You are right. They were officially part of the Tea Party movement. That being said, The Tea Party Federation did the right thing distancing themselves from the TPE. If one or two crazies in the rally hold signs or scream racist words, there is not much they can do about it. When a leader of one of the organizations does it? Distance themselves from that organization, because they do not believe the same way.
What is wrong with that?
And once again, I'll ask you the same question I have twice already since you keep avoiding giving me an answer. Since your "summation" on whether or not the Tea Party is inherently a racist organization is based on the actions of one man and a few of the members, will you condemn all other political groups in the US for the actions their members have taken?
One thing I would like to point out that it is sad that the NAACP can say there are racist elements in the Tea Party and it is a HUGE deal, yet no one seems to notice when the President of the NAACP hangs out with Louis Farrakhan on televised forums.
But hey, what do I know. According to Louis Farrakhan since I have white skin I haven't even evolved into a human yet.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: What is wrong with that?
Nothing on the whole except for, as I've mentioned twice, the fact that they were more than happy to stick with the organization and continue to work with its intake of funds while the leader was saying all the blatantly racist things he was, and while the organizations' operators kept stoking and feeding off of a campaign with such themes.
quote:And once again, I'll ask you the same question I have twice already since you keep avoiding giving me an answer. Since your "summation" on whether or not the Tea Party is inherently a racist organization is based on the actions of one man and a few of the members, will you condemn all other political groups in the US for the actions their members have taken?
read my posts, I gave you your answer already. "Any summation I have on whether the Tea Party is inherently racist does not come from the actions of a single man." It's right there in my last post. And I've made that clear from the onset of my discussing issues of race and racial issues with the tea party that it has more to do with the presence of pervasive elements that can't be pawned off on 'just a few crazies' (let's ask again: how many tea party members think the president is a muslim? from kenya?), so you can stop jumping to the conclusion that this is the case.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Samp, perhaps you can tell me what these "pervasive elements" are then, since you haven't explained what they are yet.
I will say that was an interesting article though. I think its a little ridiculous on the side of the TPE though. Not to mention childish.
The Tea Party Federation is something I'm fine with. It's not affiliated with any political party. I was worried when the TPE (funded by the Republicans) joined them and took the name, because I think it lost some of its non-partisan ideals in exchange for purely conservative ones.
Good riddance to the TPE, and I hope it dies out. Afterall, it is nothing but a republican hype machine. I hope the TPF sticks around though and continues as a non-partisan group.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: Samp, perhaps you can tell me what these "pervasive elements" are then, since you haven't explained what they are yet.
The Tea Party is jam-packed with racists. It draws heavily from older, racist demographics and is made up of cultural reactionaries, the MAJORITY of whom believe that Obama is a muslim and/or born in kenya and plenty plenty plenty of people who are driven to activism in significant part by things including islamophobia and (yup!) racism. Since the tea party is a movement based largely on attempting to create high-profile rallies, the associations it earns from the acts of its most outwardly racist are noted as a concern by the party itself, and why it's so telling when you have "Obama's Witch Doctor Care" featuring a picture of Obama with a bone in his nose, distributed at more than one rally. Among an infinite quantity of further examples.
Guess what! Many of them are homophobes too! But nearly always, racists insist they are not racist. Always. They aren't racist, and they sure don't SEE any racism, so that's good enough, right?
quote:Take Ron Wight, who stood with dozens of tea party activists at the J.C. Nichols Memorial Fountain in April, complaining about the Obama administration, its socialist agenda and being called a racist.
Those like him who complain about President Barack Obama are accused of racism, lamented the semi-retired music teacher from Lee’s Summit.
Then he added: “If I was a black man, I’d get down on my knees and thank God for slavery. Otherwise, I could be dying of AIDS now in Africa.”
Wight doesn’t consider that comment to be racist.
Of course not. There's no way the comment is racist. How would we ever perceive it as racist? Clive Candy wasn't a racist. Malanthrop isn't a racist (he has jamaican neighbors!). Dan_Frank doesn't think that Michelle Malkin's In Defense of Internment was racist, the last time he got really, really unhappy the last time I pointed out that racism is a prevalent issue for the tea party. Nobody's a racist!
