Rev. Jeremiah Wright's Bill Moyers interview + NAACP speech

[Lv99 Slacker]

Bill Moyers (divided into two parts): link (http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/04252008/watch.html)

NAACP speech: link (http://blip.tv/file/861750)

[HotShotX]

Good interview, seems like a very decent guy in both faith and mannerism.

~HotShotX

[camoor]

I'm sure it's great publicity for his church, but it sure isn't helping Obama.

[homeland]

Seems like a descent guy. I agreed with the sermon that got overplayed when it first came out and I agree with him now. This country has alot of skeletons in its closet and the majority of americans would rather just assume we are perfect.

[camoor]

Seems like a descent guy. I agreed with the sermon that got overplayed when it first came out and I agree with him now. This country has alot of skeletons in its closet and the majority of americans would rather just assume we are perfect.

Rev. Wright suggests that Americans don't know about the history of slavery in America or the atrocities against American Indians because the conquerers write the history books.

Is it news to anyone on this board that white settlers displaced American Indians and committed brutal massacres of said Indians?

Is it news to anyone on this board that early America allowed slavery of African-Americans?

It strikes me as disingenuous.

Obama's position is much more even-toned.

[homeland]

I believe he's right. I would put money down on the fact that most americans have no idea what we did to fellow americans who were from japanese decent during WW2. I would also suggest that most americans would say they knew that the us government was brutal to the native americans, but I doubt that they understand the scope of that brutality. Of course I'm not statician so I don't have those numbers. Just a feeling.

[camoor]

I believe he's right. I would put money down on the fact that most americans have no idea what we did to fellow americans who were from japanese decent during WW2. I would also suggest that most americans would say they knew that the us government was brutal to the native americans, but I doubt that they understand the scope of that brutality. Of course I'm not statician so I don't have those numbers. Just a feeling.

Japanese? While we're going into that, what about the German and Italian immigrants to USA at the time? Heck what about NINA racism? What about the Chinese who built the railroads?

Yeah most Americans don't know history as well as they should but if they're going to retain something I'd rather have it be focused on concepts such as representative democracy, freedom isn't free, and a basic understanding of executive, legislative, and judicial branches of govt rather then every nasty example and hypocrisy perpetrated by every opportunist politician, military leader, and businessman (heck, the future Enrons and Tom Delays of the world will teach that lesson in due time).

The only thing Wright says about George Washington was that he owned slaves. He doesn't talk about George Washington's moral opposition to that nasty trade, how George Washington always treated his staff as family, how George Washington was a revolutionary who believed in the cause of freedom against the tyranny of a monarchy - a really far-out concept in his day. I listened to the Reverend and IMO what he said just isn't right.

[Msut77]

Japanese? While we're going into that, what about the German and Italian immigrants to USA at the time? Heck what about NINA racism? What about the Chinese who built the railroads?

Yeah most Americans don't know history as well as they should but if they're going to retain something I'd rather have it be focused on concepts such as representative democracy, freedom isn't free, and a basic understanding of executive, legislative, and judicial branches of govt rather then every nasty example and hypocrisy perpetrated by every opportunist politician, military leader, and businessman (heck, the future Enrons and Tom Delays of the world will teach that lesson in due time).

The only thing Wright says about George Washington was that he owned slaves. He doesn't talk about George Washington's moral opposition to that nasty trade, how George Washington always treated his staff as family, how George Washington was a revolutionary who believed in the cause of freedom against the tyranny of a monarchy - a really far-out concept in his day. I listened to the Reverend and IMO what he said just isn't right.


Staff?

[camoor]

Staff?

After the war, Washington often privately expressed a dislike of the institution of slavery. In 1786, he wrote to a friend that "I never mean ... to possess another slave by purchase; it being among my first wishes to see some plan adopted, by which slavery in this Country may be abolished by slow, sure and imperceptible degrees." To another friend he wrote that "there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do to see some plan adopted for the abolition" of slavery. He expressed moral support for plans by his friend the Marquis de Lafayette to emancipate slaves and resettle them elsewhere, but he did not assist him in the effort

During the years when Washington was alive, the laws of Virginia did not permit any slave owner to emancipate a slave without imposing a great financial burden to himself. Thus, the only remaining means to dispose of one's slaves was to sell them, and had Washington not been opposed to this practice, he gladly would have used that means to end his ownership of all slaves. As he explained "Were it not that I am principled against selling Negroes... I would not in twelve months from this date be possessed of one as a slave."

The personal circumstances faced by Washington prove that his convictions were indeed genuine and not merely rhetorical. The excess number of slaves which he held was economically unprofitable for Mount Vernon and caused a great financial burden on him. Washington wrote "It is demonstratively clear that on this Estate (Mount Vernon) I have more working Negroes by a full [half] than can be employed to any advantage in the farming system." Washington could have sold his "surplus" slaves and immediately have realized a substantial income. As prize-winning historian James Truslow Adams correctly observed, "One good field hand was worth as much as a small city lot. By selling a single slave, Washington could have paid for two years all the taxes he so complained about." Washington himself acknowledged the profit he could make by reducing the number of his slaves, declaring "[H]alf the workers I keep on this estate would render me greater net profit than I now derive from the whole."

Despite the financial benefits he could have reaped, Washington adamantly refused to sell any slaves, saying "To sell the overplus I cannot, because I am principled against this kind of traffic in the human species. To hire them out is almost as bad because they could not be disposed of in families to any advantage, and to disperse [break up] the families I have an aversion."

This stand by Washington was remarkable for his day. Refusing to sell slaves and also refusing to break up their families differentiates Washington from the culture around him during that early era and particularly from his State legislature. Virginia law, contrary to Washington's personal policy, recognized neither slave marriages nor slave families. Not only did Washington refuse to sell slaves or to break up their families, but he also felt a responsibility to take care of the slaves he held until there was, according to his own words, a "plan adopted by which slavery in this country may be abolished."

Not only did George Washington commit himself to caring for his slaves and to seeking a legal remedy by which they might be freed in his State, but he also took the leadership in doing so on the national level. The first federal racial civil rights law in America was passed on August 7, 1789 with the endorsing signature of President George Washington. That law, entitled "An Ordinance of the Territory of the United States Northwest of the River Ohio," prohibited slavery in any new State interested in seeking to enter the Union. Consequently, slavery was thus prohibited in all the American territories held at the time; and it was because of this law, signed by President George Washington, that Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin all prohibited slavery.

Despite the slow but steady progress made in many parts of the nation, especially in the North, the laws in Virginia were designed to discourage and prevent the emancipation of slaves. The loophole which finally allowed Washington to circumvent Virginia law was by emancipating his slaves on his death, which he did. Unfortunately, by the time of Thomas Jefferson's death, this loophole had been closed by the Virginia State Legislature, thus preventing Jefferson from doing the same.)

Washington was the only prominent, slaveholding Founding Father to emancipate his slaves. He did not free his slaves in his lifetime, however, but instead included a provision in his will to free his slaves upon the death of his wife. William Lee, Washington's longtime personal servant, was the only slave freed outright in the will. The will called for the ex-slaves to be provided for by Washington's heirs, the elderly ones to be clothed and fed, the younger ones to be educated and trained at an occupation. Washington did not own and could not emancipate the "dower slaves" at Mount Vernon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington_and_slavery

So let's see - he disagreed with the concept of slavery, after a certain point he never sold the slaves on his property (to his financial detriment), and he emancipated the slaves on his plantation at the time of his death while also providing for clothing, food, and education for said ex-slaves. If you have any inkling of how slaves in America were treated at the time, you would know that this was highly unusual. So yes, I may have erred in my word choice but I was trying to convey a point without belaboring it. History is not a zero-sum exercise, hopefully you can parse through the more subtle truth conveyed in the above paragraphs and afterwards feel free to form your own conclusion on the matter.

[Msut77]

So yes, I may have erred in my word choice but I was trying to convey a point without belaboring it.

I think the only point worth discussing here is that while Americans often know of slavery and even sometimes the horrors associated with it they rarely tend to examine it in a thoughtful way.

The questions that you were posing before about bad things being "news" to the American people leaves out the fact that there are still many Americans alive who did not really learn about 1/10th of what they should have learned because their school textbooks were pushing the Gone with the Wind mythos more than facts.

[camoor]

I think the only point worth discussing here is that while Americans often know of slavery and even sometimes the horrors associated with it they rarely tend to examine it in a thoughtful way.

The questions that you were posing before about bad things being "news" to the American people leaves out the fact that there are still many Americans alive who did not really learn about 1/10th of what they should have learned because their school textbooks were pushing the Gone with the Wind mythos more than facts.

Maybe I just had an extremely politically correct education, but could you please point me to one of these "Gone With the Wind" textbooks? I never saw the movie, but I believe you're intimating that modern American history books used in American high schools gloss over the historical realities of slavery in America and the Civil War battlefield conditions to spin yarns about 1860s smuggling and genteel Southern society. Just Amazon link it, Msut. It's the least you can do after I followed up my post with justification just to have you cherry-pick my response.

[Msut77]

Maybe I just had an extremely politically correct education, but could you please point me to one of these "Gone With the Wind" textbooks?

I am talking about older people. "Politically correct" textbooks are relatively new.

[Don Chubo]

The interview was a total softball lovefest, as expected. What is more interesting is the garbage Wright is spewing now - from his speech at the NAACP and the National Press Club.
He's getting up to Sharpton and Jackson territory now.

[camoor]

I am talking about older people. "Politically correct" textbooks are relatively new.

Isn't it funny how everything you said at first becomes progressively more muddled and less substantive.

Define "relatively new"

Better yet, link to one of these older textbooks that the older people allegedly used. When you say older do you mean 80 and 90 year-olds? Do you really think this population segment has the overarching impact on American politics that Wright is asserting exists. Do you really think that is the segment of America he was talking about?

[Msut77]

Isn't it funny how everything you said at first becomes progressively more muddled and less substantive.

What I said was perfectly clear.

If you would like to read a book on the subject there is always Lies my Teacher told me by James Loewen.

[Lv99 Slacker]

The interview was a total softball lovefest, as expected. What is more interesting is the garbage Wright is spewing now - from his speech at the NAACP and the National Press Club.
He's getting up to Sharpton and Jackson territory now.

A call for all of us to accept or tolerate our differences is "garbage"? I absolutely do, however, disagree on his point that we black people learn differently than ethno Europeans and people of such descent.

[mykevermin]

I believe he's right. I would put money down on the fact that most americans have no idea what we did to fellow americans who were from japanese decent during WW2. I would also suggest that most americans would say they knew that the us government was brutal to the native americans, but I doubt that they understand the scope of that brutality. Of course I'm not statician so I don't have those numbers. Just a feeling.

I disagree with that, if that's what Wright said. I think people have ample opportunities to learn about slavery and the history of the US' being intertwined - more than other topics.

It's a different issue entirely, however, from whether or not people (1) are willing or able to recognize that the legacy of slavery continues to this day in the forms of segregation, racism, and differential opportunities, or (2) give a shit about it even if they realize #1.

I think people know quite bloody well about slavery, and Wright's point, if this is it, is poorly made in that regard because his claim is so easily brushed aside. Of course we know about slavery. But instead, we live in a society that says "I had nothin' to do with slavery," "why isn't there a white entertainment television channel," "they're the ones who need to change," "Affirmative action is a racist policy," - and so on, failing to realize the hegemony of modern American society that has normalize whiteness.

What do I mean by normalization? Perhaps you can think of the reaction you had to the first time you saw that GTA: San Andreas had you controlling a black character. Ever have that reaction before to a game character's race? Did you pick up Mario Bros 20 years ago and think to yourself "woah, a white person gets represented in a game!"? I suspect not.

Ever think about what Master Chief looks like under his helmet? How often do you think of him as a white man?

I'm stretching to make points here, but Wright's argument is that modern American society is not colorblind - and defaults to white as the "normal" racial category - whites consider themselves to be devoid of race in the sense that there is no "us"-ness about whites from our own vantage point - white music, white food, white cultural moments, etc.

So when Wright talks about "white America," it's an interesting moment of reality, in an indirect way. Whites generally are aghast at the suggestion of their responsibility in perpetuating racism. "WE didn't do anything!" they say. "Besides, there is no **WHITE AMERICA**! What do I have in common with other white folks?" The irony, of course, comes in the recognition that this is perhaps the first taste among whites of how it feels to be broadwashed and overgeneralized to the point of being incorrect and perhaps stereotyped - precisely what people do to blacks today, from calling Obama "black" and never "white," to talking about "black culture" as a meaningful bounded set of ideals, and "black society" as the same. What Wright is revealing to you is the astounding and powerful infuriation that comes from gross overgeneralization of racial characteristics - something many blacks see, feel, and experience (despite not wanting to!) almost every day. Now whites are appalled that it has happened once!

The nerve!

[camoor]

What I said was perfectly clear.

If you would like to read a book on the subject there is always Lies my Teacher told me by James Loewen.

Ah, a highly controversial book by an author who cherry-picked 12 non-widely used history textbooks, most of them not current in 1995 when he wrote the book. Michael Moore could learn a thing or two from James Loewen.

Congrats, that's just the conclusive proof I'm sure we all were looking for.

[Msut77]

Ah, a highly controversial book by an author who cherry-picked 12 non-widely used history textbooks, most of them not current in 1995 when he wrote the book.

So a little bit before 1995 (there is an updated edition you know) equals 80 and 90 year olds?

FYI the book is not all that controversial, people take issue with the authors view point but rarely the facts he presents. Last I checked the books were among the most popular that were being used all around the country.

[camoor]

So a little bit before 1995 (there is an updated edition you know) equals 80 and 90 year olds?

FYI the book is not all that controversial, people take issue with the authors view point but rarely the facts he presents. Last I checked the books were among the most popular that were being used all around the country.

Oh, so the 1970s are a little bit before 1995? And you accuse me of playing games?

I was asking you to clarify, up to your last post I hadn't had seen any lines in the sand from you, it was all vague assertions about "older people" learning history from "Gone With the Wind" Being that that's a early 20th century movie, I felt it only fair to ask if you were referring to people from that era (went way over your head, as usual)

The first I heard about this 'American history as lies' book is your mention so I've been playing catchup.

But here's a little history lesson for you my friend

Popular =/= accurate.

Also, anyone can pick out 12 (only 12!) non-widely circulated history books, most of them pre-1980, and use them to prove whatever point he wants to prove. Unless Loewen vastly widened the number of history books that he bases his "research" on in later revisions, he has so severely limited his research scope that his claims of factual accuracy are rather negligible to me. Beyond that I've read plenty of controversy over his analysis in just 20 min of googling.

My final point being that the fact I read Zinn in HS and you read Loewen should give you some indication that education has changed.

[Msut77]

Oh, so the 1970s are a little bit before 1995?

Some of those books were written well before the 1970s or their main narrative was, it is irrelevant however since the point is that they were still being used until the mid 90s or so. And anyway people who went to elementary or even high school in the 1970s are still hardly a few nonagenarians.

Also, anyone can pick out 12 (only 12!) non-widely circulated history books

The updated version has newer or updated books and some still repeat the same mindless garbage, again just like with the previous edition these are books used all over the country that are "widely circulated" no matter how you wish to define the term.

My final point being that the fact I read Zinn in HS and you read Loewen should give you some indication that education has changed.

I read Zinn and Loewen in Highschool but it was not assigned to any but the AP classes we are not talking the majority of Americans here.

Popular =/= accurate.

I was pointing out that the books he mentioned were popular and widely used contrary to the talking point you are clinging to.

It would be much more important for you to realize that something that is "controversial" is not necessarily inaccurate. As I said before some consider his point of view radical but hardly anyone has attacked his command of the facts. I noticed you have not even attempted that in your underwhelming response.

[camoor]

As I said before some consider his point of view radical but hardly anyone has attacked his command of the facts. I noticed you have not even attempted that in your underwhelming response.

When an author cherry-picks a very small sample, he may be factually accurate in his analysis of that sample but the results are meaningless.

