn’t racism, that’s law enforcement. Outcome does not equal intent.
Racism is when whites, committing the same crime as blacks, are treated preferentially based on being white.
Or, when blacks are given longer sentences for the same crime as whites.
Or other similar ‘apples to apples’ comparisons.
Overall arrest or incarceration rates don’t tell us much because the underlying crime stats will play a dominant role in conviction rates. That blacks are arrested more for relatively lesser crimes is driven to a significant but as yet unmeasured degree by the fact that black neighborhoods are over-policed due to the high crime incidence.
You’d have to have comparable figures, e.g. white youths charged with pot possession getting X treatment and blacks charged with same crime in the same jurisdiction getting Y treatment, to have evidence of racism. Racism as opposed to a racially disparate outcome.
Again, I’m seeing this from the outside, but I’m perplexed how one cannot identify the system as racist. I’m sure there are people who are within the system who are trying to do their best, and maybe there is not possibility of changing the system so that it is no longer racist, but that doesn’t nullify the observation.
If blacks commit a disproportionate number of crime, they will be arrested and convicted disproportionately. That isn’t racism, that’s law enforcement. Outcome does not equal intent.
Racism is when whites, committing the same crime as blacks, are treated preferentially based on being white.
Or, when blacks are given longer sentences for the same crime as whites.
Or other similar ‘apples to apples’ comparisons.
Overall arrest or incarceration rates don’t tell us much because the underlying crime stats will play a dominant role in conviction rates. That blacks are arrested more for relatively lesser crimes is driven to a significant but as yet unmeasured degree by the fact that black neighborhoods are over-policed due to the high crime incidence.
You’d have to have comparable figures, e.g. white youths charged with pot possession getting X treatment and blacks charged with same crime in the same jurisdiction getting Y treatment, to have evidence of racism. Racism as opposed to a racially disparate outcome.
I would like specifics.
It’s somewhat beyond the scope of a blog comment to lay out all of the specifics, but very briefly the period I’m referring to in my comment, in particular, are housing and lending policies and practices in the mid-20th C.
If you are interested in details, I actually do recommend Coates’ work. Whatever you think of his stance or writing style, he has done serious homework on the topic, and IMO he presents the information without distorting the facts.
Similar phenomena can be shown for pretty much any period of US history. I can offer you cases from my own family’s personal history from the early 20th C in the context of sharecropping, if you like.
There are also many cases of black communities building a solid middle class, and having that destroyed through race riots and, basically, acts of terroristic violence.
So, no shortage history or documentation on that front.
You could and probably would find the same amount of pot on most college campuses, but you won’t find the rest of the crime and therefore police presence is reduced.
You would find quite a lot of the crime. And not just on college campuses, I know people who had very enterprising and successful careers as drug traffickers well into adulthood. They served a more upscale market, so, violence was not really a factor.
Drugs + wealth, cops seem less vigorous in enforcement, and jail seldom seems to be the outcome.
Drugs + poverty, different story.
That’s my take on it, FWIW.
I submit the stats show that the disintegration phenomena is congruent with the Civil Rights Era and the attendant War on Poverty.
IMO this is a very fair criticism. Too many aspects to unpack in a single blog comment, but nonetheless a quite valid point.
This is my fundamental point: kids with no example to live up to, to show them how to get from here to there, have a very rough row to hoe. That is the cycle that needs to be addressed.
Also a very good point.
IMVVHO your emphasis on two-parent households, specifically, overstates the degree to which that is a requirement for success. But positive, consistent parenting, from whatever source or collection of sources, is almost always a critical ingredient for success in life.
You are correct, there is no federal program that will make that happen. Not just for poor people, or black people, but for anyone.
Crappy parenting and dysfunctional families are not exclusive to poor folks, or blacks. They are widespread.
Crappy parenting and family dysfunction plus poverty, plus the additional hurdles that black and minority people have to leap to achieve the same ends (which truly do exist), leads to a downward spiral.
All of this is not necessarily to disagree with your points, as much as it is to expand them or perhaps bring out another aspect to them.
Ultimately, people will only achieve what they themselves put their minds and effort toward. Nobody can make that happen, for anyone, and nobody can guarantee success.
It’s a question, I think, of how steep of a hill is placed before people.
Hills can be leveled to some degree, but not eliminated. But, it behooves us all to at least recognize that they exist.
Thanks again for your comments here, they are appreciated.
I would like specifics.
It’s somewhat beyond the scope of a blog comment to lay out all of the specifics, but very briefly the period I’m referring to in my comment, in particular, are housing and lending policies and practices in the mid-20th C.
If you are interested in details, I actually do recommend Coates’ work. Whatever you think of his stance or writing style, he has done serious homework on the topic, and IMO he presents the information without distorting the facts.
Similar phenomena can be shown for pretty much any period of US history. I can offer you cases from my own family’s personal history from the early 20th C in the context of sharecropping, if you like.
There are also many cases of black communities building a solid middle class, and having that destroyed through race riots and, basically, acts of terroristic violence.
So, no shortage history or documentation on that front.
You could and probably would find the same amount of pot on most college campuses, but you won’t find the rest of the crime and therefore police presence is reduced.
You would find quite a lot of the crime. And not just on college campuses, I know people who had very enterprising and successful careers as drug traffickers well into adulthood. They served a more upscale market, so, violence was not really a factor.
Drugs + wealth, cops seem less vigorous in enforcement, and jail seldom seems to be the outcome.
Drugs + poverty, different story.
That’s my take on it, FWIW.
I submit the stats show that the disintegration phenomena is congruent with the Civil Rights Era and the attendant War on Poverty.
IMO this is a very fair criticism. Too many aspects to unpack in a single blog comment, but nonetheless a quite valid point.
This is my fundamental point: kids with no example to live up to, to show them how to get from here to there, have a very rough row to hoe. That is the cycle that needs to be addressed.
Also a very good point.
IMVVHO your emphasis on two-parent households, specifically, overstates the degree to which that is a requirement for success. But positive, consistent parenting, from whatever source or collection of sources, is almost always a critical ingredient for success in life.
You are correct, there is no federal program that will make that happen. Not just for poor people, or black people, but for anyone.
Crappy parenting and dysfunctional families are not exclusive to poor folks, or blacks. They are widespread.
Crappy parenting and family dysfunction plus poverty, plus the additional hurdles that black and minority people have to leap to achieve the same ends (which truly do exist), leads to a downward spiral.
All of this is not necessarily to disagree with your points, as much as it is to expand them or perhaps bring out another aspect to them.
Ultimately, people will only achieve what they themselves put their minds and effort toward. Nobody can make that happen, for anyone, and nobody can guarantee success.
It’s a question, I think, of how steep of a hill is placed before people.
Hills can be leveled to some degree, but not eliminated. But, it behooves us all to at least recognize that they exist.
Thanks again for your comments here, they are appreciated.
I would like specifics.
It’s somewhat beyond the scope of a blog comment to lay out all of the specifics, but very briefly the period I’m referring to in my comment, in particular, are housing and lending policies and practices in the mid-20th C.
If you are interested in details, I actually do recommend Coates’ work. Whatever you think of his stance or writing style, he has done serious homework on the topic, and IMO he presents the information without distorting the facts.
Similar phenomena can be shown for pretty much any period of US history. I can offer you cases from my own family’s personal history from the early 20th C in the context of sharecropping, if you like.
There are also many cases of black communities building a solid middle class, and having that destroyed through race riots and, basically, acts of terroristic violence.
So, no shortage history or documentation on that front.
You could and probably would find the same amount of pot on most college campuses, but you won’t find the rest of the crime and therefore police presence is reduced.
You would find quite a lot of the crime. And not just on college campuses, I know people who had very enterprising and successful careers as drug traffickers well into adulthood. They served a more upscale market, so, violence was not really a factor.
Drugs + wealth, cops seem less vigorous in enforcement, and jail seldom seems to be the outcome.
Drugs + poverty, different story.
That’s my take on it, FWIW.
I submit the stats show that the disintegration phenomena is congruent with the Civil Rights Era and the attendant War on Poverty.
IMO this is a very fair criticism. Too many aspects to unpack in a single blog comment, but nonetheless a quite valid point.
This is my fundamental point: kids with no example to live up to, to show them how to get from here to there, have a very rough row to hoe. That is the cycle that needs to be addressed.
Also a very good point.
IMVVHO your emphasis on two-parent households, specifically, overstates the degree to which that is a requirement for success. But positive, consistent parenting, from whatever source or collection of sources, is almost always a critical ingredient for success in life.
You are correct, there is no federal program that will make that happen. Not just for poor people, or black people, but for anyone.
Crappy parenting and dysfunctional families are not exclusive to poor folks, or blacks. They are widespread.
Crappy parenting and family dysfunction plus poverty, plus the additional hurdles that black and minority people have to leap to achieve the same ends (which truly do exist), leads to a downward spiral.
All of this is not necessarily to disagree with your points, as much as it is to expand them or perhaps bring out another aspect to them.
Ultimately, people will only achieve what they themselves put their minds and effort toward. Nobody can make that happen, for anyone, and nobody can guarantee success.
It’s a question, I think, of how steep of a hill is placed before people.
Hills can be leveled to some degree, but not eliminated. But, it behooves us all to at least recognize that they exist.
Thanks again for your comments here, they are appreciated.
You’d have to have comparable figures
i’ve given you this set of links before. here it is again.
stops: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/02/us/justice-department-report-to-fault-police-in-ferguson.html
stops: http://www.newstimes.com/local/article/Report-Some-police-departments-may-skew-6183721.php
stops and searches: http://time.com/3482859/boston-police-racial-bias-aclu/
arrests: https://www.aclu.org/news/new-aclu-report-finds-overwhelming-racial-bias-marijuana-arrests
arrests: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/11/18/ferguson-black-arrest-rates/19043207/
arrests: http://www.msn.com/en-nz/health/other/investigation-uncovers-racial-bias-in-tampa-bike-arrests/vp-AAbpgkO
prosecutions: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/09/nyregion/09race.html
jury selection: http://www.eji.org/raceandpoverty/juryselection
sentencing: https://www.law.upenn.edu/live/news/2170-new-study-by-professor-david-s-abrams-confirms
etc: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/juvenile/bench/race.html
You’d have to have comparable figures
i’ve given you this set of links before. here it is again.
stops: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/02/us/justice-department-report-to-fault-police-in-ferguson.html
stops: http://www.newstimes.com/local/article/Report-Some-police-departments-may-skew-6183721.php
stops and searches: http://time.com/3482859/boston-police-racial-bias-aclu/
arrests: https://www.aclu.org/news/new-aclu-report-finds-overwhelming-racial-bias-marijuana-arrests
arrests: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/11/18/ferguson-black-arrest-rates/19043207/
arrests: http://www.msn.com/en-nz/health/other/investigation-uncovers-racial-bias-in-tampa-bike-arrests/vp-AAbpgkO
prosecutions: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/09/nyregion/09race.html
jury selection: http://www.eji.org/raceandpoverty/juryselection
sentencing: https://www.law.upenn.edu/live/news/2170-new-study-by-professor-david-s-abrams-confirms
etc: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/juvenile/bench/race.html
You’d have to have comparable figures
i’ve given you this set of links before. here it is again.
stops: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/02/us/justice-department-report-to-fault-police-in-ferguson.html
stops: http://www.newstimes.com/local/article/Report-Some-police-departments-may-skew-6183721.php
stops and searches: http://time.com/3482859/boston-police-racial-bias-aclu/
arrests: https://www.aclu.org/news/new-aclu-report-finds-overwhelming-racial-bias-marijuana-arrests
arrests: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/11/18/ferguson-black-arrest-rates/19043207/
arrests: http://www.msn.com/en-nz/health/other/investigation-uncovers-racial-bias-in-tampa-bike-arrests/vp-AAbpgkO
prosecutions: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/09/nyregion/09race.html
jury selection: http://www.eji.org/raceandpoverty/juryselection
sentencing: https://www.law.upenn.edu/live/news/2170-new-study-by-professor-david-s-abrams-confirms
etc: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/juvenile/bench/race.html
McKinney,
I would like specifics.
Read this, for example. Many more references available on request, and I would be happy to do so.
Have a good one.
McKinney,
I would like specifics.
Read this, for example. Many more references available on request, and I would be happy to do so.
Have a good one.
McKinney,
I would like specifics.
Read this, for example. Many more references available on request, and I would be happy to do so.
Have a good one.
Sorry, I have an “also, too”….
I agree but that’s not going to happen.
Well, it’s not going to happen everywhere, all the time. Not the same as “never”.
And, it’s not going to happen because the talking heads on the left aren’t going to let it happen.
(rolls eyes) 🙂
We are having this discussion because I’ve been at ObWi a long time and have enough standing to be able to say things that someone commenting here for the first time might not be given the benefit of the doubt.
Yes, that’s quite right.
And, I get to write a post about WTF is up with the conservative commentariat without getting laughed off the blog (so far) for similar reasons.
The reason we all hang out here, I think, is because it is, sometimes, *possible* to speak candidly, and listen to other people speak candidly, and once in a while that happens without an excess of judgement.
Probably as good as it gets, but I’ll take it.
Sorry, I have an “also, too”….
I agree but that’s not going to happen.
Well, it’s not going to happen everywhere, all the time. Not the same as “never”.
And, it’s not going to happen because the talking heads on the left aren’t going to let it happen.
(rolls eyes) 🙂
We are having this discussion because I’ve been at ObWi a long time and have enough standing to be able to say things that someone commenting here for the first time might not be given the benefit of the doubt.
Yes, that’s quite right.
And, I get to write a post about WTF is up with the conservative commentariat without getting laughed off the blog (so far) for similar reasons.
The reason we all hang out here, I think, is because it is, sometimes, *possible* to speak candidly, and listen to other people speak candidly, and once in a while that happens without an excess of judgement.
Probably as good as it gets, but I’ll take it.
Sorry, I have an “also, too”….
I agree but that’s not going to happen.
Well, it’s not going to happen everywhere, all the time. Not the same as “never”.
And, it’s not going to happen because the talking heads on the left aren’t going to let it happen.
(rolls eyes) 🙂
We are having this discussion because I’ve been at ObWi a long time and have enough standing to be able to say things that someone commenting here for the first time might not be given the benefit of the doubt.
Yes, that’s quite right.
And, I get to write a post about WTF is up with the conservative commentariat without getting laughed off the blog (so far) for similar reasons.
The reason we all hang out here, I think, is because it is, sometimes, *possible* to speak candidly, and listen to other people speak candidly, and once in a while that happens without an excess of judgement.
Probably as good as it gets, but I’ll take it.
Sorry, I have an “also, too”….
I agree but that’s not going to happen.
Well, it’s not going to happen everywhere, all the time. Not the same as “never”.
And, it’s not going to happen because the talking heads on the left aren’t going to let it happen.
(rolls eyes) 🙂
We are having this discussion because I’ve been at ObWi a long time and have enough standing to be able to say things that someone commenting here for the first time might not be given the benefit of the doubt.
Yes, that’s quite right.
And, I get to write a post about WTF is up with the conservative commentariat without getting laughed off the blog (so far) for similar reasons.
The reason we all hang out here, I think, is because it is, sometimes, *possible* to speak candidly, and listen to other people speak candidly, and once in a while that happens without an excess of judgement.
Probably as good as it gets, but I’ll take it.
Sorry, I have an “also, too”….
I agree but that’s not going to happen.
Well, it’s not going to happen everywhere, all the time. Not the same as “never”.
And, it’s not going to happen because the talking heads on the left aren’t going to let it happen.
(rolls eyes) 🙂
We are having this discussion because I’ve been at ObWi a long time and have enough standing to be able to say things that someone commenting here for the first time might not be given the benefit of the doubt.
Yes, that’s quite right.
And, I get to write a post about WTF is up with the conservative commentariat without getting laughed off the blog (so far) for similar reasons.
The reason we all hang out here, I think, is because it is, sometimes, *possible* to speak candidly, and listen to other people speak candidly, and once in a while that happens without an excess of judgement.
Probably as good as it gets, but I’ll take it.
Sorry, I have an “also, too”….
I agree but that’s not going to happen.
Well, it’s not going to happen everywhere, all the time. Not the same as “never”.
And, it’s not going to happen because the talking heads on the left aren’t going to let it happen.
(rolls eyes) 🙂
We are having this discussion because I’ve been at ObWi a long time and have enough standing to be able to say things that someone commenting here for the first time might not be given the benefit of the doubt.
Yes, that’s quite right.
And, I get to write a post about WTF is up with the conservative commentariat without getting laughed off the blog (so far) for similar reasons.
The reason we all hang out here, I think, is because it is, sometimes, *possible* to speak candidly, and listen to other people speak candidly, and once in a while that happens without an excess of judgement.
Probably as good as it gets, but I’ll take it.
to some degree, what black culture is depends on what white culture allows or forces it to be.
It may be helpful to remember that there isn’t one “black culture”.
Not one white culture, not one black culture.
We’re America, we contain multitudes.
When people talk about “black culture” in the context of discussing disparate outcomes in the criminal justice system, they’re mostly talking about a specific subset of urban culture.
Most black people don’t live in that culture.
to some degree, what black culture is depends on what white culture allows or forces it to be.
It may be helpful to remember that there isn’t one “black culture”.
Not one white culture, not one black culture.
We’re America, we contain multitudes.
When people talk about “black culture” in the context of discussing disparate outcomes in the criminal justice system, they’re mostly talking about a specific subset of urban culture.
Most black people don’t live in that culture.
to some degree, what black culture is depends on what white culture allows or forces it to be.
It may be helpful to remember that there isn’t one “black culture”.
Not one white culture, not one black culture.
We’re America, we contain multitudes.
When people talk about “black culture” in the context of discussing disparate outcomes in the criminal justice system, they’re mostly talking about a specific subset of urban culture.
Most black people don’t live in that culture.
You’d have to have comparable figures, e.g. white youths charged with pot possession getting X treatment and blacks charged with same crime in the same jurisdiction getting Y treatment, to have evidence of racism
Such evidence is not at all hard to find.
You’d have to have comparable figures, e.g. white youths charged with pot possession getting X treatment and blacks charged with same crime in the same jurisdiction getting Y treatment, to have evidence of racism
Such evidence is not at all hard to find.
You’d have to have comparable figures, e.g. white youths charged with pot possession getting X treatment and blacks charged with same crime in the same jurisdiction getting Y treatment, to have evidence of racism
Such evidence is not at all hard to find.
Coupled with a “drug war” waged primarily in black communities (yet another public policy)
The damage done by the drug war feeds into the cultural problem of single parenting, pretty much for the reasons noted: high incarceration rate of fathers implies solo mothers.
Ending the war on drugs, imho, would be the largest, most direct step we could take as a nation to address structural racism.
Coupled with a “drug war” waged primarily in black communities (yet another public policy)
The damage done by the drug war feeds into the cultural problem of single parenting, pretty much for the reasons noted: high incarceration rate of fathers implies solo mothers.
Ending the war on drugs, imho, would be the largest, most direct step we could take as a nation to address structural racism.
Coupled with a “drug war” waged primarily in black communities (yet another public policy)
The damage done by the drug war feeds into the cultural problem of single parenting, pretty much for the reasons noted: high incarceration rate of fathers implies solo mothers.
Ending the war on drugs, imho, would be the largest, most direct step we could take as a nation to address structural racism.
IIRC, though, you dismissed everything he said, the last time this stuff came up. try to read past the headline.
I did and I do disagree and I did then and I did again read his article. Refer back to my arc of history: many of the problems we see today, along with many of the advances, begin with the dismantlement of Jim Crow and all that that entailed. Coates transposes a time when few of us were alive to the present, glossing over 5 decades of extraordinary change. So, his methodology is flawed, and his proposal–reparations–is truly flawed. One brief example: payments by West Germany in the immediate post WWII era is not comparable to paying blacks today for slavery or for anything else. Not to mention that imposing such a payment would be hugely divisive.
To clarify, you aver that young black women having children out of wedlock is the “cause” of the disproportionate amount of poverty we observe when broken down by race. Correct me if this understanding is incorrect
Poverty perpetuates poverty is what I am saying. And single parent homes, headed by uneducated, unskilled and therefore poverty-stricken families are self-perpetuating.
Cleek, I looked at a couple of your links. I just don’t have the time to look at all of them.
I would like to make a couple of points that illustrate my thinking.
The U Penn study found disparities in sentencing between blacks and whites for the same crime. However, the tracking method was to look at individual judge’s sentencing practices. What the study found was that some judges sentence more harshly than others. I note this in general in one of my earlies comments–peopel with racist leaning hide well in the CJ system. But, it’s the people, not the system per se.
A more nuanced article had to do with seeming racial dis-proportionality in Manhattan. Yes, there were clearly racial disparities, but then this:
“But race was not the sole factor, the study’s authors said. A number of legal considerations were found to be more important in predicting a defendant’s fate, among them the seriousness of the charge and the defendant’s arrest record.”
The U Penn study–something I noted before reading about the Manhattan study, did not control for previous convictions. It is pretty standard to give a heavier sentence to a repeat offender than it is to a first time offender.
Most of the articles I’ve seen deal with the superficiality of dis-proportionality. The underlying reasons may be race-neutral or not. Picking them apart and getting at the objective facts is the hard part.
Generally speaking my blood pressure goes up quite a bit when I read shit like this, but I’ll let it go since you are so obviously engaging, and you are a fellow golfer.
I am compelled to agree: I am engaging.
Bobby, public discourse these days consists of shouting matches. Discussing black crime statistics is considered prima facie evidence of racism. Ditto mentioning the problematic nature of poverty stricken-single family parenting. This is an issue for the talking heads on the left. Not the rank and file. If a Republican candidate were to say what I’ve said here, he or she would be done.
More generally, a couple of closing thoughts and then I have to go back to stiff arming frivolous law suits.
1. I’ve enjoyed this chat immensely and appreciate the kind reception. More than I can put into words. I’d like to have drinks with everyone here. I am slammed, pretty much, these days. So I can’t engage further.
2. Money and reparations. Roughly 40 years ago, U of Chicago Law School (I think I have the right place) did a detailed, longitudinal study of people who received lump sum cash settlements or awards in personal injury and wrongful death lawsuits. The study showed that within 2 years, virtually every compensated claimant was flat broke if not bankrupt, regardless of the size of the award.
I’m in that business. Since 2012, I am strictly on the defense, so my clients are writing the checks. Previously, I was 80/20 defense/plaintiff. This is my 35th year in practice. My personal observations and those of my very broad range of colleagues, along with U of Chicago Law School, agree: whether its a settlement, life insurance payment, inheritance, gift or what have you, money, particularly in a lump sum, almost never stays with whoever gets it.
People have an undying belief in their ability to prudently manage money, particularly relatively large amounts of it. The capacity to just put it back and leave it alone is rare, particularly for people under 50.
You might think you are helping someone by giving them money. There are mountains of anecdotal evidence and at least one study that show otherwise.
Coates and other proponents of reparations have a very heavy burden of proof. Not the least of which is to establish that wealth, once transferred, would remain in place and do the kind of good they think it would.
IIRC, though, you dismissed everything he said, the last time this stuff came up. try to read past the headline.
I did and I do disagree and I did then and I did again read his article. Refer back to my arc of history: many of the problems we see today, along with many of the advances, begin with the dismantlement of Jim Crow and all that that entailed. Coates transposes a time when few of us were alive to the present, glossing over 5 decades of extraordinary change. So, his methodology is flawed, and his proposal–reparations–is truly flawed. One brief example: payments by West Germany in the immediate post WWII era is not comparable to paying blacks today for slavery or for anything else. Not to mention that imposing such a payment would be hugely divisive.
To clarify, you aver that young black women having children out of wedlock is the “cause” of the disproportionate amount of poverty we observe when broken down by race. Correct me if this understanding is incorrect
Poverty perpetuates poverty is what I am saying. And single parent homes, headed by uneducated, unskilled and therefore poverty-stricken families are self-perpetuating.
Cleek, I looked at a couple of your links. I just don’t have the time to look at all of them.
I would like to make a couple of points that illustrate my thinking.
The U Penn study found disparities in sentencing between blacks and whites for the same crime. However, the tracking method was to look at individual judge’s sentencing practices. What the study found was that some judges sentence more harshly than others. I note this in general in one of my earlies comments–peopel with racist leaning hide well in the CJ system. But, it’s the people, not the system per se.
A more nuanced article had to do with seeming racial dis-proportionality in Manhattan. Yes, there were clearly racial disparities, but then this:
“But race was not the sole factor, the study’s authors said. A number of legal considerations were found to be more important in predicting a defendant’s fate, among them the seriousness of the charge and the defendant’s arrest record.”
The U Penn study–something I noted before reading about the Manhattan study, did not control for previous convictions. It is pretty standard to give a heavier sentence to a repeat offender than it is to a first time offender.
Most of the articles I’ve seen deal with the superficiality of dis-proportionality. The underlying reasons may be race-neutral or not. Picking them apart and getting at the objective facts is the hard part.
Generally speaking my blood pressure goes up quite a bit when I read shit like this, but I’ll let it go since you are so obviously engaging, and you are a fellow golfer.
I am compelled to agree: I am engaging.
Bobby, public discourse these days consists of shouting matches. Discussing black crime statistics is considered prima facie evidence of racism. Ditto mentioning the problematic nature of poverty stricken-single family parenting. This is an issue for the talking heads on the left. Not the rank and file. If a Republican candidate were to say what I’ve said here, he or she would be done.
More generally, a couple of closing thoughts and then I have to go back to stiff arming frivolous law suits.
1. I’ve enjoyed this chat immensely and appreciate the kind reception. More than I can put into words. I’d like to have drinks with everyone here. I am slammed, pretty much, these days. So I can’t engage further.
2. Money and reparations. Roughly 40 years ago, U of Chicago Law School (I think I have the right place) did a detailed, longitudinal study of people who received lump sum cash settlements or awards in personal injury and wrongful death lawsuits. The study showed that within 2 years, virtually every compensated claimant was flat broke if not bankrupt, regardless of the size of the award.
I’m in that business. Since 2012, I am strictly on the defense, so my clients are writing the checks. Previously, I was 80/20 defense/plaintiff. This is my 35th year in practice. My personal observations and those of my very broad range of colleagues, along with U of Chicago Law School, agree: whether its a settlement, life insurance payment, inheritance, gift or what have you, money, particularly in a lump sum, almost never stays with whoever gets it.
People have an undying belief in their ability to prudently manage money, particularly relatively large amounts of it. The capacity to just put it back and leave it alone is rare, particularly for people under 50.
You might think you are helping someone by giving them money. There are mountains of anecdotal evidence and at least one study that show otherwise.
Coates and other proponents of reparations have a very heavy burden of proof. Not the least of which is to establish that wealth, once transferred, would remain in place and do the kind of good they think it would.
IIRC, though, you dismissed everything he said, the last time this stuff came up. try to read past the headline.