But what I've always asserted is that it has become obvious that the tea party has a problem with racism, whether it be images of the tea party seeming racist against blacks or brown middle-eastern terrorist-looking folk. And it has borne true (Yes, Virginia, Samprimary was right again) The fact that the movement's largest and most damaging schism is the result of a profoundly embarrasing and blatantly racist shpiel (by yet another I'm Not A Racist, who will say it's not REALLY racist, he's just misunderstood) is pure gravy for the case I've made in the past.
This is something that the Tea Party has acknowledged in the sense that they know they have to manage it and try to limit the damage that the very open kooks cause at the rallies. Note that saying "The Tea Party has problems with racism" is different than saying "the Tea Party is intrinsically racist" or whatever other mistranslations people are wont to commit when they're sad to watch the tea party implode over the subject of racism.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: ...the MAJORITY of whom believe that Obama is a muslim and/or born in kenya...
Being the incredibly well-informed and wise political scholar that you are, I trust it would be a snap for you to provide a citation for that, yes?
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by jebus202: That's possible, in terms of first-language English speakers, but the spread of UK English, especially in India, as a secondary language, probably pushes it above US English.
Sorry to jump in late with a non-seq, but:
Doubtful- style guides and ESL textbooks are fairly evenly split. "Color" thanks to the internet is at least as common internationally as "Color," same going for "tire" in place of "tyre" and "humor" in place of "humour."
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: ...the MAJORITY of whom believe that Obama is a muslim and/or born in kenya...
Being the incredibly well-informed and wise political scholar that you are, I trust it would be a snap for you to provide a citation for that, yes?
Indeed, as I am a wise AND well-informed political scholar more that able and willing to help guide you through these painful forthcomings, I am indeed easily able to do so for your sardonically solicited benefit!
Note the charming 53% figure under tea party belief that Obama is a Muslim, and the 45% Tea Party belief figure under "He was not born in the United States and so is not eligible to be President"
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: Sam just does what he always does in other threads. Throws out "facts" without backing them up. Then when you ask for citation, he:
1: Stops posting in the thread
I think it's hilarious that you posted this while I was literally in the middle of pulling up my response. With a citation. With facts.
quote:Says you are not worth his time anymore because you don't want to see the facts for what they are
Geraine, I have a challenge for you. Pull up ONE instance of me actually doing this like you say it, or retract the statement. If you opt to do neither, or just pull up something which you tenuously consider to be an example of this but which isn't really, I'm going to use it as a good example of you resorting to lame accusations and dismissals in the face of frustration.
quote:Again I will ask you though Sam. Where is the outrage over the NAACP hanging out with Farrakhan? Or does that not count as "racist elements?"
Why? Where have I commented on whether or not I care about or support the NAACP's agenda? Surely you've noted that there IS 'outrage' over this. You, yourself demonstrate it.
Anyway, I'll be looking forward to either a substantiation of your crap about me, or a retraction. Good luck!
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Samp. not that you will care, but this is an interesting rebuttal to the Harris poll Wall Street JournalPosts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
But since we apparently communally wouldn't care (as asserted by the other for some reason), I guess there was no point to making either of these posts!
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Murdough says he's nonviolent, that his vision for a new America can be achieved without resorting to genocide or imprisonment.
So please, don't call him a racist. He says that's not true.
"I would ask you about your version of racist," Murdough said. "The word does not have a specific definition. If someone says, 'You seem to hate people who aren't white,'
I say no, so I can't really be a racist, because I don't hate them. I just don't want to live around areas that are heavily, predominantly non-white."
quote:He caused a storm recently with a letter to the Monitor that stated his allegiance to the American Third Position, a political party that represents interests of white Americans. The Republican Party immediately ducked for cover and disowned him as a candidate on their ticket.