By way of analogy - it's as if someone here said that all of the Chinese immigrants they know work in the restaurant industry. That may be factually accurate but it doesn't mean that all Chinese immigrants work in the restaurant industry, or even that a majority of Chinese immigrants work in the restaurant industry.

[Msut77]

When an author cherry-picks a very small sample, he may be factually accurate in his analysis of that sample but the results are meaningless.

It is not as if he took a poll using only 12 people, nor did he cherry pick or examine only a "few" by the standards of widely used textbooks.

Loewen and his book are "factually accurate" and your grasping at straws is getting tiresome.

[camoor]

It is not as if he took a poll using only 12 people, nor did he cherry pick or examine only a "few" by the standards of widely used textbooks.

Loewen and his book are "factually accurate" and your grasping at straws is getting tiresome.

Have fun believing in your alternate history.

[Msut77]

Have fun believing in your alternate history.

Is...that...your response?

Would you like to try again?

[elprincipe]

calling Obama "black" and never "white,"

That is an excellent point. It's strange why Obama is characterized as "black" when he is 1/2 black and 1/2 white. They could say he's "white" and be just as accurate. I find it strange that our society defines anyone who is even partly of African descent as "black."

Anyway, here are some quotes I found disturbing from Rev. Wright's NPC speech:

"I stand before you to open up this two-day symposium with the hope that this most recent attack on the black church -- this is not an attack on Jeremiah Wright; it is an attack on the black church."

"As I've said, this is not an attack on Jeremiah Wright. It has nothing to do with Senator Obama. This is an attack on the black church launched by people who know nothing about the African- American religious tradition."

" As I said, this was an attack on the black church. It was not about Obama, McCain, Hillary, Bill, Chelsea; this was about the black church. This was about Barbara Jordan. This was about Fannie Lou Hamer. This was about my grandmama. (Applause.)"

Bullshit. Because people find things you say disturbing it's an attack on all black churches? Bullshit.

"You cannot do terrorism on other people and expect it never to come back on you."

Here he accuses our government of terrorism. I am wondering to what he refers.

" MS. LEINWAND: In your sermon, you said the government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color. So I ask you: Do you honestly believe your statement and those words?

REV. WRIGHT: Have you read Horowitz's book "Emerging Viruses: AIDS and Ebola"? Whoever wrote that question, have you read "Medical Apartheid"? You've read it? "

After this he doesn't ever answer the question outright, but it's safe to say from his response that he still believes that, which is obvously ridiculous.

" MS. LEINWAND: Can you elaborate on your comparison of the Roman soldiers who killed Jesus to the U.S. Marine Corps? Do you still believe that is an appropriate comparison? And why?

REV. WRIGHT: One of the things that will be covered at symposiums over the next two days is biblical history, which many of the working press are unfamiliar with.

(Laughter.)

In biblical history, there's not one word written in the Bible, between Genesis and Revelation, that was not written under one of six different kinds of oppression: Egyptian oppression, Assyrian oppression, Persian oppression, Greek oppression, Roman oppression, Babylonian oppression.

The Roman oppression is the period in which Jesus was born. And comparing imperialism that was going on in Luke, imperialism was going on when Caesar Augustus sent out a degree that the whole world should be taxed -- they were in charge of the world; sounds like some other governments I know -- that yes, I can compare that. We have troops stationed all over the world, just like Rome had troops stationed all over the world, because we run the world. That notion of imperialism is not the message of the Gospel of the Prince of Peace nor God, who loves the world. (Applause.) "

Another roundabout/non-answer, although you can conclude that he does liken the U.S. military to the Roman soldiers who crucified Christ.

"

[looploop]

" MS. LEINWAND: Can you elaborate on your comparison of the Roman soldiers who killed Jesus to the U.S. Marine Corps? Do you still believe that is an appropriate comparison? And why?

REV. WRIGHT: One of the things that will be covered at symposiums over the next two days is biblical history, which many of the working press are unfamiliar with.

That's interesting. I wonder if he felt like a Roman soldier when he was in the marine corps or if it's a pattern of thought that emerged later.

[Ikohn4ever]

you gotta at least like this part

When asked whether he was sufficiently patriotic, he replied, "I served six years in the military. Does that make me patriotic? How many years did Cheney serve?"

[mykevermin]

Anyway, here are some quotes I found disturbing from Rev. Wright's NPC speech:

"I stand before you to open up this two-day symposium with the hope that this most recent attack on the black church -- this is not an attack on Jeremiah Wright; it is an attack on the black church."

"As I've said, this is not an attack on Jeremiah Wright. It has nothing to do with Senator Obama. This is an attack on the black church launched by people who know nothing about the African- American religious tradition."

" As I said, this was an attack on the black church. It was not about Obama, McCain, Hillary, Bill, Chelsea; this was about the black church. This was about Barbara Jordan. This was about Fannie Lou Hamer. This was about my grandmama. (Applause.)"

Oh, I think he's spot on, here. It's not an assault to end or stop black churches, but it's a means of delegitimizing black voices in the political spectrum. "Their churches are strange, man, and all kinds of fucked up. I can't believe anyone would act like that or listen to that nonsense."

You can see it when you hear "black liberation theology" thrown under the bus with Wright. They're going after a religious perspective on the whole, and Wright is simply the catalyst.

Strangely enough, it's working - meanwhile, white religious nutjobs who are overly involved in divisive issues and too immersed in politics, like Pat Robertson, James Dobson, Bill Donohue, and John Hagee, are virtually ignored in terms of their vitriol, venom, and political influence.

It's like Joel Osteen and Pope Benedict are comin' out lookin' like the only legit christians left.

[thrustbucket]

That is an excellent point. It's strange why Obama is characterized as "black" when he is 1/2 black and 1/2 white. They could say he's "white" and be just as accurate. I find it strange that our society defines anyone who is even partly of African descent as "black."

Do you honestly believe someone with his political experience would be where he is right now if he were always considered white and his name was Dave Smith?


Oh, I think he's spot on, here. It's not an assault to end or stop black churches, but it's a means of delegitimizing black voices in the political spectrum. "Their churches are strange, man, and all kinds of fucked up. I can't believe anyone would act like that or listen to that nonsense."


You can see it when you hear "black liberation theology" thrown under the bus with Wright. They're going after a religious perspective on the whole, and Wright is simply the catalyst.

Strangely enough, it's working - meanwhile, white religious nutjobs who are overly involved in divisive issues and too immersed in politics, like Pat Robertson, James Dobson, Bill Donohue, and John Hagee, are virtually ignored in terms of their vitriol, venom, and political influence.


Divisive? The very existence, encouragement, and prorogation of a "(insert favorite race here) church" should be considered divisive.

I absolutely love how religous white people confronting the same issues are "divisive" and nutjobs". But it's totally acceptable, misunderstood, and even championed when the so-called "spiritual" leader of a so-called "black church" does it.

At this point, you can't be taken seriously with this kind of talk anymore unless you also stand up for a KKK church with all the same logic, just to be fair.

Just when I think your social double standards couldn't stack any higher, you always prove us wrong.

[mykevermin]

They're not (to my knowledge) racially divisive. I'm referring to the "get out the homo-hater vote" with constitutional amendments against gay marriage in 2004 (and to lesser degree in 2006).

You casually ignore the substantial legacy of the "(insert favorite race here) church" in the civil rights movement. It has an identity and culture of its own. So you can point the finger and say *they're* the ones who are being divisive and separate, but in doing so you overlook hundreds of years of segregated worship, the cultural shifts that create that identity in that time (which, when you're religiously isolated, is bound to happen), as well as the central role that black churches and church leaders played in the civil rights movement.

Ignoring that ("that" being loosely translated into "a knowledge that extends beyond whatever uninformed nonsense turns on your synapses right about now, since you have nothing but opinion to back your claims"), well, you may be onto something. :lol:

KKK church = black liberation theology?

Well, guess that's really all that needs to be said in order to demonstrate that Wright's comments about how this is no longer about him or Obama is spot-the-fuck-on.

And here we find again that it's perfectly fine for an uninformed white boy to broadly brush how blacks worship while acting like it's the greatest offense of all time that it happens to whites. But I guess it's an easier pill to swallow when it happens dozens of times every day from almost all people, instead of one public occasion from one preacher. ;)

[thrustbucket]

myke,

Look, if you really believe promoting race-based religions or religious gatherings is progressive and somehow good for social progression based on whatever good they did in the past, then that's your prerogative.

I am simply saying that I personally would prefer to see more encouragement of people coming together, sharing cultures, and mixing in all aspects of society.

Your right, it's my opinion. I don't feel I need studies and facts to back up my belief that segregation, of any kind (except maybe locker rooms), is ultimately bad. If you think I do, well then... do what you do best and bash me for it.

As far as the "black church"... Sure, I can see the value it has had... 30-40 years ago. I say let's be grateful for that, always remember it, and realize that maybe as a society we can't really move on until we push segregation, even self segregation, completely out of society. Or is that not being progressive enough?

[mykevermin]

Fair enough; what have you done lately to help move in that direction?

[VipFREAK]

I saw this guy on Anderson 360 tonight... Umm... Can we have THIS GUY for prez?? Plez? It's amazing someone with actual common sense. Scary part is he's religious and I hate religion. But fuck... if his actions are held by "god" it's better than being held by politics.

[thrustbucket]

Fair enough; what have you done lately to help move in that direction?

Good question. Never enough. But I'm always conscious of it.

I know you think people are foolish for attempting to be "colorblind". Maybe it's cheesy and idealistic, but that's what I strive for, as impossible as it might be.

I work too damn much, and drive too damn much to do much good in that regard, unfortunately. And I feel bad about it, I really do. But all we can do are the little things. Such as trying not to judge someone based on how they look or talk.

As far as segregation goes.... I guess I sometimes try to make an effort to involve those around me that are different. At work, in meetings or whatever, if there is one female or Asian or black in a room full of white guys, I will try to strike up a conversation and just be friendly. At the very least I try hard to smile at them... as stupid as that might sound.

I've always had a very strong drive to make everyone feel included... and I guess I expect the same out of others.

Seriously though... What would you suggest I do? I'm open.

[mykevermin]

Good question. Never enough. But I'm always conscious of it.

I know you think people are foolish for attempting to be "colorblind". Maybe it's cheesy and idealistic, but that's what I strive for, as impossible as it might be.

I work too damn much, and drive too damn much to do much good in that regard, unfortunately. And I feel bad about it, I really do. But all we can do are the little things. Such as trying not to judge someone based on how they look or talk.

I look at 'colorblind society' the way you look at 'communism.' It just won't work, and it never will, hombre.

It's like the idea that people who smoke weed and try to get all philosophical talk about. "aw, man, one day everyone's gonna inbreed some much there's not gone BE any more race!" Well, that's a load of shit - as long as there is physical variation between people to be differentiated, we will have 'race.' Ask the protestants and the Catholics in Ireland how similar they are. ;)

As far as segregation goes.... I guess I sometimes try to make an effort to involve those around me that are different. At work, in meetings or whatever, if there is one female or Asian or black in a room full of white guys, I will try to strike up a conversation and just be friendly. At the very least I try hard to smile at them... as stupid as that might sound.

I've always had a very strong drive to make everyone feel included... and I guess I expect the same out of others.

Seriously though... What would you suggest I do? I'm open.

Not expect everyone to worship the same way you do, for starters. ;)

nighty-night. I mean it this time.

[thrustbucket]

I look at 'colorblind society' the way you look at 'communism.' It just won't work, and it never will, hombre.

It's like the idea that people who smoke weed and try to get all philosophical talk about. "aw, man, one day everyone's gonna inbreed some much there's not gone BE any more race!" Well, that's a load of shit - as long as there is physical variation between people to be differentiated, we will have 'race.' Ask the protestants and the Catholics in Ireland how similar they are. ;)
So are you saying we should embrace certain clearly divisive institutions and functions of society simply because it's impossible to overcome?

Do you feel we should give up on the war on drugs too? Everyone knows that one can't be "won" either.

In my every day life, and every other persons every day life, do you feel we should attempt to treat each other equally regardless of color? Or do you feel we should attempt to treat everyone equally of certain races, but some races we should give special treatment?

I'm seriously confused as to what your own personal answer for the "race" issue is. I know what you think government should do. But what do you think individuals should do?



Not expect everyone to worship the same way you do, for starters. ;)
Oh I certainly don't.
But I also would not call a group of self-segregated people in a room getting each other all whipped up with negative energy over social issues "worshiping". That's not a religion. Especially not a Christian religion.
I see it about as useful and valid as a "religion" as the groups that talk about the eradication of certain ethnic groups in their services.

If me and my buddies sit in a room and vent about how much we can't stand old people, we don't get to call it a religion or define what we are doing as "worship" just because we started with prayer.

You can call me intolerant if you like, but whenever a religion steps over the line into stereotyping, ethnic generalization, and political attacks.... I don't consider it a religion anymore. It's something else entirely.


On a different note, given your interests and background, what is your take on this (http://kotaku.com/384988/immigrant-welfare-group-criticizes-gta-iv)? Is there legitimacy to that concern?

[mykevermin]

So are you saying we should embrace certain clearly divisive institutions and functions of society simply because it's impossible to overcome?

Do you feel we should give up on the war on drugs too? Everyone knows that one can't be "won" either.

In my every day life, and every other persons every day life, do you feel we should attempt to treat each other equally regardless of color? Or do you feel we should attempt to treat everyone equally of certain races, but some races we should give special treatment?

I'm seriously confused as to what your own personal answer for the "race" issue is. I know what you think government should do. But what do you think individuals should do?

Well, treating folks as individuals is fine, but I think that 'colorblindness' is absurd. Treat folks as individuals, but respect differences. Kwanzaa was made up, sure - but so what? Christmas was made up, too - just a helluva lot longer ago. Embrace cultural differences - we sure do it withing European ethnic groups - my anglo friends adore soccer and celebrate St. George's day (did so last week, in fact) and ask me to come drinking with them at 9AM on Saturday for the West Ham/Man U match. My Irish friends celebrate St. Patrick's Day, tend to bias towards orthodox Catholicism and perpetually mock Baptists and nondenominational types...I could go on for hours. This is amongst white groups, of course - but the differences, while they may be there, are both identifiable as individual traits, but groups traits as well.

I think that there's a major difference between you and I (and you'll agree) in that I see a great deal more racism in society than you do. Colorblindness allows people to coverup their racist decisions, like when black folks are disproportionately turned down for rental property (by wide margins, mind you) when they and comparative white folks all made inquiries over the phone. Racial attributions can be made without seeing a person - we identify by voice (inflection, dialect, vocabulary), we identify by name. And we're not always right, but we're right enough that it seems legit.

But since we disagree on those differences, I think that's kind of where we stop. Treating people as individuals is fine (but don't forget to recognize group traits in those individuals as well) - but where we differ is that I think Rev. Wright is correct in his points about modern society. Blacks are still victims of a far more covert (and thus more dangerous because of the greater degree of plausible deniability than good old time "$$$$er" racism) form of racism.

I support Affirmative Action policies that heavily fine those who treat groups differently - what, do you want to sue for the right to work at a place that just turned you down because you are black? No way, dude. But it's not to be implemented in quotas (if you want to do quotas, start in preschool, rather than at the collegiate level, where structural differences in life experiences and situations have made developmental differences that are largely irreversible), but, rather, in the way it was meant - retroactive policing of racist and biased hiring and promoting practices. Blocking off avenues for certain groups, in other words. Besides, it's a racial preference standard we have now - because of the bias that persists, if you're white you're given preferential treatment in today's market. So even in the absence of pro-minority AA, we have pro-majority AA instead.

I think of race relations, at the national level, like Lucy (whites/government) and Charlie Brown (blacks). Lucy isn't as sinister, and she really would like, at some point, to allow Charlie to kick the football. Charlie, being duped again, will always go for the football (opportunity). At the last minute, though, that football seems to leap from the ground, and Charlie misses his opportunity again - and gets fed up, blames Lucy (who isn't wholly responsible, but was the one holding the football), and says "fuck this, I quit." Like the old "fool me once, shame on you..." adage.