I did and I do disagree and I did then and I did again read his article. Refer back to my arc of history: many of the problems we see today, along with many of the advances, begin with the dismantlement of Jim Crow and all that that entailed. Coates transposes a time when few of us were alive to the present, glossing over 5 decades of extraordinary change. So, his methodology is flawed, and his proposal–reparations–is truly flawed. One brief example: payments by West Germany in the immediate post WWII era is not comparable to paying blacks today for slavery or for anything else. Not to mention that imposing such a payment would be hugely divisive.
To clarify, you aver that young black women having children out of wedlock is the “cause” of the disproportionate amount of poverty we observe when broken down by race. Correct me if this understanding is incorrect
Poverty perpetuates poverty is what I am saying. And single parent homes, headed by uneducated, unskilled and therefore poverty-stricken families are self-perpetuating.
Cleek, I looked at a couple of your links. I just don’t have the time to look at all of them.
I would like to make a couple of points that illustrate my thinking.
The U Penn study found disparities in sentencing between blacks and whites for the same crime. However, the tracking method was to look at individual judge’s sentencing practices. What the study found was that some judges sentence more harshly than others. I note this in general in one of my earlies comments–peopel with racist leaning hide well in the CJ system. But, it’s the people, not the system per se.
A more nuanced article had to do with seeming racial dis-proportionality in Manhattan. Yes, there were clearly racial disparities, but then this:
“But race was not the sole factor, the study’s authors said. A number of legal considerations were found to be more important in predicting a defendant’s fate, among them the seriousness of the charge and the defendant’s arrest record.”
The U Penn study–something I noted before reading about the Manhattan study, did not control for previous convictions. It is pretty standard to give a heavier sentence to a repeat offender than it is to a first time offender.
Most of the articles I’ve seen deal with the superficiality of dis-proportionality. The underlying reasons may be race-neutral or not. Picking them apart and getting at the objective facts is the hard part.
Generally speaking my blood pressure goes up quite a bit when I read shit like this, but I’ll let it go since you are so obviously engaging, and you are a fellow golfer.
I am compelled to agree: I am engaging.
Bobby, public discourse these days consists of shouting matches. Discussing black crime statistics is considered prima facie evidence of racism. Ditto mentioning the problematic nature of poverty stricken-single family parenting. This is an issue for the talking heads on the left. Not the rank and file. If a Republican candidate were to say what I’ve said here, he or she would be done.
More generally, a couple of closing thoughts and then I have to go back to stiff arming frivolous law suits.
1. I’ve enjoyed this chat immensely and appreciate the kind reception. More than I can put into words. I’d like to have drinks with everyone here. I am slammed, pretty much, these days. So I can’t engage further.
2. Money and reparations. Roughly 40 years ago, U of Chicago Law School (I think I have the right place) did a detailed, longitudinal study of people who received lump sum cash settlements or awards in personal injury and wrongful death lawsuits. The study showed that within 2 years, virtually every compensated claimant was flat broke if not bankrupt, regardless of the size of the award.
I’m in that business. Since 2012, I am strictly on the defense, so my clients are writing the checks. Previously, I was 80/20 defense/plaintiff. This is my 35th year in practice. My personal observations and those of my very broad range of colleagues, along with U of Chicago Law School, agree: whether its a settlement, life insurance payment, inheritance, gift or what have you, money, particularly in a lump sum, almost never stays with whoever gets it.
People have an undying belief in their ability to prudently manage money, particularly relatively large amounts of it. The capacity to just put it back and leave it alone is rare, particularly for people under 50.
You might think you are helping someone by giving them money. There are mountains of anecdotal evidence and at least one study that show otherwise.
Coates and other proponents of reparations have a very heavy burden of proof. Not the least of which is to establish that wealth, once transferred, would remain in place and do the kind of good they think it would.
It may be helpful to remember that there isn’t one “black culture”.
An important point. We focus so much on the urban “culture” and not so much on, for example, that found in the delta region of Louisiana.
They do have this is common: A remarkable conflation of race and poverty.
It may be helpful to remember that there isn’t one “black culture”.
An important point. We focus so much on the urban “culture” and not so much on, for example, that found in the delta region of Louisiana.
They do have this is common: A remarkable conflation of race and poverty.
It may be helpful to remember that there isn’t one “black culture”.
An important point. We focus so much on the urban “culture” and not so much on, for example, that found in the delta region of Louisiana.
They do have this is common: A remarkable conflation of race and poverty.
Coates transposes a time when few of us were alive to the present, glossing over 5 decades of extraordinary change.
the point of his talking about stuff from the 50s and 60s is to point out that the effects of those old racist policies are still with us. those polices created the hollowed-out cities.
and he points out that some things did not change. and he gives contemporary examples to illustrate.
peopel with racist leaning hide well in the CJ system. But, it’s the people, not the system per se.
to the extent that any system can’t mitigate the negative racial effects of racists who operate within it, the system is flawed. it needs filters or monitors.
and, if the CJ system allows racists to generate racially-biased results then it is failing to do its job. i’m sure you’ve seen that Liberty & Scales image before – she’s blindfolded for a reason. but we’re allowing people to take off the blindfold.
Coates transposes a time when few of us were alive to the present, glossing over 5 decades of extraordinary change.
the point of his talking about stuff from the 50s and 60s is to point out that the effects of those old racist policies are still with us. those polices created the hollowed-out cities.
and he points out that some things did not change. and he gives contemporary examples to illustrate.
peopel with racist leaning hide well in the CJ system. But, it’s the people, not the system per se.
to the extent that any system can’t mitigate the negative racial effects of racists who operate within it, the system is flawed. it needs filters or monitors.
and, if the CJ system allows racists to generate racially-biased results then it is failing to do its job. i’m sure you’ve seen that Liberty & Scales image before – she’s blindfolded for a reason. but we’re allowing people to take off the blindfold.
Coates transposes a time when few of us were alive to the present, glossing over 5 decades of extraordinary change.
the point of his talking about stuff from the 50s and 60s is to point out that the effects of those old racist policies are still with us. those polices created the hollowed-out cities.
and he points out that some things did not change. and he gives contemporary examples to illustrate.
peopel with racist leaning hide well in the CJ system. But, it’s the people, not the system per se.
to the extent that any system can’t mitigate the negative racial effects of racists who operate within it, the system is flawed. it needs filters or monitors.
and, if the CJ system allows racists to generate racially-biased results then it is failing to do its job. i’m sure you’ve seen that Liberty & Scales image before – she’s blindfolded for a reason. but we’re allowing people to take off the blindfold.
Not to mention that imposing such a payment would be hugely divisive.
On this we can agree. Such a policy could well be flawed, a point of debate. That we need some kind of policy(s) along these lines is something I hold to deeply, and that, I feel, is where we start to part company.
I, too, need to get back to work stiffarming greedy and/or clueless subcontractors and mendacious owners.
Cleek: Last para of your 12:53 is right on the money. Well said.
Not to mention that imposing such a payment would be hugely divisive.
On this we can agree. Such a policy could well be flawed, a point of debate. That we need some kind of policy(s) along these lines is something I hold to deeply, and that, I feel, is where we start to part company.
I, too, need to get back to work stiffarming greedy and/or clueless subcontractors and mendacious owners.
Cleek: Last para of your 12:53 is right on the money. Well said.
Not to mention that imposing such a payment would be hugely divisive.
On this we can agree. Such a policy could well be flawed, a point of debate. That we need some kind of policy(s) along these lines is something I hold to deeply, and that, I feel, is where we start to part company.
I, too, need to get back to work stiffarming greedy and/or clueless subcontractors and mendacious owners.
Cleek: Last para of your 12:53 is right on the money. Well said.
I, too, need to get back to work stiffarming greedy and/or clueless subcontractors and mendacious owners.
Couldn’t resist. BP, is your operation local or national? If the latter, there is a fair to good chance I’ve been your rather distant attorney.
I, too, need to get back to work stiffarming greedy and/or clueless subcontractors and mendacious owners.
Couldn’t resist. BP, is your operation local or national? If the latter, there is a fair to good chance I’ve been your rather distant attorney.
I, too, need to get back to work stiffarming greedy and/or clueless subcontractors and mendacious owners.
Couldn’t resist. BP, is your operation local or national? If the latter, there is a fair to good chance I’ve been your rather distant attorney.
“More generally, a couple of closing thoughts and then I have to go back to stiff arming frivolous law suits.”
“I, too, need to get back to work stiffarming greedy and/or clueless subcontractors and mendacious owners.”
See, that’s candor.
I’m wondering which is the more candid and which is the more calculating — the initial reactions of SOME prominent conservatives to the Charleston murders, or their revised reactions after handlers had a chance to define “candor” for them?
“More generally, a couple of closing thoughts and then I have to go back to stiff arming frivolous law suits.”
“I, too, need to get back to work stiffarming greedy and/or clueless subcontractors and mendacious owners.”
See, that’s candor.
I’m wondering which is the more candid and which is the more calculating — the initial reactions of SOME prominent conservatives to the Charleston murders, or their revised reactions after handlers had a chance to define “candor” for them?
“More generally, a couple of closing thoughts and then I have to go back to stiff arming frivolous law suits.”
“I, too, need to get back to work stiffarming greedy and/or clueless subcontractors and mendacious owners.”
See, that’s candor.
I’m wondering which is the more candid and which is the more calculating — the initial reactions of SOME prominent conservatives to the Charleston murders, or their revised reactions after handlers had a chance to define “candor” for them?
You might think you are helping someone by giving them money.
I’ll take these wise words into account the next time Boeing comes to the Washington State legislature asking for a $billion+ tax break.
(re your query: Small local public works GC)
Time to sneak off and hit a bucket.
Good day to all….
You might think you are helping someone by giving them money.
I’ll take these wise words into account the next time Boeing comes to the Washington State legislature asking for a $billion+ tax break.
(re your query: Small local public works GC)
Time to sneak off and hit a bucket.
Good day to all….
You might think you are helping someone by giving them money.
I’ll take these wise words into account the next time Boeing comes to the Washington State legislature asking for a $billion+ tax break.
(re your query: Small local public works GC)
Time to sneak off and hit a bucket.
Good day to all….
Sekaijin: “One other possibility for conservative denial might – underscore, might – be what wonkie suggests. ”
They don’t know somewhere down deep inside – most of these people have been selling this very heavily, for power and profit. They’ve had to do it not 100% openly, but it was like a speakeasy during Prohibition – everybody knew about it.
Sekaijin: “One other possibility for conservative denial might – underscore, might – be what wonkie suggests. ”
They don’t know somewhere down deep inside – most of these people have been selling this very heavily, for power and profit. They’ve had to do it not 100% openly, but it was like a speakeasy during Prohibition – everybody knew about it.
Sekaijin: “One other possibility for conservative denial might – underscore, might – be what wonkie suggests. ”
They don’t know somewhere down deep inside – most of these people have been selling this very heavily, for power and profit. They’ve had to do it not 100% openly, but it was like a speakeasy during Prohibition – everybody knew about it.
Brett: “…the anti-gun movement has these scripts ready to go, just waiting for a mass shooting.”
There is no right-wing ideas whatsoever which are not 100% Freudian projection.
At this point the reaction of the right to mass shootings is so smooth and well rehearsed that SEAL teams likely study it for pointer.
Brett: “…the anti-gun movement has these scripts ready to go, just waiting for a mass shooting.”
There is no right-wing ideas whatsoever which are not 100% Freudian projection.
At this point the reaction of the right to mass shootings is so smooth and well rehearsed that SEAL teams likely study it for pointer.
Brett: “…the anti-gun movement has these scripts ready to go, just waiting for a mass shooting.”
There is no right-wing ideas whatsoever which are not 100% Freudian projection.
At this point the reaction of the right to mass shootings is so smooth and well rehearsed that SEAL teams likely study it for pointer.
Case in point:
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/122124/nikki-haley-not-hero-shes-just-doing-damage-control-gop
When was Nikki Haley’s most candid moment:
A. When she said a couple of years ago her hands were tied by the legislation mandating the flying of the Confederate flag above the SC Capitol, but did not call for removing it then, when she also said when her Democratic opponent called for the removal of the flag during his campaign against her: ”
‘During a gubernatorial debate last year, Haley demurred when her Democratic rival Sen. Vincent Sheheen said the flag had to go, saying she had never heard any company CEO complain about it.” ‘
B. When she said on her Facebook page: “Michael, Rena, Nalin and I are praying for the victims and families touched by tonight’s senseless tragedy at Emanuel AME Church. While we do not yet know all of the details, we do know that we’ll never understand what motivates anyone to enter one of our places of worship and take the life of another. Please join us in lifting up the victims and their families with our love and prayers.”
Especially the words: “we do know that we will never understand what motivates anyone to enter one of our places of worship and take the life of another.”
We don’t know?
Also, this statement when finally calling for the removal of the flag: ‘Haley argued that many South Carolinians see the Confederate flag as a way to respect their ancestors, but argued Dylann Roof, who was charged with murdering nine people in a historically black church in Charleston, South Carolina, last week, “has a sick and twisted view of the flag.”‘
May I speak with candor? Dylann Roof’s view and display of that flag was in fact the candid view. I have no doubt that too many Americans view the flag as a way to respect their ancestors, just as I have no doubt that German neo-Nazis view the swastika as a symbol of respect for some ancestor’s view or that generations from now there will be ISIL offspring who view the ISIL flag as a symbol of respect for their ISIL warrior/terrorist ancestors, but all of those flags mean ONE thing. just as guns are manufactured for ONE purpose. (OK, you can convert them into cigarette lighters)
Let’s put this way. John Wilkes Booth was motivated to shoot Abraham Lincoln in the head as the ultimate defense of that rag.
C. When she called a few hours ago for the removal of the Confederate flag from the Capitol?
If C is her most candid statement of the three, fine she’s absolutely right.
If not, then “candor” is in fact not what we’re looking for.
We’re looking for insincerity in the service of virtue and the true good, which I’ll happily accept with a candid, but sly chuckle.
If Santorum’s statement quoted way up thread is candid. and I’m quite sure it is, given his history — not even mentioning racial motives — then conservatives are NOT seeking candor from me — as in “Shut yer gob, Santorum!”, as if I’m stifling some further suppressed candor from the man.
They are seeking political correctness from me.
Case in point:
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/122124/nikki-haley-not-hero-shes-just-doing-damage-control-gop
When was Nikki Haley’s most candid moment:
A. When she said a couple of years ago her hands were tied by the legislation mandating the flying of the Confederate flag above the SC Capitol, but did not call for removing it then, when she also said when her Democratic opponent called for the removal of the flag during his campaign against her: ”
‘During a gubernatorial debate last year, Haley demurred when her Democratic rival Sen. Vincent Sheheen said the flag had to go, saying she had never heard any company CEO complain about it.” ‘
B. When she said on her Facebook page: “Michael, Rena, Nalin and I are praying for the victims and families touched by tonight’s senseless tragedy at Emanuel AME Church. While we do not yet know all of the details, we do know that we’ll never understand what motivates anyone to enter one of our places of worship and take the life of another. Please join us in lifting up the victims and their families with our love and prayers.”
Especially the words: “we do know that we will never understand what motivates anyone to enter one of our places of worship and take the life of another.”
We don’t know?
Also, this statement when finally calling for the removal of the flag: ‘Haley argued that many South Carolinians see the Confederate flag as a way to respect their ancestors, but argued Dylann Roof, who was charged with murdering nine people in a historically black church in Charleston, South Carolina, last week, “has a sick and twisted view of the flag.”‘
May I speak with candor? Dylann Roof’s view and display of that flag was in fact the candid view. I have no doubt that too many Americans view the flag as a way to respect their ancestors, just as I have no doubt that German neo-Nazis view the swastika as a symbol of respect for some ancestor’s view or that generations from now there will be ISIL offspring who view the ISIL flag as a symbol of respect for their ISIL warrior/terrorist ancestors, but all of those flags mean ONE thing. just as guns are manufactured for ONE purpose. (OK, you can convert them into cigarette lighters)
Let’s put this way. John Wilkes Booth was motivated to shoot Abraham Lincoln in the head as the ultimate defense of that rag.
C. When she called a few hours ago for the removal of the Confederate flag from the Capitol?
If C is her most candid statement of the three, fine she’s absolutely right.
If not, then “candor” is in fact not what we’re looking for.
We’re looking for insincerity in the service of virtue and the true good, which I’ll happily accept with a candid, but sly chuckle.
If Santorum’s statement quoted way up thread is candid. and I’m quite sure it is, given his history — not even mentioning racial motives — then conservatives are NOT seeking candor from me — as in “Shut yer gob, Santorum!”, as if I’m stifling some further suppressed candor from the man.
They are seeking political correctness from me.
Case in point:
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/122124/nikki-haley-not-hero-shes-just-doing-damage-control-gop
When was Nikki Haley’s most candid moment:
A. When she said a couple of years ago her hands were tied by the legislation mandating the flying of the Confederate flag above the SC Capitol, but did not call for removing it then, when she also said when her Democratic opponent called for the removal of the flag during his campaign against her: ”
‘During a gubernatorial debate last year, Haley demurred when her Democratic rival Sen. Vincent Sheheen said the flag had to go, saying she had never heard any company CEO complain about it.” ‘
B. When she said on her Facebook page: “Michael, Rena, Nalin and I are praying for the victims and families touched by tonight’s senseless tragedy at Emanuel AME Church. While we do not yet know all of the details, we do know that we’ll never understand what motivates anyone to enter one of our places of worship and take the life of another. Please join us in lifting up the victims and their families with our love and prayers.”
Especially the words: “we do know that we will never understand what motivates anyone to enter one of our places of worship and take the life of another.”
We don’t know?
Also, this statement when finally calling for the removal of the flag: ‘Haley argued that many South Carolinians see the Confederate flag as a way to respect their ancestors, but argued Dylann Roof, who was charged with murdering nine people in a historically black church in Charleston, South Carolina, last week, “has a sick and twisted view of the flag.”‘
May I speak with candor? Dylann Roof’s view and display of that flag was in fact the candid view. I have no doubt that too many Americans view the flag as a way to respect their ancestors, just as I have no doubt that German neo-Nazis view the swastika as a symbol of respect for some ancestor’s view or that generations from now there will be ISIL offspring who view the ISIL flag as a symbol of respect for their ISIL warrior/terrorist ancestors, but all of those flags mean ONE thing. just as guns are manufactured for ONE purpose. (OK, you can convert them into cigarette lighters)
Let’s put this way. John Wilkes Booth was motivated to shoot Abraham Lincoln in the head as the ultimate defense of that rag.
C. When she called a few hours ago for the removal of the Confederate flag from the Capitol?
If C is her most candid statement of the three, fine she’s absolutely right.
If not, then “candor” is in fact not what we’re looking for.
We’re looking for insincerity in the service of virtue and the true good, which I’ll happily accept with a candid, but sly chuckle.
If Santorum’s statement quoted way up thread is candid. and I’m quite sure it is, given his history — not even mentioning racial motives — then conservatives are NOT seeking candor from me — as in “Shut yer gob, Santorum!”, as if I’m stifling some further suppressed candor from the man.
They are seeking political correctness from me.
Confederate flags are selling on Amazon and elsewhere like slaves just before the Emancipation Proclamation.
And this curious fact:
“That doesn’t mean Confederate flags will disappear. Many are made in China, where there’s likely to be no pressure on manufacturers to suspend production. (If a 3-by-5 flag of any variety costs less than $15, it’s a good bet it’s not Made in the USA.) There’s no law against selling the flags and it seems unlikely there ever will be. And small business, whether a physical or online storefront, typically face less boycott-style pressure than big national chains like Walmart. Just ask for your Confederate flag discreetly.”
China, you say? I wonder about the conflicted views of white, southern Republican conservatives who buy their flags from one of their (what percentage of them? Guess.) many enemies, China.
Or am I overestimating their judgement and intelligence?
Did I hurt anyone’s feelings, like a lurker from Redstate?
This is the candor thread.
Confederate flags are selling on Amazon and elsewhere like slaves just before the Emancipation Proclamation.
And this curious fact:
“That doesn’t mean Confederate flags will disappear. Many are made in China, where there’s likely to be no pressure on manufacturers to suspend production. (If a 3-by-5 flag of any variety costs less than $15, it’s a good bet it’s not Made in the USA.) There’s no law against selling the flags and it seems unlikely there ever will be. And small business, whether a physical or online storefront, typically face less boycott-style pressure than big national chains like Walmart. Just ask for your Confederate flag discreetly.”
China, you say? I wonder about the conflicted views of white, southern Republican conservatives who buy their flags from one of their (what percentage of them? Guess.) many enemies, China.
Or am I overestimating their judgement and intelligence?
Did I hurt anyone’s feelings, like a lurker from Redstate?
This is the candor thread.
Confederate flags are selling on Amazon and elsewhere like slaves just before the Emancipation Proclamation.
And this curious fact:
“That doesn’t mean Confederate flags will disappear. Many are made in China, where there’s likely to be no pressure on manufacturers to suspend production. (If a 3-by-5 flag of any variety costs less than $15, it’s a good bet it’s not Made in the USA.) There’s no law against selling the flags and it seems unlikely there ever will be. And small business, whether a physical or online storefront, typically face less boycott-style pressure than big national chains like Walmart. Just ask for your Confederate flag discreetly.”
China, you say? I wonder about the conflicted views of white, southern Republican conservatives who buy their flags from one of their (what percentage of them? Guess.) many enemies, China.
Or am I overestimating their judgement and intelligence?
Did I hurt anyone’s feelings, like a lurker from Redstate?
This is the candor thread.
There are a lot of beautiful things about southern culture. My old man was from the South, I’ve spent a fair amount of time there, I loved going there to see family and generally hang out.
I wish folks who embrace the memory of the Confederacy would just pick some other aspect of southern history and culture to celebrate.
Flannery O’Connor. The Swampers. Traditional Appalachian culture, which is a really deep and rich tradition. Gullah culture, likewise. Shape note singing. The roots of blues and jazz.
All from the American south, all really wonderful things. And, I’m sure I’ve left about 1,000 things out.
Isn’t all of that a better thing to celebrate than the CSA?
There are a lot of beautiful things about southern culture. My old man was from the South, I’ve spent a fair amount of time there, I loved going there to see family and generally hang out.
I wish folks who embrace the memory of the Confederacy would just pick some other aspect of southern history and culture to celebrate.
Flannery O’Connor. The Swampers. Traditional Appalachian culture, which is a really deep and rich tradition. Gullah culture, likewise. Shape note singing. The roots of blues and jazz.
All from the American south, all really wonderful things. And, I’m sure I’ve left about 1,000 things out.
Isn’t all of that a better thing to celebrate than the CSA?
There are a lot of beautiful things about southern culture. My old man was from the South, I’ve spent a fair amount of time there, I loved going there to see family and generally hang out.
I wish folks who embrace the memory of the Confederacy would just pick some other aspect of southern history and culture to celebrate.
Flannery O’Connor. The Swampers. Traditional Appalachian culture, which is a really deep and rich tradition. Gullah culture, likewise. Shape note singing. The roots of blues and jazz.
All from the American south, all really wonderful things. And, I’m sure I’ve left about 1,000 things out.
Isn’t all of that a better thing to celebrate than the CSA?
Absolutely.
They could hoist the cover of “The Moviegoer” by Walker Percy up a pole above every State Capitol and I’d be good to go.
How about bumper stickers and license plates with recipes for mint juleps emblazoned on them.
Absolutely.
They could hoist the cover of “The Moviegoer” by Walker Percy up a pole above every State Capitol and I’d be good to go.
How about bumper stickers and license plates with recipes for mint juleps emblazoned on them.
Absolutely.
They could hoist the cover of “The Moviegoer” by Walker Percy up a pole above every State Capitol and I’d be good to go.
How about bumper stickers and license plates with recipes for mint juleps emblazoned on them.
Brett: “Seriously, if in your fantasy world, you’d managed to keep an adult who was able to get drugs from getting a gun, what would have kept him from just driving into the church parking lot after mass, and running people over?”
Go fuck yourself.
Brett: “Seriously, if in your fantasy world, you’d managed to keep an adult who was able to get drugs from getting a gun, what would have kept him from just driving into the church parking lot after mass, and running people over?”
Go fuck yourself.
Brett: “Seriously, if in your fantasy world, you’d managed to keep an adult who was able to get drugs from getting a gun, what would have kept him from just driving into the church parking lot after mass, and running people over?”
Go fuck yourself.
Frak, there’s even a place in the deep South said to have seceded from the Confederacy (the Free State of Jones). Even if they really just killed any government agents who went near them, they’d still be a better model to celebrate.
(I did not know there was a movie planned on the subject until I’d finished writing the above.)
Frak, there’s even a place in the deep South said to have seceded from the Confederacy (the Free State of Jones). Even if they really just killed any government agents who went near them, they’d still be a better model to celebrate.
(I did not know there was a movie planned on the subject until I’d finished writing the above.)
Frak, there’s even a place in the deep South said to have seceded from the Confederacy (the Free State of Jones). Even if they really just killed any government agents who went near them, they’d still be a better model to celebrate.
(I did not know there was a movie planned on the subject until I’d finished writing the above.)
As an aside, which is probably fine since we seem to have wandered into aside-land, even though my sibs and I grew up in NY, my sister has lived in NH for a little over 50 years now.
Sometime in the 70’s NH elected a governor who was a Tea Partier before it was the cool thing to do. While in office, he had the state license plate changed from “Scenic New Hampshire” to “Live Free Or Die”.
He backed it up by trying to have MA staties arrested for taking down the license numbers of MA drivers who scooted across the border buy their booze tax-free. He took the state of Maine to the SCOTUS for arresting a NH guy who was lobstering off of Portsmouth.
The whole thing seemed, to me and also to my sister and her born in NH then-husband, to be a wacky and perhaps somewhat hubristic posture from a state that, at that time, may have had had more cows than people.
His legacy lives on.
As an aside, which is probably fine since we seem to have wandered into aside-land, even though my sibs and I grew up in NY, my sister has lived in NH for a little over 50 years now.
Sometime in the 70’s NH elected a governor who was a Tea Partier before it was the cool thing to do. While in office, he had the state license plate changed from “Scenic New Hampshire” to “Live Free Or Die”.
He backed it up by trying to have MA staties arrested for taking down the license numbers of MA drivers who scooted across the border buy their booze tax-free. He took the state of Maine to the SCOTUS for arresting a NH guy who was lobstering off of Portsmouth.
The whole thing seemed, to me and also to my sister and her born in NH then-husband, to be a wacky and perhaps somewhat hubristic posture from a state that, at that time, may have had had more cows than people.
His legacy lives on.
As an aside, which is probably fine since we seem to have wandered into aside-land, even though my sibs and I grew up in NY, my sister has lived in NH for a little over 50 years now.
Sometime in the 70’s NH elected a governor who was a Tea Partier before it was the cool thing to do. While in office, he had the state license plate changed from “Scenic New Hampshire” to “Live Free Or Die”.
He backed it up by trying to have MA staties arrested for taking down the license numbers of MA drivers who scooted across the border buy their booze tax-free. He took the state of Maine to the SCOTUS for arresting a NH guy who was lobstering off of Portsmouth.
The whole thing seemed, to me and also to my sister and her born in NH then-husband, to be a wacky and perhaps somewhat hubristic posture from a state that, at that time, may have had had more cows than people.