Murdough wrote that the state's residents "must seek to preserve their racial identity. . . . Legal non-white immigration, anti-white public school systems and anti-white media have done much damage to the United States of America and especially New Hampshire."
...
Ah yes, the Jews. They need not apply for residency here, either.
"I've even read some things where Jews are considered white because of their skin," Murdough said. "Technically, they're a different race than white people. They're Semitic; that's not white."
Even though whites weren't America's original settlers, Murdough says American Indians would have to leave, too, just like members of all other non-white races. We came, we saw, we conquered. Too bad.
"What happened with them was unfortunate," Murdough said. "But the way lands are taken over is the way it works. They were here, the Western settlers took over and the rest is history."
The conversation continued along these lines, from a man who says immigration of any kind must stop so America can be white as snow.
He tempered his comments along the way, separating himself from the Klan and Hitler by mentioning his job. Murdough works with special-needs kids at the Spaulding Youth Center in Tilton.
"I work directly with kids that are not white and people that are not white on a daily basis," Murdough said. "I don't have a problem working with them. That would be immature to be mean to someone based on skin color."
I should add this to my growing list of Totally Not Racist people. It's almost perfect because it contains something really close to 'don't get me wrong, I have black friends'
posted
It's more than really close, it's a step up. 1.0 is, "I have many black friends." 1.3 is now apparently, "I help underprivileged non-white children."
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: Sam just does what he always does in other threads. Throws out "facts" without backing them up. Then when you ask for citation, he:
1: Stops posting in the thread
I think it's hilarious that you posted this while I was literally in the middle of pulling up my response. With a citation. With facts.
quote:Says you are not worth his time anymore because you don't want to see the facts for what they are
Geraine, I have a challenge for you. Pull up ONE instance of me actually doing this like you say it, or retract the statement. If you opt to do neither, or just pull up something which you tenuously consider to be an example of this but which isn't really, I'm going to use it as a good example of you resorting to lame accusations and dismissals in the face of frustration.
quote:Again I will ask you though Sam. Where is the outrage over the NAACP hanging out with Farrakhan? Or does that not count as "racist elements?"
Why? Where have I commented on whether or not I care about or support the NAACP's agenda? Surely you've noted that there IS 'outrage' over this. You, yourself demonstrate it.
Anyway, I'll be looking forward to either a substantiation of your crap about me, or a retraction. Good luck!
Got it. Throw it all back on me Sam while you continue to avoid my question. It is a simple yes or no question. Either you condemn every political organization because they have racist elements, or you don't.
I will not retract anything I have said. You can just as easily look back through your own posts and see that you have done just that. You have done it with Clive, you have done it with Mal, and other posters here that do not agree with you. Granted most of the time their posts don't deserve to be read, but you have done it.
As for Number 1, yeah that is pretty funny
Now, I have to give kudos to the NAACP today. I am happy that they are practicing what they preach by distancing and condemning the comments by Shirley Sherrod. Her comments saying that she did not help a farmer as much as she could have because he was a white man and that she referred him to one of "his own kind" is racist. She is now trying to say it wasn't racist because his farm was saved and that she is now friends with the farmer. She may be friends with him and his farm may have been saved, but a racist comment is racist.
Are there other members of the NAACP that have made racist comments? Probably. Do I condemn the entire NAACP because of the comments of a few of their members? No I don't.
This is the point you keep missing Sam. Laugh and holler all you want about the Tea Party organization, but at least acknowledge that every other political organization has its own racist elements.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: But hey, what do I know. According to Louis Farrakhan since I have white skin I haven't even evolved into a human yet.
I agree with you about Farrakhan damaging people's credibility by association with him. However, before you go hurling rocks at glass houses, I'd like to remind you that the Mormon church had some pretty racist policies within my own living memory. You're a Mormon, Geraine, IIRC.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Got it. Throw it all back on me Sam while you continue to avoid my question. It is a simple yes or no question. Either you condemn every political organization because they have racist elements, or you don't.
