|
Radish posted:Seriously Obama beat a war veteran and then after his "divisive" first term beat two of the whitest men in the country so I'm not THAT scared of the racist Democrat voters dropping the party. America needs a serious wake up call since a majority seems to think we are beyond racial issues and thus when a black kid is killed by a cop, he must have had it coming because racism ended in 1964. You contradict yourself in two sentences.
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 04:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 22:17 |
|
|
computer parts posted:You contradict yourself in two sentences. Uh, what? That seems like a perfectly okay argument to me.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 04:27
|
|
|
Wanamingo posted:Uh, what? That seems like a perfectly okay argument to me. "Racism must not be bad because a black guy won over two white dudes but racism is so bad and the majority thinks it ended in 1964". The argument makes sense if you admit one thing: Obama won specifically because he didn't talk about race.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 04:28
|
|
|
The part about Obama getting elected was in reference to only racist democrats. The second sentence is applied to the country at large.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 04:30
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:The part about Obama getting elected was in reference to only racist democrats. The second sentence is applied to the country at large. It takes the majority of the country to elect the President (unless you think that most of the racists don't vote).
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 04:32
|
|
|
computer parts posted:It takes the majority of the country to elect the President (unless you think that most of the racists don't vote). His point is that there are not enough racists in the Democratic party that would jump ship if Obama started talking about race to mean anything, as evidenced by the fact that a black man won over a white veteran and later Romney/Ryan. He's saying that if there were that many racists in the Democratic party, Obama would not have won in the first place. Despite this, racism is still obviously a problem in the country.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 04:37
|
|
|
People can have (strong) racial prejudices without being openly (or even knowingly) racist. There are lots of white people who aren't comfortable accepting that the system is rigged and that there is a lot of systemic racism built into America society, but who are delighted to vote for a black guy and think it makes them progressive and 'post-racial.'
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 04:38
|
|
|
edit: wrong thread
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 04:38
|
|
|
Magres posted:People can have (strong) racial prejudices without being openly (or even knowingly) racist. Exactly. There are people here that have trouble accepting the systematic oppression that gave white people the privileges they have today, and this forum is one of the most accepting of those views.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 04:39
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Exactly. There are people here that have trouble accepting the systematic oppression that gave white people the privileges they have today, and this forum is one of the most accepting of those views. I don't think anyone's refuting that. We're refuting the idea that talking about race at all would be some catastrophe that would immediately give complete control of the House, 60 seats of the Senate, and the Presidency to the GOP. We're also saying that even if it is politically bad for the Democratic party to talk about race, it is still necessary if any progress is to be made ever.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 04:41
|
|
|
I honestly think most people are somewhat prejudiced or racist, some people are just a little more aware and self-aware.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 04:42
|
|
|
Magres posted:People can have (strong) racial prejudices without being openly (or even knowingly) racist. How many (white) people here have parents that are reasonable enough in their political opinions but would go ape-poo poo if one of you brought home a SO that wasn't white? I know my dad would!
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 04:42
|
|
|
DoubleDonut posted:I don't think anyone's refuting that. We're refuting the idea that talking about race at all would be some catastrophe that would immediately give complete control of the House, 60 seats of the Senate, and the Presidency to the GOP. We're also saying that even if it is politically bad for the Democratic party to talk about race, it is still necessary if any progress is to be made ever. It probably wouldn't do it immediately but if Obama kept it up now and continued through his presidency it would probably cost them the Senate (not 60 seats but lol if you think that the GOP wouldn't get rid of the filibuster when convenient) and probably the presidency if Hillary/whoever didn't distance themselves from him as much as possible.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 04:45
|
|
|
DemeaninDemon posted:How many (white) people here have parents that are reasonable enough in their political opinions but would go ape-poo poo if one of you brought home a SO that wasn't white? I know my dad would! Ahahaha I know for sure, my sister is probably going to marry the Mexican guy she's dating and it is driving my mother absolutely insane and it is glorious.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 04:45
|
|
|