Both blacks and whites need to recognize and respect other group differences, treat people with dignity, but move beyond colorblindness. It's not "separate but equal" again - it's just "group differences," like southerns being more Baptist and northeasterners being more Catholic. And Californians just more goofy. But the key is that nothing, at all, will change unless both groups actively seek out the problems they have created, and the biases they need to work out. Simply thinking to yourself "okay, I'll treat all people nicely" isn't enough - you have to actively work against racism in the places where it is hidden in this day and age. And that's a lot of places.

Oh I certainly don't.
But I also would not call a group of self-segregated people in a room getting each other all whipped up with negative energy over social issues "worshiping". That's not a religion. Especially not a Christian religion.
I see it about as useful and valid as a "religion" as the groups that talk about the eradication of certain ethnic groups in their services.

If me and my buddies sit in a room and vent about how much we can't stand old people, we don't get to call it a religion or define what we are doing as "worship" just because we started with prayer.

You can call me intolerant if you like, but whenever a religion steps over the line into stereotyping, ethnic generalization, and political attacks.... I don't consider it a religion anymore. It's something else entirely.


On a different note, given your interests and background, what is your take on this (http://kotaku.com/384988/immigrant-welfare-group-criticizes-gta-iv)? Is there legitimacy to that concern?

Dunno about the GTA thing.

As for your perception of this church as "intolerant," we just simply disagree. I see other churches as having degrees of intolerance - intolerant of homosexuals, intolerant of women, intolerant of recognizing functional ideas to reduce unwanted pregnancies instead of taking an idiotic "STOP ABORTION NOW!" campaign and throwing out the baby with the bathwater. It certainly is not unique to Wright's church.

[thrustbucket]

I think that there's a major difference between you and I (and you'll agree) in that I see a great deal more racism in society than you do. Colorblindness allows people to coverup their racist decisions, like when black folks are disproportionately turned down for rental property (by wide margins, mind you) when they and comparative white folks all made inquiries over the phone. Racial attributions can be made without seeing a person - we identify by voice (inflection, dialect, vocabulary), we identify by name. And we're not always right, but we're right enough that it seems legit.
Yeah I guess we just have to agree to disagree. I do agree with you that racisim persists in ways you describe. I'm not in denial of that. And honestly, you've helped open my eyes more to it, so thanks.

But I guess my approach to "fixing" it is a little different than you. Which is fine. My experience is that most minorities don't want preferential treatment, or be treated as special cases.... they want more than anything to just be treated as what they percieve as "normal"... so that's what I strive for.

But since we disagree on those differences, I think that's kind of where we stop. Treating people as individuals is fine (but don't forget to recognize group traits in those individuals as well) - but where we differ is that I think Rev. Wright is correct in his points about modern society. Blacks are still victims of a far more covert (and thus more dangerous because of the greater degree of plausible deniability than good old time "$$$$er" racism) form of racism.

I support Affirmative Action policies that heavily fine those who treat groups differently - what, do you want to sue for the right to work at a place that just turned you down because you are black? No way, dude. But it's not to be implemented in quotas (if you want to do quotas, start in preschool, rather than at the collegiate level, where structural differences in life experiences and situations have made developmental differences that are largely irreversible), but, rather, in the way it was meant - retroactive policing of racist and biased hiring and promoting practices. Blocking off avenues for certain groups, in other words. Besides, it's a racial preference standard we have now - because of the bias that persists, if you're white you're given preferential treatment in today's market. So even in the absence of pro-minority AA, we have pro-majority AA instead.

I think of race relations, at the national level, like Lucy (whites/government) and Charlie Brown (blacks). Lucy isn't as sinister, and she really would like, at some point, to allow Charlie to kick the football. Charlie, being duped again, will always go for the football (opportunity). At the last minute, though, that football seems to leap from the ground, and Charlie misses his opportunity again - and gets fed up, blames Lucy (who isn't wholly responsible, but was the one holding the football), and says "fuck this, I quit." Like the old "fool me once, shame on you..." adage.

I do appreciate your position on all of this. I find it very interesting, and it gives me a lot to think about. I disagree with some of it, and I am considering the rest.

Both blacks and whites need to recognize and respect other group differences, treat people with dignity, but move beyond colorblindness. It's not "separate but equal" again - it's just "group differences," like southerns being more Baptist and northeasterners being more Catholic. And Californians just more goofy. But the key is that nothing, at all, will change unless both groups actively seek out the problems they have created, and the biases they need to work out. Simply thinking to yourself "okay, I'll treat all people nicely" isn't enough - you have to actively work against racism in the places where it is hidden in this day and age. And that's a lot of places.
Love the Californian remark. :applause:
I work with a bunch, they sure are goofy.

I appreciate the fact that you finally mention, or at least hint here (even though it took you a while in this post) that the racial tension door swings both ways. I guess part of what has bothered me about what you have said in the past so often on Race issues, is you come off as it all being very one sided. It's nice to see that you recognize it isn't. As I've described before, Affirmative action type laws historically have some concrete negative effects to, which perpetuate racial strain, imo. But I'm cautiously hopeful, if you want to attempt to refine these laws.

It's endlessly debatable just how guilty minorities are of helping perpetuate their stereotypes, but it's important to remember that everyone is guilty to an extent.

As for your perception of this church as "intolerant," we just simply disagree. I see other churches as having degrees of intolerance - intolerant of homosexuals, intolerant of women, intolerant of recognizing functional ideas to reduce unwanted pregnancies instead of taking an idiotic "STOP ABORTION NOW!" campaign and throwing out the baby with the bathwater. It certainly is not unique to Wright's church.
Ok, you make some valid points here. You are mostly right though, and imo none of those things belong in a religion. We'd do best to weed them out. Religion, imo, does what it does best at helping an individual grow, progress, and self-realize spiritual things... which in turn should build a nicer, kinder, more service oriented populace. Social issues don't really belong in religions, it rarely does any good.

I guess I'm very much like Syria refusing to recognize Israel on general principle. I refuse to recognize any religion that whips people into a frenzy over social issues, as I feel that's contrary to the purpose of religion.

Im summary, great post. Thank you for it. This is the type of discussion I come here to have.

[camoor]

You know, I have been a member of Trinity United Church of Christ since 1992. I have known Reverend Wright for almost 20 years. The person I saw yesterday was not the person that I met 20 years ago. His comments were not only divisive and destructive, but I believe that they end up giving comfort to those who prey on hate and I believe that they do not portray accurately the perspective of the black church.
...Let me just close by saying this: I -- we started this campaign with the idea that the problems that we face as a country are too great to continue to be divided, that, in fact, all across America people are hungry to get out of the old divisive politics of the past.
I have spoken and written about the need for us to all recognize each other as Americans, regardless of race or religion or region of the country; that the only way we can deal with critical issues, like energy and health care and education and the war on terrorism, is if we are joined together. And the reason our campaign has been so successful is because we had moved beyond these old arguments.
What we saw yesterday out of Reverend Wright was a resurfacing and, I believe, an exploitation of those old divisions. Whatever his intentions, that was the result. It is antithetical to our campaign. It is antithetical to what I am about. It is not what I think American stands for.
- Barack Obama


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/29/us/politics/29text-obama.html?em&ex=1209614400&en=d2ddde5f2a0b02e0&ei=5087%0A

Thank goodness.

[SpiderLocMTGO]

My fiancee is black and I am white, and race doesn't matter to anyone in either of our families. My family treats my faincee's family the same as they treat my sister's white fiance's family, and vice-versa. Racism and negaitivity are definitely not something all "black churches" (as this "Reverend" puts it) are about.

Blaming difficulties prevelant among blacks in the United States on whites in the government is NOT going to help, it just breeds hate and contempt. If he really cared about his congregation, he would teach them about safe sex and how diseases are transmitted. Scaring them out of getting medical attention from "The Man" helps no one. There are reasons I am vocally against divisive organizations such as the NAACP and their spawn such as Sharpton and Jackson, and now Wright. I am appalled that people would cheer for such a hateful and short-sighted speech.

[elprincipe]

I look at 'colorblind society' the way you look at 'communism.' It just won't work, and it never will, hombre.

Only if you expect 100% of people to give up their prejudices. In a free society (or even a not free society) that will never happen. But we have shown that we can get pretty close, and we have made great strides. Yes, there are still problems in this area, to be sure. I doubt many would claim otherwise. But we are within sight of the goal, of race being only a significant factor for a small fringe group of people.

I guess I'm a lot more optimistic than you are, but looking at our history I think this optimism is justified. We've been through a lot of horrible things and usually come out the stronger. I think it is happening before our very eyes on this issue.

[thrustbucket]

My fiancee is black and I am white, and race doesn't matter to anyone in either of our families. My family treats my faincee's family the same as they treat my sister's white fiance's family, and vice-versa. Racism and negaitivity are definitely not something all "black churches" (as this "Reverend" puts it) are about.

Blaming difficulties prevelant among blacks in the United States on whites in the government is NOT going to help, it just breeds hate and contempt. If he really cared about his congregation, he would teach them about safe sex and how diseases are transmitted. Scaring them out of getting medical attention from "The Man" helps no one. There are reasons I am vocally against divisive organizations such as the NAACP and their spawn such as Sharpton and Jackson, and now Wright. I am appalled that people would cheer for such a hateful and short-sighted speech.

Oh lord have you opened a can of worms....

Run and hide while you still can :)

[SpiderLocMTGO]

*runs and hides... like a ninja*

:-\"

[mykevermin]

Only if you expect 100% of people to give up their prejudices. In a free society (or even a not free society) that will never happen. But we have shown that we can get pretty close, and we have made great strides. Yes, there are still problems in this area, to be sure. I doubt many would claim otherwise. But we are within sight of the goal, of race being only a significant factor for a small fringe group of people.

I guess I'm a lot more optimistic than you are, but looking at our history I think this optimism is justified. We've been through a lot of horrible things and usually come out the stronger. I think it is happening before our very eyes on this issue.

Based on what do you level all these platitudes on the nation? That the black preacher is an overwhelming source of media scrutiny, when it's NEVER ONCE happened with a divisive, hateful, and vitriolic? When racism happen in durable, predictable, and widespread patterns all across the nation, 40 years after the passage of the civil rights act?

This is no time to pat yourself on the back, my friend. The work not only isn't complete, but the foundation's corroding at the bottom already and you don't even see it happening.

My fiancee is black and I am white, and race doesn't matter to anyone in either of our families.

Doesn't shield you from any criticism. Keep in mind that my key point underlying all this is that the practice of racism no longer comes in the form of a group of folks in white hoods - it comes with a smile on its face, and its twice as dangerous as a result. It's taking the place of differential hiring, promoting, pay, lending at banks, provision of mortgages, renting, arresting, incarcerating, and now executions (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/29/us/29bar.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&oref=slogin).

Blaming difficulties prevelant among blacks in the United States on whites in the government is NOT going to help, it just breeds hate and contempt.

Be clear: it will breed hate and contempt among whites - just like affirmative action policies, many non-minority people are just fine with the current policies we have in place. They do not realize, of course, that it's just another form of racial preference for whites.

If he really cared about his congregation, he would teach them about safe sex and how diseases are transmitted.

I would say the same about any church that's actively promoting an anti-abortion agenda. By focusing on the hate and scandalous aspect of it, you've ignored looking at solutions that would work (e.g., reducing unwanted pregnancies).

Scaring them out of getting medical attention from "The Man" helps no one. There are reasons I am vocally against divisive organizations such as the NAACP and their spawn such as Sharpton and Jackson, and now Wright. I am appalled that people would cheer for such a hateful and short-sighted speech.

Oh, look. It's another person who seems to think that all the racially divisive people are black, and that it's whites who are politely waiting for blacks to collectively wake up and start behaving themselves. :roll:

[camoor]

My fiancee is black and I am white, and race doesn't matter to anyone in either of our families. My family treats my faincee's family the same as they treat my sister's white fiance's family, and vice-versa. Racism and negaitivity are definitely not something all "black churches" (as this "Reverend" puts it) are about.

Blaming difficulties prevelant among blacks in the United States on whites in the government is NOT going to help, it just breeds hate and contempt. If he really cared about his congregation, he would teach them about safe sex and how diseases are transmitted. Scaring them out of getting medical attention from "The Man" helps no one. There are reasons I am vocally against divisive organizations such as the NAACP and their spawn such as Sharpton and Jackson, and now Wright. I am appalled that people would cheer for such a hateful and short-sighted speech.

Very reasonable.

It's depressing to see how others on this board jump at the chance to defend a devisive and backwards-thinking individual such as Wright. [-( Was there anything he could have said that would have dissuaded them?

At least Obama finally figured it out.

[mykevermin]

What's depressing is to see folks (1) assume that I agree with everything Wright has said thus far, which is untrue and putting words in my mouth, and also (2) that people would write off a person's argument entirely because it was framed poorly or had one or two easily disagreeable statements in it.

It's depressing to see people throw the baby out with the bathwater; it's more depressing to see someone throw them both out and stick out their ideological chest like they're a man of principle.

[Koggit]

I really doubt Obama "figured it out" so much as he saw that the American public (read: media) won't focus on America's issues so long as they can make a soap opera out of Wright. Controversial, racially-charged anger gets better ratings (slash readership) than education, energy and the economy.

It's sad that this has gone on for so long, eclipsing all other issues. It's really just depressing.

[Don Chubo]

What's depressing is to see folks (1) assume that I agree with everything Wright has said thus far, which is untrue and putting words in my mouth, and also (2) that people would write off a person's argument entirely because it was framed poorly or had one or two easily disagreeable statements in it.

Are you kidding? You do #s 1 and 2 quite a bit. :roll:

[SpiderLocMTGO]

This is no time to pat yourself on the back, my friend. The work not only isn't complete, but the foundation's corroding at the bottom already and you don't even see it happening.

Not sure what you mean by that. Are you saying the next generation is going to be racist? I defninitely don't see it happening.

Doesn't shield you from any criticism. Keep in mind that my key point underlying all this is that the practice of racism no longer comes in the form of a group of folks in white hoods - it comes with a smile on its face, and its twice as dangerous as a result. It's taking the place of differential hiring, promoting, pay, lending at banks, provision of mortgages, renting, arresting, incarcerating, and now executions (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/29/us/29bar.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&oref=slogin).

So you believe that so many people are closet racists. Whenever differential hiring, promoting, pay, etc. happen, I would like to think that the jilted employee would bring it up. If the hire-ups get away with that kind of stuff, it is wrong, and I don't defend it. However, I don't believe that differences in races are because of skin color and judgments based on that. Obviously, if a black man has less experience or a lesser education than a white man, he will likely (rightfully) receive less pay and be less suitable for the job. Why would an employer hire a lesser-qualified white instead of a more suitable black if the black brings the company more money? I'm familiar with at least one study that shows that even in times of more rampant racism that profit-seeking companies would hire minorities at a more proportional rate than the whistleblowers would have you believe. read Thomas Sowell's Affirmative Action Around The World if you want some insight into how race and laws that govern it have affected the world, including the United States. That execution study you linked is far from black and white (no pun intended), and it is irresponsible for that author to make such allegations without extremely thoroughly examining each case.

Be clear: it will breed hate and contempt among whites - just like affirmative action policies, many non-minority people are just fine with the current policies we have in place. They do not realize, of course, that it's just another form of racial preference for whites.

I agree, preferential treatment policies breed hate and contempt, and rightfully so. Affirmative action policies favoring blacks and just as bad as policies favoring whites. I'm not sure how affirmative action is just another form of racial preference for whites, however. I'm aware that in many instances it is bad for minorities, for instance a minority student getting into a college that is too tough for them that they would have otherwise not been accepted into, but that is bad for society as a whole. Something bad for minorities isn't automatically good for whites.