Your question before was "where is the outrage over the NAACP hanging out with Farrakhan?" I answered that. Now you're changing that to a different question and saying I didn't answer it. wtf mate. You're weird when you're riled up.
quote:I will not retract anything I have said. You can just as easily look back through your own posts and see that you have done just that. You have done it with Clive, you have done it with Mal, and other posters here that do not agree with you. Granted most of the time their posts don't deserve to be read, but you have done it.
Show me. If it's just as easy for me to look back through my own posts and see it, as you say, it's just as easy for you. Go ahead. Substantiate yourself.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Now, I have to give kudos to the NAACP today. I am happy that they are practicing what they preach by distancing and condemning the comments by Shirley Sherrod.
quote:She is now trying to say it wasn't racist because his farm was saved and that she is now friends with the farmer.
No, she isn't:
quote:Sherrod defended herself in a number of interviews Tuesday, saying her controversial comments were taken out of context. She had, she said, used a personal experience from nearly a quarter century ago in which she confronted her own racism and learned to move beyond it.
Brietbart's version of events doesn't resemble what was actually said, or what actually happened. The entire controversy was just a convenient, poorly thought-out smear - just another piece of evidence in the two-year old Obama Is A Racist narrative.
As the farmer stated:
quote:Meanwhile, the farmer referenced in the clip told CNN he credits Sherrod with helping his family save their farm.
"I don't know what brought up the racist mess," Roger Spooner told CNN's "Rick's List." "They just want to stir up some trouble, it sounds to me in my opinion."
quote: i think its fairly well documented that the tea-partiers of today are the birthers of a year ago.
Please show the documentation...
Probably the birthers of a year ago are tea-party members... perhaps you mispoke? I think the Tea Party thing is bigger than the birther thing.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: It is a simple yes or no question. Either you condemn every political organization because they have racist elements, or you don't.
DO you still beat your wife? It's a simple yes or no question.
Well... yes or no questions are often less than simple- if your question is as loaded as this one. Getting the person to answer "no," while perhaps satisfying to you, does not prove or even enhance your point. It hinders your understanding of the other person. You may want to work on that.
Do you want to work on that and be better, or continue to be terrible at this? Simple yes or no question.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Eighty-five percent of Democrats, but just 42% of Republicans, maintain that Obama was born in the U.S. There is also a wide divergence of opinion between liberals, 96% of whom believe Obama was born in America, and conservatives, of whom fewer than half feel this way (45%). Just 29% of the voters who say they identify a lot with the tea party movement believe that Obama is a U.S.-born citizen.
quote: DarkKnight, not that you will care, but here is an an interesting analysis of the poll's methodology versus its interpretations.
I did read that and it is agrees that the Harris poll did not follow well known polling principles and agreed that the poll would be skewed.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would never defend the comments of this individual. Racism boiled down is stereotyping by color. Stereotyping is taking a statistical minority to prejudge the majority. I'll counteract this jackass to help understand the Tea Party.
Anyone remember who said, "Hymie Town"? Does he represent an Jew Hating organization.
I don't consider the Democratic Party a racist party because the man they call "the voice of the Senate", was senate majority leader and said:
"Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds."
"There are white n*ggers. I've seen a lot of white n*ggers in my time."
"I am a former Kleagle [recruiter] of the Ku Klux Klan in Raleigh County. The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia. It is necessary that the order be promoted immediately and in every state in the union."
You can't find black members of the KKK...a truly racist organization. Are there any white members of the Black Panthers?
Is anyone here willing to call the Black Panthers racist? I dare you to find a white black panther member. The Tea Party is not racist but it may have some racist members. The Catholic Church is evil for being full of pedophiles also?
posted
malanthrop: Your argument is that many Americans and Catholics are respectively, racist and evil? Wow, thats a toughie. I don't know how I'm ever going to agree to that one Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, my sarcasm didn't translate. There are bad people in any group. One priest pedophile makes worldwide news. One service member with a dui makes city news, despite the fact that town had 50 in the same day. A pretty white college girl comes up missing, we have to hear about it for months on national news. What's newsworthy? What's newsworthy is the anomaly. It's not shocking for a Clansman to make a racist remark. It's not shocking for a black panther to do the same. A tea party leader's racist remark is not really different than the high school teacher who had sex with a student. Especially if it a female teacher..... The bigger the anomaly, the greater the news.