His legacy lives on.
Barry, Brett’s gone.
Not to the happy hunting ground, just off of ObWi.
Just so you know.
Also, even though I’ve been guilty of posting the very words you have uttered just above, we try not to go there.
Thanks!
Barry, Brett’s gone.
Not to the happy hunting ground, just off of ObWi.
Just so you know.
Also, even though I’ve been guilty of posting the very words you have uttered just above, we try not to go there.
Thanks!
Barry, Brett’s gone.
Not to the happy hunting ground, just off of ObWi.
Just so you know.
Also, even though I’ve been guilty of posting the very words you have uttered just above, we try not to go there.
Thanks!
peopel with racist leaning hide well in the CJ system. But, it’s the people, not the system per se.
Don’t want to pile on after the fact, but it was someone (bobby p?) who noted that there was a problematic confluence of class and race. Certainly, McT, you’d agree that the CJ system is biased towards those with money. I tend to think of the CJ system as being comprised of both policing, judgement, and imprisonment, but I’m guessing (and tell me if I am wrong), you are looking at the CJ system as primarily the middle and the two endpoints aren’t really counted. So, to tackle that middle portion, what about this.
http://balkin.blogspot.jp/2015/06/davis-v-ayala-race-and-criminal-justice.html
Now, this is only one example, but it seems the the process of preemptory challenges is part of the problem, which is that US society has some serious racial issues and the CJ system is simply a reflection of that. You acknowledge that it is ‘worse than conservatives think, but not as bad as liberals argue’, but when it is the backstop to problems in society at large, any problems in this system are going to have a disproportionate effect on society. And these problems are exacerbated by class and money, so to argue that the CJ system is “one area where skin color matters to a noticeable degree” is, imho, to say the system is racist.
That the CJ system is tied to the endpoints is underlined in Kennedy’s concurrence of the opinion Balkin discusses Davis v Ayala
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/06/kalief-browder-justice-kennedy-solitary-confinement/396320/
But Kennedy’s concurrence also seemed to be directed toward the American legal community, whose disengagement from prison issues he has previously lamented. “In law school, I never heard about corrections,” he told a congressional hearing on March 23, two weeks after the Davis oral arguments. “Lawyers are fascinated with the guilt/innocence adjudication process. Once [it] is over, we have no interest in corrections. Doctors and psychiatrists know more about the corrections system than we do.”
So, to return to your quote, it’s the people not the system, my response is the people are the system. I’ve been waiting for someone to maybe bring up Obama’s podcast interview where he used the n- word
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/23/us/obama-racism-marc-maron-podcast.html?_r=0
Obama’s point seems to have been totally lost on the WH press corps
http://time.com/3930623/barack-obama-n-word-wtf-podcast/
and I’m curious how others view this. Perhaps it is time to crack open another thread?
peopel with racist leaning hide well in the CJ system. But, it’s the people, not the system per se.
Don’t want to pile on after the fact, but it was someone (bobby p?) who noted that there was a problematic confluence of class and race. Certainly, McT, you’d agree that the CJ system is biased towards those with money. I tend to think of the CJ system as being comprised of both policing, judgement, and imprisonment, but I’m guessing (and tell me if I am wrong), you are looking at the CJ system as primarily the middle and the two endpoints aren’t really counted. So, to tackle that middle portion, what about this.
http://balkin.blogspot.jp/2015/06/davis-v-ayala-race-and-criminal-justice.html
Now, this is only one example, but it seems the the process of preemptory challenges is part of the problem, which is that US society has some serious racial issues and the CJ system is simply a reflection of that. You acknowledge that it is ‘worse than conservatives think, but not as bad as liberals argue’, but when it is the backstop to problems in society at large, any problems in this system are going to have a disproportionate effect on society. And these problems are exacerbated by class and money, so to argue that the CJ system is “one area where skin color matters to a noticeable degree” is, imho, to say the system is racist.
That the CJ system is tied to the endpoints is underlined in Kennedy’s concurrence of the opinion Balkin discusses Davis v Ayala
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/06/kalief-browder-justice-kennedy-solitary-confinement/396320/
But Kennedy’s concurrence also seemed to be directed toward the American legal community, whose disengagement from prison issues he has previously lamented. “In law school, I never heard about corrections,” he told a congressional hearing on March 23, two weeks after the Davis oral arguments. “Lawyers are fascinated with the guilt/innocence adjudication process. Once [it] is over, we have no interest in corrections. Doctors and psychiatrists know more about the corrections system than we do.”
So, to return to your quote, it’s the people not the system, my response is the people are the system. I’ve been waiting for someone to maybe bring up Obama’s podcast interview where he used the n- word
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/23/us/obama-racism-marc-maron-podcast.html?_r=0
Obama’s point seems to have been totally lost on the WH press corps
http://time.com/3930623/barack-obama-n-word-wtf-podcast/
and I’m curious how others view this. Perhaps it is time to crack open another thread?
peopel with racist leaning hide well in the CJ system. But, it’s the people, not the system per se.
Don’t want to pile on after the fact, but it was someone (bobby p?) who noted that there was a problematic confluence of class and race. Certainly, McT, you’d agree that the CJ system is biased towards those with money. I tend to think of the CJ system as being comprised of both policing, judgement, and imprisonment, but I’m guessing (and tell me if I am wrong), you are looking at the CJ system as primarily the middle and the two endpoints aren’t really counted. So, to tackle that middle portion, what about this.
http://balkin.blogspot.jp/2015/06/davis-v-ayala-race-and-criminal-justice.html
Now, this is only one example, but it seems the the process of preemptory challenges is part of the problem, which is that US society has some serious racial issues and the CJ system is simply a reflection of that. You acknowledge that it is ‘worse than conservatives think, but not as bad as liberals argue’, but when it is the backstop to problems in society at large, any problems in this system are going to have a disproportionate effect on society. And these problems are exacerbated by class and money, so to argue that the CJ system is “one area where skin color matters to a noticeable degree” is, imho, to say the system is racist.
That the CJ system is tied to the endpoints is underlined in Kennedy’s concurrence of the opinion Balkin discusses Davis v Ayala
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/06/kalief-browder-justice-kennedy-solitary-confinement/396320/
But Kennedy’s concurrence also seemed to be directed toward the American legal community, whose disengagement from prison issues he has previously lamented. “In law school, I never heard about corrections,” he told a congressional hearing on March 23, two weeks after the Davis oral arguments. “Lawyers are fascinated with the guilt/innocence adjudication process. Once [it] is over, we have no interest in corrections. Doctors and psychiatrists know more about the corrections system than we do.”
So, to return to your quote, it’s the people not the system, my response is the people are the system. I’ve been waiting for someone to maybe bring up Obama’s podcast interview where he used the n- word
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/23/us/obama-racism-marc-maron-podcast.html?_r=0
Obama’s point seems to have been totally lost on the WH press corps
http://time.com/3930623/barack-obama-n-word-wtf-podcast/
and I’m curious how others view this. Perhaps it is time to crack open another thread?
“Flannery O’Connor”
William Faulkner. Marjorie Kinnan Rawlings. Mark Twain.
I could go on, and so could Russell.
Sorry I have been out of things, lately. Busy weekend, followed by vomiting, fever and other sundry unpleasantries.
We are well rid of Brett, but not for reasons he imagines.
“He imagines” is probably part and parcel of our entire conflict with Brett, come to think of it.
“Flannery O’Connor”
William Faulkner. Marjorie Kinnan Rawlings. Mark Twain.
I could go on, and so could Russell.
Sorry I have been out of things, lately. Busy weekend, followed by vomiting, fever and other sundry unpleasantries.
We are well rid of Brett, but not for reasons he imagines.
“He imagines” is probably part and parcel of our entire conflict with Brett, come to think of it.
“Flannery O’Connor”
William Faulkner. Marjorie Kinnan Rawlings. Mark Twain.
I could go on, and so could Russell.
Sorry I have been out of things, lately. Busy weekend, followed by vomiting, fever and other sundry unpleasantries.
We are well rid of Brett, but not for reasons he imagines.
“He imagines” is probably part and parcel of our entire conflict with Brett, come to think of it.
I think White flight after the Civil Rights movement did more to economically hurt Black urban & rural communities than any single poor mothers. It’s incredible how the un-racist conservatives blame so many problems on Black women. It’s like a pathology with those “I’m not a racist! How dare you accuse me!” conservatives.
I think White flight after the Civil Rights movement did more to economically hurt Black urban & rural communities than any single poor mothers. It’s incredible how the un-racist conservatives blame so many problems on Black women. It’s like a pathology with those “I’m not a racist! How dare you accuse me!” conservatives.
I think White flight after the Civil Rights movement did more to economically hurt Black urban & rural communities than any single poor mothers. It’s incredible how the un-racist conservatives blame so many problems on Black women. It’s like a pathology with those “I’m not a racist! How dare you accuse me!” conservatives.
White flight hurt the educational systems, hollowed out the tax base, etc.
Then add outsourcing of manufacturing jobs, leaving service jobs like “drug dealer” and “prostitute”.
Just changing attitudes isn’t quite enough.
White flight hurt the educational systems, hollowed out the tax base, etc.
Then add outsourcing of manufacturing jobs, leaving service jobs like “drug dealer” and “prostitute”.
Just changing attitudes isn’t quite enough.
White flight hurt the educational systems, hollowed out the tax base, etc.
Then add outsourcing of manufacturing jobs, leaving service jobs like “drug dealer” and “prostitute”.
Just changing attitudes isn’t quite enough.
Bobby, public discourse these days consists of shouting matches
Don’t let this bother you. It could be that it has always been thus. Shouting has pretty much been the norm in my political experience (late 1960’s – present).
We should all get a bit nervous when major political decisions are made accompanied by the sound of silence.
Bobby, public discourse these days consists of shouting matches
Don’t let this bother you. It could be that it has always been thus. Shouting has pretty much been the norm in my political experience (late 1960’s – present).
We should all get a bit nervous when major political decisions are made accompanied by the sound of silence.
Bobby, public discourse these days consists of shouting matches
Don’t let this bother you. It could be that it has always been thus. Shouting has pretty much been the norm in my political experience (late 1960’s – present).
We should all get a bit nervous when major political decisions are made accompanied by the sound of silence.
Conservatives hate hearing it, but the obsession with gazing at the sexual lives of women of color and finding the root of poverty there, is racist.
The sexual lives and un-traditional family formations of the middle-classes and wealthy white families seem to produce some rather impressive and, arguably, fruitful taxpayers.
I noticed this one day, as I lay reading yet another article on Black female sexual lives by conservatives as my wife watches, yet another “Real Housewives” and the latest on TMZ.
Conservatives hate hearing it, but the obsession with gazing at the sexual lives of women of color and finding the root of poverty there, is racist.
The sexual lives and un-traditional family formations of the middle-classes and wealthy white families seem to produce some rather impressive and, arguably, fruitful taxpayers.
I noticed this one day, as I lay reading yet another article on Black female sexual lives by conservatives as my wife watches, yet another “Real Housewives” and the latest on TMZ.
Conservatives hate hearing it, but the obsession with gazing at the sexual lives of women of color and finding the root of poverty there, is racist.
The sexual lives and un-traditional family formations of the middle-classes and wealthy white families seem to produce some rather impressive and, arguably, fruitful taxpayers.
I noticed this one day, as I lay reading yet another article on Black female sexual lives by conservatives as my wife watches, yet another “Real Housewives” and the latest on TMZ.
Snarki is onto something that may turn out to be important. This clearly was terrorism. Providing material support to terrorists is illegal and for Muslims we have defined material support very broadly. I think the SPLC should give these facts some serious consideration.
Snarki is onto something that may turn out to be important. This clearly was terrorism. Providing material support to terrorists is illegal and for Muslims we have defined material support very broadly. I think the SPLC should give these facts some serious consideration.
Snarki is onto something that may turn out to be important. This clearly was terrorism. Providing material support to terrorists is illegal and for Muslims we have defined material support very broadly. I think the SPLC should give these facts some serious consideration.
Has anybody ever noticed how ludicrous the notion is that there are hordes of liberals lurking who just want to take away people’s guns because they hate guns? Political points! Freedom!
Guys, if your pals weren’t regularly shooting people with them, there are very few liberals who would give a rat’s ass about anyone’s guns. You don’t like liberal solutions to that problem, why don’t you take it upon yourselves to solve the problem some other way?
Has anybody ever noticed how ludicrous the notion is that there are hordes of liberals lurking who just want to take away people’s guns because they hate guns? Political points! Freedom!
Guys, if your pals weren’t regularly shooting people with them, there are very few liberals who would give a rat’s ass about anyone’s guns. You don’t like liberal solutions to that problem, why don’t you take it upon yourselves to solve the problem some other way?
Has anybody ever noticed how ludicrous the notion is that there are hordes of liberals lurking who just want to take away people’s guns because they hate guns? Political points! Freedom!
Guys, if your pals weren’t regularly shooting people with them, there are very few liberals who would give a rat’s ass about anyone’s guns. You don’t like liberal solutions to that problem, why don’t you take it upon yourselves to solve the problem some other way?
Explain, please, because I have no idea what you’re referring to.
Possibly I have been slacking in my conservative duties.
Explain, please, because I have no idea what you’re referring to.
Possibly I have been slacking in my conservative duties.
Explain, please, because I have no idea what you’re referring to.
Possibly I have been slacking in my conservative duties.
“Partly that is because some of the worst bigots, on both sides, will eventually die off.”
Harder to take comfort in that assertion just after a 21-year-old shoots nine people in a church.
“Partly that is because some of the worst bigots, on both sides, will eventually die off.”
Harder to take comfort in that assertion just after a 21-year-old shoots nine people in a church.
“Partly that is because some of the worst bigots, on both sides, will eventually die off.”
Harder to take comfort in that assertion just after a 21-year-old shoots nine people in a church.
Lurking hitherto on this thread, because I had nothing much to say, certainly nothing better than someone else had already said. A couple of (mostly retrospective) comments.
First, congratulations to Russell for posting this and for others, especially McKT, for rising to the occasion. (And in a very tiny way to myself and others who thought that banning Brett might just lead to an improvement in the quality of discussion.)
Second, on TN Coates – I think his tactic of nailing his major screed to the mast of “reparations” was an interesting choice, not necessarily a wise one. It got him a lot more views, I suspect, than an otherwise equally learned article on how white (mostly Northern) society screwed the blacks about half a century ago would have done. There’s some impressive research there, well-documented, and thought-provoking. BUT I am among those (millions?) who think “reparations” – as we customarily conceive the term – is an absolute non-starter, certainly in terms of realistic politics but also in terms of an operationalized ideal: who gets paid what from what funds is, I suspect, insurmountable.
TNC knows this (I believe) and in his text actually backs away from the full implications of his theme, quite rightly. As I read him, what he’s really saying is: “Reparations – or if not reparations, SOMETHING – must be done,” with the emphasis on the “something” that we all need to figure out. But too many of us balk at the “R” words (Reparations and, implicitly, Racism) and don’t proceed even to trying to figure out the something.
Maybe this was TNC’s calculated gamble, and maybe on balance it paid off, but I’m not convinced. I do believe he’s told us some very important facts, previously unknown to me (and I lived through those years, and am even a historian, albeit not of contemporary America) about the systematic role of white society in keeping African-Americans down. That’s white society as a whole – I’m pointing no fingers at individuals. It’s “structural racism,” and does not require conscious antipathy toward blacks even from all those who built it, much less those who took part in it without ever considering its roots or its consequences. This, I suspect, is where some of the debate (and silence) about “racism” gets most foggy – those who genuinely think that “I don’t personally hate African-Americans” exonerates them completely from racism, as against those who recognize at some level that they benefit from an uneven playing field and calling it what it is.
All the rhetoric in the world about “America is the land of opportunity” and “You can make it if you try” should not blind us to this reality, and we should be trying to Figure Out the Something, even assuming that is not “Reparations.”
Here endeth today’s sermon.
Lurking hitherto on this thread, because I had nothing much to say, certainly nothing better than someone else had already said. A couple of (mostly retrospective) comments.
First, congratulations to Russell for posting this and for others, especially McKT, for rising to the occasion. (And in a very tiny way to myself and others who thought that banning Brett might just lead to an improvement in the quality of discussion.)
Second, on TN Coates – I think his tactic of nailing his major screed to the mast of “reparations” was an interesting choice, not necessarily a wise one. It got him a lot more views, I suspect, than an otherwise equally learned article on how white (mostly Northern) society screwed the blacks about half a century ago would have done. There’s some impressive research there, well-documented, and thought-provoking. BUT I am among those (millions?) who think “reparations” – as we customarily conceive the term – is an absolute non-starter, certainly in terms of realistic politics but also in terms of an operationalized ideal: who gets paid what from what funds is, I suspect, insurmountable.
TNC knows this (I believe) and in his text actually backs away from the full implications of his theme, quite rightly. As I read him, what he’s really saying is: “Reparations – or if not reparations, SOMETHING – must be done,” with the emphasis on the “something” that we all need to figure out. But too many of us balk at the “R” words (Reparations and, implicitly, Racism) and don’t proceed even to trying to figure out the something.
Maybe this was TNC’s calculated gamble, and maybe on balance it paid off, but I’m not convinced. I do believe he’s told us some very important facts, previously unknown to me (and I lived through those years, and am even a historian, albeit not of contemporary America) about the systematic role of white society in keeping African-Americans down. That’s white society as a whole – I’m pointing no fingers at individuals. It’s “structural racism,” and does not require conscious antipathy toward blacks even from all those who built it, much less those who took part in it without ever considering its roots or its consequences. This, I suspect, is where some of the debate (and silence) about “racism” gets most foggy – those who genuinely think that “I don’t personally hate African-Americans” exonerates them completely from racism, as against those who recognize at some level that they benefit from an uneven playing field and calling it what it is.
All the rhetoric in the world about “America is the land of opportunity” and “You can make it if you try” should not blind us to this reality, and we should be trying to Figure Out the Something, even assuming that is not “Reparations.”
Here endeth today’s sermon.
Lurking hitherto on this thread, because I had nothing much to say, certainly nothing better than someone else had already said. A couple of (mostly retrospective) comments.
First, congratulations to Russell for posting this and for others, especially McKT, for rising to the occasion. (And in a very tiny way to myself and others who thought that banning Brett might just lead to an improvement in the quality of discussion.)
Second, on TN Coates – I think his tactic of nailing his major screed to the mast of “reparations” was an interesting choice, not necessarily a wise one. It got him a lot more views, I suspect, than an otherwise equally learned article on how white (mostly Northern) society screwed the blacks about half a century ago would have done. There’s some impressive research there, well-documented, and thought-provoking. BUT I am among those (millions?) who think “reparations” – as we customarily conceive the term – is an absolute non-starter, certainly in terms of realistic politics but also in terms of an operationalized ideal: who gets paid what from what funds is, I suspect, insurmountable.
TNC knows this (I believe) and in his text actually backs away from the full implications of his theme, quite rightly. As I read him, what he’s really saying is: “Reparations – or if not reparations, SOMETHING – must be done,” with the emphasis on the “something” that we all need to figure out. But too many of us balk at the “R” words (Reparations and, implicitly, Racism) and don’t proceed even to trying to figure out the something.
Maybe this was TNC’s calculated gamble, and maybe on balance it paid off, but I’m not convinced. I do believe he’s told us some very important facts, previously unknown to me (and I lived through those years, and am even a historian, albeit not of contemporary America) about the systematic role of white society in keeping African-Americans down. That’s white society as a whole – I’m pointing no fingers at individuals. It’s “structural racism,” and does not require conscious antipathy toward blacks even from all those who built it, much less those who took part in it without ever considering its roots or its consequences. This, I suspect, is where some of the debate (and silence) about “racism” gets most foggy – those who genuinely think that “I don’t personally hate African-Americans” exonerates them completely from racism, as against those who recognize at some level that they benefit from an uneven playing field and calling it what it is.
All the rhetoric in the world about “America is the land of opportunity” and “You can make it if you try” should not blind us to this reality, and we should be trying to Figure Out the Something, even assuming that is not “Reparations.”
Here endeth today’s sermon.
doretta, it’s often the grandparents infecting their grandchildren. Over here in Germany it’s similar with Nazism/antisemitism. Parents who grew up in opposition to the shameful behaviour of their own parents in the 3rd Reich find their own children developing Nazi sympathies and often find that it’s the older generation that feeds them the posion. Not necessarily granny deliberately trying to indoctrinate the kids (although that happens too) but more often by diffusion (kid: “Granny seems not to like Jews (whatever Jews are) and I love my granny, so these ‘Jews’ must indeed be bad people or someone so lovable as my granny would not always speak so ill of them”).
doretta, it’s often the grandparents infecting their grandchildren. Over here in Germany it’s similar with Nazism/antisemitism. Parents who grew up in opposition to the shameful behaviour of their own parents in the 3rd Reich find their own children developing Nazi sympathies and often find that it’s the older generation that feeds them the posion. Not necessarily granny deliberately trying to indoctrinate the kids (although that happens too) but more often by diffusion (kid: “Granny seems not to like Jews (whatever Jews are) and I love my granny, so these ‘Jews’ must indeed be bad people or someone so lovable as my granny would not always speak so ill of them”).
doretta, it’s often the grandparents infecting their grandchildren. Over here in Germany it’s similar with Nazism/antisemitism. Parents who grew up in opposition to the shameful behaviour of their own parents in the 3rd Reich find their own children developing Nazi sympathies and often find that it’s the older generation that feeds them the posion. Not necessarily granny deliberately trying to indoctrinate the kids (although that happens too) but more often by diffusion (kid: “Granny seems not to like Jews (whatever Jews are) and I love my granny, so these ‘Jews’ must indeed be bad people or someone so lovable as my granny would not always speak so ill of them”).
Isn’t all of that a better thing to celebrate than the CSA?
none of those things are rebellion.
i’d say that’s what the rebel flag mostly represents to people all across the US – esp to young people. it’s a big FU to the government, or to society. they aren’t thinking about it’s real meaning. and the actual reason for the Civil War is rarely discussed. we call it the “rebel flag”, and that says nothing of what that rebellion was seeking to achieve.
it’s like those Guy Fawkes masks. kids think they’re a cool way to be a anarchist. but Guy Fawkes wasn’t an anarchist; he was a religious terrorist trying to get his favorite monarch onto the throne.
and… Che shirts.
the rebel flag has become a symbol, in popular culture, of something quite different than what it originally represented.
unfortunately, there aren’t many symbols of rebellion that don’t come with a lot of baggage. because rebellion is a messy business.
Isn’t all of that a better thing to celebrate than the CSA?
none of those things are rebellion.
i’d say that’s what the rebel flag mostly represents to people all across the US – esp to young people. it’s a big FU to the government, or to society. they aren’t thinking about it’s real meaning. and the actual reason for the Civil War is rarely discussed. we call it the “rebel flag”, and that says nothing of what that rebellion was seeking to achieve.
it’s like those Guy Fawkes masks. kids think they’re a cool way to be a anarchist. but Guy Fawkes wasn’t an anarchist; he was a religious terrorist trying to get his favorite monarch onto the throne.
and… Che shirts.
the rebel flag has become a symbol, in popular culture, of something quite different than what it originally represented.
unfortunately, there aren’t many symbols of rebellion that don’t come with a lot of baggage. because rebellion is a messy business.
Isn’t all of that a better thing to celebrate than the CSA?
none of those things are rebellion.
i’d say that’s what the rebel flag mostly represents to people all across the US – esp to young people. it’s a big FU to the government, or to society. they aren’t thinking about it’s real meaning. and the actual reason for the Civil War is rarely discussed. we call it the “rebel flag”, and that says nothing of what that rebellion was seeking to achieve.
it’s like those Guy Fawkes masks. kids think they’re a cool way to be a anarchist. but Guy Fawkes wasn’t an anarchist; he was a religious terrorist trying to get his favorite monarch onto the throne.
and… Che shirts.
the rebel flag has become a symbol, in popular culture, of something quite different than what it originally represented.
unfortunately, there aren’t many symbols of rebellion that don’t come with a lot of baggage. because rebellion is a messy business.
Speaking of rebellion, this:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/why-vladimir-putin-wants-texas-194600233.html
Here’s the piece cited in the article:
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/06/vladimir-putin-texas-secession-119288.html?hp=t4_r#.VYqfgUaEkeN
Why hasn’t this been reported in the conservative lamestream media?
When Sarah Death Palin takes her rabble-rousing to Texas, can she still sight Putin’s head looming?
Would Walter Duranty, like Strom Thurmond, move to the Republican Party because he likes the traitors they hang with and humor along?
Speaking of rebellion, this:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/why-vladimir-putin-wants-texas-194600233.html
Here’s the piece cited in the article:
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/06/vladimir-putin-texas-secession-119288.html?hp=t4_r#.VYqfgUaEkeN
Why hasn’t this been reported in the conservative lamestream media?
When Sarah Death Palin takes her rabble-rousing to Texas, can she still sight Putin’s head looming?
Would Walter Duranty, like Strom Thurmond, move to the Republican Party because he likes the traitors they hang with and humor along?
Speaking of rebellion, this:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/why-vladimir-putin-wants-texas-194600233.html
Here’s the piece cited in the article:
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/06/vladimir-putin-texas-secession-119288.html?hp=t4_r#.VYqfgUaEkeN
Why hasn’t this been reported in the conservative lamestream media?
When Sarah Death Palin takes her rabble-rousing to Texas, can she still sight Putin’s head looming?
Would Walter Duranty, like Strom Thurmond, move to the Republican Party because he likes the traitors they hang with and humor along?
unfortunately, there aren’t many symbols of rebellion that don’t come with a lot of baggage. because rebellion is a messy business.
cleek has been saying a lot of good things recently. That is one of them.
doretta:
Providing material support to terrorists is illegal and for Muslims we have defined material support very broadly.
It has been defined very broadly, and that’s a bad thing. For example: http://www.hrw.org/news/2014/07/21/us-terrorism-prosecutions-often-illusion
That should be a call to rein in the definition of ‘terrorism’ and ‘material support’ as applied to Muslims, not apply the overly broad definitions to new areas. The US has done more damage to itself (erosion of civil liberties, foreign wars of aggression, wasted government resources on security theater, etc etc) by fighting ‘terrorism’ than terrorists have ever done, or ever will do.
unfortunately, there aren’t many symbols of rebellion that don’t come with a lot of baggage. because rebellion is a messy business.
cleek has been saying a lot of good things recently. That is one of them.
doretta:
Providing material support to terrorists is illegal and for Muslims we have defined material support very broadly.
It has been defined very broadly, and that’s a bad thing. For example: http://www.hrw.org/news/2014/07/21/us-terrorism-prosecutions-often-illusion
That should be a call to rein in the definition of ‘terrorism’ and ‘material support’ as applied to Muslims, not apply the overly broad definitions to new areas. The US has done more damage to itself (erosion of civil liberties, foreign wars of aggression, wasted government resources on security theater, etc etc) by fighting ‘terrorism’ than terrorists have ever done, or ever will do.
unfortunately, there aren’t many symbols of rebellion that don’t come with a lot of baggage. because rebellion is a messy business.
cleek has been saying a lot of good things recently. That is one of them.
doretta:
Providing material support to terrorists is illegal and for Muslims we have defined material support very broadly.