computer parts posted:It probably wouldn't do it immediately but if Obama kept it up now and continued through his presidency it would probably cost them the Senate (not 60 seats but lol if you think that the GOP wouldn't get rid of the filibuster when convenient) and probably the presidency if Hillary/whoever didn't distance themselves from him as much as possible. I don't think the GOP could win the presidency. They're too racist and there's too many non-whites voting for them to take it - as I said earlier, Romney lost almost every single swing state he needed in a race against a weak minority incumbent. I also don't think that "let's just keep going with the party that refuses to acknowledge racism" is a plan that ever results in anything but more institutionalized racism, similar to how a party that refuses to acknowledge the wealth gap has resulted in a bunch of policies that the Republican party would have instituted anyway. Like I said, I'd rather at least try something and lose (which I don't think is likely, in the long-term) than sit here and wait for some magical solution that will never come. DoubleDonut fucked around with this message at 04:54 on Aug 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 04:51
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Exactly. There are people here that have trouble accepting the systematic oppression that gave white people the privileges they have today, and this forum is one of the most accepting of those views. And part of that is that accepting said systematic oppression is mentally painful. Like I'm as privileged as they come (straight, cis, white man, even anglo-saxon and tall) and it was only a couple years ago that I really accepted the idea of privilege and started having the critical thought patterns to notice it everywhere, and it loving hurt to realize that my old worldview was unintentionally selfish and hurtful towards everyone around me that is less privileged than I am.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 04:55
|
|
|
DemeaninDemon posted:How many (white) people here have parents that are reasonable enough in their political opinions but would go ape-poo poo if one of you brought home a SO that wasn't white? I know my dad would! My parents are victims of the much more insiduous type of racism in that the thought of being against opposing their kids' dates on the basis of {race, gender, religion, whatever} would never cross their mind and they're ashamed of their relatives who use n-word, but still buy into the myth that there exist lazy people pumping out kids to live off the government dole and that anyone can work their way out of poverty.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 04:57
|
|
|
DemeaninDemon posted:How many (white) people here have parents that are reasonable enough in their political opinions but would go ape-poo poo if one of you brought home a SO that wasn't white? I know my dad would! I feel like that as long as I come home with someone who isn't my older sister's previous ex, I'm on pretty friendly ground.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 05:10
|
|
|
I'm interested in seeing what Obama will say, when he is operating on no sleep, but if there's something him and I can agree on, it's that we don't want poh-lice officer Darren Wilson to become the next George Zimmerman hero of the right.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 12:02
|
|
|
We don't really have to speculate on the electoral effects of Obama giving a big speech about race in America because he did that in the 2008 primary.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 12:23
|
|
|
DoubleDonut posted:I don't think the GOP could win the presidency. They're too racist and there's too many non-whites voting for them to take it - as I said earlier, Romney lost almost every single swing state he needed in a race against a weak minority incumbent. Yeah exactly. Saying "we can't afford to lose the racist vote by rocking the boat" is saying you are complacent with the racism and will never get around to fixing it or even acknowledging it. Waiting for some nebulous time in the future when America becomes less racist through means outside of our leaders' responsibilities just feels incredibly weak and gutless (and may never happen if white people aren't taught that the system is rigged instead of everything being won through hard word and gumption fairly.) It may cost them an election or two but I highly doubt enough to give them some high 2/3 majority in the senate or the presidency. The house is already a lost cause until the next census so why not take a risk?
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 12:56
|
|
|
I'm as white as they come and I can't wait for Obama to loving spank us as a race because gently caress the old racists and also the young racists or hell, just gently caress racists in general and if hearing a black man talk about some of the many race issues America has is scary to you then gently caress you too. Jesus christ how long are we gong to bow down to the worst parts of the country because we are afraid they are going to act like the pieces of poo poo we know they are. gently caress them and gently caress anyone who is too scared to call them out on their stupid bullshit because they are afraid of how the racists will feel about it. The sooner people of sense stop coddling them the better, let them kick and scream, they are going to do it anyways, we might as well give them a real reason to.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 13:09
|
|
|
In my experience, a lot of the left's disillusionment with the President is that he refuses to kick rear end and take names. We're smart enough to know he's not going to change the world into a better place by decree, he could at least handle the incremental process of governing with style for a change. I mean, we got a glimpse of rockin Obama a month ago while he was touring a month ago, it was nice.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 14:19
|
|
|
SirKibbles posted:That was Toni Morrison and it was in the context of her saying this was a close as we were going to get to a person who cares about black issues. People keep taking that quote out of context. No, it was a literal badge she awarded. It turned his parents black. Farrakhan was going to talk poo poo but then he saw the badge and said "gently caress."
