More Liberal racism: Reaction to Stacy Dash endorses Romney

[_krose]

People ought not to resort to stupid personal attacks when presented with a differing viewpoint. But I have to admit, BC's allegation confuses me a bit.

Are the black people who castigated Ms. Dash racist in regard to their own race, or against the white man she supports?

[_krose]

just the act of you speaking in terms of "them" resembles racism.

Well, that's the English language for you. We could use "we/us/our" if we are part of a group of people being discussed, or "you/your" if talking to them directly. But as it happens, "they/them/their" seem to be the only alternatives when neither of those is the case.

So please edify us. What's the alternative pronoun set to use? By all means, I would like to do whatever is necessary to avoid "resembling racism."

[_subgenius]

just the act of you speaking in terms of "them" resembles racism.

Well, that's the English language for you. We could use "we/us/our" if we are part of a group of people being discussed, or "you/your" if talking to them directly. But as it happens, "they/them/their" seem to be the only alternatives when neither of those is the case.

So please edify us. What's the alternative pronoun set to use? By all means, I would like to do whatever is necessary to avoid "resembling racism."

the mere act of distinguishing "them" is the issue, that you are even offering a position of "we" vs "them" is the point. By all consideration, what you are doing here is no different than those who condemned Stacy Dash.
Just because you do not make "them" use a different water fountain does not prove you enlightened on the matter. One can be perfectly sociable to "them" and still be racist....the white hood is not a requirement.

[Guest]

the mere act of distinguishing "them" is the issue, that you are even offering a position of "we" vs "them" is the point. By all consideration, what you are doing here is no different than those who condemned Stacy Dash.
Just because you do not make "them" use a different water fountain does not prove you enlightened on the matter. One can be perfectly sociable to "them" and still be racist....the white hood is not a requirement.

So you are saying that merely noting differences is racist. Talking about how Latinos tend to feel about immigration issues is racist. Tracking women's voting patterns is sexist. Mentioning elderly support for Medicare is age-ist. And talking about where Catholics stand regarding certain issues is religious bigotry.

Utter nonsense.

[_subgenius]

So you are saying that merely noting differences is racist. Talking about how Latinos tend to feel about immigration issues is racist. Tracking women's voting patterns is sexist. Mentioning elderly support for Medicare is agist. And talking about where Catholics stand regarding certain issues is religious bigotry.

Utter nonsense.

Your post is a clumsy "example" of Reductio ad Absurdum

aside from that, what i am "saying" is what i have said - your need to use "So what you are saying..." is unnecessary, i was fairly clear to begin with.

[_krose]

Your post is a clumsy "example" of Reductio ad Absurdum

No, it was illustrating the absurdity of your assertion that merely identifying differences in a group of people is tantamount to racism. You obviously don't know what a "straw man" is.


News flash: racism requires animus. Just noticing how another person differs from me does not make me a racist. Discriminating on that basis does. See the difference?

I have noticed that commercials have been featuring a lot of redheads recently, far greater than their proportion of the population. If you are consistent, you would say that my noticing that and making comments about it makes me a hair-color bigot. And if you did, that would also be ridiculous, as ridiculous as your silly comments about race and the word "them."

[_subgenius]

Your post is a clumsy "example" of Reductio ad Absurdum

No, it was illustrating the absurdity of your assertion that merely identifying differences in a group of people is tantamount to racism. You obviously don't know what a "straw man" is.

sure i do, i just noticed your example of it!

News flash: racism requires animus. Just noticing how another person differs from me does not make me a racist. Discriminating on that basis does. See the difference?

news flash? racism does not require animus....which you may realize if your knew that "animus" is latin for "mind"...the legal term yo uare looking for is animus nocendi (with harm in mind)...unless you meant animus revertendi?
And yes, just noticing does make a person racist.

I have noticed that commercials have been featuring a lot of redheads recently, far greater than their proportion of the population. If you are consistent, you would say that my noticing that and making comments about it makes me a hair-color bigot. And if you did, that would also be ridiculous, as ridiculous as your silly comments about race and the word "them."

once again we see you make another fallacy
by my count you have 2...so far.

[_krose]

No, it was illustrating the absurdity of your assertion that merely identifying differences in a group of people is tantamount to racism. You obviously don't know what a "straw man" is.

sure i do, i just noticed your example of it!

Do we really need to do this? Can't you just further explain your claim when it's challenged, rather than try to misdirect? Jesus.

Okay, I can counter your assertion with one of my own: you are wrong. So there.

News flash: racism requires animus. Just noticing how another person differs from me does not make me a racist. Discriminating on that basis does. See the difference?

news flash? racism does not require animus....which you may realize if your knew that "animus" is latin for "mind"...the legal term yo uare looking for is animus nocendi (with harm in mind)...unless you meant animus revertendi?

Not looking for a legal term, just an English word (from Latin, as you so helpfully point out), primarily defined as: "1. strong dislike or enmity; hostile attitude; animosity."

[_krose]

And yes, just noticing does make a person racist.

Ah, now we're getting somewhere.

So "racism," as you define it, isn't a bad thing at all. It's just noticing that people of one race are different from others (an obvious and undeniable fact of life). Okay. I was under the impression that you meant it as a bad thing (as most people do), not realizing that you had redefined the term for your own purposes.

[_Droopy]

Oh, for god's sake. You're going to make the generalization that all democrats are racist because of what a few jerks said on Twitter?

Affirmative Action.
Multiculturalism
Diversity
Afrocentrism
Afrikanoloy
La Raza
La Mecha
The Congressional Black Caucus
Raced based college admissions.
Government contract set asides
Separate dorms, lunch counters, and frat houses on college campuses.
Sub-prime mortgage lending to financially unqualified minorities
Outcome-based criminal sentencing and public school discipline

Aren't you the one who claimed that the attendees at the republican convention who threw peanuts and made racist comments to the african-american female camerawoman were probably democratic plants? Or was the one of the other nutters on this site?

Very likely the case, as this is a longstanding tactic among the Left (and I think Beastie just meant to say "black" where she wrote "African-American." The vast majority of black Americans are not first generation immigrants, and have no cultural, historical, or sociological connection to Africa. They are not of "African descent," anymore than I am of British descent. They are Americans, as am I).

So an isolated example of republican racism can be ignored, but an isolated example from the democratic side becomes justification for a generalization about all democrats being racists.

Its not isolated. The ideology and political policy prescriptions of the Democrat party regarding American minorities are fundamentally grounded in collective, identity group solidarity.