No one stereotypes the teachers union. Of course, whites, churches and conservative organizations can be judged by the action of one. Racist rants and misconduct from minorities and liberal organizations are a different story.....even when less an anomaly.
Posts: 1 | Registered: Jul 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
malanthrope, if you are under the impression that the sexual abuse crisis in the Catholic Church is about "one priest pedophile" - or even a few or a few dozen pedophile priests - rather than a systemic corruption in the Church hierarchy dating back for generations, you do not understand the situation.
Similarly, if you can't tell the difference between isolated racist remarks and racist remarks as an indicator of systemic cultural racism dating back for generations, you do not understand the situation.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: malanthrope, if you are under the impression that the sexual abuse crisis in the Catholic Church is about "one priest pedophile" - or even a few or a few dozen pedophile priests - rather than a systemic corruption in the Church hierarchy dating back for generations, you do not understand the situation.
Similarly, if you can't tell the difference between isolated racist remarks and racist remarks as an indicator of systemic cultural racism dating back for generations, you do not understand the situation.
Pedophile crisis? According to who? In FL I think we're having a female teacher molesting 14 year old boys crisis. Do you think that of all pedophiles in prison today, priest's comprise the highest percentage of offenders by employment? Running into a priest sex offender in jail or prison would be like running into Brad Pitt at the gas station. Extreme anomaly, sure. I won't deny, the one who do it had multitudes of victims. But as far as offenders are concerned, this isn't unusual.
Explain to me how the comments of this particular Tea Party member are, as you said, "racist remarks as an indicator of systemic cultural racism dating back for generations"
The tea party isn't that old.
Posts: 1 | Registered: Jul 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Why are you posting under "malanthrope," a new account?
I'm in the Middle East. My login was remembered by my home computer. I attempted to have my PW sent but it never arrived. I created a new account and had the same issue. I emailed the administrator. Later I rx'd an email from the moderator that my accounts had been merged, with a new pw. I prefer my old login but couldn't recover my pw from it.
If I'm becoming that guy who is no longer welcome, I won't create accounts under other names.
posted
I reconsidered my prior statement. It was an inaccurate analogy. It's more like saying "there aren't enough gang bangers in jail"
Like the Catholic Church, the Hood has a code of silence - probably stronger. The church secretary doesn't have to worry about her life, for snitching. The church members are part of a community just like the good people in a gang neighborhood. Priests are a fraction of the church and no parishoner (the majority) would tolerate pedophilia. In the "hood", live good people and good families who aren't gang bangers but they have that code of silence....out of fear for their lives.
Who's stopping the prosecution of a pedophile? Who's stopping the prosecution of a drug dealer? Most pedophiles never get caught and when they do, they leave behind a slew of victims. Priest pedophiles are no different. At least in the church, the people in the community wont adhere to a no snitch rule, even if the organization does.
posted
Again, you really need to find out what you are talking about before discussing this. "Snitches" may not have had their lives threatened, but they have been threatened with excommunication which, to many Catholics was a threat to eternal life. People that they believed were absolute moral authorities told them to keep their mouths shut. Whole parishes did tolerate pedophilia on orders from their bishops.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sam, the question was in my first post. Regarding your posting habits, I would be happy to dicuss them in pm's, as they do not relate to the subject. I should not have brought them up here in this topic and I apologize for that. I will do what you suggest however and PM you any examples I find.
Orincoro, did you copy the wife beating example from fallacyfiles.org? I'm just wondering because they give the exact same example on their website under "loaded question."
I'll give you a better example of a loaded question, as wife beating is not a subject I'd really like to discuss.
How does insulting someone on an internet forum instead of making the suggestion they rephrase a question make you feel?
Strip out all of the nastiness of your post though and you do have a point. I will pose the question(s) another way. I don't want the logical fallacy police knocking on my door.