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 14:32
|
|
|
Joementum posted:We don't really have to speculate on the electoral effects of Obama giving a big speech about race in America because he did that in the 2008 primary. Thanks pyu. I wondered when someone would remember that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 14:54
|
|
|
Maybe I'm just talking out my rear end, but wanting to save the Democratic party even when it keeps tacking to the right sounds a hell of a lot like wanting to save the Whigs even as they constantly compromise with the South by inches.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 14:55
|
|
|
I'm going to recommend TNC's Fear of a Black President. It provides some great context on how Obama approaches race and racial issues framing it in black political movements and the modern constraints.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 15:02
|
|
|
Cheekio posted:In my experience, a lot of the left's disillusionment with the President is that he refuses to kick rear end and take names. We're smart enough to know he's not going to change the world into a better place by decree, he could at least handle the incremental process of governing with style for a change. He's doing that in Iraq right now. Harry Joe posted:
The entire point is that many of them are not doing it right now. Think of literally anyone that's white and has even mild libertarian tendencies - those people will be firmly in the "I got where I was due to hard work and not ~~race~~, Obama's just being racist himself!" camp. This includes people who may have previously voted for Obama!
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 15:16
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Maybe I'm just talking out my rear end, but wanting to save the Democratic party even when it keeps tacking to the right sounds a hell of a lot like wanting to save the Whigs even as they constantly compromise with the South by inches. I feel the same way, but I'm sure the Democratic establishment wants the party to be the biggest tent bad enough to not let any issue become a threat.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 15:26
|
|
|
computer parts posted:He's doing that in Iraq right now. Yeah he's getting absolutely no credit for what's going on in Kurdistan right now. Assisting the Kurds/Yezidis against ISIS is an unequivocally Good Thing and of course he's received exactly zero support from the GOP.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 15:36
|
|
|
Guys, Rick Perry is going to be okay because the future Republican President is praying for him
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 16:13
|
|
|
Prester John posted:I'm also willing to give Obama some benefit of the doubt here because it is not inconceivable that a strong discussion about race from him would be the signal to start RAHOWA that any number (probably dozens) of these militia groups have been waiting for. I can't wait to read the books coming out about this decades from now, because based on my time spent around those paranoid whackjobs, they must be absolutely frothing right now. I mean they were bad and getting worse when I walked away 3+ years ago, now who knows. This is from a few pages back, but from the sound of this, you used to be in a militia or white supremacist group? Yes? Can you start an A/T thread or something because that sounds interesting.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 17:19
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:This is from a few pages back, but from the sound of this, you used to be in a militia or white supremacist group? Yes? Can you start an A/T thread or something because that sounds interesting. IIRC, Prester John was a former conspiracy theorist who made an Ask/Tell thread about it. From what I recall the reason he left that group was medication, but that was indeed an interesting thread if you want to go dig it up.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 17:22
|
|
|
Bifner McDoogle posted:IIRC, Prester John was a former conspiracy theorist who made an Ask/Tell thread about it. From what I recall the reason he left that group was medication, but that was indeed an interesting thread if you want to go dig it up. Yeah, dude's I think schizophrenic and turns to conspiracy theories when he's unmedicated. When he's medicated he's an insightful and interesting person.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 17:25
|
|
|
Not the first goon in this vein. Dolex comes to mind. For what happens without treatment and/or medication, see Hangly Man.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 17:28
|
|
|
DemeaninDemon posted:How many (white) people here have parents that are reasonable enough in their political opinions but would go ape-poo poo if one of you brought home a SO that wasn't white? I know my dad would! When I was 13 or 14 my mom told me on a car ride home one day that she would always love me. Unless I was gay or brought home a black girl. This was forever ago and she's mellowed the hell out since then.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 17:28
|
|
|
What's so controversial and dangerous about pointing out that shooting an unarmed kid 6 times, twice in the face is something we maybe shouldn't aspire to? I'd be happy to lose the vote of anyone who disagrees with that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 17:34
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:What's so controversial and dangerous about pointing out that shooting an unarmed kid 6 times, twice in the face is something we maybe shouldn't aspire to? I'd be happy to lose the vote of anyone who disagrees with that. only once in the face the other headshot was to his crown
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 17:37
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:What's so controversial and dangerous about pointing out that shooting an unarmed kid 6 times, twice in the face is something we maybe shouldn't aspire to? I'd be happy to lose the vote of anyone who disagrees with that. Well okay, but you're not gonna like how many votes that actually loses. I still have real trouble understanding how we elected Obama in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 17:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 22:17 |
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:What's so controversial and dangerous about pointing out that shooting an unarmed kid 6 times, twice in the face is something we maybe shouldn't aspire to? I'd be happy to lose the vote of anyone who disagrees with that. Come to the Freep thread we have such wonders to show you.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2014 17:42
|
|