It has been defined very broadly, and that’s a bad thing. For example: http://www.hrw.org/news/2014/07/21/us-terrorism-prosecutions-often-illusion
That should be a call to rein in the definition of ‘terrorism’ and ‘material support’ as applied to Muslims, not apply the overly broad definitions to new areas. The US has done more damage to itself (erosion of civil liberties, foreign wars of aggression, wasted government resources on security theater, etc etc) by fighting ‘terrorism’ than terrorists have ever done, or ever will do.
that Liberty & Scales image
opps. that should be Justice & Scales. Liberty is her younger sister.
that Liberty & Scales image
opps. that should be Justice & Scales. Liberty is her younger sister.
that Liberty & Scales image
opps. that should be Justice & Scales. Liberty is her younger sister.
i’d say that’s what the rebel flag mostly represents to people all across the US – esp to young people. it’s a big FU to the government, or to society. they aren’t thinking about it’s real meaning. and the actual reason for the Civil War is rarely discussed. we call it the “rebel flag”, and that says nothing of what that rebellion was seeking to achieve.
I agree that the Confederate battle flag needs to go as an official symbol of state of local government. This is an opinion, not a declaration that the feds ought to compel the act. It is up to South Carolina or Georgia or whoever to decide whether to quit giving blacks the finger or not. Not the feds and not me.
This still leaves grey areas. The University of Mississippi, i.e. Ole Miss, is the Rebels. They use the CSA battle flag. It’s a tradition, not a political statement. I’d cut them some slack. A grandfather clause, if you will.
Another grey area is Civil War re-enactors. Seems like a waste of a weekend to me, but for some reason these folks like to dress up and re-do Civil War battles. I have a minor historical interest in the Civil War, and I enjoy reading about the battles, the leaders, and grunts, on both sides. The southern leadership was all about slavery. Not so much the grunts. Back then, loyalty to one’s state was huge. We can’t relate to it today. The sacrifice and courage–in a forlorn and horrific cause–of the confederate troops was impressive. Their descendants, in part inspired by that legacy, did this country great service in WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam and even today. A lot of decent people with a sense of history respect the stand, if not the cause, the southern troops made. Do they tend to gloss over some of the bad stuff? Some do a lot, others to some extent. Others probably fully understand what the South stood for as its national goal but still marvel at the effort those with virtually no skin in the game contributed. I’m mind reading here, if that isn’t completely obvious.
The point here is that we can’t rewrite history or declare certain hobbies and interests off limits because, inter alia, the southern leadership wanted to remain a slave owning country. Because, speaking of grey areas, there is more than a little historical evidence that Lincoln would have compromised on slavery to maintain the union. Even the halos have a bit of tarnish on them sometimes.
The consensus re pulling down the battle flag from state buildings makes the point adequately. We should take “yes” for an answer and move on.
i’d say that’s what the rebel flag mostly represents to people all across the US – esp to young people. it’s a big FU to the government, or to society. they aren’t thinking about it’s real meaning. and the actual reason for the Civil War is rarely discussed. we call it the “rebel flag”, and that says nothing of what that rebellion was seeking to achieve.
I agree that the Confederate battle flag needs to go as an official symbol of state of local government. This is an opinion, not a declaration that the feds ought to compel the act. It is up to South Carolina or Georgia or whoever to decide whether to quit giving blacks the finger or not. Not the feds and not me.
This still leaves grey areas. The University of Mississippi, i.e. Ole Miss, is the Rebels. They use the CSA battle flag. It’s a tradition, not a political statement. I’d cut them some slack. A grandfather clause, if you will.
Another grey area is Civil War re-enactors. Seems like a waste of a weekend to me, but for some reason these folks like to dress up and re-do Civil War battles. I have a minor historical interest in the Civil War, and I enjoy reading about the battles, the leaders, and grunts, on both sides. The southern leadership was all about slavery. Not so much the grunts. Back then, loyalty to one’s state was huge. We can’t relate to it today. The sacrifice and courage–in a forlorn and horrific cause–of the confederate troops was impressive. Their descendants, in part inspired by that legacy, did this country great service in WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam and even today. A lot of decent people with a sense of history respect the stand, if not the cause, the southern troops made. Do they tend to gloss over some of the bad stuff? Some do a lot, others to some extent. Others probably fully understand what the South stood for as its national goal but still marvel at the effort those with virtually no skin in the game contributed. I’m mind reading here, if that isn’t completely obvious.
The point here is that we can’t rewrite history or declare certain hobbies and interests off limits because, inter alia, the southern leadership wanted to remain a slave owning country. Because, speaking of grey areas, there is more than a little historical evidence that Lincoln would have compromised on slavery to maintain the union. Even the halos have a bit of tarnish on them sometimes.
The consensus re pulling down the battle flag from state buildings makes the point adequately. We should take “yes” for an answer and move on.
i’d say that’s what the rebel flag mostly represents to people all across the US – esp to young people. it’s a big FU to the government, or to society. they aren’t thinking about it’s real meaning. and the actual reason for the Civil War is rarely discussed. we call it the “rebel flag”, and that says nothing of what that rebellion was seeking to achieve.
I agree that the Confederate battle flag needs to go as an official symbol of state of local government. This is an opinion, not a declaration that the feds ought to compel the act. It is up to South Carolina or Georgia or whoever to decide whether to quit giving blacks the finger or not. Not the feds and not me.
This still leaves grey areas. The University of Mississippi, i.e. Ole Miss, is the Rebels. They use the CSA battle flag. It’s a tradition, not a political statement. I’d cut them some slack. A grandfather clause, if you will.
Another grey area is Civil War re-enactors. Seems like a waste of a weekend to me, but for some reason these folks like to dress up and re-do Civil War battles. I have a minor historical interest in the Civil War, and I enjoy reading about the battles, the leaders, and grunts, on both sides. The southern leadership was all about slavery. Not so much the grunts. Back then, loyalty to one’s state was huge. We can’t relate to it today. The sacrifice and courage–in a forlorn and horrific cause–of the confederate troops was impressive. Their descendants, in part inspired by that legacy, did this country great service in WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam and even today. A lot of decent people with a sense of history respect the stand, if not the cause, the southern troops made. Do they tend to gloss over some of the bad stuff? Some do a lot, others to some extent. Others probably fully understand what the South stood for as its national goal but still marvel at the effort those with virtually no skin in the game contributed. I’m mind reading here, if that isn’t completely obvious.
The point here is that we can’t rewrite history or declare certain hobbies and interests off limits because, inter alia, the southern leadership wanted to remain a slave owning country. Because, speaking of grey areas, there is more than a little historical evidence that Lincoln would have compromised on slavery to maintain the union. Even the halos have a bit of tarnish on them sometimes.
The consensus re pulling down the battle flag from state buildings makes the point adequately. We should take “yes” for an answer and move on.
We should take “yes” for an answer and move on.
that’s fine with me.
governments need to stop honoring treason, racism and slavery. everybody else can do what they want.
We should take “yes” for an answer and move on.
that’s fine with me.
governments need to stop honoring treason, racism and slavery. everybody else can do what they want.
We should take “yes” for an answer and move on.
that’s fine with me.
governments need to stop honoring treason, racism and slavery. everybody else can do what they want.
I agree with McK on the flag issue–it shouldn’t be flown on state buildings, but people’s hobbies are another story. And as for the motives, I think I agree there as well. Many Southerners when I lived there were in denial about the ugliness of the Confederate cause and that includes some historians all the way up through the 1960’s , including Shelby Foote–I loved his trilogy, but it is mainly from the old (white) perspective–brother fighting brother, heroism on both sides, nobility, sacrifice, etc… He mentions slavery, but it’s off to the side. There is some truth to his Pov and I don’t begrudge the talk about the heroism and sacrifice, but the bottom line is what Grant said, that it was on the southern side sacrifice on behalf of one of the worst causes in history. Foote once said the modern racists had hijacked the flag, but that is nonsense.
So I think many of the people who take pride in the heroism of their ancestors are in some denial about the sheer ugliness of the cause, but that may not be true of everyone. They may just find the history fascinating and may take pride in the heroism while despising the cause. People are sometimes complicated. I’m thinking of, for instance, the blogger Pat Lang who I sometimes read. (The banned commenter blackhawk also was a fan if I recall, but don’t hold that against Lang). Lang is proud of his southern heritage and that would make me suspicious, but he seems to respect Middle Eastern cultures as well (that’s why I read him) and military valor and people who stick to their traditions. He is, in a way, a conservative cultural relativist. I’m half joking. The point is that when he goes on about his pride in the south I may roll my eyes a bit, but I don’t think it is coming from a racist pov in his case.
Also, while I favor taking down the flag, I’m a little uneasy about how once again Americans are focusing on a symbol and expressing our sense of self-righteousness this way. After all the flags are down we will still have the poverty and the income and wealth gaps to deal with (or ignore).
I agree with McK on the flag issue–it shouldn’t be flown on state buildings, but people’s hobbies are another story. And as for the motives, I think I agree there as well. Many Southerners when I lived there were in denial about the ugliness of the Confederate cause and that includes some historians all the way up through the 1960’s , including Shelby Foote–I loved his trilogy, but it is mainly from the old (white) perspective–brother fighting brother, heroism on both sides, nobility, sacrifice, etc… He mentions slavery, but it’s off to the side. There is some truth to his Pov and I don’t begrudge the talk about the heroism and sacrifice, but the bottom line is what Grant said, that it was on the southern side sacrifice on behalf of one of the worst causes in history. Foote once said the modern racists had hijacked the flag, but that is nonsense.
So I think many of the people who take pride in the heroism of their ancestors are in some denial about the sheer ugliness of the cause, but that may not be true of everyone. They may just find the history fascinating and may take pride in the heroism while despising the cause. People are sometimes complicated. I’m thinking of, for instance, the blogger Pat Lang who I sometimes read. (The banned commenter blackhawk also was a fan if I recall, but don’t hold that against Lang). Lang is proud of his southern heritage and that would make me suspicious, but he seems to respect Middle Eastern cultures as well (that’s why I read him) and military valor and people who stick to their traditions. He is, in a way, a conservative cultural relativist. I’m half joking. The point is that when he goes on about his pride in the south I may roll my eyes a bit, but I don’t think it is coming from a racist pov in his case.
Also, while I favor taking down the flag, I’m a little uneasy about how once again Americans are focusing on a symbol and expressing our sense of self-righteousness this way. After all the flags are down we will still have the poverty and the income and wealth gaps to deal with (or ignore).
I agree with McK on the flag issue–it shouldn’t be flown on state buildings, but people’s hobbies are another story. And as for the motives, I think I agree there as well. Many Southerners when I lived there were in denial about the ugliness of the Confederate cause and that includes some historians all the way up through the 1960’s , including Shelby Foote–I loved his trilogy, but it is mainly from the old (white) perspective–brother fighting brother, heroism on both sides, nobility, sacrifice, etc… He mentions slavery, but it’s off to the side. There is some truth to his Pov and I don’t begrudge the talk about the heroism and sacrifice, but the bottom line is what Grant said, that it was on the southern side sacrifice on behalf of one of the worst causes in history. Foote once said the modern racists had hijacked the flag, but that is nonsense.
So I think many of the people who take pride in the heroism of their ancestors are in some denial about the sheer ugliness of the cause, but that may not be true of everyone. They may just find the history fascinating and may take pride in the heroism while despising the cause. People are sometimes complicated. I’m thinking of, for instance, the blogger Pat Lang who I sometimes read. (The banned commenter blackhawk also was a fan if I recall, but don’t hold that against Lang). Lang is proud of his southern heritage and that would make me suspicious, but he seems to respect Middle Eastern cultures as well (that’s why I read him) and military valor and people who stick to their traditions. He is, in a way, a conservative cultural relativist. I’m half joking. The point is that when he goes on about his pride in the south I may roll my eyes a bit, but I don’t think it is coming from a racist pov in his case.
Also, while I favor taking down the flag, I’m a little uneasy about how once again Americans are focusing on a symbol and expressing our sense of self-righteousness this way. After all the flags are down we will still have the poverty and the income and wealth gaps to deal with (or ignore).
Russell: “With the singular exception of Lindsey Graham, people are not denying that Roof was racially motivated. I’m not claiming that they are denying that he was racially motivated.”
There was a large chorus from the right at the start claiming that it was due to something else/didn’t know/who could ever know/we must move on……
Russell: “With the singular exception of Lindsey Graham, people are not denying that Roof was racially motivated. I’m not claiming that they are denying that he was racially motivated.”
There was a large chorus from the right at the start claiming that it was due to something else/didn’t know/who could ever know/we must move on……
Russell: “With the singular exception of Lindsey Graham, people are not denying that Roof was racially motivated. I’m not claiming that they are denying that he was racially motivated.”
There was a large chorus from the right at the start claiming that it was due to something else/didn’t know/who could ever know/we must move on……
Thompson, I agree about the material support to terrorists issue, actually. My thought is that perhaps applying it even-handedly in this case would serve two purposes. One, to remind people terrorism is hardly limited to Muslims, and second, to get people to look at those laws and how we enforce them through a different lens.
A crass approach, I admit, and not the kind of thing I’d normally support but I’m just a bit cynical at the moment about how we apply our notions of justice.
Thompson, I agree about the material support to terrorists issue, actually. My thought is that perhaps applying it even-handedly in this case would serve two purposes. One, to remind people terrorism is hardly limited to Muslims, and second, to get people to look at those laws and how we enforce them through a different lens.
A crass approach, I admit, and not the kind of thing I’d normally support but I’m just a bit cynical at the moment about how we apply our notions of justice.
Thompson, I agree about the material support to terrorists issue, actually. My thought is that perhaps applying it even-handedly in this case would serve two purposes. One, to remind people terrorism is hardly limited to Muslims, and second, to get people to look at those laws and how we enforce them through a different lens.
A crass approach, I admit, and not the kind of thing I’d normally support but I’m just a bit cynical at the moment about how we apply our notions of justice.
TNC’s discussion of Shelby Foote is quite interesting.
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/06/the-convenient-suspension-of-disbelief/240318/
and
http://www.theatlantic.com/personal/archive/2011/06/the-great-trauma-of-your-generation/240485/
TNC’s discussion of Shelby Foote is quite interesting.
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/06/the-convenient-suspension-of-disbelief/240318/
and
http://www.theatlantic.com/personal/archive/2011/06/the-great-trauma-of-your-generation/240485/
TNC’s discussion of Shelby Foote is quite interesting.
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/06/the-convenient-suspension-of-disbelief/240318/
and
http://www.theatlantic.com/personal/archive/2011/06/the-great-trauma-of-your-generation/240485/
Russell: “Yes, I shut Brett off, because Brett likes to jack threads and make them about whatever topic tickles his fancy.”
Thank you very much, and thank you all of the front-pagers.
I’ve watched Brett be Brett since Hilzoy was a new front pager, and Moe Lane had not yet gone on to whatever cesspool that he went onto, and I’ve been amazed at what he’s gotten away with.
From what I saw of the original front-pagers, the reason was that they were sympathetic to Brett. I believe that they used him to say what they wanted to dance around.
I couldn’t understand why Hilzoy and those afterwards tolerated him.
Russell: “Yes, I shut Brett off, because Brett likes to jack threads and make them about whatever topic tickles his fancy.”
Thank you very much, and thank you all of the front-pagers.
I’ve watched Brett be Brett since Hilzoy was a new front pager, and Moe Lane had not yet gone on to whatever cesspool that he went onto, and I’ve been amazed at what he’s gotten away with.
From what I saw of the original front-pagers, the reason was that they were sympathetic to Brett. I believe that they used him to say what they wanted to dance around.
I couldn’t understand why Hilzoy and those afterwards tolerated him.
Russell: “Yes, I shut Brett off, because Brett likes to jack threads and make them about whatever topic tickles his fancy.”
Thank you very much, and thank you all of the front-pagers.
I’ve watched Brett be Brett since Hilzoy was a new front pager, and Moe Lane had not yet gone on to whatever cesspool that he went onto, and I’ve been amazed at what he’s gotten away with.
From what I saw of the original front-pagers, the reason was that they were sympathetic to Brett. I believe that they used him to say what they wanted to dance around.
I couldn’t understand why Hilzoy and those afterwards tolerated him.
The reenactor movement had at least one positive effect: US made movies about the Civil War can employ huge casts at a low price and one can be pretty sure that most of the technical details are correct. And they usually stay far closer to history than usual US efforts because, otherwise they would scare away half the potential audience.
Just compare the crap Hollywood puts out about other wars (or history in general) that occasionally even has to get recut for foreign distribution because e.g. the yellow monkeys do not appreciate their depiction or the guys with the stiff upper lips are not amused about their successes getting attributed to USians. I hear there are cuts of “The Dam Busters” that added American bombers and changed the name of the dog (originally the n-word). And then there was that American reporter in the US cut of the original Godzilla that also replaced all the references to the atomic bomb.
—
As for the flag, even if it got disappeared completely, a replacement would quickly be found. Over here Nazis used the WW1 naval ensign as a stand-in for the forbidden swastika flag for many years before that one got banned too (not sure what they use now but they will definitely find (or have found) something).
The reenactor movement had at least one positive effect: US made movies about the Civil War can employ huge casts at a low price and one can be pretty sure that most of the technical details are correct. And they usually stay far closer to history than usual US efforts because, otherwise they would scare away half the potential audience.
Just compare the crap Hollywood puts out about other wars (or history in general) that occasionally even has to get recut for foreign distribution because e.g. the yellow monkeys do not appreciate their depiction or the guys with the stiff upper lips are not amused about their successes getting attributed to USians. I hear there are cuts of “The Dam Busters” that added American bombers and changed the name of the dog (originally the n-word). And then there was that American reporter in the US cut of the original Godzilla that also replaced all the references to the atomic bomb.
—
As for the flag, even if it got disappeared completely, a replacement would quickly be found. Over here Nazis used the WW1 naval ensign as a stand-in for the forbidden swastika flag for many years before that one got banned too (not sure what they use now but they will definitely find (or have found) something).
The reenactor movement had at least one positive effect: US made movies about the Civil War can employ huge casts at a low price and one can be pretty sure that most of the technical details are correct. And they usually stay far closer to history than usual US efforts because, otherwise they would scare away half the potential audience.
Just compare the crap Hollywood puts out about other wars (or history in general) that occasionally even has to get recut for foreign distribution because e.g. the yellow monkeys do not appreciate their depiction or the guys with the stiff upper lips are not amused about their successes getting attributed to USians. I hear there are cuts of “The Dam Busters” that added American bombers and changed the name of the dog (originally the n-word). And then there was that American reporter in the US cut of the original Godzilla that also replaced all the references to the atomic bomb.
—
As for the flag, even if it got disappeared completely, a replacement would quickly be found. Over here Nazis used the WW1 naval ensign as a stand-in for the forbidden swastika flag for many years before that one got banned too (not sure what they use now but they will definitely find (or have found) something).
hf: “Frak, there’s even a place in the deep South said to have seceded from the Confederacy (the Free State of Jones). Even if they really just killed any government agents who went near them, they’d still be a better model to celebrate.”
From what I understand, the treatment by Confederates of those not wishing to be part of the Confederacy was brutal mass murder, pure and simple.
hf: “Frak, there’s even a place in the deep South said to have seceded from the Confederacy (the Free State of Jones). Even if they really just killed any government agents who went near them, they’d still be a better model to celebrate.”
From what I understand, the treatment by Confederates of those not wishing to be part of the Confederacy was brutal mass murder, pure and simple.
hf: “Frak, there’s even a place in the deep South said to have seceded from the Confederacy (the Free State of Jones). Even if they really just killed any government agents who went near them, they’d still be a better model to celebrate.”
From what I understand, the treatment by Confederates of those not wishing to be part of the Confederacy was brutal mass murder, pure and simple.
doretta, thompson, wrt “material support” (MSOT)
The “material support” prosecutions have really gone too far…now that the USSC has decided that money=speech, and in the prosecution of a guy in Boston for MSOT because he posted positive things about AQ speech=money=MSOT. Goodbye 1st Amendment.
I don’t think it’s ‘crass’ to understand that it takes a long, long, LONG time to get bad laws repealed, even if the support for them is tepid. But if applied to the rich/powerful/connected, then the repeal will be fast-tracked.
So, as a practical matter, MSOT prosecutions should go forward against Root’s CCC buddies. I also think that torture isn’t really going back in the box of “things NEVER to be done” unless Terry Nichols, of OK City bombing fame, is waterboarded to reveal his unindicted co-conspirators, and on down the line to roll up the whole gang of terrorists.
Yes, that makes me a bad person, but we all knew that already.
doretta, thompson, wrt “material support” (MSOT)
The “material support” prosecutions have really gone too far…now that the USSC has decided that money=speech, and in the prosecution of a guy in Boston for MSOT because he posted positive things about AQ speech=money=MSOT. Goodbye 1st Amendment.
I don’t think it’s ‘crass’ to understand that it takes a long, long, LONG time to get bad laws repealed, even if the support for them is tepid. But if applied to the rich/powerful/connected, then the repeal will be fast-tracked.
So, as a practical matter, MSOT prosecutions should go forward against Root’s CCC buddies. I also think that torture isn’t really going back in the box of “things NEVER to be done” unless Terry Nichols, of OK City bombing fame, is waterboarded to reveal his unindicted co-conspirators, and on down the line to roll up the whole gang of terrorists.
Yes, that makes me a bad person, but we all knew that already.
doretta, thompson, wrt “material support” (MSOT)
The “material support” prosecutions have really gone too far…now that the USSC has decided that money=speech, and in the prosecution of a guy in Boston for MSOT because he posted positive things about AQ speech=money=MSOT. Goodbye 1st Amendment.
I don’t think it’s ‘crass’ to understand that it takes a long, long, LONG time to get bad laws repealed, even if the support for them is tepid. But if applied to the rich/powerful/connected, then the repeal will be fast-tracked.
So, as a practical matter, MSOT prosecutions should go forward against Root’s CCC buddies. I also think that torture isn’t really going back in the box of “things NEVER to be done” unless Terry Nichols, of OK City bombing fame, is waterboarded to reveal his unindicted co-conspirators, and on down the line to roll up the whole gang of terrorists.
Yes, that makes me a bad person, but we all knew that already.
I agree about the material support to terrorists issue, actually. My thought is that perhaps applying it even-handedly in this case would serve two purposes.
It may very well serve those purposes. I think there is substantial risk that it may come at the cost of further normalizing that response level, which is something I can’t support. I have no real objection to your goals, however.
not the kind of thing I’d normally support but I’m just a bit cynical at the moment about how we apply our notions of justice.
Cynicism is fair, and I’d agree ‘justice’ is unequal. To instil equality, we can either work expand unjust and unfair conditions, or work to remove injustice from disadvantaged groups (such as Muslims in your example).
The 2nd option is far harder, I’ll grant you. It’s still my preferred choice.
Hartmut:
As for the flag, even if it got disappeared completely, a replacement would quickly be found.
I think this is why restricting expression is never a good solution to stamping out ideas. There is always a new codeword or symbol that the subculture can adopt.
I agree about the material support to terrorists issue, actually. My thought is that perhaps applying it even-handedly in this case would serve two purposes.
It may very well serve those purposes. I think there is substantial risk that it may come at the cost of further normalizing that response level, which is something I can’t support. I have no real objection to your goals, however.
not the kind of thing I’d normally support but I’m just a bit cynical at the moment about how we apply our notions of justice.
Cynicism is fair, and I’d agree ‘justice’ is unequal. To instil equality, we can either work expand unjust and unfair conditions, or work to remove injustice from disadvantaged groups (such as Muslims in your example).
The 2nd option is far harder, I’ll grant you. It’s still my preferred choice.
Hartmut:
As for the flag, even if it got disappeared completely, a replacement would quickly be found.
I think this is why restricting expression is never a good solution to stamping out ideas. There is always a new codeword or symbol that the subculture can adopt.
I agree about the material support to terrorists issue, actually. My thought is that perhaps applying it even-handedly in this case would serve two purposes.
It may very well serve those purposes. I think there is substantial risk that it may come at the cost of further normalizing that response level, which is something I can’t support. I have no real objection to your goals, however.
not the kind of thing I’d normally support but I’m just a bit cynical at the moment about how we apply our notions of justice.
Cynicism is fair, and I’d agree ‘justice’ is unequal. To instil equality, we can either work expand unjust and unfair conditions, or work to remove injustice from disadvantaged groups (such as Muslims in your example).
The 2nd option is far harder, I’ll grant you. It’s still my preferred choice.
Hartmut:
As for the flag, even if it got disappeared completely, a replacement would quickly be found.
I think this is why restricting expression is never a good solution to stamping out ideas. There is always a new codeword or symbol that the subculture can adopt.
From what I understand, the treatment by Confederates of those not wishing to be part of the Confederacy was brutal mass murder, pure and simple.
Do you happen to have a source? Sam Houston didn’t wish to be a part of the Confederacy and so he lost his job as Governor of Texas. He went back to Huntsville TX where he eventually died of natural causes. Houston was popular in Huntsville. As it happens my dad’s family landed in Huntsville prior to Texas becoming a state. My great-great grandfather was a Presbyterian missionary and anti-slavery, so was his son, and both of them, along with a lot of other Huntsville residents, opposed secession. None of them were murdered, ostracized or anything else.
From what I understand, the treatment by Confederates of those not wishing to be part of the Confederacy was brutal mass murder, pure and simple.
Do you happen to have a source? Sam Houston didn’t wish to be a part of the Confederacy and so he lost his job as Governor of Texas. He went back to Huntsville TX where he eventually died of natural causes. Houston was popular in Huntsville. As it happens my dad’s family landed in Huntsville prior to Texas becoming a state. My great-great grandfather was a Presbyterian missionary and anti-slavery, so was his son, and both of them, along with a lot of other Huntsville residents, opposed secession. None of them were murdered, ostracized or anything else.
From what I understand, the treatment by Confederates of those not wishing to be part of the Confederacy was brutal mass murder, pure and simple.
Do you happen to have a source? Sam Houston didn’t wish to be a part of the Confederacy and so he lost his job as Governor of Texas. He went back to Huntsville TX where he eventually died of natural causes. Houston was popular in Huntsville. As it happens my dad’s family landed in Huntsville prior to Texas becoming a state. My great-great grandfather was a Presbyterian missionary and anti-slavery, so was his son, and both of them, along with a lot of other Huntsville residents, opposed secession. None of them were murdered, ostracized or anything else.
Young black males commit way more crime than any other demographic.
Sorry if I’m so late to the party that I’m reviving a digression. (Work, you know. Such a distraction from blog comments.)
I think a more relevant demographic comparison would be something like “young poor males.” Or maybe “young poor urban males.” Because I’m doubting that the crime rate amongst, for example, young upper middle class black males is any higher than amongst whites in the came class. Anybody got and data that would argue differently?