I would say the same about any church that's actively promoting an anti-abortion agenda. By focusing on the hate and scandalous aspect of it, you've ignored looking at solutions that would work (e.g., reducing unwanted pregnancies).

8-)I agree.

Oh, look. It's another person who seems to think that all the racially divisive people are black, and that it's whites who are politely waiting for blacks to collectively wake up and start behaving themselves. :roll:

Wow, I'd like to see where I said that. Living in east TN I see plenty of people, white, black, and Hispanic, who are racially divisive or just plain racist in general. I'm waiting for hoodlums and hillbillies alike to start getting some sense, thank you very much. ;)

[SpiderLocMTGO]

I really doubt Obama "figured it out" so much as he saw that the American public (read: media) won't focus on America's issues so long as they can make a soap opera out of Wright. Controversial, racially-charged anger gets better ratings (slash readership) than education, energy and the economy.

It's sad that this has gone on for so long, eclipsing all other issues. It's really just depressing.

I agree. I had to actually research the stances of the Democrats online, and even then there was little up-to-the-minute information. However, I can see how keeping such an apparently loony, racist person as your close associate and religious mentor is worth discussing. I'm glad he made the latest speech because, to be honest, I wouldn't want him as President, no matter how great his economic plans are.

[thrustbucket]

At least Obama finally figured it out.

He used polls to help him figure out what he really thinks about Wright and what he should say, like any modern politician would. I heard his campaign was polling about the issue the day before his speech.

Meanwhile we are all expected to believe that we all got to know Wright better in the last two months than Obama had the last 20 years.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

He used polls to help him figure out what he really thinks about Wright and what he should say, like any modern politician would. I heard his campaign was polling about the issue the day before his speech.

Meanwhile we are all expected to believe that we all got to know Wright better in the last two months than Obama had the last 20 years.

Maybe Obama is stupid. That only makes him slightly better than McCain.

[SpiderLocMTGO]

HMeanwhile we are all expected to believe that we all got to know Wright better in the last two months than Obama had the last 20 years.

That is a problem.

Choose One:

A) Obama chose to put up with the dude because he was okay except for that racism stuff. << Possibly, the guy did guide him to his faith, so he could have chose to put up with it.

B) Obama chose to attend because he was in agreement with what the pastor had to say. << Maybe, 20 years is a long time to put up with someone like this.

C) Rev. Wright just recently became a crazy psycho racist/anti-government guy and so Obama is just finding out about it. << I doubt this, since as far as I know at least 6 1/2 years ago he was spewing filth in his "sermons."

Sure, Obama knows a lot more about Wright than any of us, and that is what troubles me. If he knew him for so long to be a good guy, he would defend him. But he knows that Wright is a cancer on society, and probably has known for years, yet never did anything about it. Now he is just telling us what he wants to hear.

[mykevermin]

I wonder how many of you actually watched the video interview Moyers did? And if you still feel so strongly about Wright's "God damn America" phrase once you realized that it was said in the context of a sermon that discussed people moving their faith from God to government?

My guess is probably not, and probably anyway.

[camoor]

He used polls to help him figure out what he really thinks about Wright and what he should say, like any modern politician would. I heard his campaign was polling about the issue the day before his speech.

Meanwhile we are all expected to believe that we all got to know Wright better in the last two months than Obama had the last 20 years.

True, but after viewing the reaction at least he was able to figure out how divisive the words were to American society at large and act accordingly.

You say "like any modern politician", but Bush is a modern politician and he never talked like a unifier. Bush wasn't out to bring ppl together, he wanted a win for his voting base, period.

[thrustbucket]

Maybe Obama is stupid. That only makes him slightly better than McCain.

:D

Touche sir. That will be difficult to argue, so I'll not attempt it.

[mykevermin]

I'll go easy on you for being a first timer here, and only pick on this one point. Besides, I can finally get to play some GTA in a bit.

I'm not sure how affirmative action is just another form of racial preference for whites, however. I'm aware that in many instances it is bad for minorities, for instance a minority student getting into a college that is too tough for them that they would have otherwise not been accepted into, but that is bad for society as a whole. Something bad for minorities isn't automatically good for whites.

In this case, yes. Think of racial minority status as having a "social penalty" that goes along with it. You're more likely to get pulled over, more likely to be followed by loss prevention in stores, less likely to be hired or promoted for jobs, and so on.

The absence of that social penalty is, in fact, a social privilege. The privilege to not be followed or pulled over, the privilege to be hired - not because you *ARE* white, but because you *AREN'T* black.

That's a good thing. The current (again, repeated and predictable) patterns of hiring bias in this country show, time and again, blacks are discriminated against. For every act of discrimination, then, there is someone who gained a job, a raise, a promotion - or an apartment, or a mortgage - precisely because they weren't black. Had they been black, they would have likely been turned down. That's the current way things work: affirmative action that gives whites the advantage.

There are ample and repeated audit studies that demonstrate just how pervasive and deep racism continues to run in this country. I'd like to see the contrary one you mentioned earlier in this post.

[SpiderLocMTGO]

I'll go easy on you for being a first timer here, and only pick on this one point. Besides, I can finally get to play some GTA in a bit.



In this case, yes. Think of racial minority status as having a "social penalty" that goes along with it. You're more likely to get pulled over, more likely to be followed by loss prevention in stores, less likely to be hired or promoted for jobs, and so on.

The absence of that social penalty is, in fact, a social privilege. The privilege to not be followed or pulled over, the privilege to be hired - not because you *ARE* white, but because you *AREN'T* black.

That's a good thing. The current (again, repeated and predictable) patterns of hiring bias in this country show, time and again, blacks are discriminated against. For every act of discrimination, then, there is someone who gained a job, a raise, a promotion - or an apartment, or a mortgage - precisely because they weren't black. Had they been black, they would have likely been turned down. That's the current way things work: affirmative action that gives whites the advantage.

There are ample and repeated audit studies that demonstrate just how pervasive and deep racism continues to run in this country. I'd like to see the contrary one you mentioned earlier in this post.

I'm sure your local library has a copy. If you have access to online book databases they should have one as well.

Also, saying that one group of people have any real advantage simply because someone else has a disadvantage is inane.

Going back to my affirmative action example: Minorities lose because they are wrongfully accepted into a college that is too advanced for them. Well, whites must make out like bandits, then, right!

Wrong! Some of those minorities took up spots that would've otherwise been for white students (that's the entire point of affirmative action in colleges), and those white students have to go somewhere, so they go off to a college one tier lower than they would've otherwise gone, and acquire less knowledge than they otherwise could have.

Well, since whites just lost, looks like minorities won!

;)

You can't have a general rule like you are saying when there are solid, concrete examples to the contrary. Just because someone else has a disadvantage doesn't mean I have an advantage. If I was "pulled over while driving black" as the common excuse is, the ticket (or whatever they try to give) can be contested in courts, and most (all?) police cars are equipped with cameras and such nowadays. You could also possibly sue for harrassment if it happened as often as you claim it does, which would turn this into an advantage instead of a detriment.

As for the "blacks get paid less" deal, if a black person knows that the average person makes $X and they are looking for a job, they may be lowballed (more than a white) because they are black. I think this is wrong. However, it is EVERYONE'S job to know how much they are supposed to be making; companies aren't going to pay you what you are worth just because they feel like it. If the company has a good ROI on you, white or black, they are going to hire you. It costs them money to be racist, and companies don't like throwing money, and possibly PR, out the window.

I'm not saying racism doesn't exist, I'm just saying that it isn't as widespread as a lot of people think.

[mykevermin]

Let me try this one last time: I'm NOT, REPEAT NOT talking about the stereotype of the unqualified black student taking the qualified white student spot.

That's the problem with so many criticisms of AA policies; they seem to think that every case of black discrimination is due to some sort of hackneyed "Bakke" decision that put a dumbass black kid in medical school.

So let's go back to square one.

Two people.

EQUALLY QUALIFIED.

Let's stop there for a moment. What do I mean by equally qualified? Well, that would be "equally qualified." That's what I mean.

The strong and repeated patterns of discriminations against blacks in the case of people who are equally qualified is there.

In fact, racial bias against blacks is so strong that Devah Pager found that the hiring bias against *convicted felons* (when compared against equally qualified non-felons) was SMALLER than the bias against blacks!

Please, don't think I'm talking about taking someone "unqualified" for a spot and putting them in a deserving, achieved white kid's spot. That in itself is a rather racist stereotype, don't you think?

[SpiderLocMTGO]

So affirmative action only kicks in when the students are exactly the same? I didn't know that. I guess taking the minority by default isn't racist or anything in that situation. This also isn't a stereotype, it is a fact. I think you are pulling garbage out of your ass, and I am done with you. You are being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

Yeah, this won't end well.

[Msut77]

So affirmative action only kicks in when the students are exactly the same? I didn't know that. I guess taking the minority by default isn't racist or anything in that situation. This also isn't a stereotype, it is a fact. I think you are pulling garbage out of your ass, and I am done with you. You are being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative.

Myke has a tendency to be a pedantic nonce but he definitely knows his shit.

I have yet to see him flinch when challenged to provide data, you are going to look like (rightfully so BTW) you are running away because you got nothing.

[BigT]

At least in the domain of higher education, I really don't see much of a preference for whites as opposed to other races... if anything, it's the opposite.

Admissions comittees are almost invariably run by liberals who are pro-minority. As a boring, private school educated and outspoken conservative white guy whose main qualifications rested on a perfect GPA and >1500 SAT (on the old scale), I was somewhat surprised that some of my latino and black collegues with significantly lower numbers (<4 GPA, 1300s SAT) ended up at schools like Stanford, while all I got was a rejection letter...

To go further, in med schools, I would think being black would be a great benefit for admission because you are a rare commodity. Currently, classes seem to be composed mainly of Asians, Indians, Persians, and Jews followed by non-Jewish whites, and then latinos followed by blacks. Moreover, a big female predominance is building up... it seems like the prototypical medical student/resident nowadays is a 5 foot tall asian girl who has a chip on her shoulder from always being mistaken for a nurse... :D Regardless, all of the minority students with whom I have worked at this level are more than qualified for their positions; it's just that with admissions being so competitive (6-7 thousand applicants for about 100 positions per school) any edge helps! ... for med school admissions, I got wiser and totally hid my conservative leanings... which in hindsite was a good idea, since the democrat: republican ratio was about 20:1 to 50:1 among faculty and students alike. ;)

Still, the point is that no one is going to turn away a well qualified black student from college. The main problem lies in the fact that education is looked down upon in the rap culture espoused by the young black generation; not to mention the schools in those neighborhoods suck.

[Sarang01]

Well it doesn't help their fucking families always push them into medical shit. I wish more of those families would be open to them doing entertainment. It would be nice to see more Asian chicks and guys acting.

[mykevermin]

So affirmative action only kicks in when the students are exactly the same? I didn't know that. I guess taking the minority by default isn't racist or anything in that situation. This also isn't a stereotype, it is a fact. I think you are pulling garbage out of your ass, and I
am done with you. You are being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative.

I've yet to see you present a fact. That's a fact.

In the meantime:
Use of Black English and Racial Discrimination in Urban Housing Markets: New Methods and Findings (http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/inequality/Seminar/Papers/Massey.PDF)

The Mark of a Criminal Record (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.northwestern.edu%2Fipr%2Fpubl ications%2Fpapers%2F2003%2Fpagerajs.pdf&ei=fQIZSMWaHIXmgATb5JC4Dg&usg=AFQjCNHzl7bTV89Aty5dsr0fLfWH2pSITQ&sig2=Hs8I2ESlUwNynTeARLgjPA)

Those should last you for the next few hours. I'm goin' skating, and then I'm doing some writing.

In the meantime, I took an admittedly brief glimpse through Sowell's book and found not science, not empiricism, but a person who used anecdotes (Bakke blah blah) and other people's work to construct a case for damning affirmative action. You won't find any of that above. You'll find genuine empiricism, honest inquiry, bulletproof research methods, and findings that contradict one book written by someone with an agenda.

[BigT]

Well it doesn't help their Fucking families always push them into medical shit. I wish more of those families would be open to them doing entertainment. It would be nice to see more Asian chicks and guys acting.

I've got to hand it to the Asian population as a whole. They really seem to thrive under the educational system in America, despite often being 1st or 2nd generation immigrants...

[Sarang01]

I've got to hand it to the Asian population as a whole. They really seem to thrive under the educational system in America, despite often being 1st or 2nd generation immigrants...

Yes but do you know how fucked up their family system is? There was a teen around here, Esmie Tseng, whose family dynamic was even worse then the typical one.
Even mild I remember someone telling me how batshit one person's parents were, the mom punishing the kid for doing a subpar job on a particular instrument, not even realizing it was the first time they played the piece. See how she jumped the gun so badly?

[Koggit]

At least in the domain of higher education, I really don't see much of a preference for whites as opposed to other races... if anything, it's the opposite.

Admissions comittees are almost invariably run by liberals who are pro-minority. As a boring, private school educated and outspoken conservative white guy whose main qualifications rested on a perfect GPA and >1500 SAT (on the old scale), I was somewhat surprised that some of my latino and black collegues with significantly lower numbers (<4 GPA, 1300s SAT) ended up at schools like Stanford, while all I got was a rejection letter...

To go further, in med schools, I would think being black would be a great benefit for admission because you are a rare commodity. Currently, classes seem to be composed mainly of Asians, Indians, Persians, and Jews followed by non-Jewish whites, and then latinos followed by blacks. Moreover, a big female predominance is building up... it seems like the prototypical medical student/resident nowadays is a 5 foot tall asian girl who has a chip on her shoulder from always being mistaken for a nurse... :D Regardless, all of the minority students with whom I have worked at this level are more than qualified for their positions; it's just that with admissions being so competitive (6-7 thousand applicants for about 100 positions per school) any edge helps! ... for med school admissions, I got wiser and totally hid my conservative leanings... which in hindsite was a good idea, since the democrat: republican ratio was about 20:1 to 50:1 among faculty and students alike. ;)

Still, the point is that no one is going to turn away a well qualified black student from college. The main problem lies in the fact that education is looked down upon in the rap culture espoused by the young black generation; not to mention the schools in those neighborhoods suck.

Let me start by saying that I started my college education at a place that happens to be the most diverse college in Washington state, and I can honestly say that the diversity of that college has been invaluable in shaping who I am today.

I was never racist or closed minded, but after studying and bonding with so many different people of so many different backgrounds, I've developed a new sense of unity with all people. Whether you see it or not, most who live without diversity (read: most Americans) are disconnected from the rest of the world. When 1,500 die in Katrina it's a much bigger deal to America than when 224,000 die from the 2004 Indian Earthquake. Something's fundamentally wrong with that.

When you spend 15 hours a week studying differential equations with a guy who just moved from Kenya 3 months ago, you're learning more than just math whether you realize it or not. You're conditioning your mind to ignore political and social borders. Understanding human equality -- not just acknowledging it like most Americans do, but fundamentally understanding and feeling it, is perhaps the most important education anyone can receive.

I suppose this is just my long-winded ode to diversity. University admissions utilize AA to increase diversity, because we all benefit.

[mykevermin]

Whether you see it or not, most who live without diversity (read: most Americans) are disconnected from the rest of the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contact_hypothesis

It's a nice point you make about what people see in front of them. Much of the discussion I see here takes place in the form of people denying what they don't see or understand, and conforming situational interpretations to fit the myths they believe.

[camoor]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contact_hypothesis

It's a nice point you make about what people see in front of them. Much of the discussion I see here takes place in the form of people denying what they don't see or understand, and conforming situational interpretations to fit the myths they believe.

But everything he said is anecdotal and a matter of interpretation.

Oh that's right - you won't call it, because anecdotal evidence and personal theories on how people view others actually count if you happen to agree with it.

[mykevermin]

The contact hypothesis is generally accepted among the social sciences, as it's endured some pretty rigorous empirical tests.

[level1online]

Up until today, I have blatantly ignored this entire Rev. Wright scandal and merely brushed it off as another political distraction.