1) Personally, what are deciding factors on whether or not a political organization has racist elements?
2) Based on the deciding factors you have listed, do you feel that organizations other than the Tea Party contain racist elements?
3) Do you feel that you treat each organization with equal scrutiny?
To Steven, it is true that the Mormon church had what some consider to be racist policies. While a person of any race could be baptized, not all could receive the priesthood. Interestingly no one seems to know when these policies surfaced. There are many examples of African American members of the church that held the priesthood in the 1800's as well as an African American man that served as a Seventy in the church. Somewhere along the line that changed and I have been unable to find when or why.
I was born in the church and I am white, and I had a lot of trouble accepting that part of the church. I researched it and couldn't find why black members of the church could not hold the priesthood for over a hundred years. I was finally able to accept it through a man I met at church.
Kamau Bacari is an African American member of the church. He was baptized about six years ago, and is one of the happiest people I have ever met. If you saw the guy on the street and met his eyes, this guy would stop and talk to you like a long lost friend. I was talking to him one day and had told him that I was having trouble accepting the stance the church had taken previous to 1978.
Kamau said that he had the same reservations prior to being baptized. He showed me a few quotes by Joseph Smith and Brigham Young that he had found that showed they were not racist, but still couldn't understand why blacks were not allowed the Priesthood.
"...they came into the world slaves, mentally and physically. Change their situation with the whites, and they would be like them. They have souls, and are subjects of salvation." -Joseph Smith (History of the Church, Vol. 5, page 217)
"For their abuse of [the Black African] race, the whites will be cursed, unless they repent." -Brigham Young (Journal of Discourses, Vol.10, p.110)
He said that he actually got his answer while reading the Old Testament. In the Old Testament the God chose certain groups of people to hold the priesthood. In ancient Israel, only Levites could have the Priesthood. It didn't mean the Levites were more righteous or superior to the other tribes, (though at times they were cursed for acting like they were) it just meant that the priesthood duties had been assigned to them.
With his help I've been able to accept it, though it was hard.
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Again, you really need to find out what you are talking about before discussing this. "Snitches" may not have had their lives threatened, but they have been threatened with excommunication which, to many Catholics was a threat to eternal life. People that they believed were absolute moral authorities told them to keep their mouths shut. Whole parishes did tolerate pedophilia on orders from their bishops.
Doubt you have the understanding about the Catholic church that I do. My father completed the semenary and didn't take his final vows because Vatican II was too liberal. Go ahead and google Vatican II....I was raised an extreme Catholic. As a child, I was forced to complete the rosary prayers on a regular basis. While you might have been watching the A-Team, I was saying the Hail Mary.
FYI...I no longer attend the Catholic Church but I doubt you understand it as much as I do. My little league coach was a pedophile and he didn't get any protection.
You attacking the "Catholic Church" for the misconduct of a priest is like attacking an entire neighborhood for the conduct of one gang banger. Right or wrong, church members are offended by an attack on the church.....despite the fact they aren't church workers or priests.
No parishoner has been excomunicated for ratting out a pedophile priest...can you say the same for a neighborhood snitch.
Institutional silence can be expected....I still think a church worker will report a crime sooner than a gang member and a parishoner will report one sooner than a person living in a gang community.
I seriously doubt you know know more about the Catholic church than I, unless you were raised by a Catholic who tainted you worse than I.
Posts: 1 | Registered: Jul 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Strip out all of the nastiness of your post though and you do have a point. I will pose the question(s) another way. I don't want the logical fallacy police knocking on my door.
1) Personally, what are deciding factors on whether or not a political organization has racist elements?
2) Based on the deciding factors you have listed, do you feel that organizations other than the Tea Party contain racist elements?
3) Do you feel that you treat each organization with equal scrutiny?
I think you probably want to revisit these questions, or .. really, explain to me how they're relevant angles of inquiry for what I think of the Tea Party. Of course I think the tea party has racist elements. Practically all organizations have "racist elements." All you need is a single racist or racially inequitable policy or practice in an organization, and that counts.