As for the drug war, it is incontrvertable that the different penalties for crack vs cocaine were deliberately set that way to target blacks. (And, IIRC, the original reason that marijuana was made illegal was that it was primarily associated with black musicians.)
Young black males commit way more crime than any other demographic.
Sorry if I’m so late to the party that I’m reviving a digression. (Work, you know. Such a distraction from blog comments.)
I think a more relevant demographic comparison would be something like “young poor males.” Or maybe “young poor urban males.” Because I’m doubting that the crime rate amongst, for example, young upper middle class black males is any higher than amongst whites in the came class. Anybody got and data that would argue differently?
As for the drug war, it is incontrvertable that the different penalties for crack vs cocaine were deliberately set that way to target blacks. (And, IIRC, the original reason that marijuana was made illegal was that it was primarily associated with black musicians.)
Young black males commit way more crime than any other demographic.
Sorry if I’m so late to the party that I’m reviving a digression. (Work, you know. Such a distraction from blog comments.)
I think a more relevant demographic comparison would be something like “young poor males.” Or maybe “young poor urban males.” Because I’m doubting that the crime rate amongst, for example, young upper middle class black males is any higher than amongst whites in the came class. Anybody got and data that would argue differently?
As for the drug war, it is incontrvertable that the different penalties for crack vs cocaine were deliberately set that way to target blacks. (And, IIRC, the original reason that marijuana was made illegal was that it was primarily associated with black musicians.)
Marijuana/cannabis was targeted not just in the US. In Germany the main driver was big pharma (ironically, the product they were pushing as replacement for that devil drug was the newly developed heroin. But hey, Freud promoted cocaine as an anti-addictive).
Maybe in the US it was two squirrels with one stone.
Marijuana/cannabis was targeted not just in the US. In Germany the main driver was big pharma (ironically, the product they were pushing as replacement for that devil drug was the newly developed heroin. But hey, Freud promoted cocaine as an anti-addictive).
Maybe in the US it was two squirrels with one stone.
Marijuana/cannabis was targeted not just in the US. In Germany the main driver was big pharma (ironically, the product they were pushing as replacement for that devil drug was the newly developed heroin. But hey, Freud promoted cocaine as an anti-addictive).
Maybe in the US it was two squirrels with one stone.
Slartibartfast,
“At what point in this arc do we see the black family begin to disintegrate?
In order to have disintegration, you first have to have formation. When did black families become stable? When did they begin to disintegrate?
To what policies do you attribute the disintegration of the black family? And when were these adopted?”
And…
“Regardless of how you choose to characterize the solution, unless a child is raised to apply him/herself in school, to understand the importance of hard work and is taught and understands that it is that child’s responsibility as an adult to be self-supporting, regardless of race, the child is doomed.”
And…
“I’d like to see the federal policy that turns a generation of children without a chance into a viable members of society building off of the same single parent paradigm we now have.”
There were more, upstream, but this is code/an excuse to begin placing the sexual practices of people of color under a microscope. If people of color learn to have proper middle-class sexual lives they will eventually have successful middle-class families. More money/investments/handouts will not help!
We’ve seen this argument with Jewish and Roman Catholic immigrants. The women were viewed as sexual predators as well as the men. They’re huge families and oversexualized private lives were preventing them from becoming successful middle-class White people. And until they begin to have families that resemble WASPs, they would be regulated to American ghettos. Except, after WW2, the State/government started pumping massive amounts of money into programs, industrial policy, military industrial complex and many more goodies like that, and restricting most of these benefits to ALL WHITE people, regardless of “religion or creed”, by golly all those oversexed and self-destructive families started enjoying all those “middle-class values.”
Jewish and Roman Catholic immigrants, did not start “behaving” and then just by virtue of the power of bourgeois sexuality did they become “successful Americans.” It seems the opposite may have happened. I say “may” because I still don’t believe that self-disciplining sexuality makes someone successful in a capitalist economy. As a matter of fact, it seems many sexual predators do very well in our economy. It seems that many sexual adventurous individuals do very well in our economy. But the obsession with sexual practices does distract from the real issue. The redistribution of wealth/TAXES must never be discussed.
PS.
Sorry it took so long to answer, I thought I would have to time get into it, instead of being a lurker, but damn. Got me some job leads.
Slartibartfast,
“At what point in this arc do we see the black family begin to disintegrate?
In order to have disintegration, you first have to have formation. When did black families become stable? When did they begin to disintegrate?
To what policies do you attribute the disintegration of the black family? And when were these adopted?”
And…
“Regardless of how you choose to characterize the solution, unless a child is raised to apply him/herself in school, to understand the importance of hard work and is taught and understands that it is that child’s responsibility as an adult to be self-supporting, regardless of race, the child is doomed.”
And…
“I’d like to see the federal policy that turns a generation of children without a chance into a viable members of society building off of the same single parent paradigm we now have.”
There were more, upstream, but this is code/an excuse to begin placing the sexual practices of people of color under a microscope. If people of color learn to have proper middle-class sexual lives they will eventually have successful middle-class families. More money/investments/handouts will not help!
We’ve seen this argument with Jewish and Roman Catholic immigrants. The women were viewed as sexual predators as well as the men. They’re huge families and oversexualized private lives were preventing them from becoming successful middle-class White people. And until they begin to have families that resemble WASPs, they would be regulated to American ghettos. Except, after WW2, the State/government started pumping massive amounts of money into programs, industrial policy, military industrial complex and many more goodies like that, and restricting most of these benefits to ALL WHITE people, regardless of “religion or creed”, by golly all those oversexed and self-destructive families started enjoying all those “middle-class values.”
Jewish and Roman Catholic immigrants, did not start “behaving” and then just by virtue of the power of bourgeois sexuality did they become “successful Americans.” It seems the opposite may have happened. I say “may” because I still don’t believe that self-disciplining sexuality makes someone successful in a capitalist economy. As a matter of fact, it seems many sexual predators do very well in our economy. It seems that many sexual adventurous individuals do very well in our economy. But the obsession with sexual practices does distract from the real issue. The redistribution of wealth/TAXES must never be discussed.
PS.
Sorry it took so long to answer, I thought I would have to time get into it, instead of being a lurker, but damn. Got me some job leads.
Slartibartfast,
“At what point in this arc do we see the black family begin to disintegrate?
In order to have disintegration, you first have to have formation. When did black families become stable? When did they begin to disintegrate?
To what policies do you attribute the disintegration of the black family? And when were these adopted?”
And…
“Regardless of how you choose to characterize the solution, unless a child is raised to apply him/herself in school, to understand the importance of hard work and is taught and understands that it is that child’s responsibility as an adult to be self-supporting, regardless of race, the child is doomed.”
And…
“I’d like to see the federal policy that turns a generation of children without a chance into a viable members of society building off of the same single parent paradigm we now have.”
There were more, upstream, but this is code/an excuse to begin placing the sexual practices of people of color under a microscope. If people of color learn to have proper middle-class sexual lives they will eventually have successful middle-class families. More money/investments/handouts will not help!
We’ve seen this argument with Jewish and Roman Catholic immigrants. The women were viewed as sexual predators as well as the men. They’re huge families and oversexualized private lives were preventing them from becoming successful middle-class White people. And until they begin to have families that resemble WASPs, they would be regulated to American ghettos. Except, after WW2, the State/government started pumping massive amounts of money into programs, industrial policy, military industrial complex and many more goodies like that, and restricting most of these benefits to ALL WHITE people, regardless of “religion or creed”, by golly all those oversexed and self-destructive families started enjoying all those “middle-class values.”
Jewish and Roman Catholic immigrants, did not start “behaving” and then just by virtue of the power of bourgeois sexuality did they become “successful Americans.” It seems the opposite may have happened. I say “may” because I still don’t believe that self-disciplining sexuality makes someone successful in a capitalist economy. As a matter of fact, it seems many sexual predators do very well in our economy. It seems that many sexual adventurous individuals do very well in our economy. But the obsession with sexual practices does distract from the real issue. The redistribution of wealth/TAXES must never be discussed.
PS.
Sorry it took so long to answer, I thought I would have to time get into it, instead of being a lurker, but damn. Got me some job leads.
There were more, upstream, but this is code/an excuse to begin placing the sexual practices of people of color under a microscope.
Actually, you are quoting me and you are proving my point: a conservative discusses race and is accused of racism. It’s a no win situation: white conservatives won’t discuss racism because they’re afraid to and when they do, because they don’t track approved progressive thinking, they are racist. If you’d read reasonably closely, you would see that the ‘uneducated, unskilled single parent’ paradigm produces consistent suboptimal outcomes across racial lines.
No one gives a damn who sleeps with who. Having children with no means to support then and minimal competence at parenting is color blind irresponsible. Euphemistically referring to this as a “sexual practice” is like referring to dropping out of high school as “exploring other opportunities” and selling dope as “small business person.”
Again, thanks for proving my point. I had a nice chat with a number of progressives. They understood what I was saying without signing on to my perspective.
but since you’ve called me a racist (which BTW, doesn’t mean anything to me other than you don’t debate well on the merits), maybe you can explain why “the sexual practices of women of color” is an advantage to those women and to their children.
Here is another one: OTOH, TNC and others posit that by destroying the black family structure (whatever could he be talking about?), white supremacists deprived blacks of the social capital whites use to maintain their position (does he mean two parent white families that acquire social and economic assets over time and pass down their values to their children?). Then, SOD and NV opine that really, what I’m criticizing is just another valid lifestyle choice.
Ok, how is the valid lifestyle choice that I am criticizing any different from the disintegration of the black family caused by white supremacists that TNC decries?
Note: I don’t agree with TNC on causation, but I think he and I are on the same page re single parenting, regardless of color.
There were more, upstream, but this is code/an excuse to begin placing the sexual practices of people of color under a microscope.
Actually, you are quoting me and you are proving my point: a conservative discusses race and is accused of racism. It’s a no win situation: white conservatives won’t discuss racism because they’re afraid to and when they do, because they don’t track approved progressive thinking, they are racist. If you’d read reasonably closely, you would see that the ‘uneducated, unskilled single parent’ paradigm produces consistent suboptimal outcomes across racial lines.
No one gives a damn who sleeps with who. Having children with no means to support then and minimal competence at parenting is color blind irresponsible. Euphemistically referring to this as a “sexual practice” is like referring to dropping out of high school as “exploring other opportunities” and selling dope as “small business person.”
Again, thanks for proving my point. I had a nice chat with a number of progressives. They understood what I was saying without signing on to my perspective.
but since you’ve called me a racist (which BTW, doesn’t mean anything to me other than you don’t debate well on the merits), maybe you can explain why “the sexual practices of women of color” is an advantage to those women and to their children.
Here is another one: OTOH, TNC and others posit that by destroying the black family structure (whatever could he be talking about?), white supremacists deprived blacks of the social capital whites use to maintain their position (does he mean two parent white families that acquire social and economic assets over time and pass down their values to their children?). Then, SOD and NV opine that really, what I’m criticizing is just another valid lifestyle choice.
Ok, how is the valid lifestyle choice that I am criticizing any different from the disintegration of the black family caused by white supremacists that TNC decries?
Note: I don’t agree with TNC on causation, but I think he and I are on the same page re single parenting, regardless of color.
There were more, upstream, but this is code/an excuse to begin placing the sexual practices of people of color under a microscope.
Actually, you are quoting me and you are proving my point: a conservative discusses race and is accused of racism. It’s a no win situation: white conservatives won’t discuss racism because they’re afraid to and when they do, because they don’t track approved progressive thinking, they are racist. If you’d read reasonably closely, you would see that the ‘uneducated, unskilled single parent’ paradigm produces consistent suboptimal outcomes across racial lines.
No one gives a damn who sleeps with who. Having children with no means to support then and minimal competence at parenting is color blind irresponsible. Euphemistically referring to this as a “sexual practice” is like referring to dropping out of high school as “exploring other opportunities” and selling dope as “small business person.”
Again, thanks for proving my point. I had a nice chat with a number of progressives. They understood what I was saying without signing on to my perspective.
but since you’ve called me a racist (which BTW, doesn’t mean anything to me other than you don’t debate well on the merits), maybe you can explain why “the sexual practices of women of color” is an advantage to those women and to their children.
Here is another one: OTOH, TNC and others posit that by destroying the black family structure (whatever could he be talking about?), white supremacists deprived blacks of the social capital whites use to maintain their position (does he mean two parent white families that acquire social and economic assets over time and pass down their values to their children?). Then, SOD and NV opine that really, what I’m criticizing is just another valid lifestyle choice.
Ok, how is the valid lifestyle choice that I am criticizing any different from the disintegration of the black family caused by white supremacists that TNC decries?
Note: I don’t agree with TNC on causation, but I think he and I are on the same page re single parenting, regardless of color.
Thanks for replying, SOD. Job leads must take priority, if you’re in the market.
My response to this is: nobody in this thread speaks for conservatives, just as no one in this thread speaks for liberals.
Also: reproduction != sex, or so we have been instructed.
It seems as if you habitually attempt to abstract statements made by some people in comments into some horribly unsavory attitudes possessed by conservatives in general. Which perhaps does not follow. Or, perhaps, does. But I’d want to see your work.
Good luck in the job search!
Thanks for replying, SOD. Job leads must take priority, if you’re in the market.
My response to this is: nobody in this thread speaks for conservatives, just as no one in this thread speaks for liberals.
Also: reproduction != sex, or so we have been instructed.
It seems as if you habitually attempt to abstract statements made by some people in comments into some horribly unsavory attitudes possessed by conservatives in general. Which perhaps does not follow. Or, perhaps, does. But I’d want to see your work.
Good luck in the job search!
Thanks for replying, SOD. Job leads must take priority, if you’re in the market.
My response to this is: nobody in this thread speaks for conservatives, just as no one in this thread speaks for liberals.
Also: reproduction != sex, or so we have been instructed.
It seems as if you habitually attempt to abstract statements made by some people in comments into some horribly unsavory attitudes possessed by conservatives in general. Which perhaps does not follow. Or, perhaps, does. But I’d want to see your work.
Good luck in the job search!
If people of color learn to have proper middle-class sexual lives they will eventually have successful middle-class families.
To my knowledge, people of color don’t have sexual lives any more or less “proper” than anyone else.
IMO ascribing whatever disproportionate family dysfunction exists among blacks to an “adventurous” sexual life, instead of to the many other social and economic factors involved, doesn’t argue against negative and harmful racial stereotypes, it is an example of one.
Maybe I’m missing your point here.
If people of color learn to have proper middle-class sexual lives they will eventually have successful middle-class families.
To my knowledge, people of color don’t have sexual lives any more or less “proper” than anyone else.
IMO ascribing whatever disproportionate family dysfunction exists among blacks to an “adventurous” sexual life, instead of to the many other social and economic factors involved, doesn’t argue against negative and harmful racial stereotypes, it is an example of one.
Maybe I’m missing your point here.
If people of color learn to have proper middle-class sexual lives they will eventually have successful middle-class families.
To my knowledge, people of color don’t have sexual lives any more or less “proper” than anyone else.
IMO ascribing whatever disproportionate family dysfunction exists among blacks to an “adventurous” sexual life, instead of to the many other social and economic factors involved, doesn’t argue against negative and harmful racial stereotypes, it is an example of one.
Maybe I’m missing your point here.
McKinneyTexas
Is your argument that WASPs and other Whites (Jews & Roman Catholics) one day just started “having children responsibly?” And today, incompetence at parenting is not hurting White families. As a matter of fact, it seems to add spice for those in the arts & finance sectors of our economy. However, there seems to be an assumption that all poor people of color are not competent, when they are doing what families have been doing for millennia, reproducing and surviving in spite of the horrible conditions they are born into.
The US did not wait for the Roman Catholic and Jewish families to start acting like responsible economic actors. The US government did not one day decide, “Well all the lesser Whites are no longer ‘having children with no means to support’ and they now have maximal competence at parenting! Good on them. Let us now shower them with government investments!”
As a matter of fact, I suspect Roman Catholic and Jews would be insulted at the assumption.
McKinneyTexas
Is your argument that WASPs and other Whites (Jews & Roman Catholics) one day just started “having children responsibly?” And today, incompetence at parenting is not hurting White families. As a matter of fact, it seems to add spice for those in the arts & finance sectors of our economy. However, there seems to be an assumption that all poor people of color are not competent, when they are doing what families have been doing for millennia, reproducing and surviving in spite of the horrible conditions they are born into.
The US did not wait for the Roman Catholic and Jewish families to start acting like responsible economic actors. The US government did not one day decide, “Well all the lesser Whites are no longer ‘having children with no means to support’ and they now have maximal competence at parenting! Good on them. Let us now shower them with government investments!”
As a matter of fact, I suspect Roman Catholic and Jews would be insulted at the assumption.
McKinneyTexas
Is your argument that WASPs and other Whites (Jews & Roman Catholics) one day just started “having children responsibly?” And today, incompetence at parenting is not hurting White families. As a matter of fact, it seems to add spice for those in the arts & finance sectors of our economy. However, there seems to be an assumption that all poor people of color are not competent, when they are doing what families have been doing for millennia, reproducing and surviving in spite of the horrible conditions they are born into.
The US did not wait for the Roman Catholic and Jewish families to start acting like responsible economic actors. The US government did not one day decide, “Well all the lesser Whites are no longer ‘having children with no means to support’ and they now have maximal competence at parenting! Good on them. Let us now shower them with government investments!”
As a matter of fact, I suspect Roman Catholic and Jews would be insulted at the assumption.
McKinneyTexas
Sorry that I called you a racist, it was careless. But I think this sentiment is, “Having children with no means to support then and minimal competence at parenting is color blind irresponsible.”
Is your argument that WASPs and other Whites (Jews & Roman Catholics) one day just started “having children responsibly?” And today, incompetence at parenting is not hurting White families. As a matter of fact, it seems to add spice for those in the arts & finance sectors of our economy. However, there seems to be an assumption that all poor people of color are not competent, when they are doing what families have been doing for millennia, reproducing and surviving in spite of the horrible conditions they are born into.
The US did not wait for the Roman Catholic and Jewish families to start acting like responsible economic actors. The US government did not one day decide, “Well all the lesser Whites are no longer ‘having children with no means to support’ and they now have maximal competence at parenting! Good on them. Let us now shower them with government investments!”
As a matter of fact, I suspect Roman Catholic and Jews would be insulted at the assumption.
McKinneyTexas
Sorry that I called you a racist, it was careless. But I think this sentiment is, “Having children with no means to support then and minimal competence at parenting is color blind irresponsible.”
Is your argument that WASPs and other Whites (Jews & Roman Catholics) one day just started “having children responsibly?” And today, incompetence at parenting is not hurting White families. As a matter of fact, it seems to add spice for those in the arts & finance sectors of our economy. However, there seems to be an assumption that all poor people of color are not competent, when they are doing what families have been doing for millennia, reproducing and surviving in spite of the horrible conditions they are born into.
The US did not wait for the Roman Catholic and Jewish families to start acting like responsible economic actors. The US government did not one day decide, “Well all the lesser Whites are no longer ‘having children with no means to support’ and they now have maximal competence at parenting! Good on them. Let us now shower them with government investments!”
As a matter of fact, I suspect Roman Catholic and Jews would be insulted at the assumption.
McKinneyTexas
Sorry that I called you a racist, it was careless. But I think this sentiment is, “Having children with no means to support then and minimal competence at parenting is color blind irresponsible.”
Is your argument that WASPs and other Whites (Jews & Roman Catholics) one day just started “having children responsibly?” And today, incompetence at parenting is not hurting White families. As a matter of fact, it seems to add spice for those in the arts & finance sectors of our economy. However, there seems to be an assumption that all poor people of color are not competent, when they are doing what families have been doing for millennia, reproducing and surviving in spite of the horrible conditions they are born into.
The US did not wait for the Roman Catholic and Jewish families to start acting like responsible economic actors. The US government did not one day decide, “Well all the lesser Whites are no longer ‘having children with no means to support’ and they now have maximal competence at parenting! Good on them. Let us now shower them with government investments!”
As a matter of fact, I suspect Roman Catholic and Jews would be insulted at the assumption.
Perhaps this will help.
Comments welcome.
Perhaps this will help.
Comments welcome.
Perhaps this will help.
Comments welcome.
russell,
I was attempting to be sarcastic. I failed. And will stop. I do not believe sexual practices have anything to do with economic success in the US.
russell,
I was attempting to be sarcastic. I failed. And will stop. I do not believe sexual practices have anything to do with economic success in the US.
russell,
I was attempting to be sarcastic. I failed. And will stop. I do not believe sexual practices have anything to do with economic success in the US.
Thanks for clarifying SOD. After I posted my own comment I went back and re-read yours, and sort of figured that out, but I appreciate the confirmation.
My thought on the whole family dysfunction thing is that, if you’re poor, the margin of error is much more narrow.
This is a tough country to be poor in. Maybe they all are, but we sure as hell are.
Thanks for clarifying SOD. After I posted my own comment I went back and re-read yours, and sort of figured that out, but I appreciate the confirmation.
My thought on the whole family dysfunction thing is that, if you’re poor, the margin of error is much more narrow.
This is a tough country to be poor in. Maybe they all are, but we sure as hell are.
Thanks for clarifying SOD. After I posted my own comment I went back and re-read yours, and sort of figured that out, but I appreciate the confirmation.
My thought on the whole family dysfunction thing is that, if you’re poor, the margin of error is much more narrow.
This is a tough country to be poor in. Maybe they all are, but we sure as hell are.
Yes, it’s a tough country to be poor in. It’s a tough country to be raised by a single, uneducated, unskilled parent. Regardless of race. There is compelling statistical evidence that being raised by one parent is, standing alone, an important predictor for suboptimal outcomes in life.
Who hasn’t heard the phrase, when speaking of a young person in trouble with the law, “He/she comes from a broken home”?
I’m not just making stuff up and it isn’t rocket science: kids have a rougher time of it when there is only one parent.
TNC and I agree on this. Is TNC a racist? Is he wrong? Is it a good thing to be raised by a single, uneducated, unskilled parent? If yes, explain why.
These are direct questions and easy to answer.
Finally, as to when did Jews or whoever start behaving responsibly or whatever it is that you are saying: I have no idea what you are talking about. As far as I know, from time immemorial, single women on their own with a child or children have had a much rougher go of things than those with husbands, assuming the husband was/isn’t some violent, abusive subhuman filth.
Yes, it’s a tough country to be poor in. It’s a tough country to be raised by a single, uneducated, unskilled parent. Regardless of race. There is compelling statistical evidence that being raised by one parent is, standing alone, an important predictor for suboptimal outcomes in life.
Who hasn’t heard the phrase, when speaking of a young person in trouble with the law, “He/she comes from a broken home”?
I’m not just making stuff up and it isn’t rocket science: kids have a rougher time of it when there is only one parent.
TNC and I agree on this. Is TNC a racist? Is he wrong? Is it a good thing to be raised by a single, uneducated, unskilled parent? If yes, explain why.
These are direct questions and easy to answer.
Finally, as to when did Jews or whoever start behaving responsibly or whatever it is that you are saying: I have no idea what you are talking about. As far as I know, from time immemorial, single women on their own with a child or children have had a much rougher go of things than those with husbands, assuming the husband was/isn’t some violent, abusive subhuman filth.
Yes, it’s a tough country to be poor in. It’s a tough country to be raised by a single, uneducated, unskilled parent. Regardless of race. There is compelling statistical evidence that being raised by one parent is, standing alone, an important predictor for suboptimal outcomes in life.
Who hasn’t heard the phrase, when speaking of a young person in trouble with the law, “He/she comes from a broken home”?
I’m not just making stuff up and it isn’t rocket science: kids have a rougher time of it when there is only one parent.
TNC and I agree on this. Is TNC a racist? Is he wrong? Is it a good thing to be raised by a single, uneducated, unskilled parent? If yes, explain why.
These are direct questions and easy to answer.
Finally, as to when did Jews or whoever start behaving responsibly or whatever it is that you are saying: I have no idea what you are talking about. As far as I know, from time immemorial, single women on their own with a child or children have had a much rougher go of things than those with husbands, assuming the husband was/isn’t some violent, abusive subhuman filth.
“Yes, it’s a tough country to be poor in. It’s a tough country to be raised by a single, uneducated, unskilled parent. Regardless of race. There is compelling statistical evidence that being raised by one parent is, standing alone, an important predictor for suboptimal outcomes in life.”
I suspect Leftists want to assist all single mothers, educated or uneducated, skilled or unskilled. There are many educated, skilled single parents who are struggling too! And, I bet, there are an overwhelming amount of families of color, who have been faithful to their marriage vows and made adequate decisions, and are living on the edge of financial failure. The focus on single motherhood is a manipulative tact to avoid looking at the overall economy.
“Who hasn’t heard the phrase, when speaking of a young person in trouble with the law, “He/she comes from a broken home”?”
And yet George W. Bush became president. I kid. Many successful white men came from “broken homes” (whatever the hell that is) and still are not living on the edge of financial failure. The rush to apply moralistic language to financial success is naive. Do you know how many wealthy kids go in and out of trouble with the law without hurting their prospects? “Broken families” can survive all kinds of hell, if they have stable finances. “Broken homes” seems to be about spirituality and religious commitments. If there was a universal definition of “broken homes/families” way more WASPs would be broke and in jail.
I’m not just making stuff up and it isn’t rocket science: kids have a rougher time of it when there is only one parent.
I don’t know if you’ve noticed but our present day economic policies are making it a rougher time for traditional families! And are you suggesting that the children of a wealthy single woman have limited options compared to the traditional families of the working-poor?
Finally, as to when did Jews or whoever start behaving responsibly or whatever it is that you are saying: I have no idea what you are talking about. As far as I know, from time immemorial, single women on their own with a child or children have had a much rougher go of things than those with husbands, assuming the husband was/isn’t some violent, abusive subhuman filth.
I am suggesting that we’ve been here before. That there was a very popular belief that Jewish & Roman Catholic women and men were sexually irresponsible, plus followed medieval forms of religiosity. And that was keeping them out of joining the American middle-classes. However, after the US decided to invest billions in Jewish & Roman Catholic Eastern and Southern European Americans, we begin to see a huge amount of these sexually irresponsible medieval religionists fill the middle-classes.
Did the sexual practices of Jewish & Roman Catholic Eastern and Southern European Americans change and then they received the economic benefits for all White Americans?
Or did the US investments and benefits for all Whites change the sexual practices of Jewish & Roman Catholic Eastern and Southern European Americans?
“Yes, it’s a tough country to be poor in. It’s a tough country to be raised by a single, uneducated, unskilled parent. Regardless of race. There is compelling statistical evidence that being raised by one parent is, standing alone, an important predictor for suboptimal outcomes in life.”
I suspect Leftists want to assist all single mothers, educated or uneducated, skilled or unskilled. There are many educated, skilled single parents who are struggling too! And, I bet, there are an overwhelming amount of families of color, who have been faithful to their marriage vows and made adequate decisions, and are living on the edge of financial failure. The focus on single motherhood is a manipulative tact to avoid looking at the overall economy.
“Who hasn’t heard the phrase, when speaking of a young person in trouble with the law, “He/she comes from a broken home”?”