What really perked me up today was this....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RPAtWF9eo4


BRAVO!!! Rev. Wright!!!!! :applause::applause::applause::applause:

[BigT]

Rev. Wright should know better. It's preposterous to state that AIDS was created to kill black people! Everyone knows that it was created by the government to kill homosexuals... ;)

[thrustbucket]

I guess Rev Wright forgot to mention the mass soviet convoys seen by satellite 3 weeks before the invasion....

[level1online]

Rev. Wright should know better. It's preposterous to state that AIDS was created to kill black people! Everyone knows that it was created by the government to kill homosexuals... ;)

I understand that your being sarcastic or facetious, but seriously, the AIDS virus was designed to reduce the "undesirables" from the population, not just 1 group.

Google: "William Cooper" & "AIDS"

here's a little excerpt of what he wrote.... and btw, he's now dead. murdered shortly after 9/11.

---------
---------

The orders were given to develop the microbe and to also develop a
cure and a prophylactic. The microbe would be used against the general
population and would be introduced by vaccine administered by the
World Health Organization. The prophylactic was to be used by the
ruling elite. The cure will be administered to the survivors when they
decide that enough people have died. It will be announced as newly
developed. This plan was called Global 2000. The cure and the
prophylactic are suppressed. Funding was obtained from the U.S.
Congress under H.B. 15090 where $10 million was given to the Department
of Defense to produce "a synthetic biological agent, an agent that
does not naturally exist and for which no natural immunity could have
been acquired." "Within the next 5 to 10 years it would probably be
possible to make a new infective microorganism which could differ in
certain important aspects from any known disease causing organisms.


Most important of these is that it might be refractory to the
immunological and therapeutic processes upon which we depend to
maintain our relative freedom from infectious disease." The project was
carried out at Fort Detrick Maryland. Since large populations were to
be decimated the ruling elite decided to target the "undesirable
elements of society" for extermination. Specifically targeted were the
black, hispanic, and homosexual populations. The name of the project
that developed AIDS is MKNAOMI. The African continent was infected via
smallpox vaccine in 1977. The U.S. population was infected in 1978 with
the hepatitis B vaccine through the Centers for Disease Control and the
New York Blood Center. You now have the entire story. The order was
given by the POLICY COMMITTEE of THE BILDERBERG GROUP based in
Switzerland. Other measures were also ordered. The one you will be able
to check the easiest is the Haig - Kissinger Depopulation Policy which
is administered by the State Department.

-------
-------

[SpazX]

Oh shit, the thread got level1'ed

[Sarang01]

Regardless of what you believe I think there's pretty clear suspicion AIDS was created. Look at how AIDS functions, it's kill rate, how quickly it can be spread as well.
Look at other diseases that kill like AIDS does, how easily they spread and then contain themselves readily. Look at Ebola. One of the ONLY diseases I've heard of that functions like AIDS and will kill you probably long after it's infection compared to AIDS is Symphilis. Give me one other disease besides that because if you find one other it will most likely be that, ONE more.
Oh and when I said that comment about Symphilis I meant AIDS without treatment of course.

[mykevermin]

Oh shit, the thread got level1'ed

:rofl:

[Sarang01]

Can we change the topic title to Reverend Jeremiah Reich? Kidding, kidding.

[BigT]

I understand that your being sarcastic or facetious, but seriously, the AIDS virus was designed to reduce the "undesirables" from the population, not just 1 group.

Google: "William Cooper" & "AIDS"

here's a little excerpt of what he wrote.... and btw, he's now dead. murdered shortly after 9/11.

(...)

OMG, as a matter of personal curiosity, I opened up a reference text on Medical Microbiology to look up some AIDS statistics... and guess on what page they were located: 666 :hot:, I shit you not (if you don't believe me, go to your local university book store and look up Medical Microbiology 5th Ed. by Murray, Rosenthal, and Pfaller; turn to chapter 65 on retroviruses and then look at page 666.

Are the authors trying to tell us something? I think even Myke would agree that this constitutes quality scientific evidence that something nefarious is going on. Hmmm.... better break out the tin foil condoms ;).

Oh yeah, back to the stats; as of 2003 ~80% of AIDS cases were in homosexuals (55%) or IV drug users (25%)... they didn't break it down by race, but I'm sure a simple Pubmed or CDC search could turn that up.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

Regardless of what you believe I think there's pretty clear suspicion AIDS was created. Look at how AIDS functions, it's kill rate, how quickly it can be spread as well.
Look at other diseases that kill like AIDS does, how easily they spread and then contain themselves readily. Look at Ebola. One of the ONLY diseases I've heard of that functions like AIDS and will kill you probably long after it's infection compared to AIDS is Symphilis. Give me one other disease besides that because if you find one other it will most likely be that, ONE more.
Oh and when I said that comment about Symphilis I meant AIDS without treatment of course.

If I were to create a virus to KILL people, I would generate one that can be transmitted through casual contact and KILL somebody within a matter of months if not weeks.

A condom all but renders transmission of the virus impossible.

The HIV virus is excruciatingly slow and successful transmission requires repeated exposure even under the most optimal situations.

Even after infection, medications can render the infection manageable for decades.

Also, there is no guarantee that an infected female will infect offspring in utero.

IF you want to rid the world of undesirables, get a virus that can spread and kill quickly such as Soviet modified smallpox or hoard the resources necessary to survive (food and water).

[mykevermin]

Page 666, eh? That's some pretty solid empirical proof.

My calculations show that it's statistically significant at the p<.00666 level.

WOAH.

[level1online]

OMG, as a matter of personal curiosity, I opened up a reference text on Medical Microbiology to look up some AIDS statistics... and guess on what page they were located: 666 :hot:, I shit you not (if you don't believe me, go to your local university book store and look up Medical Microbiology 5th Ed. by Murray, Rosenthal, and Pfaller; turn to chapter 65 on retroviruses and then look at page 666.

Are the authors trying to tell us something? I think even Myke would agree that this constitutes quality scientific evidence that something nefarious is going on. Hmmm.... better break out the tin foil condoms ;).

Oh yeah, back to the stats; as of 2003 ~80% of AIDS cases were in homosexuals (55%) or IV drug users (25%)... they didn't break it down by race, but I'm sure a simple Pubmed or CDC search could turn that up.

Y'know.... sometimes a cigar... is just a cigar.

[thrustbucket]

The same people that believe Aids was created to get rid of blacks also more recently believe that SARS was created to get rid of Asians.

Not saying they are wrong, but this is a different league of fringe thought that most people aren't willing to tread.

[pittpizza]

Y'know.... sometimes a cigar... is just a cigar.

And then there are other times, when it is a blunt!

[level1online]

LOL, Looks like 2 of my recent posts have been reported to the mods...

the PM said: Reason: Facilitating Game Piracy

The first "infraction" was for linking to an Educational Documentary on Black Voter Disenfranchisement: American Blackout

The second was for linking to an Educational E-Book (pdf file) by a man who was MURDERED by our federal gov't: Behold a Pale Horse.

BUT.... all this time, in my sig, I've had a link to an actual non-educational PIRATED VIDEO GAME!!!!! HAHAHAHA!!!!!!

[mykevermin]

I thought about reporting you for the DC torrent link.

But even the others, if it's copyrighted material, shouldn't be linked. I don't know if it is, and will say I didn't report you for it.

But, knowing how your mind operates, my denial of reporting you becomes an explicit admission that, in fact, I really did.

;)

[JolietJake]

No degree for you!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20080501/pl_bloomberg/axcinkuxnrh8

[pittpizza]

What the heck, what is wrong with those links? I don't understand.

Once I got banned. I have no idea what for. All I did was go into the wrestling thread and start throwing ridiculous flames and insults around and just generally acted like a complete asshole. I have no idea why I was banned.

[level1online]

What the heck, what is wrong with those links? I don't understand.

Once I got banned. I have no idea what for. All I did was go into the wrestling thread and start throwing ridiculous flames and insults around and just generally acted like a complete asshole. I have no idea why I was banned.

maybe it's because you linked to one of those copywrite-free educational documentaries????

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5965670944815984616&hl=en

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8510748876310097541&hl=en

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1070329053600562261&hl=en

[elprincipe]

Based on what do you level all these platitudes on the nation? That the black preacher is an overwhelming source of media scrutiny, when it's NEVER ONCE happened with a divisive, hateful, and vitriolic? When racism happen in durable, predictable, and widespread patterns all across the nation, 40 years after the passage of the civil rights act?

This is no time to pat yourself on the back, my friend. The work not only isn't complete, but the foundation's corroding at the bottom already and you don't even see it happening.

I think I have a much different opinion and experience than you do in terms of where we are right now in terms of progress in this area and where we are headed. I think Americans in general are on the way to discounting race as being a defining personal characteristic within the next few generations if only the government and other well-intentioned folks will let it happen.

And you have a good point when we compare the treatment of Wright to people like Pat Robertson.

[thrustbucket]

I think I have a much different opinion and experience than you do in terms of where we are right now in terms of progress in this area and where we are headed. I think Americans in general are on the way to discounting race as being a defining personal characteristic within the next few generations if only the government and other well-intentioned folks will let it happen.


Someone said something this morning at work that made a good point.

We have pretty much eliminated the HATRED based on race in this nation. That's what you are talking about. That is what most people notice. Reverend Wrong is still living 40 years ago where the country was full of HATE and all white people are evil.

Mykevermin, in a round-about way, acknowledges the hatred is mostly gone. But his big mission in life is to end racism, which is different than hate. Racism is discrimination. Racism is one of a myriad of discriminatory practices practiced multiple times a day by everyone. Discrimination comes in countless flavors, and is never right or fair. But myke's favorite flavor just happens to be racism, for only reasons he can try to explain.

[Msut77]

We have pretty much eliminated the HATRED based on race in this nation.

Thrust is full of shit.

Since we are playing thrustball here does that match anyones personal experience?

It certainly does not match mine.

[Sarang01]

If I were to create a virus to KILL people, I would generate one that can be transmitted through casual contact and KILL somebody within a matter of months if not weeks.

A condom all but renders transmission of the virus impossible.

The HIV virus is excruciatingly slow and successful transmission requires repeated exposure even under the most optimal situations.

Even after infection, medications can render the infection manageable for decades.

Also, there is no guarantee that an infected female will infect offspring in utero.

IF you want to rid the world of undesirables, get a virus that can spread and kill quickly such as Soviet modified smallpox or hoard the resources necessary to survive (food and water).

I know you're a smart guy but what you say would be one of the worst uses of a biological weapon. I'm sorry but given how easily it spreads and semi-quickly it kills we're looking at a worst case scenario. Too easy the chance for it to get out of control.
AIDS is close to the ideal because of how easily it can be reigned in should it get out of control. Even then though I feel they bit off more then they can chew should a catastrophic event happen where they created it and house the cure or in a few major supply lines, I mean really cripple them. Creating a biological disease like this is even putting humanity very much at risk I'd argue. It truly is opening Pandora's Box.

[pittpizza]

Thrust is full of shit.

Since we are playing thrustball here does that match anyones personal experience?

It certainly does not match mine.

Nope, mine either.

[thrustbucket]

Nope, mine either.

So what are you girls saying? You see racial hatred on a regular basis?

Do tell....

How many people do each of you know, that you know for a fact consciously HATE people because of their race. How many verbalize that hate? How many hate a race so much they will avoid them and screw them over any chance they get? How many people do you know that would lynch blacks if they could get away with it?

I know your views and agendas heavily depend on believing that racial hatred is squirting out of the seams of society, but be honest with yourselves.

[camoor]

And you have a good point when we compare the treatment of Wright to people like Pat Robertson.

It's well established that you run in different circles

Most of us treat Pat Robertson as the lunatic he is.

[pittpizza]

So what are you girls saying? You see racial hatred on a regular basis?

Do tell....

How many people do each of you know, that you know for a fact consciously HATE people because of their race. How many verbalize that hate? How many hate a race so much they will avoid them and screw them over any chance they get? How many people do you know that would lynch blacks if they could get away with it?

I know your views and agendas heavily depend on believing that racial hatred is squirting out of the seams of society, but be honest with yourselves.

Thrust it seems you have a VERY narrow definition of racism. There are many types of racists. Many of whom have never ever said a bad thing to or about any race. They may have never talked to a minority in thier lives but they never said anythign bad or did anything bad about/to a minority, so that makes them not a racist right? Wrong!

How about somone who just doesn't like to sit next to black men? They never say anything to them, or bad about them. They never burn crosses or wear white hoods. Heck they don't even mind talking to them, they just don't like to sit next to them. They're not racist right? WRONG!

Not many racists are overt, and on the contrary most of the ones I know would be covered by your category: "How many hate a race so much they will avoid them."

Avoidance of a race is racism, like it or not.

Your post seems to imply that if nobody has told me that they would lynch blacks if they could get away with it, then I don't know any racists.

Google "passive racism" and do some reading. It will change your world.

Racism does not equal "racial hatred" it can simply be racial avoidance, racial discrimination, or even racial non-interaction.

Under your incorrect narrow definition of racism I know almost none. Under the real definition (covering ALL kinds of racism) almost everybody I know is racist to some degree.

If you don't think racism is rampant in our society, go play Xbox Live for a few hours and then come talk to me.

[thrustbucket]

Pittpiza, you missed my point entirely, and I actually have respect for you, so I'll attempt to further explain. (not the case with msut)

Everything you just posted, is indeed racism. I was not talking about racisim. I was talkilng about HATE. RACIAL HATRED is different than racism, especially the type you just mentioned.

You are a perfect example of my original point. People believe that racism is hatred. It isn't. It's discrimination.

Let me break it down for you, and try not to skim this time....

Racism is discrimination.
Discrimination is not always hate. It can be, but isn't always.
Racial hatred is always racism. It's just at it's worst level. A level beyond what you described.

With me so far?

Discrimination is prevalent, as you just described.

If someone doesn't want to sit next to a person because of their race, does it mean they HATE that race?
If someone doesn't want to sit next to someone because of their weight, does that mean they HATE fat people?
If someone doesn't want to sit next to someone because of their sex, does that mean they HATE that sex?
If someone thinks less of others because he feels he is more educated (know anyone like that?) does that mean he HATES less educated people?

Getting the difference yet? None of those examples are examples of hate. They are examples of discrimination.

I'll say it one more time, please try to remember when you respond... I'll even bold it for you:

Racim does not always equel hate.
Racism does, however, always equal discrimination.
Discrimination IS RARELY based on HATE. It can be, but usually isn't.
Racism is nearly always a product of ignorance. Not hate.

[mykevermin]

I'm trying to figure out your most recent point, thrust. It seems like you're parsing words.

That said, discrimination as racism is my primary concern. Hatred is irrelevant in this era because of the collective-level disdain for overt (i.e. "I hate blacks") racism.

Social desirability bias. You don't *HEAR* people say they hate ____ because we're not supposed to say it.

In the end, if you want to say "well, hatred is gone but discrimination is still there," that's fine. I disagree, and think that hatred is just disguised - but in any event, only a portion of my concern is the *means* by which discrimination occurs - the fact remains that it can't happen so predictably and consistently as a sheer matter of chance.

Knowing the means helps in identifying potential solutions, of course, but racism by any other name, IMO, is still the same thing. I don't have to tell you, or anyone, to your face that I'm not hiring any fucking $$$$ers. But that doesn't mean that it is not the mechanism by which discriminatory treatment occurs.

[thrustbucket]

I understand what your saying. Without continuing further, I think we need to resort to good ol dictionary.com for the word "hate".

1. to dislike intensely or passionately; feel extreme aversion for or extreme hostility toward; detest: to hate the enemy; to hate bigotry.
2. to be unwilling; dislike: I hate to do it.
–verb (used without object)
3. to feel intense dislike, or extreme aversion or hostility.
–noun
4. intense dislike; extreme aversion or hostility.
5. the object of extreme aversion or hostility.