But looking at these questions, I think that everything you've been ... well, grousing about is based on you mistranslating my position greatly. Do you think I think the tea party is "a racist movement?" Do you think I think that the tea party is 'racist' and the NAACP is not? Or that the tea party has 'racist elements' and the NAACP does not?
As for treating each organization with equal scrutiny, I do not, even if I strive to. You don't, either, and it seems to a much greater degree than me. Nobody does. Not a single human being on earth. The best you can hope to do is to strive to find and factor in blind spots and make an honest attempt to acknowledge and inhibit the myriad of cognitive biases that infest the human mind. But considering I don't support either the NAACP or the Tea Party nor feel any choice-supportive bias towards either, it shouldn't be too hard.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Malanthrope, I am a practicing, mass-going, choir-singing Catholic. Never really watched the A-Team. Nor was I raised by a Catholic. You struck out pretty thoroughly on those guesses.
Also, google Fr. Thomas Doyle. He is probably the world's foremost expert in what the Church did to cover-up abuse. He is also my cousin.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Practically all organizations have "racist elements." All you need is a single racist or racially inequitable policy or practice in an organization, and that counts.
It is unfortunate to have that opinion. Inequity is a fact of life. Women still make less.....we can argue about experience, etc. The woman raised babies instead of gaining experience. We can talk about high school dropout rates...etc.
"Inequitable" as defined by what? Defined by current outcome or current equality of opportunity? The tea parry certainly doesn't stand for equal outcomes, they do stand for equal opportunity and limited government.
Of course, if big govt and redistribution of wealth, in a society where minorities (stereotypically speaking) are poorer, is your main concern...opportunity doesn't matter. Overall averages (statistics) matter.....you've flipped stereotyping on it's head......ignore graduation rates and pay attention to income.
Yes, the Tea Party will hurt minorities in the short run. Smaller government equals less aid to the poor. The question is...Why are so many minorities dropping out of high school and having babies before they are legally adults?
What "racially inequitable position" does the Tea Party take? The Tea party wants equality of opportunity....not necessarily of outcome. Opportunity has nothing to do with skin color.
Posts: 1 | Registered: Jul 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
A racially inequitable policy is defined by a policy that, de facto or otherwise, preferences persons of one race over others and gives them more opportunities at the expense of other races.
quote:Opportunity has nothing to do with skin color.
A statement so idealistically ignorant of current realities that it could have only really come from you! You might as well have said 'opportunity has nothing to do with gender,' another common whopper by people taking a hypnotically idealistic and ignorant perception of sociopolitical inequity.
quote:Yes, the Tea Party will hurt minorities in the short run. Smaller government equals less aid to the poor. The question is...Why are so many minorities dropping out of high school and having babies before they are legally adults?
What an EXCELLENT question! Let's hear your answer!
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
As a crazy socialist, I actually have viewed my politics as a way to maximize equality of opportunity, not results. Take a kid from the inner city who has no health care and schools were the cops are scared to go and compare with say a kid on the rich side of town who gets regular checkups and glasses when they need it and all their immunizations and goes to a fancy private school with low student teacher ratios and then has a private tutor, who do you think has more oppportunities? Or the kid whose parents get cancer and they lose everything because of our health care system? Sorry, your system does NOT give everyone equal opportunities. It gives the fortunate few the ability to succeed and then arrogantly proclaim their success as the result of their own actions, denying all the perks and bonuses they had.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do not believe in equality of opportunity, other than legal. I'm the second son. By the time I was 7 I was bigger and stronger than my older brother. He failed a grade and ended up in my class in high school...I still got better grades than him. Today I make twice what he does. Where was the inequality?
What about my cousin and his PHD, who makes twice what I do? He was a black kid adopted by white people. Was he advantaged by his white parents or disadvantaged for his skin color?. Why is my older brother collecting food stamps and I am not? You're definitely at a disadvantage if you're born in a culture with an 80% illegitimate birth rate.
Law offers equal opportunity, genetics and quality parentS are a roll of the dice.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