And yet George W. Bush became president. I kid. Many successful white men came from “broken homes” (whatever the hell that is) and still are not living on the edge of financial failure. The rush to apply moralistic language to financial success is naive. Do you know how many wealthy kids go in and out of trouble with the law without hurting their prospects? “Broken families” can survive all kinds of hell, if they have stable finances. “Broken homes” seems to be about spirituality and religious commitments. If there was a universal definition of “broken homes/families” way more WASPs would be broke and in jail.
I’m not just making stuff up and it isn’t rocket science: kids have a rougher time of it when there is only one parent.
I don’t know if you’ve noticed but our present day economic policies are making it a rougher time for traditional families! And are you suggesting that the children of a wealthy single woman have limited options compared to the traditional families of the working-poor?
Finally, as to when did Jews or whoever start behaving responsibly or whatever it is that you are saying: I have no idea what you are talking about. As far as I know, from time immemorial, single women on their own with a child or children have had a much rougher go of things than those with husbands, assuming the husband was/isn’t some violent, abusive subhuman filth.
I am suggesting that we’ve been here before. That there was a very popular belief that Jewish & Roman Catholic women and men were sexually irresponsible, plus followed medieval forms of religiosity. And that was keeping them out of joining the American middle-classes. However, after the US decided to invest billions in Jewish & Roman Catholic Eastern and Southern European Americans, we begin to see a huge amount of these sexually irresponsible medieval religionists fill the middle-classes.
Did the sexual practices of Jewish & Roman Catholic Eastern and Southern European Americans change and then they received the economic benefits for all White Americans?
Or did the US investments and benefits for all Whites change the sexual practices of Jewish & Roman Catholic Eastern and Southern European Americans?
“Yes, it’s a tough country to be poor in. It’s a tough country to be raised by a single, uneducated, unskilled parent. Regardless of race. There is compelling statistical evidence that being raised by one parent is, standing alone, an important predictor for suboptimal outcomes in life.”
I suspect Leftists want to assist all single mothers, educated or uneducated, skilled or unskilled. There are many educated, skilled single parents who are struggling too! And, I bet, there are an overwhelming amount of families of color, who have been faithful to their marriage vows and made adequate decisions, and are living on the edge of financial failure. The focus on single motherhood is a manipulative tact to avoid looking at the overall economy.
“Who hasn’t heard the phrase, when speaking of a young person in trouble with the law, “He/she comes from a broken home”?”
And yet George W. Bush became president. I kid. Many successful white men came from “broken homes” (whatever the hell that is) and still are not living on the edge of financial failure. The rush to apply moralistic language to financial success is naive. Do you know how many wealthy kids go in and out of trouble with the law without hurting their prospects? “Broken families” can survive all kinds of hell, if they have stable finances. “Broken homes” seems to be about spirituality and religious commitments. If there was a universal definition of “broken homes/families” way more WASPs would be broke and in jail.
I’m not just making stuff up and it isn’t rocket science: kids have a rougher time of it when there is only one parent.
I don’t know if you’ve noticed but our present day economic policies are making it a rougher time for traditional families! And are you suggesting that the children of a wealthy single woman have limited options compared to the traditional families of the working-poor?
Finally, as to when did Jews or whoever start behaving responsibly or whatever it is that you are saying: I have no idea what you are talking about. As far as I know, from time immemorial, single women on their own with a child or children have had a much rougher go of things than those with husbands, assuming the husband was/isn’t some violent, abusive subhuman filth.
I am suggesting that we’ve been here before. That there was a very popular belief that Jewish & Roman Catholic women and men were sexually irresponsible, plus followed medieval forms of religiosity. And that was keeping them out of joining the American middle-classes. However, after the US decided to invest billions in Jewish & Roman Catholic Eastern and Southern European Americans, we begin to see a huge amount of these sexually irresponsible medieval religionists fill the middle-classes.
Did the sexual practices of Jewish & Roman Catholic Eastern and Southern European Americans change and then they received the economic benefits for all White Americans?
Or did the US investments and benefits for all Whites change the sexual practices of Jewish & Roman Catholic Eastern and Southern European Americans?
MKT, if what you want is fewer black women raising children on their own it seems like there are a few things we could do.
1. Cease all the practices that have forced more black people into poverty over the years. Where I live that has included: excluding black people from purchasing real estate in all but certain areas, all sorts of redlining, discrimination against black job seekers and borrowers, and using urban renewal to destroy well-functioning black business districts. Some of those things are better than they once were, none of them are completely gone. None of them are things that black people control.
2. Find a way to help people overcome the financial disadvantages that all those things in (1.) have visited upon black families. Increase the minimum wage, provide a base income to everyone over 18, fund four years of college or equivalent trade school for anyone willing to meet minimum standards, provide educational help if all kinds outside the usual education system for those who are too far behind already.
3. Have the criminal justice system stop discriminating against black men so they are available to be husbands and fathers who are present for their partners and children.
Which of those things would you entertain? Do you have other thoughts to offer?
MKT, if what you want is fewer black women raising children on their own it seems like there are a few things we could do.
1. Cease all the practices that have forced more black people into poverty over the years. Where I live that has included: excluding black people from purchasing real estate in all but certain areas, all sorts of redlining, discrimination against black job seekers and borrowers, and using urban renewal to destroy well-functioning black business districts. Some of those things are better than they once were, none of them are completely gone. None of them are things that black people control.
2. Find a way to help people overcome the financial disadvantages that all those things in (1.) have visited upon black families. Increase the minimum wage, provide a base income to everyone over 18, fund four years of college or equivalent trade school for anyone willing to meet minimum standards, provide educational help if all kinds outside the usual education system for those who are too far behind already.
3. Have the criminal justice system stop discriminating against black men so they are available to be husbands and fathers who are present for their partners and children.
Which of those things would you entertain? Do you have other thoughts to offer?
MKT, if what you want is fewer black women raising children on their own it seems like there are a few things we could do.
1. Cease all the practices that have forced more black people into poverty over the years. Where I live that has included: excluding black people from purchasing real estate in all but certain areas, all sorts of redlining, discrimination against black job seekers and borrowers, and using urban renewal to destroy well-functioning black business districts. Some of those things are better than they once were, none of them are completely gone. None of them are things that black people control.
2. Find a way to help people overcome the financial disadvantages that all those things in (1.) have visited upon black families. Increase the minimum wage, provide a base income to everyone over 18, fund four years of college or equivalent trade school for anyone willing to meet minimum standards, provide educational help if all kinds outside the usual education system for those who are too far behind already.
3. Have the criminal justice system stop discriminating against black men so they are available to be husbands and fathers who are present for their partners and children.
Which of those things would you entertain? Do you have other thoughts to offer?
McKinney,
You layabout. Now that you have all this spare time on your hands, pick up a copy of Ira Katznelson’s When Affirmative Action Was White.
Fairly short and easy read. Very informative.
McKinney,
You layabout. Now that you have all this spare time on your hands, pick up a copy of Ira Katznelson’s When Affirmative Action Was White.
Fairly short and easy read. Very informative.
McKinney,
You layabout. Now that you have all this spare time on your hands, pick up a copy of Ira Katznelson’s When Affirmative Action Was White.
Fairly short and easy read. Very informative.
Some numbers:
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s1337.pdf
The trend seems to include most of the industrialized first world.
Just a thought: I’ve lived in one and visited many other second and third world countries where two-parent families, further supported by extended families, are the sacred basis of the society and unemployment and poverty, unsupported by government safety nets for the most part, especially in and surrounding urban areas, manifests itself in crime, prostitution and other social dysfunctions just as they do here.
This is not to argue that a two-parent family, if the parents are not dysfunctional themselves, is the optimum situation.
Some numbers:
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s1337.pdf
The trend seems to include most of the industrialized first world.
Just a thought: I’ve lived in one and visited many other second and third world countries where two-parent families, further supported by extended families, are the sacred basis of the society and unemployment and poverty, unsupported by government safety nets for the most part, especially in and surrounding urban areas, manifests itself in crime, prostitution and other social dysfunctions just as they do here.
This is not to argue that a two-parent family, if the parents are not dysfunctional themselves, is the optimum situation.
Some numbers:
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s1337.pdf
The trend seems to include most of the industrialized first world.
Just a thought: I’ve lived in one and visited many other second and third world countries where two-parent families, further supported by extended families, are the sacred basis of the society and unemployment and poverty, unsupported by government safety nets for the most part, especially in and surrounding urban areas, manifests itself in crime, prostitution and other social dysfunctions just as they do here.
This is not to argue that a two-parent family, if the parents are not dysfunctional themselves, is the optimum situation.
is NOT the optimum situation, that should read.
is NOT the optimum situation, that should read.
is NOT the optimum situation, that should read.
More deflection:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/lindsay-graham-charleston-mideast-hate
More:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/fox-outnumbered-slippery-slope-confederate-flag
Limbaugh, who the Republican Party named its leader, not any reasonable conservatives at OBWI, spreads the stupid:
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/rush-limbaugh-confederate-flag-american-flag-119359.html
Haley talks about race and that flag, and is immediately attacked by one of the usual suspects. The “I” word, no less:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ann-coulter-nikki-haley-immigrant
My “attacks” on conservatives are read by maybe 30 people.
Attacks from the Right on their own reach tens of millions of the true believers.
I do my best to catch up.
More deflection:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/lindsay-graham-charleston-mideast-hate
More:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/fox-outnumbered-slippery-slope-confederate-flag
Limbaugh, who the Republican Party named its leader, not any reasonable conservatives at OBWI, spreads the stupid:
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/rush-limbaugh-confederate-flag-american-flag-119359.html
Haley talks about race and that flag, and is immediately attacked by one of the usual suspects. The “I” word, no less:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ann-coulter-nikki-haley-immigrant
My “attacks” on conservatives are read by maybe 30 people.
Attacks from the Right on their own reach tens of millions of the true believers.
I do my best to catch up.
More deflection:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/lindsay-graham-charleston-mideast-hate
More:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/fox-outnumbered-slippery-slope-confederate-flag
Limbaugh, who the Republican Party named its leader, not any reasonable conservatives at OBWI, spreads the stupid:
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/rush-limbaugh-confederate-flag-american-flag-119359.html
Haley talks about race and that flag, and is immediately attacked by one of the usual suspects. The “I” word, no less:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ann-coulter-nikki-haley-immigrant
My “attacks” on conservatives are read by maybe 30 people.
Attacks from the Right on their own reach tens of millions of the true believers.
I do my best to catch up.
Can somebody explain why Dylan Roof was treated this way by his arresting officers:
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/06/arresting-offiacers-bought-dylann-roof-a-burger.html
Compared to how so many relatively innocent members of the public are beaten, tazed, shot, by not just one officer, but many at the same time in some cases
Is it because Dylan Roof’s father was in his life enough to gift him a 45 caliber pistol?
Can somebody explain why Dylan Roof was treated this way by his arresting officers:
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/06/arresting-offiacers-bought-dylann-roof-a-burger.html
Compared to how so many relatively innocent members of the public are beaten, tazed, shot, by not just one officer, but many at the same time in some cases
Is it because Dylan Roof’s father was in his life enough to gift him a 45 caliber pistol?
Can somebody explain why Dylan Roof was treated this way by his arresting officers:
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/06/arresting-offiacers-bought-dylann-roof-a-burger.html
Compared to how so many relatively innocent members of the public are beaten, tazed, shot, by not just one officer, but many at the same time in some cases
Is it because Dylan Roof’s father was in his life enough to gift him a 45 caliber pistol?
Then, SOD and NV opine that really, what I’m criticizing is just another valid lifestyle choice.
No offense McK, but this is bullsh*t, and it’s very rich bullsh*t considering that one of your stock-in-trade rebuttals when an argument gets thick is to whinge about how the person you’re arguing with is attributing things to you that you never actually said, mindreading, and putting words in your mouth. I defy you to find where in this thread I said words to the effect of the above, let alone at the place in the conversation you assert that I did.
I know you don’t like me, but the fact that you just had to include me in the above criticism is a laugh. I mean, seriously, McK, it has a grim humor to it, and everything it implies (not states – never states!) speaks poorly of you. I can only assume that it refers to my 1023 23JUN15, which of course makes it even richer: did you actually read that comment, or did you just see my name, assume you knew what it said, and skip it? If you actually believe, as you piously asserted above, that it was opining that “[poverty and broken homes] is just another valid lifestyle choice”, you need to put some work into your reading comprehension. Otherwise, you might want to have a look at why you felt the need to grossly misrepresent me just for the sake of getting in a dig.
In any case, try to take your old and oh-so-often repeated admonishment to heart: no mindreading, and only say that people have said what they actually said, m’kay?
Then, SOD and NV opine that really, what I’m criticizing is just another valid lifestyle choice.
No offense McK, but this is bullsh*t, and it’s very rich bullsh*t considering that one of your stock-in-trade rebuttals when an argument gets thick is to whinge about how the person you’re arguing with is attributing things to you that you never actually said, mindreading, and putting words in your mouth. I defy you to find where in this thread I said words to the effect of the above, let alone at the place in the conversation you assert that I did.
I know you don’t like me, but the fact that you just had to include me in the above criticism is a laugh. I mean, seriously, McK, it has a grim humor to it, and everything it implies (not states – never states!) speaks poorly of you. I can only assume that it refers to my 1023 23JUN15, which of course makes it even richer: did you actually read that comment, or did you just see my name, assume you knew what it said, and skip it? If you actually believe, as you piously asserted above, that it was opining that “[poverty and broken homes] is just another valid lifestyle choice”, you need to put some work into your reading comprehension. Otherwise, you might want to have a look at why you felt the need to grossly misrepresent me just for the sake of getting in a dig.
In any case, try to take your old and oh-so-often repeated admonishment to heart: no mindreading, and only say that people have said what they actually said, m’kay?
Then, SOD and NV opine that really, what I’m criticizing is just another valid lifestyle choice.
No offense McK, but this is bullsh*t, and it’s very rich bullsh*t considering that one of your stock-in-trade rebuttals when an argument gets thick is to whinge about how the person you’re arguing with is attributing things to you that you never actually said, mindreading, and putting words in your mouth. I defy you to find where in this thread I said words to the effect of the above, let alone at the place in the conversation you assert that I did.
I know you don’t like me, but the fact that you just had to include me in the above criticism is a laugh. I mean, seriously, McK, it has a grim humor to it, and everything it implies (not states – never states!) speaks poorly of you. I can only assume that it refers to my 1023 23JUN15, which of course makes it even richer: did you actually read that comment, or did you just see my name, assume you knew what it said, and skip it? If you actually believe, as you piously asserted above, that it was opining that “[poverty and broken homes] is just another valid lifestyle choice”, you need to put some work into your reading comprehension. Otherwise, you might want to have a look at why you felt the need to grossly misrepresent me just for the sake of getting in a dig.
In any case, try to take your old and oh-so-often repeated admonishment to heart: no mindreading, and only say that people have said what they actually said, m’kay?
Nombrilisme Vide,
Where is this?:
“Then, SOD and NV opine that really, what I’m criticizing is just another valid lifestyle choice.”
Nombrilisme Vide,
Where is this?:
“Then, SOD and NV opine that really, what I’m criticizing is just another valid lifestyle choice.”
Nombrilisme Vide,
Where is this?:
“Then, SOD and NV opine that really, what I’m criticizing is just another valid lifestyle choice.”
Someotherdude: the quote is from the antepenultimate paragraph of McKT’s of 4:00.
Trivial information, but one doesn’t get to use “antepenultimate” in conversation that often.
Someotherdude: the quote is from the antepenultimate paragraph of McKT’s of 4:00.
Trivial information, but one doesn’t get to use “antepenultimate” in conversation that often.
Someotherdude: the quote is from the antepenultimate paragraph of McKT’s of 4:00.
Trivial information, but one doesn’t get to use “antepenultimate” in conversation that often.
McKinney is not a racist and I am not a bore. We are each of us entitled to believe that we are not anything we deny being.
McKinney doesn’t have to be a racist to be utterly muddleheaded about how to improve the lot of the next generation of black American kids. And I don’t have to be a bore to repeat a point I’ve made in the past: kids don’t get to choose their parents.
Never mind WHY today’s black American parents are poorer and more shiftless than white American parents. (On average. According to McKinney. Unless I keep misunderstanding him.) Never mind whether it’s conservative racism or liberal do-goodery that caused the disparity. (And we all agree it’s not an inherent racial difference, right?) Never mind WHY today’s black American kids are, as a group, less well-parented than white American kids, as a group.
My question is: if you want SOME generation of black American parents to end up as adequate as white American parents, won’t they have to start life as adequately-parented kids? If yes, then “some” generation clearly can’t be the NEXT generation. Or the generation after that. Or …
It’s hard to see how you get to equality without, at some point, doing SOMETHING to improve the prospects of some generation of black American kids, even if it means spending tax money to do it, and even if that tax money might also benefit their shiftless, undeserving parents.
–TP
McKinney is not a racist and I am not a bore. We are each of us entitled to believe that we are not anything we deny being.
McKinney doesn’t have to be a racist to be utterly muddleheaded about how to improve the lot of the next generation of black American kids. And I don’t have to be a bore to repeat a point I’ve made in the past: kids don’t get to choose their parents.
Never mind WHY today’s black American parents are poorer and more shiftless than white American parents. (On average. According to McKinney. Unless I keep misunderstanding him.) Never mind whether it’s conservative racism or liberal do-goodery that caused the disparity. (And we all agree it’s not an inherent racial difference, right?) Never mind WHY today’s black American kids are, as a group, less well-parented than white American kids, as a group.
My question is: if you want SOME generation of black American parents to end up as adequate as white American parents, won’t they have to start life as adequately-parented kids? If yes, then “some” generation clearly can’t be the NEXT generation. Or the generation after that. Or …
It’s hard to see how you get to equality without, at some point, doing SOMETHING to improve the prospects of some generation of black American kids, even if it means spending tax money to do it, and even if that tax money might also benefit their shiftless, undeserving parents.
–TP
McKinney is not a racist and I am not a bore. We are each of us entitled to believe that we are not anything we deny being.
McKinney doesn’t have to be a racist to be utterly muddleheaded about how to improve the lot of the next generation of black American kids. And I don’t have to be a bore to repeat a point I’ve made in the past: kids don’t get to choose their parents.
Never mind WHY today’s black American parents are poorer and more shiftless than white American parents. (On average. According to McKinney. Unless I keep misunderstanding him.) Never mind whether it’s conservative racism or liberal do-goodery that caused the disparity. (And we all agree it’s not an inherent racial difference, right?) Never mind WHY today’s black American kids are, as a group, less well-parented than white American kids, as a group.
My question is: if you want SOME generation of black American parents to end up as adequate as white American parents, won’t they have to start life as adequately-parented kids? If yes, then “some” generation clearly can’t be the NEXT generation. Or the generation after that. Or …
It’s hard to see how you get to equality without, at some point, doing SOMETHING to improve the prospects of some generation of black American kids, even if it means spending tax money to do it, and even if that tax money might also benefit their shiftless, undeserving parents.
–TP
Trivial information, but one doesn’t get to use “antepenultimate” in conversation that often.
Then you are *clearly* having the wrong conversations. 🙂
Trivial information, but one doesn’t get to use “antepenultimate” in conversation that often.
Then you are *clearly* having the wrong conversations. 🙂
Trivial information, but one doesn’t get to use “antepenultimate” in conversation that often.
Then you are *clearly* having the wrong conversations. 🙂
We are now entering a portion of the universe where typepad catches random comments and puts them into the spam folder. I’ll try and keep my eye open, but if you find it not going, send a mail to the kitty.
We are now entering a portion of the universe where typepad catches random comments and puts them into the spam folder. I’ll try and keep my eye open, but if you find it not going, send a mail to the kitty.
We are now entering a portion of the universe where typepad catches random comments and puts them into the spam folder. I’ll try and keep my eye open, but if you find it not going, send a mail to the kitty.
I defy you to find where in this thread I said words to the effect of the above, let alone at the place in the conversation you assert that I did.
I apologize. Abjectly. I swear I read a comment from you along the lines of SOD’s. If I did, it’s gone, and given the comment immediately above, I clearly did not, even though I somehow got the impression I did.
You are correct, I don’t like and no one else likes being taken out of context, much less being accused of saying something they did not.
So, again, because it is fully merited, my sincerest apologies.
I know you don’t like me
There is a line, sometimes fine, sometimes not, between acerbic and personal. I almost never intend to cross the *personal* line and as acerbic and biting as I have been with you from time to time, I’ve never intended personal insult to you. So, for that too, I apologize.
I defy you to find where in this thread I said words to the effect of the above, let alone at the place in the conversation you assert that I did.
I apologize. Abjectly. I swear I read a comment from you along the lines of SOD’s. If I did, it’s gone, and given the comment immediately above, I clearly did not, even though I somehow got the impression I did.
You are correct, I don’t like and no one else likes being taken out of context, much less being accused of saying something they did not.
So, again, because it is fully merited, my sincerest apologies.
I know you don’t like me
There is a line, sometimes fine, sometimes not, between acerbic and personal. I almost never intend to cross the *personal* line and as acerbic and biting as I have been with you from time to time, I’ve never intended personal insult to you. So, for that too, I apologize.
I defy you to find where in this thread I said words to the effect of the above, let alone at the place in the conversation you assert that I did.
I apologize. Abjectly. I swear I read a comment from you along the lines of SOD’s. If I did, it’s gone, and given the comment immediately above, I clearly did not, even though I somehow got the impression I did.
You are correct, I don’t like and no one else likes being taken out of context, much less being accused of saying something they did not.
So, again, because it is fully merited, my sincerest apologies.
I know you don’t like me
There is a line, sometimes fine, sometimes not, between acerbic and personal. I almost never intend to cross the *personal* line and as acerbic and biting as I have been with you from time to time, I’ve never intended personal insult to you. So, for that too, I apologize.
My question is: if you want SOME generation of black American parents to end up as adequate as white American parents, won’t they have to start life as adequately-parented kids? If yes, then “some” generation clearly can’t be the NEXT generation. Or the generation after that. Or …
This, TP, is a different conversation. My earlier point relates to one, perhaps the single largest, cause of cyclical poverty: single parent families bereft of resources and parenting skills.
The problem is poverty, a significant cause is as I’ve stated and now we are talking *solution*.
I’ll go first: straight up cash transfers won’t work. We’ve tried that.
Part I is reaching a consensus that it is a national imperative that young people be thoroughly schooled on and discouraged from having children until they have completed school and acquired a trade or skill AND a job and are financially capable of supporting the number of children they choose to have.
The curriculum would be ridden with horror stories of the negative impact on mother and child of having children too early.
In my world, we would indoctrinate boys and girls relentlessly.
Boys would be singled out for at least double the lecturing girls would get.
So, that is Step 1.
Can we agree on this and move to Step 2?
As a point of clarification, the focus here is addressing and mitigating the phenomena of single parenthood-induced poverty. There are other sources and reasons for poverty, but, if we can, let’s stay focused on this one, if we even have a consensus that the single parent thing merits addressing. Remember, TNC says it’s an issue.
My question is: if you want SOME generation of black American parents to end up as adequate as white American parents, won’t they have to start life as adequately-parented kids? If yes, then “some” generation clearly can’t be the NEXT generation. Or the generation after that. Or …
This, TP, is a different conversation. My earlier point relates to one, perhaps the single largest, cause of cyclical poverty: single parent families bereft of resources and parenting skills.
The problem is poverty, a significant cause is as I’ve stated and now we are talking *solution*.
I’ll go first: straight up cash transfers won’t work. We’ve tried that.
Part I is reaching a consensus that it is a national imperative that young people be thoroughly schooled on and discouraged from having children until they have completed school and acquired a trade or skill AND a job and are financially capable of supporting the number of children they choose to have.
The curriculum would be ridden with horror stories of the negative impact on mother and child of having children too early.
In my world, we would indoctrinate boys and girls relentlessly.
Boys would be singled out for at least double the lecturing girls would get.
So, that is Step 1.
Can we agree on this and move to Step 2?
As a point of clarification, the focus here is addressing and mitigating the phenomena of single parenthood-induced poverty. There are other sources and reasons for poverty, but, if we can, let’s stay focused on this one, if we even have a consensus that the single parent thing merits addressing. Remember, TNC says it’s an issue.
My question is: if you want SOME generation of black American parents to end up as adequate as white American parents, won’t they have to start life as adequately-parented kids? If yes, then “some” generation clearly can’t be the NEXT generation. Or the generation after that. Or …
This, TP, is a different conversation. My earlier point relates to one, perhaps the single largest, cause of cyclical poverty: single parent families bereft of resources and parenting skills.
The problem is poverty, a significant cause is as I’ve stated and now we are talking *solution*.
I’ll go first: straight up cash transfers won’t work. We’ve tried that.
Part I is reaching a consensus that it is a national imperative that young people be thoroughly schooled on and discouraged from having children until they have completed school and acquired a trade or skill AND a job and are financially capable of supporting the number of children they choose to have.
The curriculum would be ridden with horror stories of the negative impact on mother and child of having children too early.
In my world, we would indoctrinate boys and girls relentlessly.
Boys would be singled out for at least double the lecturing girls would get.
So, that is Step 1.
Can we agree on this and move to Step 2?
As a point of clarification, the focus here is addressing and mitigating the phenomena of single parenthood-induced poverty. There are other sources and reasons for poverty, but, if we can, let’s stay focused on this one, if we even have a consensus that the single parent thing merits addressing. Remember, TNC says it’s an issue.
“In my world, we would indoctrinate boys and girls relentlessly.”
I’m not against this, having successfully (with his Mom) lobbied a child to put risky sexual behavior at least on the far back burner (have to say he was a very easy child with his own built-in good judgement) but may we medicate them as well with birth control and sheath them from head-to-toe in latex and polyurethane?
I’m not going to go look for it, but not too long ago I read an account of a charter school run by good Christian parents wherein STDs raged like a California wildfire, so I’m not sure about this battle between teenaged hormones and indoctrination.
Anecdotally, when I was going through my stupid years (those back then, not the ones now), it was the girls and boys from the two parent, church-going, fairly wealthy families who got themselves knocked up, with the girls disappearing for a summer hiatus while the boys were terrorized, I say, terrorized, with knowing smirks in the high school hallways.
A few got married and indoctrinated right out of educational opportunities.
“In my world, we would indoctrinate boys and girls relentlessly.”
I’m not against this, having successfully (with his Mom) lobbied a child to put risky sexual behavior at least on the far back burner (have to say he was a very easy child with his own built-in good judgement) but may we medicate them as well with birth control and sheath them from head-to-toe in latex and polyurethane?
I’m not going to go look for it, but not too long ago I read an account of a charter school run by good Christian parents wherein STDs raged like a California wildfire, so I’m not sure about this battle between teenaged hormones and indoctrination.
Anecdotally, when I was going through my stupid years (those back then, not the ones now), it was the girls and boys from the two parent, church-going, fairly wealthy families who got themselves knocked up, with the girls disappearing for a summer hiatus while the boys were terrorized, I say, terrorized, with knowing smirks in the high school hallways.
A few got married and indoctrinated right out of educational opportunities.