Now in most of your recent posts on racism, you try to emphasize all the ways you believe racism is subvert, subconscious, and subtle in the modern era. I agree with that, to an extent. I think the same is true for all discrimination, like the examples I gave in my last post. (Why you focus only on FORMS of discrimination verses discrimination itself is something I've been wondering for a later discussion)

I am confused about what you are saying, are you essentially saying that racisim, on any level, is hate? Then yeah, we are going to have to disagree.

According to you, a white guy that thinks of himself as a tolerant person walking down the street, subconsciously crossing the street because there are black people approaching, is in all actuality racist... and that impulse of fear or whatever, was racist. Correct? I believe that's the type of racism you keep trying to define.

If you would say that is subvert racism, can you honestly make the leap to say that man hates black people? Can you honestly say that type of prevalent racism is rooted in hate as it is defined above?

[mykevermin]

According to you, a white guy that thinks of himself as a tolerant person walking down the street, subconsciously crossing the street because there are black people approaching, is in all actuality racist... and that impulse of fear or whatever, was racist. Correct? I believe that's the type of racism you keep trying to define.

1. to dislike intensely or passionately; feel extreme aversion for or extreme hostility toward; detest: to hate the enemy; to hate bigotry.
2. to be unwilling; dislike: I hate to do it.
–verb (used without object)
3. to feel intense dislike, or extreme aversion or hostility.
–noun
4. intense dislike; extreme aversion or hostility.
5. the object of extreme aversion or hostility.

Yep. On some level. They aren't born with the subconscious attitude that motivates them to behave in such a way, and like some people say "well, there's always a seed of truth in every stereotype," it is certainly more true that, at some level, there is some degree of dislike or aversion. Whether or not you want to call it "hate" is immaterial.

And now we've moved beyond, if we take your subconscious example, the logical possibility of achieving colorblindness in society. If, in your example, you absolve your hypothetical street-crossing dude of any racism (I certainly do not), then we must recognize that we are not able, or not easily able in the slightest, to change attitudes and feelings that people don't even know they have in the first place.

[thrustbucket]

Yep. On some level. They aren't born with the subconscious attitude that motivates them to behave in such a way, and like some people say "well, there's always a seed of truth in every stereotype," it is certainly more true that, at some level, there is some degree of dislike or aversion. Whether or not you want to call it "hate" is immaterial.

This is basically why I disagree with you:

to feel intense dislike, or extreme aversion or hostility.

And the reason I don't feel it's immaterial is because hate is a much stronger, more dangerous and threatening word than discrimination. It's disingenuous of people like the good Reverend, or even law makers, to try and convince everyone that all types and levels of discrimination are equated to hate to push their agendas.

And now we've moved beyond, if we take your subconscious example, the logical possibility of achieving colorblindness in society. If, in your example, you absolve your hypothetical street-crossing dude of any racism (I certainly do not), then we must recognize that we are not able, or not easily able in the slightest, to change attitudes and feelings that people don't even know they have in the first place.

I don't absolve him of racism. I absolve him of hate.

[Msut77]

Thrust it seems you have a VERY narrow definition of racism. There are many types of racists. Many of whom have never ever said a bad thing to or about any race. They may have never talked to a minority in thier lives but they never said anythign bad or did anything bad about/to a minority, so that makes them not a racist right? Wrong!

How about somone who just doesn't like to sit next to black men? They never say anything to them, or bad about them. They never burn crosses or wear white hoods. Heck they don't even mind talking to them, they just don't like to sit next to them. They're not racist right? WRONG!

Not many racists are overt, and on the contrary most of the ones I know would be covered by your category: "How many hate a race so much they will avoid them."

Avoidance of a race is racism, like it or not.

Your post seems to imply that if nobody has told me that they would lynch blacks if they could get away with it, then I don't know any racists.

Google "passive racism" and do some reading. It will change your world.

Racism does not equal "racial hatred" it can simply be racial avoidance, racial discrimination, or even racial non-interaction.

Under your incorrect narrow definition of racism I know almost none. Under the real definition (covering ALL kinds of racism) almost everybody I know is racist to some degree.

If you don't think racism is rampant in our society, go play Xbox Live for a few hours and then come talk to me.

Look at thrusts reply, he is only interested in irrelevant semantics.

Which should be taken as an admission of fail on his part.

[mykevermin]

And the reason I don't feel it's immaterial is because hate is a much stronger, more dangerous and threatening word than discrimination.

Fair enough - after all, it is a boon to your credentials if people say that you have "discriminating taste."

Nevertheless, I would argue that the 'discriminatory' racism (which isn't really that, but, rather, just racism that's much more subtle than the variety of 'racial hatred' you speak of) is remarkably more dangerous because of the immense degree of plausible deniability inherent in it.

Take, for instance, the Massey/Lundy study I linked to earlier on use of "black english" and housing discrimination - the finding is that racial attributions can be made and acted upon without ever seeing a person. The ease with which someone can say "well I didn't know they were black, so how could I be racist?" is astounding. And far easier to believe the good and nonracist intentions of than, say, a Michael Richards comedy rant.

The racism that can be explained away, justified, excused, or hidden is FAR more prevalent and dangerous than old style racism. That's been my point this whole time: racist actions have taken on a more subtle, covert, and even frequently unintentional aspect over the past decades. Since we don't see it, or if we think of racism as Klan rallies and cross burning - then we think of modern forms of discrimination as "no big deal," which, I argue, couldn't be further from the truth.

But we're headed to that point where we're going in circles and getting semantic. We're going to get nowhere if we're at a point where we argue over the meaning of "intense."

[thrustbucket]

Well myke, you have done some convincing of me. I believe a lot of what you say about the subtle dangers of racism/discrimination.

However, the part I get hung up on is that everything you are saying about racism can be applied to many types of discrimination. It's all bad. The examples you give all the time can easily have "race" swapped out for an almost uncountable physiological, mental, academic or environmental discrimination, many of which can't be helped and are "born with".

So here are some questions for you.

1 - Why, out of all of discriminatory practices, do you focus so much on one? Explain why racism is more harmful to society as a whole than any other discrimination.

2- If you truly believe no person can achieve true "colorblindness", is your position to basically stop trying to attempt it, and instead just use government to compensate with fairness policies? It sounds like the war on drugs.... impossible to win, so why not give up.

[mykevermin]

1) Eh, it's what I study. But I'm curious what other forms of discrimination you feel are worth looking at. Not that I'm insinuating there are none; I'm just curious what you have in mind.

2) It's an imperfect solution, but I'm of the mindset that, 40 years following the passage of the civil rights act, disparity statistics show few substantial gains for blacks on the whole. I'm only reluctantly in favor of government based solutions because society and the market aren't budging an inch on their own.

It's by no means a permanent fixture, as the goal is to make diversity mundane (which is a different form of colorblindness, whose goal it is to make diversity irrelevant or unnoticed). That is to say that Obama is famous for being the first legitimately electable nonwhite presidential candidate. Big deal for him, yeah? Yeah. But what about in 50 or 100 years when it's the tenth? The idea is to help it become mundane. Clarence Thomas' race was important, sure - but not to the degree that Thurgood Marshall's was. Eventually, it's gonna be just another nominee or candidate or CEO or person on the block - like we don't think about, say, how far the Irish have come since their relative status 100 years ago.

Another more subtle example was the controversy of JFK's Catholicism when he ran for President almost 50 years ago. HUGE ordeal then. Would be make the US worship the pope? Or tithe tax 10% of the tax money?

So in 2004 John Kerry comes along - as far as I can recall, the first major Catholic candidate since Kennedy. His religion was mentioned on several occasions as being unusual for a candidate - but it rarely, if EVER, became a focal point of arguing whether or not he was competent for the oval office. He was Catholic. Big fuckin' deal.

But 50 years ago, BIG fuckin' deal. Big fuckin' difference, too.

That's the idea, at any rate.

AA policies may help, but not fully. The "token stigma" is a difficult and nasty side effect of it (though in the current marketplace we do not question whether or not whites who were hired are qualified, because we don't consider the disproportionate hiring of whites to be preferential). Maybe a school voucher system will help, since solving the disinterest people have in formal education in the inner city is a HUGE problem to overcome - and one that, I concede, can really only be solved by helping those children and families who value education to get their children the hell out of a corrosive and anti-intellectual culture.

Then again, they will almost certainly be recognized and stigmatized as "voucher kids" at the schools they go to, just as we would suspect they'd be chided as tokens if hired. I think that's a lousy, but necessary, side effect if we want to help move society forward in this direction.

[elprincipe]

Interesting you should raise Catholicism, myke. You do realize polls showed a far greater bias towards, to take just two, Muslims and Mormons during this electoral cycle than blacks and women? Do you feel that AA should be applied to those groups? If not, why not?

[BigT]

1) Eh, it's what I study. But I'm curious what other forms of discrimination you feel are worth looking at. Not that I'm insinuating there are none; I'm just curious what you have in mind.

2) It's an imperfect solution, but I'm of the mindset that, 40 years following the passage of the civil rights act, disparity statistics show few substantial gains for blacks on the whole. I'm only reluctantly in favor of government based solutions because society and the market aren't budging an inch on their own.

It's by no means a permanent fixture, as the goal is to make diversity mundane (which is a different form of colorblindness, whose goal it is to make diversity irrelevant or unnoticed). That is to say that Obama is famous for being the first legitimately electable nonwhite presidential candidate. Big deal for him, yeah? Yeah. But what about in 50 or 100 years when it's the tenth? The idea is to help it become mundane. Clarence Thomas' race was important, sure - but not to the degree that Thurgood Marshall's was. Eventually, it's gonna be just another nominee or candidate or CEO or person on the block - like we don't think about, say, how far the Irish have come since their relative status 100 years ago.

Another more subtle example was the controversy of JFK's Catholicism when he ran for President almost 50 years ago. HUGE ordeal then. Would be make the US worship the pope? Or tithe tax 10% of the tax money?

So in 2004 John Kerry comes along - as far as I can recall, the first major Catholic candidate since Kennedy. His religion was mentioned on several occasions as being unusual for a candidate - but it rarely, if EVER, became a focal point of arguing whether or not he was competent for the oval office. He was Catholic. Big fuckin' deal.

But 50 years ago, BIG fuckin' deal. Big fuckin' difference, too.

That's the idea, at any rate.

AA policies may help, but not fully. The "token stigma" is a difficult and nasty side effect of it (though in the current marketplace we do not question whether or not whites who were hired are qualified, because we don't consider the disproportionate hiring of whites to be preferential). Maybe a school voucher system will help, since solving the disinterest people have in formal education in the inner city is a HUGE problem to overcome - and one that, I concede, can really only be solved by helping those children and families who value education to get their children the hell out of a corrosive and anti-intellectual culture.

Then again, they will almost certainly be recognized and stigmatized as "voucher kids" at the schools they go to, just as we would suspect they'd be chided as tokens if hired. I think that's a lousy, but necessary, side effect if we want to help move society forward in this direction.

Perhaps it has been so difficult to overcome racism and other -isms because of the way our minds and behaviors have evolved over time:
-Humans traditionally lived in small groups in order to obtain food, shelter, and protection. For survival, favoring one's group over others was beneficial and out of this stems an ingroup bias that persists to the current day: just look at sports fans. Also, I've noticed that some of the greatest stereoyping and hatred comes from other ethnic groups that are coming to America. Mexican latinos in So Cal absolutely hate Blacks. A lot of this is anecdotal, but it's obvious in the workplace and the news is filled with Black vs. Latino gangs going at it...

-Stereotypes and predjudice may have arisen from the mechanisms at work in our brain. Our finite neural network is given the task of making sense of an overwhelming amount of sensory data in a brief amount of time. To handle this, our brains take shortcuts by focusing on what is perceived to be important and discarding that which is not (insert Necker cube here or other fun optical illusion). When it comes to viewing objects, stereotypes provide a wonderful shortcut: for example, from previous experience, when we see a chair, we know what to expect. We apply similar logic to people... although stereotypes may not be fair, we are dealing with statistics and what we believe to be mostly true based on our previous experience or what is presented to us in the media/entertainment.

-Going along the lines of Dawkins, our goal is to ensure the survival of our own or similar genetic material to the next generation. While studies have shown that genetic info b/w whites vs. blacks may in cases actually be more similar than that b/w two whites, our senses don't know that. We deal in the domain of phenotype, i.e., what we see and hear. It would follow that in a simplistic way, we may assume that those with a similar genotype to us would have a more similar phenotype. Thus, we would tend to prefer those who resemble us. Even studies have shown that our brains are more adept at remembering and discriminating the faces of our own race than others (Brigham and Williamson 1979); and, I have to admit that I have a really hard time telling Asian people apart in the first few days after I am introduced to them... since my schools/work have been >50% Asian, this makes for some awkward situations as I walk down the halls and can't decide whether should say hi to the person that I'm walking by... :)

So, yeah, it is going to be an uphill battle to try to get rid of implicit -isms in our population. Although, being aware of our tendencies provides a good start.


I'm glad that you would consider a voucher system. I believe that even the stigma or being a "voucher baby" is a lesser evil than getting a horrible education. People in any location should be given the opportunity to get a good education and improve their lot if they are motivated to do so. Obviously, our public school system is a complete failure (<50% HS graduation in LAUSD!). Perhaps if people start having other options and leave LAUSD, it might help the administrators get their heads out of their assess.

[elprincipe]

I'm glad that you would consider a voucher system. I believe that even the stigma or being a "voucher baby" is a lesser evil than getting a horrible education. People in any location should be given the opportunity to get a good education and improve their lot if they are motivated to do so. Obviously, our public school system is a complete failure (<50% HS graduation in LAUSD!). Perhaps if people start having other options and leave LAUSD, it might help the administrators get their heads out of their assess.


We should make everyone a voucher baby. Abolish and sell off public schools, give each child a voucher, and let the market step in and fix what the government has fucked up royally. In Washington DC, just across the river from where I live, the government spends $15,000-$20,000 per year per student. Hell, that can get you a pretty nice college education, to say nothing about elementary or high school. Consumer choice in something a lot of people care a lot about, why, it's just crazy enough to work.

[mykevermin]

Interesting you should raise Catholicism, myke. You do realize polls showed a far greater bias towards, to take just two, Muslims and Mormons during this electoral cycle than blacks and women? Do you feel that AA should be applied to those groups? If not, why not?

I brought up campaign cycles to demonstrate just one way in which biases can show temporal relevance (Catholicism 40 years ago, not so much now). It's not a domain in which it can really exercise discriminatory activity, except on candidates - and even then, our media is so concerned with lapel pins, divisive religious figures who aren't white, and all sorts of claptrap that their coverage of policy proposals (and McCain's complete lack of them - seriously, what they fuck does he plan on doing about health care in the US?) is positively anemic.

Long story short, eliminating bias of any sort in an election is a fool's errand in terms of effort.

Race-based bias and discrimination takes place in virtually every domain you can think of, and often moves in the precisely predictable direction you can expect (preference for whites, preference against blacks, and the remainder scattered in between those margins) - it's not about campaigns. It's about everywhere else.

Perhaps it has been so difficult to overcome racism and other -isms because of the way our minds and behaviors have evolved over time:
-Humans traditionally lived in small groups in order to obtain food, shelter, and protection. For survival, favoring one's group over others was beneficial and out of this stems an ingroup bias that persists to the current day: just look at sports fans. Also, I've noticed that some of the greatest stereoyping and hatred comes from other ethnic groups that are coming to America. Mexican latinos in So Cal absolutely hate Blacks. A lot of this is anecdotal, but it's obvious in the workplace and the news is filled with Black vs. Latino gangs going at it...

I think you've grossly, grossly oversimplified the history of the world to this day, and extended tribalism to encapsulate racism. I can almost see your point, but it's beyond fuzzy.

Those southern California gang wars haven't even begun to peak, IMO. Yikes.

-Stereotypes and predjudice may have arisen from the mechanisms at work in our brain. Our finite neural network is given the task of making sense of an overwhelming amount of sensory data in a brief amount of time. To handle this, our brains take shortcuts by focusing on what is perceived to be important and discarding that which is not (insert Necker cube here or other fun optical illusion). When it comes to viewing objects, stereotypes provide a wonderful shortcut: for example, from previous experience, when we see a chair, we know what to expect. We apply similar logic to people... although stereotypes may not be fair, we are dealing with statistics and what we believe to be mostly true based on our previous experience or what is presented to us in the media/entertainment.

Pretty much the social psychological concept of 'schema.' In short, little packets of stereotypes that exist in our brain to help create instantaneous understanding. It's not always based on race, sex, or whatever - it could be seeing someone in Best Buy picking up a record by a band you really dig, and thinking that they have good taste and might be a potentially cool person; or, by contrast, what you might assume about a grown adult that is buying a "Hannah Montana" album. It's the way we fill in the blanks with assumptions about people (fat=lazy, black=stupid, dressed in a certain way=slut who wants your cock, etc.). It goes far beyond race, and it isn't always negative things. But they are stereotypes in the sense that they are assumptions we make about people based on limited information given to us.

-Going along the lines of Dawkins, our goal is to ensure the survival of our own or similar genetic material to the next generation. While studies have shown that genetic info b/w whites vs. blacks may in cases actually be more similar than that b/w two whites, our senses don't know that. We deal in the domain of phenotype, i.e., what we see and hear. It would follow that in a simplistic way, we may assume that those with a similar genotype to us would have a more similar phenotype. Thus, we would tend to prefer those who resemble us. Even studies have shown that our brains are more adept at remembering and discriminating the faces of our own race than others (Brigham and Williamson 1979); and, I have to admit that I have a really hard time telling Asian people apart in the first few days after I am introduced to them... since my schools/work have been >50% Asian, this makes for some awkward situations as I walk down the halls and can't decide whether should say hi to the person that I'm walking by... :)

So, yeah, it is going to be an uphill battle to try to get rid of implicit -isms in our population. Although, being aware of our tendencies provides a good start.

It takes a remarkable deal of work to convince people that they do, in fact, have those stereotypes, and that we need to be keenly aware of when we use them in order to get around them. I have them; you have them. I refuse to believe that anyone doesn't have them.

I'm glad that you would consider a voucher system. I believe that even the stigma or being a "voucher baby" is a lesser evil than getting a horrible education. People in any location should be given the opportunity to get a good education and improve their lot if they are motivated to do so. Obviously, our public school system is a complete failure (<50% HS graduation in LAUSD!). Perhaps if people start having other options and leave LAUSD, it might help the administrators get their heads out of their assess.

The same logic applies to AA; better to run the risk of "token stigma" than to remain disproportionately unemployed and underemployed. Even if, of course, the whole premise of "token stigma" is based on a monumental misunderstanding of EOE/AA laws - that is the way most people understand it.

[camoor]

That is to say that Obama is famous for being the first legitimately electable nonwhite presidential candidate. Big deal for him, yeah? Yeah. But what about in 50 or 100 years when it's the tenth? The idea is to help it become mundane. Clarence Thomas' race was important, sure - but not to the degree that Thurgood Marshall's was. Eventually, it's gonna be just another nominee or candidate or CEO or person on the block - like we don't think about, say, how far the Irish have come since their relative status 100 years ago.

Another more subtle example was the controversy of JFK's Catholicism when he ran for President almost 50 years ago. HUGE ordeal then. Would be make the US worship the pope? Or tithe tax 10% of the tax money?

So in 2004 John Kerry comes along - as far as I can recall, the first major Catholic candidate since Kennedy. His religion was mentioned on several occasions as being unusual for a candidate - but it rarely, if EVER, became a focal point of arguing whether or not he was competent for the oval office. He was Catholic. Big fuckin' deal.

But 50 years ago, BIG fuckin' deal. Big fuckin' difference, too.

That's the idea, at any rate.

The Catholics stuck together. They motivated the flock and got out the vote in a way that would make modern-day Evangelists jealous. Egomania and rhetoric were put aside to get JFK in the White House.

And you can't blame dissention in the ranks or controversial speeches from the Mormon camp for Romney's eventual loss, they backed him solidly all the way to the end.

That's what is so fascinating to me about this Obama-Wright implosion. I expected the typical Rovian hit-and-run squads would derail Obama's good time express - not his own pastor! Wright is playing all the greatest hits in his recent speeches and worst of all - the guy has an audience. What does Wright want - Obama is a left-of-center with reasonable ideas and a history of listening - not only is he a great politician but he also seems more sincere then most about changing the govt. Plus he's got a great shot! Is Wright worried that if Obama was president Wright would have a much harder time pitching his well-honed brand of rhetoric?

[elprincipe]

I brought up campaign cycles to demonstrate just one way in which biases can show temporal relevance (Catholicism 40 years ago, not so much now). It's not a domain in which it can really exercise discriminatory activity, except on candidates - and even then, our media is so concerned with lapel pins, divisive religious figures who aren't white, and all sorts of claptrap that their coverage of policy proposals (and McCain's complete lack of them - seriously, what they fuck does he plan on doing about health care in the US?) is positively anemic.

Long story short, eliminating bias of any sort in an election is a fool's errand in terms of effort.

Race-based bias and discrimination takes place in virtually every domain you can think of, and often moves in the precisely predictable direction you can expect (preference for whites, preference against blacks, and the remainder scattered in between those margins) - it's not about campaigns. It's about everywhere else.

First, McCain gave a policy address on health care just the other day. I'm sure they have it on his website if you want to see it. It's just that he gets minimal media attention due to the more exciting Democratic primaries.

Second, are you really claiming that the same people who are so distrustful or even bigoted towards Muslims and Mormons (among others) would leave that kind of thinking in the ballot box? I think that is incredibly naive. If 40% of people wouldn't vote for a Muslim, don't you think at least a significant chunk of those might discriminate against people who are Muslim in terms of hiring, for example? And if you agree with that, why does AA not apply to Muslims or other "non-favored" groups?

[mykevermin]

His policy is anemic and shallow. Tax credits that will do nothing to help the increasing costs of health insurance (one portion of the current problem is the price, but also how it is going up relative to earnings - a tax credit won't slow that momentum, and may even increase it), plus that nonsensical "health savings account" crap? That's not a health care policy from a presidential candidate. That's a dry David Brooks column.

As for your second point, (1) I don't know the data on how those minorities are discriminated against, yet (2) if we emphasize AA policies by instituting large fines and randomized audit studies, then the net result isn't going to be that only certain races/groups get selected. Emphasizing the current system, where those discriminated against get recourse by suing their employer, is absurd. what do you get? Lost wages at best, and your job at the place that doesn't want you anyway. There really is no penalty for discrimination in this day and age - that's the problem. We need to look at AA as something beyond this Bakke nonsense, to see how it can be applied to reduce 'token stigma' but to also avoid training employers to hire minorities via a gut feeling that every minority applicant is a "test" of their hiring standards. It's a fine line to cross, but it is certainly workable (though admittedly somewhat rough on the public's dollar, of course) in ways that don't force anything but the lack of racial consideration in hiring practices, and the increased scrutiny of applications and qualifications themselves.

[elprincipe]

His policy is anemic and shallow. Tax credits that will do nothing to help the increasing costs of health insurance (one portion of the current problem is the price, but also how it is going up relative to earnings - a tax credit won't slow that momentum, and may even increase it), plus that nonsensical "health savings account" crap? That's not a health care policy from a presidential candidate. That's a dry David Brooks column.

I'm not arguing for his plan, merely stating that one exists in response to an assertion it didn't.

As for your second point, (1) I don't know the data on how those minorities are discriminated against, yet (2) if we emphasize AA policies by instituting large fines and randomized audit studies, then the net result isn't going to be that only certain races/groups get selected. Emphasizing the current system, where those discriminated against get recourse by suing their employer, is absurd. what do you get? Lost wages at best, and your job at the place that doesn't want you anyway. There really is no penalty for discrimination in this day and age - that's the problem. We need to look at AA as something beyond this Bakke nonsense, to see how it can be applied to reduce 'token stigma' but to also avoid training employers to hire minorities via a gut feeling that every minority applicant is a "test" of their hiring standards. It's a fine line to cross, but it is certainly workable (though admittedly somewhat rough on the public's dollar, of course) in ways that don't force anything but the lack of racial consideration in hiring practices, and the increased scrutiny of applications and qualifications themselves.

I disagree there are no penalties for discrimination in employment and in other areas. Here are some examples to back me up:

http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2008/May/08_crt_368.html
http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2008/February/08_crt_155.html
http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2007/December/07_crt_1030.html
http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2007/August/07_crt_671.html
http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2007/August/07_crt_639.html
http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2004/May/04_crt_288.htm

I do not agree with hate crimes legislation, but I do support strong, vigorous, aggressive investigation/enforcement of laws prohibiting racial discrimination with regards to thinks like employment and housing, among others. I think you set a reasonable standard of proof as in any proceeding, but when this sort of thing is proven throw the book at the scumbags doing it.

[pittpizza]

I do not agree with hate crimes legislation....

Whhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaat!!!!???????

[Don Chubo]

I do not agree with hate crimes legislation

Seconded.

[pittpizza]

Seconded.

Whhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaat!!!!???????

[thrustbucket]

Which violent crimes are not hate crimes?

[pittpizza]

All of the ones not motivated by race, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, breast size etc....

[thrustbucket]

All of the ones not motivated by race, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, breast size etc....

And the reasons many people don't like hate crime legislation is that we don't yet have psychics or mind reading devices that can scientifically prove intent.

Hate crime just ends up being one more thing a lawyer can, and will, try to go after whenever there is a demographic difference between victim and perp.

[camoor]

And the reasons many people don't like hate crime legislation is that we don't yet have psychics or mind reading devices that can scientifically prove intent.

Hate crime just ends up being one more thing a lawyer can, and will, try to go after whenever there is a demographic difference between victim and perp.

Don't you mean "Hate crime just ends up being one more thing a lawyer can, and will, try to go after whenever there is a specific type of demographic difference between victim and perp."

[thrustbucket]

Don't you mean "Hate crime just ends up being one more thing a lawyer can, and will, try to go after whenever there is a specific type of demographic difference between victim and perp."

Yes. Whatever the hate crime legislation covers, lawyers will feed on.

[pittpizza]

And the reasons many people don't like hate crime legislation is that we don't yet have psychics or mind reading devices that can scientifically prove intent.

Nope we don't. But we do have these wonderful things called judges and juries!!! They're asked to discern intent (a difficult thing to prove, to be sure) all the time in a plethora of other issues.


Hate crime just ends up being one more thing a lawyer the government can, and will, try to go after whenever there is a demographic difference between victim and perp.

This may be true so long as there is other evidence showing that the harm was motivated by a protected class, but it's up to the fact finders to ultimately decide.

Intent is hard enough to prove, let alone proving intent beyond a reasonable doubt (the burden in a criminal case). I wouldn't worry about false positives in this context more than any other.

Besides, there are plenty of failsafes for the Justin Barkers of this world when they commit a violent crime that was motivated by fun, greed, boredome, or any other non "hate-crime" factor.

[thrustbucket]

Besides, there are plenty of failsafes for the Justin Barkers of this world when they commit a violent crime that was motivated by fun, greed, boredome, or any other non "hate-crime" factor.

Uhoh, 2 out of 3. Does that mean your posting in here, depending on how offended others get, could be considered a hate-crime? ;)

[pittpizza]

Dude those were examples of things NOT "hate-crime" related.

I really don't get your post/joke. Are you implying that my posts are violent crimes? Maybe I'm having a brainfart but your point is unclear to me.

Besides I've been good lately, I hope I haven't offended too much.

[thrustbucket]

No I was just being sarcastic. You're fine. I really don't want to work today is all....

[mykevermin]

I don't quite grasp the 'all crimes are hate crimes' argument.

First, it doesn't consider drug possession, sale, prostitution - all transactions with no unwilling 'victim' or two willing participants.

Second, it treats 'hate' equally as a mitigating factor in determining if the event would occur. It intentionally glosses over the 'hate' implicit in a simple robbery that resulted from being in the wrong place at the wrong time (being a victim as a result of circumstance), and incorrectly treats it as similar to victim selection and the criminal act upon the victim as deliberately resulting from their (assumed in some cases) race/age/religion/sex/orientation status.

It's funny that thrust is the one making this claim of "this kind of hate is the same as this kind of hate" argument in the same thread where he makes several (http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4301325&postcount=93) unique claims (http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4301598&postcount=97) that semantically (http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4301796&postcount=100) debate what (http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4302287&postcount=102) "HATE" is (http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4302608&postcount=104).

That being said, I don't care much for hate crimes legislation. Plenty pf public opinion polls show a weird contradiction: the majority of the public likes hate crime laws (that is, being charged with a hate crime on top of the typical act you'd be charged with - where applicable, of course), but they disagree that it should add weight or time to a sentence. Weird.

Either way, longer prison terms don't really serve much purpose in preventing future offenses, so all hate crime legislation does is inform a person about something which they are already aware of, and makes the taxpayers pay to hold them in prison longer for an ultimately meaningless reason.

[pittpizza]

To be fair, and address your first point myke, thrust said "violent crimes."

I don't quite grasp the 'all crimes are hate crimes' argument.

First, it doesn't consider drug possession, sale, prostitution - all transactions with no unwilling 'victim' or two willing participants.

Second, it treats 'hate' equally as a mitigating factor in determining if the event would occur. It intentionally glosses over the 'hate' implicit in a simple robbery that resulted from being in the wrong place at the wrong time (being a victim as a result of circumstance), and incorrectly treats it as similar to victim selection and the criminal act upon the victim as deliberately resulting from their (assumed in some cases) race/age/religion/sex/orientation status.

It's funny that thrust is the one making this claim of "this kind of hate is the same as this kind of hate" argument in the same thread where he makes several (http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4301325&postcount=93) unique claims (http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4301598&postcount=97) that semantically (http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4301796&postcount=100) debate what (http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4302287&postcount=102) "HATE" is (http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4302608&postcount=104).

That being said, I don't care much for hate crimes legislation. Plenty pf public opinion polls show a weird contradiction: the majority of the public likes hate crime laws (that is, being charged with a hate crime on top of the typical act you'd be charged with - where applicable, of course), but they disagree that it should add weight or time to a sentence. Weird.

Either way, longer prison terms don't really serve much purpose in preventing future offenses, so all hate crime legislation does is inform a person about something which they are already aware of, and makes the taxpayers pay to hold them in prison longer for an ultimately meaningless reason.

Well it certainly incapacitates them from being able to commit more hate crimes for a longer period. Plus, additional time will serve as an extremely effective deterrent. (Thats right, I said it!)

[mykevermin]

:wall:

[pittpizza]

:wall:

:applause: LMAO. :applause:

[thrustbucket]

To be fair, and address your first point myke, thrust said "violent crimes."




Thank you.

I would not say that ALL violent crimes are based in hate. But most are, especially premeditated.

The issue I have with hate crime legislation is let's say a white guy jumps out of an alley and mugs a black woman. Hate crime legislation, for the most part, would come in to play in that scenario, because it will be said he targeted the woman based on race. Nobody can prove whether he did or not, usually.

It's just a huge hairy slippery slope to add to the already overly convoluted legal system.

It's funny that thrust is the one making this claim of "this kind of hate is the same as this kind of hate" argument in the same thread where he makes several unique claims that semantically debate what "HATE" is.
The point is, detecting intent is very difficult. Detecting emotion and reason for a violent crime is nearly impossible. At best, you are left with a consensus "good guess". Where the real debate is, is how much intent should matter in prosecution. A person isn't any more or less dead based on why he was murdered.

[mykevermin]

Nobody can prove whether he did or not, usually.

There are substantially better arguments against hate crimes legislation, given that (1) this claim is demonstrably false, and (2) in events where the selection of the victim on the basis of some ascribed characteristic/something that has an "-ism" attached to it is not readily provable, then the "hate crime bonus" is not applied.