“In my world, we would indoctrinate boys and girls relentlessly.”
I’m not against this, having successfully (with his Mom) lobbied a child to put risky sexual behavior at least on the far back burner (have to say he was a very easy child with his own built-in good judgement) but may we medicate them as well with birth control and sheath them from head-to-toe in latex and polyurethane?
I’m not going to go look for it, but not too long ago I read an account of a charter school run by good Christian parents wherein STDs raged like a California wildfire, so I’m not sure about this battle between teenaged hormones and indoctrination.
Anecdotally, when I was going through my stupid years (those back then, not the ones now), it was the girls and boys from the two parent, church-going, fairly wealthy families who got themselves knocked up, with the girls disappearing for a summer hiatus while the boys were terrorized, I say, terrorized, with knowing smirks in the high school hallways.
A few got married and indoctrinated right out of educational opportunities.
McK, I appreciate what you’re saying here. But I actually do think you are over-emphasizing family structure *per se* as the cause of multi-generational poverty, and more generally of disadvantage of all kinds.
I am the product of a “broken” and “dysfunctional” home. By which I mean, my parents, after suffering (and sharing with all of us kids) quite a lot of marital unhappiness, divorced, and I was basically raised by my mother. I saw my father, he was “involved in my life”, but I was basically raised by my mother.
And, she worked, so I was one of the dreaded latch-key kids.
I came out of it OK.
The things that helped me come out of it OK:
My father had a good professional job, so there was enough money that we continued as middle-class house-holding surburbanites even after the divorce.
That gave me access to good public schools and the various other amenities of middle class American life.
I went to a *very* good state university virtually for free.
I’m white, a guy, and have no glaringly obvious defects or impediments (you have to look closer for those), so on those occasions when I screwed up, the *assumption* was that, given some additional chances, I would probably sort myself out.
Long story short, I’m holding myself out as an example to demonstrate that single-parent households, in and of themselves, are not sufficient to explain widespread multi-generational poverty and social disadvantage.
And, there are many many many millions of people just like me.
Other stuff is involved. Family structure is important, not least because family is the default support system in human life, but it’s not the only factor.
In fact, dysfunctional family structure is quite often the *effect* of other factors. I.e., it is often the symptom of the problem, rather than the cause.
All other things equal, two parents are better than one, where for “better” read more likely to raise successful kids. But “all other things being equal” waves away a lot of stuff that we should really not be ignoring.
McK, I appreciate what you’re saying here. But I actually do think you are over-emphasizing family structure *per se* as the cause of multi-generational poverty, and more generally of disadvantage of all kinds.
I am the product of a “broken” and “dysfunctional” home. By which I mean, my parents, after suffering (and sharing with all of us kids) quite a lot of marital unhappiness, divorced, and I was basically raised by my mother. I saw my father, he was “involved in my life”, but I was basically raised by my mother.
And, she worked, so I was one of the dreaded latch-key kids.
I came out of it OK.
The things that helped me come out of it OK:
My father had a good professional job, so there was enough money that we continued as middle-class house-holding surburbanites even after the divorce.
That gave me access to good public schools and the various other amenities of middle class American life.
I went to a *very* good state university virtually for free.
I’m white, a guy, and have no glaringly obvious defects or impediments (you have to look closer for those), so on those occasions when I screwed up, the *assumption* was that, given some additional chances, I would probably sort myself out.
Long story short, I’m holding myself out as an example to demonstrate that single-parent households, in and of themselves, are not sufficient to explain widespread multi-generational poverty and social disadvantage.
And, there are many many many millions of people just like me.
Other stuff is involved. Family structure is important, not least because family is the default support system in human life, but it’s not the only factor.
In fact, dysfunctional family structure is quite often the *effect* of other factors. I.e., it is often the symptom of the problem, rather than the cause.
All other things equal, two parents are better than one, where for “better” read more likely to raise successful kids. But “all other things being equal” waves away a lot of stuff that we should really not be ignoring.
McK, I appreciate what you’re saying here. But I actually do think you are over-emphasizing family structure *per se* as the cause of multi-generational poverty, and more generally of disadvantage of all kinds.
I am the product of a “broken” and “dysfunctional” home. By which I mean, my parents, after suffering (and sharing with all of us kids) quite a lot of marital unhappiness, divorced, and I was basically raised by my mother. I saw my father, he was “involved in my life”, but I was basically raised by my mother.
And, she worked, so I was one of the dreaded latch-key kids.
I came out of it OK.
The things that helped me come out of it OK:
My father had a good professional job, so there was enough money that we continued as middle-class house-holding surburbanites even after the divorce.
That gave me access to good public schools and the various other amenities of middle class American life.
I went to a *very* good state university virtually for free.
I’m white, a guy, and have no glaringly obvious defects or impediments (you have to look closer for those), so on those occasions when I screwed up, the *assumption* was that, given some additional chances, I would probably sort myself out.
Long story short, I’m holding myself out as an example to demonstrate that single-parent households, in and of themselves, are not sufficient to explain widespread multi-generational poverty and social disadvantage.
And, there are many many many millions of people just like me.
Other stuff is involved. Family structure is important, not least because family is the default support system in human life, but it’s not the only factor.
In fact, dysfunctional family structure is quite often the *effect* of other factors. I.e., it is often the symptom of the problem, rather than the cause.
All other things equal, two parents are better than one, where for “better” read more likely to raise successful kids. But “all other things being equal” waves away a lot of stuff that we should really not be ignoring.
And, there are many many many millions of people just like me.
me, too. but add in a bi-polar, addict mother who couldn’t hold a job, a sister with C.P. and a father who lived on the other side of the state. and while he had a steady job, it was as a community college English teacher, so there wasn’t much money.
and there’s one incident that i’m pretty sure would have turned out differently, had i not been a white kid in a small white town.
but things worked out pretty well for me, despite my parental situation.
on a related note…
i have a friend whose parents came from India. they moved to a small city in NC and ran a hotel. he’s a smart guy, but he tells a story about how his teachers at the local rural NC public school assumed he was native American (one dark-skinned Indian boy is the same as the next, right?), and so they stuck him where they stuck all Indians: in shop, instead of math & science. the assumption was that the native Americans couldn’t handle the academics so they were automatically put into the vocational track. it was only after his parents complained that he got an education.
And, there are many many many millions of people just like me.
me, too. but add in a bi-polar, addict mother who couldn’t hold a job, a sister with C.P. and a father who lived on the other side of the state. and while he had a steady job, it was as a community college English teacher, so there wasn’t much money.
and there’s one incident that i’m pretty sure would have turned out differently, had i not been a white kid in a small white town.
but things worked out pretty well for me, despite my parental situation.
on a related note…
i have a friend whose parents came from India. they moved to a small city in NC and ran a hotel. he’s a smart guy, but he tells a story about how his teachers at the local rural NC public school assumed he was native American (one dark-skinned Indian boy is the same as the next, right?), and so they stuck him where they stuck all Indians: in shop, instead of math & science. the assumption was that the native Americans couldn’t handle the academics so they were automatically put into the vocational track. it was only after his parents complained that he got an education.
And, there are many many many millions of people just like me.
me, too. but add in a bi-polar, addict mother who couldn’t hold a job, a sister with C.P. and a father who lived on the other side of the state. and while he had a steady job, it was as a community college English teacher, so there wasn’t much money.
and there’s one incident that i’m pretty sure would have turned out differently, had i not been a white kid in a small white town.
but things worked out pretty well for me, despite my parental situation.
on a related note…
i have a friend whose parents came from India. they moved to a small city in NC and ran a hotel. he’s a smart guy, but he tells a story about how his teachers at the local rural NC public school assumed he was native American (one dark-skinned Indian boy is the same as the next, right?), and so they stuck him where they stuck all Indians: in shop, instead of math & science. the assumption was that the native Americans couldn’t handle the academics so they were automatically put into the vocational track. it was only after his parents complained that he got an education.
I’ll go first: straight up cash transfers won’t work. We’ve tried that.
Sorry, a brief follow-on.
In order to ask if something worked or not, you first have to be specific about what problem it was supposed to solve.
I completely agree that cash transfers will not solve problems like endemic, multi-generational poverty, family dysfunction, lack of economic opportunity, minimal educational opportunity and/or quality, problematic relationships with the criminal justice system, etc.
What cash transfers should be intended to address, and what they are actually pretty good at addressing, are problems like “I don’t have enough money to buy food and pay my rent, today”.
That’s a very limited and specific problem. It is, however, also a fairly important one, if you are the one with no money.
So, in many ways I’m agreeing with you, however we shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that, while we’re waiting for whatever version of social and economic nirvana to arrive, folks still need to eat.
But, yes, I’m generally in agreement that just throwing money at complicated problems doesn’t really help all that much.
I’ll go first: straight up cash transfers won’t work. We’ve tried that.
Sorry, a brief follow-on.
In order to ask if something worked or not, you first have to be specific about what problem it was supposed to solve.
I completely agree that cash transfers will not solve problems like endemic, multi-generational poverty, family dysfunction, lack of economic opportunity, minimal educational opportunity and/or quality, problematic relationships with the criminal justice system, etc.
What cash transfers should be intended to address, and what they are actually pretty good at addressing, are problems like “I don’t have enough money to buy food and pay my rent, today”.
That’s a very limited and specific problem. It is, however, also a fairly important one, if you are the one with no money.
So, in many ways I’m agreeing with you, however we shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that, while we’re waiting for whatever version of social and economic nirvana to arrive, folks still need to eat.
But, yes, I’m generally in agreement that just throwing money at complicated problems doesn’t really help all that much.
I’ll go first: straight up cash transfers won’t work. We’ve tried that.
Sorry, a brief follow-on.
In order to ask if something worked or not, you first have to be specific about what problem it was supposed to solve.
I completely agree that cash transfers will not solve problems like endemic, multi-generational poverty, family dysfunction, lack of economic opportunity, minimal educational opportunity and/or quality, problematic relationships with the criminal justice system, etc.
What cash transfers should be intended to address, and what they are actually pretty good at addressing, are problems like “I don’t have enough money to buy food and pay my rent, today”.
That’s a very limited and specific problem. It is, however, also a fairly important one, if you are the one with no money.
So, in many ways I’m agreeing with you, however we shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that, while we’re waiting for whatever version of social and economic nirvana to arrive, folks still need to eat.
But, yes, I’m generally in agreement that just throwing money at complicated problems doesn’t really help all that much.
straight up cash transfers won’t work. We’ve tried that.
I’m pretty sure you weren’t intending to say this, but just to be sure….
Straight up cash transfers don’t work. By themselves. But cash transfers very likely do have to be part of whatever workable solution we come up with.
As russell, cleek (and probably others) have noted, there isn’t a single cause to the problem we are seeing. That problem being a large group which is not able to function well in society, support themselves, etc. And so we are almost certainly looking for an approach which will address all of those causes; for any given situation, whatever subset of those is present.
Certainly poverty is a cause. Not the cause, but a contributor. Ditto single parent families. I suspect that the list could go on for quite a while.
And granted that it is possible for individuals to rise above numerous of those causes, even though their peers cannot. Which is why holding up individual exceptions does not amount to a disproof of a particular cause being an issue. (See cleek and russell. See President Obama. Etc.)
Solving any one of those will reduce the problem, in that more kids will grow up as desired. But until we reach a critical mass of causes addressed, the problem will still persist in enough cases to show that we haven’t “solved” it yet.
straight up cash transfers won’t work. We’ve tried that.
I’m pretty sure you weren’t intending to say this, but just to be sure….
Straight up cash transfers don’t work. By themselves. But cash transfers very likely do have to be part of whatever workable solution we come up with.
As russell, cleek (and probably others) have noted, there isn’t a single cause to the problem we are seeing. That problem being a large group which is not able to function well in society, support themselves, etc. And so we are almost certainly looking for an approach which will address all of those causes; for any given situation, whatever subset of those is present.
Certainly poverty is a cause. Not the cause, but a contributor. Ditto single parent families. I suspect that the list could go on for quite a while.
And granted that it is possible for individuals to rise above numerous of those causes, even though their peers cannot. Which is why holding up individual exceptions does not amount to a disproof of a particular cause being an issue. (See cleek and russell. See President Obama. Etc.)
Solving any one of those will reduce the problem, in that more kids will grow up as desired. But until we reach a critical mass of causes addressed, the problem will still persist in enough cases to show that we haven’t “solved” it yet.
straight up cash transfers won’t work. We’ve tried that.
I’m pretty sure you weren’t intending to say this, but just to be sure….
Straight up cash transfers don’t work. By themselves. But cash transfers very likely do have to be part of whatever workable solution we come up with.
As russell, cleek (and probably others) have noted, there isn’t a single cause to the problem we are seeing. That problem being a large group which is not able to function well in society, support themselves, etc. And so we are almost certainly looking for an approach which will address all of those causes; for any given situation, whatever subset of those is present.
Certainly poverty is a cause. Not the cause, but a contributor. Ditto single parent families. I suspect that the list could go on for quite a while.
And granted that it is possible for individuals to rise above numerous of those causes, even though their peers cannot. Which is why holding up individual exceptions does not amount to a disproof of a particular cause being an issue. (See cleek and russell. See President Obama. Etc.)
Solving any one of those will reduce the problem, in that more kids will grow up as desired. But until we reach a critical mass of causes addressed, the problem will still persist in enough cases to show that we haven’t “solved” it yet.
I’m not sure you can really tease out cause v. effect with this sort of stuff. At any given point, whatever aspect of the situation you’re considering can be the cause of another, or vice versa. It’s a back-and-forth dynamic on an almost day-to-day and person-by-person basis.
I think racism itself is sometimes an effect of the outcomes of group disadvantage caused by past racial discrimination, if that makes any sense. The “Why can’t they assimilate like others did?” thing seems to ignore the fact that “they” weren’t really allowed to assimilate.
So it’s not necessarily that one generation learns racism directly from prior generations. It’s that they see the outcomes of prior racism as the fault of the alienated, subjugated group. They see the differences without knowing the reasons and attribute those diffences to something about “them.”
Racism causes disadvantage. And disadvantage causes racism. Poverty causes stress and disfunction. Stress and disfunction cause poverty. (Not in every instance all the time, but enough to matter – a lot.)
I’m not sure you can really tease out cause v. effect with this sort of stuff. At any given point, whatever aspect of the situation you’re considering can be the cause of another, or vice versa. It’s a back-and-forth dynamic on an almost day-to-day and person-by-person basis.
I think racism itself is sometimes an effect of the outcomes of group disadvantage caused by past racial discrimination, if that makes any sense. The “Why can’t they assimilate like others did?” thing seems to ignore the fact that “they” weren’t really allowed to assimilate.
So it’s not necessarily that one generation learns racism directly from prior generations. It’s that they see the outcomes of prior racism as the fault of the alienated, subjugated group. They see the differences without knowing the reasons and attribute those diffences to something about “them.”
Racism causes disadvantage. And disadvantage causes racism. Poverty causes stress and disfunction. Stress and disfunction cause poverty. (Not in every instance all the time, but enough to matter – a lot.)
I’m not sure you can really tease out cause v. effect with this sort of stuff. At any given point, whatever aspect of the situation you’re considering can be the cause of another, or vice versa. It’s a back-and-forth dynamic on an almost day-to-day and person-by-person basis.
I think racism itself is sometimes an effect of the outcomes of group disadvantage caused by past racial discrimination, if that makes any sense. The “Why can’t they assimilate like others did?” thing seems to ignore the fact that “they” weren’t really allowed to assimilate.
So it’s not necessarily that one generation learns racism directly from prior generations. It’s that they see the outcomes of prior racism as the fault of the alienated, subjugated group. They see the differences without knowing the reasons and attribute those diffences to something about “them.”
Racism causes disadvantage. And disadvantage causes racism. Poverty causes stress and disfunction. Stress and disfunction cause poverty. (Not in every instance all the time, but enough to matter – a lot.)
Russell, Cleek, HS, Etc: imagine three choices:
1. Single parent, did not finish HS, a child, no partner contributing financially or materially or otherwise.
2. Same person, finishes HS, takes a job, achieves reasonable financial independence, has a child, no partner.
3. Same as 2, but there is a partner who contributes financially, materially, etc.
Which of the three gives the child a better chance?
Are the anecdotal examples–tens of thousands–of kids getting by and doing well against the current? Sure. But we are talking macro, millions. The stats are pretty clear. They are race neutral, value neutral. No second parent, unskilled, marginally educated single parent = poverty and a child that statistically is likely to repeat.
That’s an identifiable problem.
Russell, Cleek, HS, Etc: imagine three choices:
1. Single parent, did not finish HS, a child, no partner contributing financially or materially or otherwise.
2. Same person, finishes HS, takes a job, achieves reasonable financial independence, has a child, no partner.
3. Same as 2, but there is a partner who contributes financially, materially, etc.
Which of the three gives the child a better chance?
Are the anecdotal examples–tens of thousands–of kids getting by and doing well against the current? Sure. But we are talking macro, millions. The stats are pretty clear. They are race neutral, value neutral. No second parent, unskilled, marginally educated single parent = poverty and a child that statistically is likely to repeat.
That’s an identifiable problem.
Russell, Cleek, HS, Etc: imagine three choices:
1. Single parent, did not finish HS, a child, no partner contributing financially or materially or otherwise.
2. Same person, finishes HS, takes a job, achieves reasonable financial independence, has a child, no partner.
3. Same as 2, but there is a partner who contributes financially, materially, etc.
Which of the three gives the child a better chance?
Are the anecdotal examples–tens of thousands–of kids getting by and doing well against the current? Sure. But we are talking macro, millions. The stats are pretty clear. They are race neutral, value neutral. No second parent, unskilled, marginally educated single parent = poverty and a child that statistically is likely to repeat.
That’s an identifiable problem.
That’s an identifiable problem.
I’d agree that’s a problem. So, a solution which has been intimated a few times on this thread is the large incarceration rates, especially for black males.
Do you think reducing incarceration (for example, by decriminalizing drugs) would help?
I think it would, both by decreasing the number of parents in prison (and therefore out of their children’s lives), and also increasing the employability of the parents (because they wouldn’t have incarceration on their record).
That’s an identifiable problem.
I’d agree that’s a problem. So, a solution which has been intimated a few times on this thread is the large incarceration rates, especially for black males.
Do you think reducing incarceration (for example, by decriminalizing drugs) would help?
I think it would, both by decreasing the number of parents in prison (and therefore out of their children’s lives), and also increasing the employability of the parents (because they wouldn’t have incarceration on their record).
That’s an identifiable problem.
I’d agree that’s a problem. So, a solution which has been intimated a few times on this thread is the large incarceration rates, especially for black males.
Do you think reducing incarceration (for example, by decriminalizing drugs) would help?
I think it would, both by decreasing the number of parents in prison (and therefore out of their children’s lives), and also increasing the employability of the parents (because they wouldn’t have incarceration on their record).
no doubt.
we can start to remedy the situation by not stopping, arresting, sentencing and incarcerating young black men at a higher rate than we do young white men for the same crimes.
no doubt.
we can start to remedy the situation by not stopping, arresting, sentencing and incarcerating young black men at a higher rate than we do young white men for the same crimes.
no doubt.
we can start to remedy the situation by not stopping, arresting, sentencing and incarcerating young black men at a higher rate than we do young white men for the same crimes.
Sure, McKinney. But poverty, itself, is not “race neutral” in these United States. And your indentifiable problem is as much a cause as it is an effect – or the other way around, if you prefer. I don’t think anyone here is saying we shouldn’t do anything to fix it – quite the contrary.
But if you think a problem is race neutral simply because it’s a problem for people of any race, despite the fact that it’s a far more common problem for one race than it is for another, and for all sorts of reasons, I’m not sure what “race neutral” is supposed to mean.
Sure, McKinney. But poverty, itself, is not “race neutral” in these United States. And your indentifiable problem is as much a cause as it is an effect – or the other way around, if you prefer. I don’t think anyone here is saying we shouldn’t do anything to fix it – quite the contrary.
But if you think a problem is race neutral simply because it’s a problem for people of any race, despite the fact that it’s a far more common problem for one race than it is for another, and for all sorts of reasons, I’m not sure what “race neutral” is supposed to mean.
Sure, McKinney. But poverty, itself, is not “race neutral” in these United States. And your indentifiable problem is as much a cause as it is an effect – or the other way around, if you prefer. I don’t think anyone here is saying we shouldn’t do anything to fix it – quite the contrary.
But if you think a problem is race neutral simply because it’s a problem for people of any race, despite the fact that it’s a far more common problem for one race than it is for another, and for all sorts of reasons, I’m not sure what “race neutral” is supposed to mean.
I might add that I don’t really have a problem with socio-economically based affirmative action, if that’s a direction this discussion might be moving towards. I think it’s less problematic politically and it helps people without considering race, but helps any given group, racial or otherwise, to the extent that group comprises people in need of help.
Of course, that’s not to say we should ignore the racial biases in the criminal justice system, for example, as amplified by the continuing War on Drugs.
I might add that I don’t really have a problem with socio-economically based affirmative action, if that’s a direction this discussion might be moving towards. I think it’s less problematic politically and it helps people without considering race, but helps any given group, racial or otherwise, to the extent that group comprises people in need of help.
Of course, that’s not to say we should ignore the racial biases in the criminal justice system, for example, as amplified by the continuing War on Drugs.
I might add that I don’t really have a problem with socio-economically based affirmative action, if that’s a direction this discussion might be moving towards. I think it’s less problematic politically and it helps people without considering race, but helps any given group, racial or otherwise, to the extent that group comprises people in need of help.
Of course, that’s not to say we should ignore the racial biases in the criminal justice system, for example, as amplified by the continuing War on Drugs.
Let me rephrase some of HSH’s comment, and somewhat reconnect to the OP:
Being poor is a problem for whoever suffers from it, regardless of race.
Yet it the affliction of poverty affects some racial groups much more than others.
There are steps that can be taken to alleviate poverty, in a race neutral way.
Racists would oppose such steps because they primarily “benefit” particular racial groups that they dislike.
Non-racists may have other reasons for opposing anti-poverty measures.
The non-racists mentioned above object to being called racists, but if they make common cause with racists, such accusations are likely, because their visible actions are the same, although inner motives are not.
Let me rephrase some of HSH’s comment, and somewhat reconnect to the OP:
Being poor is a problem for whoever suffers from it, regardless of race.
Yet it the affliction of poverty affects some racial groups much more than others.
There are steps that can be taken to alleviate poverty, in a race neutral way.
Racists would oppose such steps because they primarily “benefit” particular racial groups that they dislike.
Non-racists may have other reasons for opposing anti-poverty measures.
The non-racists mentioned above object to being called racists, but if they make common cause with racists, such accusations are likely, because their visible actions are the same, although inner motives are not.
Let me rephrase some of HSH’s comment, and somewhat reconnect to the OP:
Being poor is a problem for whoever suffers from it, regardless of race.
Yet it the affliction of poverty affects some racial groups much more than others.
There are steps that can be taken to alleviate poverty, in a race neutral way.
Racists would oppose such steps because they primarily “benefit” particular racial groups that they dislike.
Non-racists may have other reasons for opposing anti-poverty measures.
The non-racists mentioned above object to being called racists, but if they make common cause with racists, such accusations are likely, because their visible actions are the same, although inner motives are not.
straight up cash transfers won’t work. We’ve tried that.
Disagree. Those transfers were a pittance. It’s hardly surprising they did not “work”.
Throwing money at “complicated problems” won’t work? Tell that to NASA in the 60’s and 70’s, or defense hawks since like forever, or corporations seeking tax breaks.
I’d wager many current descendants of Nelson Rockefeller are doing just fine having been born with the silver spoon in their mouths.
Money can indeed solve a lot of problems. Just ask anybody getting some. 😉
Not saying it would be “easy” or “the magic bullet”, just one of a range of approaches to be given serious consideration.
straight up cash transfers won’t work. We’ve tried that.
Disagree. Those transfers were a pittance. It’s hardly surprising they did not “work”.
Throwing money at “complicated problems” won’t work? Tell that to NASA in the 60’s and 70’s, or defense hawks since like forever, or corporations seeking tax breaks.
I’d wager many current descendants of Nelson Rockefeller are doing just fine having been born with the silver spoon in their mouths.
Money can indeed solve a lot of problems. Just ask anybody getting some. 😉
Not saying it would be “easy” or “the magic bullet”, just one of a range of approaches to be given serious consideration.
straight up cash transfers won’t work. We’ve tried that.
Disagree. Those transfers were a pittance. It’s hardly surprising they did not “work”.
Throwing money at “complicated problems” won’t work? Tell that to NASA in the 60’s and 70’s, or defense hawks since like forever, or corporations seeking tax breaks.
I’d wager many current descendants of Nelson Rockefeller are doing just fine having been born with the silver spoon in their mouths.
Money can indeed solve a lot of problems. Just ask anybody getting some. 😉
Not saying it would be “easy” or “the magic bullet”, just one of a range of approaches to be given serious consideration.
I think what Snarki has said is true, but I think the burden of distinguishing between the folks who oppose anti-poverty measures out of racist motivations vs. those who oppose them for other reasons falls just as much on folks who favor those measures as on those who don’t.
If you start the conversation by mischaracterizing the other guy’s motives, you are putting yourself at a big disadvantage in terms of winning hearts and minds.
Eyes on the prize, y’all.
I think what Snarki has said is true, but I think the burden of distinguishing between the folks who oppose anti-poverty measures out of racist motivations vs. those who oppose them for other reasons falls just as much on folks who favor those measures as on those who don’t.
If you start the conversation by mischaracterizing the other guy’s motives, you are putting yourself at a big disadvantage in terms of winning hearts and minds.
Eyes on the prize, y’all.
I think what Snarki has said is true, but I think the burden of distinguishing between the folks who oppose anti-poverty measures out of racist motivations vs. those who oppose them for other reasons falls just as much on folks who favor those measures as on those who don’t.
If you start the conversation by mischaracterizing the other guy’s motives, you are putting yourself at a big disadvantage in terms of winning hearts and minds.
Eyes on the prize, y’all.
Disagree, russell.
You’re asking that proponents of anti-poverty measures mindread opponents.
I think you have to take people at their word about their inner motivations, but look for consistency with their other behavior to gauge their truthfulness.
Disagree, russell.
You’re asking that proponents of anti-poverty measures mindread opponents.
I think you have to take people at their word about their inner motivations, but look for consistency with their other behavior to gauge their truthfulness.
Disagree, russell.
You’re asking that proponents of anti-poverty measures mindread opponents.
I think you have to take people at their word about their inner motivations, but look for consistency with their other behavior to gauge their truthfulness.
…or maybe I agree, and it’s just the “burden” part I’m objecting to. Hmm.
…or maybe I agree, and it’s just the “burden” part I’m objecting to. Hmm.
…or maybe I agree, and it’s just the “burden” part I’m objecting to. Hmm.
For Thompson: My problem is that I don’t have enough conversations with Flanders & Swann (late and lamented, I fear). From their classic “Have Some Madeira, M’Dear”:
Then there flashed through her mind what her mother had said
With her antepenultimate breath,
“Oh my child, should you guzzle the wine that is red
Be prepared for a fate worse than death!”