In other words, it's only legally a hate crime when it can be demonstrated - so saying you can't demonstrate it is not only untrue, but involves a misunderstanding of the legal designation of a "hate crime."

[thrustbucket]

There are substantially better arguments against hate crimes legislation, given that (1) this claim is demonstrably false, and (2) in events where the selection of the victim on the basis of some ascribed characteristic/something that has an "-ism" attached to it is not readily provable, then the "hate crime bonus" is not applied.

In other words, it's only legally a hate crime when it can be demonstrated - so saying you can't demonstrate it is not only untrue, but involves a misunderstanding of the legal designation of a "hate crime."

It's very possible I understand the intricacies of the most recent proposed hate-crime legislation less than you, at least I can admit it. I only know what it is at a high level.

So I concede to misunderstanding.

I'm glad you oppose it though, and that's all that really matters when all said and done.

[mykevermin]

I'm not trying to be hifalutin' (for a change) - just saying that it's incorrect to think that "_____ on _____" crime will be considered a de facto hate crime when the "_____" are different.

Now, to be fair, something as "innocuous" (not an appropriate word to use in this case, to be sure) as being in a fight with a black man (irrespective of how it started) and calling him "$$$$er," should it be brought up by the witness in a court, may be enough. But that's the arbitrary nature of courts and prosecutorial discretion.

Yech.

[pittpizza]

Thrust you said "A person isn't any more or less dead based on why he was murdered." And while this is true, it implies that every crime that results in a dead body should be punished equally; and this I cannot agree with.

A drunk who wanders onto I-95 and gets struck by a criminally negligent (assumed) driver is just as dead as a black girl raped and murdered by the KKK. They're equally dead.

Still, our justice system (and I) reason that one crime is much worse than the other.

Moreover, the difference between whether a defendant pre-deliberated a killing or killed in a fit of rage can be a life-or-death difference and can mitigate or aggravate a sentence by many years.

Intent is a huge part of the criminal justice system, and just because it is difficult to demonstrate (rightfully so IMO) does not mean that it should not be an element of more severe crimes.

HYPO: I'm a juror in a trial where a white male is alleged to have killed a black female and robbed her. The prosecution is seeking a conviction for robbery, murder, and hate-crime. The prosecution introduces evidence that the defendant participates in a local hitler youth group, and has an extensive criminal record, all of which consist of violent crimes against minorities. Further, the prosecution introduces evidence that the defendant blogs about how is going to "rid jews and $$$$ers from the face of the earth."

I loaded that fact pattern with obvious patterns but you should get my point, which is that the necessary intent for a conviction of a hate-crime CAN be shown.

You (and other jurors) may not think that the above facts are enough to show the requisite hate-crime intent "beyond a reasonable doubt" and would be absolutely free to just convict the defendant of robbery and murder, and you'd be completley within your rights to do so. I'm only attempting to show you that intent can, and often is, proven in criminal trials.

[Don Chubo]

In your HYPO, the male's participation in a local Hitler Youth group and his anti-Jew and racial-slur blogging are not crimes. They aren't necessarily wholesome activities, but they shouldn't be allowed into evidence, and they should not affect a sentence if convicted.

Hate crime = Thoughtcrime = Suppression of free speech (whether anyone likes what is being said or not).

[mykevermin]

Hate crime = Thoughtcrime = Suppression of free speech (whether anyone likes what is being said or not).

Hate crime=mitigating circumstance that changes the nature of the already criminal act it is linked to. It is not the crime in and of itself. It is not a crime by itself to belong to the KKK.

In terms of suppression of free speech and thought crimes, you would surely allow people to freely plan a terrorist attack, up until the point of physical preparation?

[elprincipe]

Hate crime=mitigating circumstance that changes the nature of the already criminal act it is linked to. It is not the crime in and of itself. It is not a crime by itself to belong to the KKK.

In terms of suppression of free speech and thought crimes, you would surely allow people to freely plan a terrorist attack, up until the point of physical preparation?

At some point, obviously, you get to the point where you have conclusive evidence that a crime is being planned, which in and of itself is a crime.

Back to hate crime laws, though. Can anyone who supports their existence answer these questions?

1. A school jock hates nerds/geeks, gets together with his jock buddies and beats several nerds/geeks severely. You have one group hating another whose members have committed a crime directly relating to that hatred. Why is this not a hate crime? Why are certain categories (race, national origin, being gay, etc.) "protected" groups when it comes to hate crimes laws but some are not?

2. The Crips do a drive-by shooting on the Bloods, killing five Bloods. It's well known these gangs hate each other's guts and they have a violent history vis-a-vis one another. However, the participants and victims are all black in this case. Why is this not a hate crime? Are you arguing that this hatred is any more putrid and detestable than that between two people with different skin color, for example?

[BigT]

At some point, obviously, you get to the point where you have conclusive evidence that a crime is being planned, which in and of itself is a crime.

Back to hate crime laws, though. Can anyone who supports their existence answer these questions?

1. A school jock hates nerds/geeks, gets together with his jock buddies and beats several nerds/geeks severely. You have one group hating another whose members have committed a crime directly relating to that hatred. Why is this not a hate crime? Why are certain categories (race, national origin, being gay, etc.) "protected" groups when it comes to hate crimes laws but some are not?

Unfortunately, nerds do not have groups of activists who bitch and moan all the time... and that's the true classification of what's a "hate crime"... Nerds of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but your (insert clever nerd related item here)... :)


2. The Crips do a drive-by shooting on the Bloods, killing five Bloods. It's well known these gangs hate each other's guts and they have a violent history vis-a-vis one another. However, the participants and victims are all black in this case. Why is this not a hate crime? Are you arguing that this hatred is any more putrid and detestable than that between two people with different skin color, for example?

I fully agree that the current definitions are rather arbitrary (it seems like you have to be a jew, gay, black, latino, or muslim who is attacked by a majority group). To go further, what about the latino on black violence? black on white violence? why don't we hear about those "hate crimes"?

[mykevermin]

Unfortunately, nerds do not have groups of activists who bitch and moan all the time... and that's the true classification of what's a "hate crime"... Nerds of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but your (insert clever nerd related item here)... :)

Eh, it's more of a fuzzy line between ascribed and immutable characteristics (race/orientation) to, indeed, certain protected classes (being of a certain religion) and the weird in-between stuff. It's centered around things that are unchangeable about a person, but also those central to the identity or purpose for existence. Leaving out religion here would seem to permit, in a sense, anti-religious activity.

The inherent problem, strangely, is that I would foresee fewer hate crimes cases classified as such if the law were broadened.

I fully agree that the current definitions are rather arbitrary (it seems like you have to be a jew, gay, black, latino, or muslim who is attacked by a majority group). To go further, what about the latino on black violence? black on white violence? why don't we hear about those "hate crimes"?

Wrong. (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2006/victims.html) The 2006 UCR summary shows that 21% of anti-race hate crime victims were white.

Of course, there were around 10,000 crimes in 2006 classified as convicted hate crimes - far fewer, of course, than the overall number of crimes reported or resulting in arrest/prosecution/conviction. I think that should, to a degree, alleviate thrust's fears about it being overly applied, or stretched to apply in cases where it is not provable in a court of law. It has to be proven just as much as any other crime.

Also, it would appear that 59.7% of hate crimes in 2006 involved no physical action against the person, as they were classified as "destruction/damage/vandalism" and "intimidation" (adding up the first two offense type proportions). This would then be the legal difference, perhaps, between a burning cross in your lawn and being the victim of 'mailbox baseball,' I suppose.

[BigT]

Wrong. (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2006/victims.html) The 2006 UCR summary shows that 21% of anti-race hate crime victims were white.


Nice stats.

See, the media had me fooled ;) You'd never know that 21% of hate crimes are anti-white and 21% of hate crime offenders are black just by going on what is reported in the media.

Interesting, blacks account for 13% of our populations and are responsible for 21% of hate crimes... whites acount for 74% of the the population and 59% of hate crimes... so proportionally, let's see where more racial hatred comes from...

[thrustbucket]

Nice stats.

See, the media had me fooled ;) You'd never know that 21% of hate crimes are anti-white and 21% of hate crime offenders are black just by going on what is reported in the media.



White guilt and PC, is ultimately what keeps those stats from rearing it's head in mainstream media. The unspoken rule seems to be that a lot of those hate crimes are justified.

To focus on such stats, gets you labeled at worst a racist, and at best a right winger that doesn't understand the plight of the black man.

[mykevermin]

White guilt and PC, is ultimately what keeps those stats from rearing it's head in mainstream media. The unspoken rule seems to be that a lot of those hate crimes are justified.

To focus on such stats, gets you labeled at worst a racist, and at best a right winger that doesn't understand the plight of the black man.

source this claim.

[thrustbucket]

source this claim.

My opinion and personal experience. Which is why I used words like "seem".


Maybe from now on you should just mentally preface everything I say with "Thrustbucket feels" or "Thrustbucket's opinion is"...... Because if I'm trying to convince someone of something (which I wasn't), I'll try to use sources and stats. Otherwise, it's just my own opinion.

If you disagree, then let's here your source-based reasoning for why those stats never get mentioned anywhere in media that isn't considered "right wing".

[mykevermin]

:lol:

[thrustbucket]

Sigh.

Can't imagine living in a reality where my feelings and opinions can only be legitimized by the scrutiny of academia and peer-reviewed sources.

[mykevermin]

:lol:

well played. But I still disagree with the claim. The very topic we're discussing this in is one about a hateful and divisive black preacher who is the center of media scrutiny - and the problem folks have with that because similarly hateful and divisive white preachers are not treated identically.

[Don Chubo]

You're not going to get a leftist like myke to admit that the MSM is left-leaning. It just isn't going to happen.

[mykevermin]

Of course. The left-leaning media is all over Wright, but ignores John "let's get with Israel and blow up Iran in order to incite the literal biblical Armageddon"/"Hurricane Katrina was God's revenge for the homosexual permissiveness of modern American society" Hagee.

Right.

Another moment of picking to ignore moments when the media most clearly does not fit the mold you believe it does, and focus on molding select moments to prove the conclusion that you had before you found the evidence for it.

:lol:

[Msut77]

You're not going to get a leftist like myke to admit that the MSM is left-leaning. It just isn't going to happen.

Why do you think people should admit to something blatantly false?

[thrustbucket]

:lol:

well played. But I still disagree with the claim. The very topic we're discussing this in is one about a hateful and divisive black preacher who is the center of media scrutiny - and the problem folks have with that because similarly hateful and divisive white preachers are not treated identically.

Fair enough. I am guilty of being off topic.

But I do think if there were a white candidate that was as intimately involved with a controversial/hated religious leader for as long, we'd be seeing the same backlash.

McCain seeking the endorsement of a nut like John Hagee is far from the same thing.

Do you have another more equivalent example of what you mean?

Edit: We haven't even gotten to Obama's ties with pseudo-terrorist William Ayers yet

[Don Chubo]

Why do you think people should admit to something blatantly false?

I'm sorry I forgot you. Here you go:

You're not going to get a leftist like myke or Msut77 to admit that the MSM is left-leaning. It just isn't going to happen.

[mykevermin]

Re Ayers: Leave that Sean Hannity bullshit alone. It'll do you no good to discover more about Ayers than the distortions that fevered afternoon radio ego gave you.

[Msut77]

I'm sorry I forgot you. Here you go:

You're not going to get a leftist like myke or Msut77 to admit that the MSM is left-leaning. It just isn't going to happen.

Do you always whine when people refuse to humor your fantasies?

Oops, I forgot who I was asking.

[thrustbucket]

Re Ayers: Leave that Sean Hannity bullshit alone. It'll do you no good to discover more about Ayers than the distortions that fevered afternoon radio ego gave you.

I haven't heard Sean Hannity on the radio for a few years, and I haven't seen his tv show in almost a year. Many media outlets are raising an eyebrow to Ayres.

[Don Chubo]

Do you always whine when people refuse to humor your fantasies?

Oops, I forgot who I was asking.

"This is place for mature discussion" - Leaves you out, yes?

[Don Chubo]

Of course. The left-leaning media is all over Wright, but ignores John "let's get with Israel and blow up Iran in order to incite the literal biblical Armageddon"/"Hurricane Katrina was God's revenge for the homosexual permissiveness of modern American society" Hagee.

Right.

Another moment of picking to ignore moments when the media most clearly does not fit the mold you believe it does, and focus on molding select moments to prove the conclusion that you had before you found the evidence for it.

:lol:

Looks like someone's been reading a little Frank Rich.

[mykevermin]

Heh. Truthfully, the only op-ed writer from the Times I read is Paul Krugman (which is funny, since I think he's brilliant but I tend to despise economists on the whole). Every now and then I'll read David Brooks or Bob Herbert.

[Don Chubo]

Then I misassumed. My apologies - sure sounded like Rich. ;)

[Msut77]

"This is place for mature discussion" - Leaves you out, yes?

Dunno, If I disagree will you spend the next 9 posts saying I am [insert whatever you just made up here] and just wont admit it?

[Don Chubo]

Dunno, If I disagree will you spend the next 9 posts saying I am [insert whatever you just made up here] and just wont admit it?

That's all you can come up with? And you had to edit your post to get this? While it is entertaining to see you interject yourself into dicussions and bring such deep contributions as general trolling, you no longer make me laugh. It's getting too old hat, you see. Find a new gig - this one's worn out.

[Msut77]

That's all you can come up with? And you had to edit your post to get this? While it is entertaining to see you interject yourself into dicussions and bring such deep contributions as general trolling, you no longer make me laugh. It's getting too old hat, you see. Find a new gig - this one's worn out.

So you edited your post to take a jab at me and still missed that typo?

They may have to invent a new word to describe how badly you fail.

[Don Chubo]

An open letter to Msut77:

Seriously - all you seek to do is argue, not discuss. I'll discuss something with someone who has an opposing viewpoint, but I don't have the time or patience to play tit-for-tat with someone like you. So I'll no longer respond to anything you direct at me - I suppose I could put you on my ignore list, but I don't like not being able to see an entire thread I may be a part of.

Having said that, feel free to further comment to your heart's content. If my refusing to play your childish game makes you feel like a big winner and you want to toss around your e-penis and throw out the "Nyah nyah, I win", go for it. Have a nice day, and a nice life.

[Msut77]

all you seek to do is argue, not discuss

There are many threads around here that disprove that including an example in this very thread.

I am pretty cordial as long as you are you not a complete moron, perhaps you know that is the real reason we don't get along and you simply won't admit it?

[pittpizza]

To Msut and Heavy hitter:

"Oh lets just be nice to each other" -The Knights who say "Ichyichyichykabliiiiing!" (formerly the Knights who say "Nii.")

[thrustbucket]

An open letter to Msut77:

Seriously - all you seek to do is argue, not discuss. I'll discuss something with someone who has an opposing viewpoint, but I don't have the time or patience to play tit-for-tat with someone like you. So I'll no longer respond to anything you direct at me - I suppose I could put you on my ignore list, but I don't like not being able to see an entire thread I may be a part of.

Having said that, feel free to further comment to your heart's content. If my refusing to play your childish game makes you feel like a big winner and you want to toss around your e-penis and throw out the "Nyah nyah, I win", go for it. Have a nice day, and a nice life.

Most of us have him on ignore for all the reasons you stated. Haven't you noticed that very few people respond to him anymore?

[Msut77]

thrust put me on his ignore list because I pointed out how ridiculous he was in a thread where he attempted to defend a group of child rapists. So take whatever he says with a grain of salt.

[trq]

http://www.theonion.com/content/infograph/obamas_ministers_outrageous

Funny because it's true.

[SpazX]

http://www.theonion.com/content/infograph/obamas_ministers_outrageous

Funny because it's true.

Haha, yeah I saw that yesterday, it's pretty damn accurate. Wright is crazy, no doubt, but that doesn't mean that everything he says is automatically wrong.