For Thompson: My problem is that I don’t have enough conversations with Flanders & Swann (late and lamented, I fear). From their classic “Have Some Madeira, M’Dear”:
Then there flashed through her mind what her mother had said
With her antepenultimate breath,
“Oh my child, should you guzzle the wine that is red
Be prepared for a fate worse than death!”
For Thompson: My problem is that I don’t have enough conversations with Flanders & Swann (late and lamented, I fear). From their classic “Have Some Madeira, M’Dear”:
Then there flashed through her mind what her mother had said
With her antepenultimate breath,
“Oh my child, should you guzzle the wine that is red
Be prepared for a fate worse than death!”
Okay, let me put that another way:
If you march down Main Street, wearing a white robe and a pointy white hood, the burden is on YOU if you don’t want people to think you’re a racist Klansman.
If you do something that racists do for racist reasons, it leads to the conclusion that you are a racist. That is why, way way upthread, I commented that GOPers should make it very very clear that racism is unacceptable and will not be tolerated in their ranks. That’s certainly true among Democrats, but Republicans seem to have a more…nuanced attitude.
Or at least they have not communicated their intolerance for racism with the kind of white-hot fury that they normally use for (other) objectionable situations.
Then we could argue about what to do about poverty without having the whole destructive racial subtext that always comes up.
Okay, let me put that another way:
If you march down Main Street, wearing a white robe and a pointy white hood, the burden is on YOU if you don’t want people to think you’re a racist Klansman.
If you do something that racists do for racist reasons, it leads to the conclusion that you are a racist. That is why, way way upthread, I commented that GOPers should make it very very clear that racism is unacceptable and will not be tolerated in their ranks. That’s certainly true among Democrats, but Republicans seem to have a more…nuanced attitude.
Or at least they have not communicated their intolerance for racism with the kind of white-hot fury that they normally use for (other) objectionable situations.
Then we could argue about what to do about poverty without having the whole destructive racial subtext that always comes up.
Okay, let me put that another way:
If you march down Main Street, wearing a white robe and a pointy white hood, the burden is on YOU if you don’t want people to think you’re a racist Klansman.
If you do something that racists do for racist reasons, it leads to the conclusion that you are a racist. That is why, way way upthread, I commented that GOPers should make it very very clear that racism is unacceptable and will not be tolerated in their ranks. That’s certainly true among Democrats, but Republicans seem to have a more…nuanced attitude.
Or at least they have not communicated their intolerance for racism with the kind of white-hot fury that they normally use for (other) objectionable situations.
Then we could argue about what to do about poverty without having the whole destructive racial subtext that always comes up.
You’re asking that proponents of anti-poverty measures mindread opponents.
No, not really. At least, I don’t think so.
I’m asking that people not make assumptions.
Some things are really not ambiguous. Wearing white hoods and burning crosses, not ambiguous.
Not being in favor of cash transfer payments, ambiguous, at least as far as a racial motivation. As an example.
I agree with you as regards the “nuance” of many (R) pronouncements.
You’re asking that proponents of anti-poverty measures mindread opponents.
No, not really. At least, I don’t think so.
I’m asking that people not make assumptions.
Some things are really not ambiguous. Wearing white hoods and burning crosses, not ambiguous.
Not being in favor of cash transfer payments, ambiguous, at least as far as a racial motivation. As an example.
I agree with you as regards the “nuance” of many (R) pronouncements.
You’re asking that proponents of anti-poverty measures mindread opponents.
No, not really. At least, I don’t think so.
I’m asking that people not make assumptions.
Some things are really not ambiguous. Wearing white hoods and burning crosses, not ambiguous.
Not being in favor of cash transfer payments, ambiguous, at least as far as a racial motivation. As an example.
I agree with you as regards the “nuance” of many (R) pronouncements.
Throwing money at “complicated problems” won’t work? Tell that to NASA in the 60’s and 70’s, or defense hawks since like forever, or corporations seeking tax breaks.
I wish that overcoming the legacy of white supremacy in this country was as easy as sending a man to the moon. No snark.
Throwing money at “complicated problems” won’t work? Tell that to NASA in the 60’s and 70’s, or defense hawks since like forever, or corporations seeking tax breaks.
I wish that overcoming the legacy of white supremacy in this country was as easy as sending a man to the moon. No snark.
Throwing money at “complicated problems” won’t work? Tell that to NASA in the 60’s and 70’s, or defense hawks since like forever, or corporations seeking tax breaks.
I wish that overcoming the legacy of white supremacy in this country was as easy as sending a man to the moon. No snark.
I wish that overcoming the legacy of white supremacy in this country was as easy as sending a man to the moon.
Me too.
I wish that overcoming the legacy of white supremacy in this country was as easy as sending a man to the moon.
Me too.
I wish that overcoming the legacy of white supremacy in this country was as easy as sending a man to the moon.
Me too.
“I’m asking that people not make assumptions.”
Agreed, but I guess I was really objecting to the “burden” part of your statement. The burden is on you to show your motives, since no one else can see inside your mind, if you don’t want to be called an “X” for doing things that “X’s” typically do.
“I’m asking that people not make assumptions.”
Agreed, but I guess I was really objecting to the “burden” part of your statement. The burden is on you to show your motives, since no one else can see inside your mind, if you don’t want to be called an “X” for doing things that “X’s” typically do.
“I’m asking that people not make assumptions.”
Agreed, but I guess I was really objecting to the “burden” part of your statement. The burden is on you to show your motives, since no one else can see inside your mind, if you don’t want to be called an “X” for doing things that “X’s” typically do.
@McK:
Apology accepted with as much grace as I can muster. I know too often I’m cantankerous, and needlessly verbose, and I’ve never met a dead horse (or overused cliche) I won’t beat. I don’t mean personal insult either. Probably the reason I go for your throat with as much vigor as I do is because I generally respect your opinion, so when I grossly disagree with you or find apparent fault in your reasoning it exasperates me more than it should.
(This response delivered a good deal later than what it’s responding to because I figured I was getting overheated and could use a day off ObWi.)
@McK:
Apology accepted with as much grace as I can muster. I know too often I’m cantankerous, and needlessly verbose, and I’ve never met a dead horse (or overused cliche) I won’t beat. I don’t mean personal insult either. Probably the reason I go for your throat with as much vigor as I do is because I generally respect your opinion, so when I grossly disagree with you or find apparent fault in your reasoning it exasperates me more than it should.
(This response delivered a good deal later than what it’s responding to because I figured I was getting overheated and could use a day off ObWi.)
@McK:
Apology accepted with as much grace as I can muster. I know too often I’m cantankerous, and needlessly verbose, and I’ve never met a dead horse (or overused cliche) I won’t beat. I don’t mean personal insult either. Probably the reason I go for your throat with as much vigor as I do is because I generally respect your opinion, so when I grossly disagree with you or find apparent fault in your reasoning it exasperates me more than it should.
(This response delivered a good deal later than what it’s responding to because I figured I was getting overheated and could use a day off ObWi.)
dr ngo:
enough conversations with Flanders & Swann (late and lamented, I fear)
Being woefully uncultured, the name was unknown to me. Something I’ve fixed with some (probably too much) time on youtube. I agree with your lament, and thanks for broadening my horizons!
dr ngo:
enough conversations with Flanders & Swann (late and lamented, I fear)
Being woefully uncultured, the name was unknown to me. Something I’ve fixed with some (probably too much) time on youtube. I agree with your lament, and thanks for broadening my horizons!
dr ngo:
enough conversations with Flanders & Swann (late and lamented, I fear)
Being woefully uncultured, the name was unknown to me. Something I’ve fixed with some (probably too much) time on youtube. I agree with your lament, and thanks for broadening my horizons!
I wish that overcoming the legacy of white supremacy in this country was as easy as sending a man to the moon.
Just for openers, there was FAR more agreement in this cvountry about the desirability of (beating the Russians in) sending a man to the moon. The first critical step in solving any problem is agreeing that it is a problem and that solving it is desirable.
I wish that overcoming the legacy of white supremacy in this country was as easy as sending a man to the moon.
Just for openers, there was FAR more agreement in this cvountry about the desirability of (beating the Russians in) sending a man to the moon. The first critical step in solving any problem is agreeing that it is a problem and that solving it is desirable.
I wish that overcoming the legacy of white supremacy in this country was as easy as sending a man to the moon.
Just for openers, there was FAR more agreement in this cvountry about the desirability of (beating the Russians in) sending a man to the moon. The first critical step in solving any problem is agreeing that it is a problem and that solving it is desirable.
bobbyp:
Throwing money at “complicated problems” won’t work? Tell that to NASA in the 60’s and 70’s, or defense hawks since like forever, or corporations seeking tax breaks.
I’ll grant you the Moonshot, but I think our excessive defense spending and excess tax breaks have solved very few problems and created many more.
If money, alone and unguided, solved problems, Iraq would be a flourishing democracy, equaled only by Afghanistan.
Another great example of large amounts of money not solving problems would be the war of drugs. Instead, the mass of money we’ve spent on the war of drugs directly contributes to current problem, imo.
If your point is that money is part of the solution, I’d agree. I think russell (or perhaps someone else) made a point earlier that included a list of things that money is great for: if they can’t make rent, giving them money to make rent solves that problem neatly, for example.
I think, when trying to solve a problem as intractable as multigenerational poverty, we need to consider at least two separate timescales of social support/safety net.
Solutions that survive acute problems (frex insurance to bridge someone during temporary unemployment) are not necessarily the same solutions to solve chronic problems (perhaps retraining programs to help people who are chronically unemployed).
I think you’d likely need to consider solutions on a third, longer, timescale to encourage foster the next generation (frex schooling).
While I think all solutions will require some money, I don’t think money is, in itself, sufficient.
bobbyp:
Throwing money at “complicated problems” won’t work? Tell that to NASA in the 60’s and 70’s, or defense hawks since like forever, or corporations seeking tax breaks.
I’ll grant you the Moonshot, but I think our excessive defense spending and excess tax breaks have solved very few problems and created many more.
If money, alone and unguided, solved problems, Iraq would be a flourishing democracy, equaled only by Afghanistan.
Another great example of large amounts of money not solving problems would be the war of drugs. Instead, the mass of money we’ve spent on the war of drugs directly contributes to current problem, imo.
If your point is that money is part of the solution, I’d agree. I think russell (or perhaps someone else) made a point earlier that included a list of things that money is great for: if they can’t make rent, giving them money to make rent solves that problem neatly, for example.
I think, when trying to solve a problem as intractable as multigenerational poverty, we need to consider at least two separate timescales of social support/safety net.
Solutions that survive acute problems (frex insurance to bridge someone during temporary unemployment) are not necessarily the same solutions to solve chronic problems (perhaps retraining programs to help people who are chronically unemployed).
I think you’d likely need to consider solutions on a third, longer, timescale to encourage foster the next generation (frex schooling).
While I think all solutions will require some money, I don’t think money is, in itself, sufficient.
bobbyp:
Throwing money at “complicated problems” won’t work? Tell that to NASA in the 60’s and 70’s, or defense hawks since like forever, or corporations seeking tax breaks.
I’ll grant you the Moonshot, but I think our excessive defense spending and excess tax breaks have solved very few problems and created many more.
If money, alone and unguided, solved problems, Iraq would be a flourishing democracy, equaled only by Afghanistan.
Another great example of large amounts of money not solving problems would be the war of drugs. Instead, the mass of money we’ve spent on the war of drugs directly contributes to current problem, imo.
If your point is that money is part of the solution, I’d agree. I think russell (or perhaps someone else) made a point earlier that included a list of things that money is great for: if they can’t make rent, giving them money to make rent solves that problem neatly, for example.
I think, when trying to solve a problem as intractable as multigenerational poverty, we need to consider at least two separate timescales of social support/safety net.
Solutions that survive acute problems (frex insurance to bridge someone during temporary unemployment) are not necessarily the same solutions to solve chronic problems (perhaps retraining programs to help people who are chronically unemployed).
I think you’d likely need to consider solutions on a third, longer, timescale to encourage foster the next generation (frex schooling).
While I think all solutions will require some money, I don’t think money is, in itself, sufficient.
“straight up cash transfers won’t work. We’ve tried that.”
No, on the contrary. We have shown that it *does* work. There was a study in the sixties that showed that the best thing you could do with extra money for the relief of poverty was to — surprise — give people more money! Rather than, say, yet more classes on how to manage an inadequate income.
They used it to buy better food, or more food. They used it to buy clothes suitable to apply for jobs in, and cars suitable to get to work in.
They used it to enroll in training courses at community colleges.
And they got off welfare. The welfare industry concluded that it would be a bad idea. Of course, in the long run, the welfare industry isn’t doing so well anyway.
“straight up cash transfers won’t work. We’ve tried that.”
No, on the contrary. We have shown that it *does* work. There was a study in the sixties that showed that the best thing you could do with extra money for the relief of poverty was to — surprise — give people more money! Rather than, say, yet more classes on how to manage an inadequate income.
They used it to buy better food, or more food. They used it to buy clothes suitable to apply for jobs in, and cars suitable to get to work in.
They used it to enroll in training courses at community colleges.
And they got off welfare. The welfare industry concluded that it would be a bad idea. Of course, in the long run, the welfare industry isn’t doing so well anyway.
“straight up cash transfers won’t work. We’ve tried that.”
No, on the contrary. We have shown that it *does* work. There was a study in the sixties that showed that the best thing you could do with extra money for the relief of poverty was to — surprise — give people more money! Rather than, say, yet more classes on how to manage an inadequate income.
They used it to buy better food, or more food. They used it to buy clothes suitable to apply for jobs in, and cars suitable to get to work in.
They used it to enroll in training courses at community colleges.
And they got off welfare. The welfare industry concluded that it would be a bad idea. Of course, in the long run, the welfare industry isn’t doing so well anyway.
Oh, and another thing. Recent studies have shown that in the US black fathers are more involved with their kids’ lives than fathers of other ethnicities. No, I’m not gonna give you a cite, but it’s a study by the CDC, so it won’t be hard to find.
Y’know, maybe it’s just not their fault.
Oh, and another thing. Recent studies have shown that in the US black fathers are more involved with their kids’ lives than fathers of other ethnicities. No, I’m not gonna give you a cite, but it’s a study by the CDC, so it won’t be hard to find.
Y’know, maybe it’s just not their fault.
Oh, and another thing. Recent studies have shown that in the US black fathers are more involved with their kids’ lives than fathers of other ethnicities. No, I’m not gonna give you a cite, but it’s a study by the CDC, so it won’t be hard to find.
Y’know, maybe it’s just not their fault.
Seconded. Also: if you continue to do so after it’s been pointed out, then you may be pigeonholed as someone whose opinion is not worthy of anyone’s regard for quite a while.
I may or may not be making a pointed reference, here.
Seconded. Also: if you continue to do so after it’s been pointed out, then you may be pigeonholed as someone whose opinion is not worthy of anyone’s regard for quite a while.
I may or may not be making a pointed reference, here.
Seconded. Also: if you continue to do so after it’s been pointed out, then you may be pigeonholed as someone whose opinion is not worthy of anyone’s regard for quite a while.
I may or may not be making a pointed reference, here.
While I think all solutions will require some money, I don’t think money is, in itself, sufficient.
Perhaps not sufficient, but, I would argue, necessary.
While I think all solutions will require some money, I don’t think money is, in itself, sufficient.
Perhaps not sufficient, but, I would argue, necessary.
While I think all solutions will require some money, I don’t think money is, in itself, sufficient.
Perhaps not sufficient, but, I would argue, necessary.
We have excellent roo-on-the-hay models:
http://wonkette.com/589536/looks-like-god-knocked-up-bristol-palin-again
We have excellent roo-on-the-hay models:
http://wonkette.com/589536/looks-like-god-knocked-up-bristol-palin-again
We have excellent roo-on-the-hay models:
http://wonkette.com/589536/looks-like-god-knocked-up-bristol-palin-again
5-4 in Obergefell v. Hodges, fyi. Sorry for the OT, but it seemed worth mentioning.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2015/06/26/271324/supreme-court-rules-in-favor-of.html#storylink=rss
5-4 in Obergefell v. Hodges, fyi. Sorry for the OT, but it seemed worth mentioning.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2015/06/26/271324/supreme-court-rules-in-favor-of.html#storylink=rss
5-4 in Obergefell v. Hodges, fyi. Sorry for the OT, but it seemed worth mentioning.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2015/06/26/271324/supreme-court-rules-in-favor-of.html#storylink=rss
That wonkette article is pretty low.
That wonkette article is pretty low.
That wonkette article is pretty low.
It’s very American, though. We do love to be vicious and judgmental, and we revel in attacking perceived hypocrisy. And an awful damned lot of us really like to mouth lipservice about sex-positive attitudes and not prying into the private bedrooms and lives of others, but give us an “acceptable” target… The beauty is that since we’re obviously attacking the hypocrisy and not the person, it can’t be slut shaming! Win-win! Bonus points for sneaking in “whore” under the sanitizing modifier of “fame”.
(I mean, it’s Wonkette, so I’d really expect no better. But yeah, that’s pretty awful. Though again, typical in a miserably American sort of way.)
It’s very American, though. We do love to be vicious and judgmental, and we revel in attacking perceived hypocrisy. And an awful damned lot of us really like to mouth lipservice about sex-positive attitudes and not prying into the private bedrooms and lives of others, but give us an “acceptable” target… The beauty is that since we’re obviously attacking the hypocrisy and not the person, it can’t be slut shaming! Win-win! Bonus points for sneaking in “whore” under the sanitizing modifier of “fame”.
(I mean, it’s Wonkette, so I’d really expect no better. But yeah, that’s pretty awful. Though again, typical in a miserably American sort of way.)
It’s very American, though. We do love to be vicious and judgmental, and we revel in attacking perceived hypocrisy. And an awful damned lot of us really like to mouth lipservice about sex-positive attitudes and not prying into the private bedrooms and lives of others, but give us an “acceptable” target… The beauty is that since we’re obviously attacking the hypocrisy and not the person, it can’t be slut shaming! Win-win! Bonus points for sneaking in “whore” under the sanitizing modifier of “fame”.
(I mean, it’s Wonkette, so I’d really expect no better. But yeah, that’s pretty awful. Though again, typical in a miserably American sort of way.)
It’s very American, though. We do love to be vicious and judgmental, and we revel in attacking perceived hypocrisy. […] The beauty is that since we’re obviously attacking the hypocrisy and not the person, it can’t be slut shaming!
You’re right of course. We do love wrapping ugly behavior in all sorts of thin justifications, don’t we? Sigh.
I mean, it’s Wonkette, so I’d really expect no better.
Yeah, deciding to click the link probably wasn’t my best decision of the day.
It’s very American, though. We do love to be vicious and judgmental, and we revel in attacking perceived hypocrisy. […] The beauty is that since we’re obviously attacking the hypocrisy and not the person, it can’t be slut shaming!
You’re right of course. We do love wrapping ugly behavior in all sorts of thin justifications, don’t we? Sigh.
I mean, it’s Wonkette, so I’d really expect no better.
Yeah, deciding to click the link probably wasn’t my best decision of the day.
It’s very American, though. We do love to be vicious and judgmental, and we revel in attacking perceived hypocrisy. […] The beauty is that since we’re obviously attacking the hypocrisy and not the person, it can’t be slut shaming!
You’re right of course. We do love wrapping ugly behavior in all sorts of thin justifications, don’t we? Sigh.
I mean, it’s Wonkette, so I’d really expect no better.
Yeah, deciding to click the link probably wasn’t my best decision of the day.
The discussion of the meaning of the Confederate flag (the flag that has come to be known as the Confederate flag)reminds me of a protracted argument we had right here on obwi years ago about the meaning of “bitches”
Someone used the word “bitches” in the context of gloating over a victory; “So there, bitchez!” Something like that. It’s a fairly common usage.
The question was: it is sexist? And the argument took off!
Part of the argument was about the intent of the speaker: is there a reason to be offended by a remark made by someone who does not mean to be offensive and has no offensive connotations for “bitches” in his/her mind?
I came down on the side that using “bitches” that way is annoying if you think about the implications. I think that the flag of the army of Lee, later used as a symbol of the KKK, remains a symbol of treason and racism, regardless of the historical illiteracy of people who use it in a Dukes of Hazard way, and therefore should not be on public buildings. And I tend to think “asshole” when I see it on bumper stickers and tshirts.
Anyway the “bitches” parallel just popped into my head, so I thought I’d mention it, even though this conversation is pretty much over.
The discussion of the meaning of the Confederate flag (the flag that has come to be known as the Confederate flag)reminds me of a protracted argument we had right here on obwi years ago about the meaning of “bitches”
Someone used the word “bitches” in the context of gloating over a victory; “So there, bitchez!” Something like that. It’s a fairly common usage.
The question was: it is sexist? And the argument took off!
Part of the argument was about the intent of the speaker: is there a reason to be offended by a remark made by someone who does not mean to be offensive and has no offensive connotations for “bitches” in his/her mind?
I came down on the side that using “bitches” that way is annoying if you think about the implications. I think that the flag of the army of Lee, later used as a symbol of the KKK, remains a symbol of treason and racism, regardless of the historical illiteracy of people who use it in a Dukes of Hazard way, and therefore should not be on public buildings. And I tend to think “asshole” when I see it on bumper stickers and tshirts.
Anyway the “bitches” parallel just popped into my head, so I thought I’d mention it, even though this conversation is pretty much over.
The discussion of the meaning of the Confederate flag (the flag that has come to be known as the Confederate flag)reminds me of a protracted argument we had right here on obwi years ago about the meaning of “bitches”
Someone used the word “bitches” in the context of gloating over a victory; “So there, bitchez!” Something like that. It’s a fairly common usage.
The question was: it is sexist? And the argument took off!
Part of the argument was about the intent of the speaker: is there a reason to be offended by a remark made by someone who does not mean to be offensive and has no offensive connotations for “bitches” in his/her mind?
I came down on the side that using “bitches” that way is annoying if you think about the implications. I think that the flag of the army of Lee, later used as a symbol of the KKK, remains a symbol of treason and racism, regardless of the historical illiteracy of people who use it in a Dukes of Hazard way, and therefore should not be on public buildings. And I tend to think “asshole” when I see it on bumper stickers and tshirts.
Anyway the “bitches” parallel just popped into my head, so I thought I’d mention it, even though this conversation is pretty much over.
I think, focusing on single mothers for the economic and crimnal problems of the communities they are part of, is the worse sort of “slut shaming.” And it’s a manipulative devide – and – conquer technique most activist try to avoid getting caught up in.
I think, focusing on single mothers for the economic and crimnal problems of the communities they are part of, is the worse sort of “slut shaming.” And it’s a manipulative devide – and – conquer technique most activist try to avoid getting caught up in.
I think, focusing on single mothers for the economic and crimnal problems of the communities they are part of, is the worse sort of “slut shaming.” And it’s a manipulative devide – and – conquer technique most activist try to avoid getting caught up in.
Accepting or looking the other way at one’s fellow humans’ hypocrisy and human frailty is what we do during the course of every day civil discourse.
We aren’t in normal times.
The Palins’ deliberately low, ruthless, and vicious behavior toward their fellow Americans and the fact that their behavior nearly got them within a heartbeat of the Oval Office (Sarah Death Palin still commandeers twice as many Facebook friends than the nearest candidate for the Republican nomination does) made them public figures.
They are fair game.
They contributed hugely to the ruination of civil political discourse in this society, so I expect they can handle in kind heat.
Think what they would do to any of you or your children for their own ideological gain.
Accepting or looking the other way at one’s fellow humans’ hypocrisy and human frailty is what we do during the course of every day civil discourse.
We aren’t in normal times.
The Palins’ deliberately low, ruthless, and vicious behavior toward their fellow Americans and the fact that their behavior nearly got them within a heartbeat of the Oval Office (Sarah Death Palin still commandeers twice as many Facebook friends than the nearest candidate for the Republican nomination does) made them public figures.
They are fair game.
They contributed hugely to the ruination of civil political discourse in this society, so I expect they can handle in kind heat.
Think what they would do to any of you or your children for their own ideological gain.
Accepting or looking the other way at one’s fellow humans’ hypocrisy and human frailty is what we do during the course of every day civil discourse.
We aren’t in normal times.
The Palins’ deliberately low, ruthless, and vicious behavior toward their fellow Americans and the fact that their behavior nearly got them within a heartbeat of the Oval Office (Sarah Death Palin still commandeers twice as many Facebook friends than the nearest candidate for the Republican nomination does) made them public figures.
They are fair game.
They contributed hugely to the ruination of civil political discourse in this society, so I expect they can handle in kind heat.
Think what they would do to any of you or your children for their own ideological gain.
If the Supreme Court had ruled against Obamacare in Burwell, we would have been treated to a vicious piling-on celebration of the misery, penury and early death for millions of Americans denied health insurance from Sarah Death Palin and her ilk.
We’ll leave aside whatever she would have or is saying about the sanctity of marriage today.
As it is, she had a bad week.
It’s about time.
If the Supreme Court had ruled against Obamacare in Burwell, we would have been treated to a vicious piling-on celebration of the misery, penury and early death for millions of Americans denied health insurance from Sarah Death Palin and her ilk.
We’ll leave aside whatever she would have or is saying about the sanctity of marriage today.
As it is, she had a bad week.
It’s about time.
If the Supreme Court had ruled against Obamacare in Burwell, we would have been treated to a vicious piling-on celebration of the misery, penury and early death for millions of Americans denied health insurance from Sarah Death Palin and her ilk.
We’ll leave aside whatever she would have or is saying about the sanctity of marriage today.
As it is, she had a bad week.
It’s about time.
Think what they would do to any of you or your children for their own ideological gain.
I think of what *I* would do. If you adopt the strategies of those you don’t respect, you’ve already lost.
I stand by my assessment of the wonkette article, and I agree with NV. It’s slut-shaming, and its low.
Think what they would do to any of you or your children for their own ideological gain.
I think of what *I* would do. If you adopt the strategies of those you don’t respect, you’ve already lost.
I stand by my assessment of the wonkette article, and I agree with NV. It’s slut-shaming, and its low.
Think what they would do to any of you or your children for their own ideological gain.
I think of what *I* would do. If you adopt the strategies of those you don’t respect, you’ve already lost.
I stand by my assessment of the wonkette article, and I agree with NV. It’s slut-shaming, and its low.
God created man. Samuel Colt made them all equal.
Keys, wallet, cellphone and pistol.
Don’t leave home without it.
God created man. Samuel Colt made them all equal.
Keys, wallet, cellphone and pistol.
Don’t leave home without it.
God created man. Samuel Colt made them all equal.
Keys, wallet, cellphone and pistol.
Don’t leave home without it.
McKTX, I come back to check on this thread after a couple days to find that your solution to the problem you’ve identified is to lecture people severely. Really?
McKTX, I come back to check on this thread after a couple days to find that your solution to the problem you’ve identified is to lecture people severely. Really?
McKTX, I come back to check on this thread after a couple days to find that your solution to the problem you’ve identified is to lecture people severely. Really?