|
Post by millring on Nov 16, 2012 7:50:43 GMT -5
I shouldn't even bring this up since it is a change of subject -- Jeff's point NOT being about race. But since it seems to have been brought up anyway... For god's sake, do you think we could finally grasp that not every issue that involves race is racISM?! Look at this, for example. acoustictalk.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=tempttt&action=display&thread=30911 Because the template of Republicans/conservatives-as-racist is so strong and so accepted without question, the assessment of a person of Hispanic descent as a probable Democrat voter was declared "RACIST!" by all the liberal artists on the forum ---- when it's nothing of the sort. The shoppers were merely expressing a mathematical probability. They were not making their judgement not to buy because they did not like, or otherwise thought inferior, a person due to his race. They had a previous commitment -- however stupid or ineffective -- to boycott businesses that supported Democrats. They saw a businessman -- the artist -- who was obviously Hispanic --- and they concluded the mathematical probability that he was a Democrat. That's not racism. And not being for affirmative action is not racism. And observing cultural differences is not racism.
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Nov 16, 2012 9:23:37 GMT -5
Because the template of Republicans/conservatives-as-racist is so strong and so accepted without question, ... There are Republicans, conservatives, and individuals. Anyone who thinks an individual is a racist because he or she is a Republican or a conservative is a fool. But the generalization is not without merit. Republicans purposely brought in racists along with everyone else when they went after the Southern Democrats in the 70's and helped create a wedge between the working class whites and blacks. And Republicans have been pandering to them ever since. I don't think Republicans are racists, but I do think they have a racial problem, a big part of which comes from their focus and favoritism for the rich. By excluding the non-rich and in some cases intentionally hurting the poor, like they would have with Ryan's gutting of Medicaid, they are making enemies of the poor who tend to be non-white. This last campaign cycle brought to light most of what's wrong with the Republican party. I can't hope to list all the examples, but between comments about legitimate rape, the 47%, illegal aliens and the proactive voter suppression efforts, particularly in urban areas, Republicans made it clear who they do not care for. The post election talk isn't helping with claims that Democrats bought their votes. It's insulting to anyone who voted Democratic, and it's absurd coming from a guy who was promising 20% tax cuts for everybody.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Nov 16, 2012 9:29:59 GMT -5
Okay, have it your way. Have your shortcut around reasonable discussion. Good luck with that. I hope you continue to find fewer and fewer people to discuss issues with as Jeff after Jeff tire of your bullshit.
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Nov 16, 2012 9:31:06 GMT -5
Because the template of Republicans/conservatives-as-racist is so strong and so accepted without question, ... There are Republicans, conservatives, and individuals. Anyone who thinks an individual is a racist because he or she is a Republican or a conservative is a fool. But the generalization is not without merit. Republicans purposely brought in racists along with everyone else when they went after the Southern Democrats in the 70's and helped create a wedge between the working class whites and blacks. And Republicans have been pandering to them ever since. I don't think Republicans are racists, but I do think they have a racial problem, a big part of which comes from their focus and favoritism for the rich. By excluding the non-rich and in some cases intentionally hurting the poor, like they would have with Ryan's gutting of Medicaid, they are making enemies of the poor who tend to be non-white. This last campaign cycle brought to light most of what's wrong with the Republican party. I can't hope to list all the examples, but between comments about legitimate rape, the 47%, illegal aliens and the proactive voter suppression efforts, particularly in urban areas, Republicans made it clear who they do not care for. The post election talk isn't helping with claims that Democrats bought their votes. It's insulting to anyone who voted Democratic, and it's absurd coming from a guy who was promising 20% tax cuts for everybody. While the Republicans see the Democratic party as the party of racism as they treat the minorities as not good enough to get by with out help. So letting your partisanship show.
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Nov 16, 2012 10:19:07 GMT -5
Okay, have it your way. Have your shortcut around reasonable discussion. Good luck with that. I hope you continue to find fewer and fewer people to discuss issues with as Jeff after Jeff tire of your bullshit. NOW what is your problem? You're back to blaming me for this thing. I never called anybody a racist. And I agreed with you that Republicans are not racists. Is saying that Republicans have a racial problem bullshit? Do you just get pissy when someone says something you don't like? Really, what is your problem?
|
|
|
Post by Lonnie on Nov 16, 2012 10:28:11 GMT -5
The shoppers were merely expressing a mathematical probability. They were not making their judgement not to buy because they did not like, or otherwise thought inferior, a person due to his race. They had a previous commitment -- however stupid or ineffective -- to boycott businesses that supported Democrats. They saw a businessman -- the artist -- who was obviously Hispanic --- and they concluded the mathematical probability that he was a Democrat. That's not racism. I'll try to stay warm and fuzzy with this response, as my morning coffee is in a Bauman mug. My comments are addressing the would-be shoppers, not John, not Jeff, not anyone on the forum... based solely on the original thread's premise and the information quoted. Did the shoppers decide not to buy because the artist was a Democrat? No... they assumed he was a Democrat. Based on what? The content of his painting or the price? No, they liked the piece, they were going to buy it. His attitude? Not enough information, but I venture to guess no, as they returned to the site after her morning visit. The Obama sticker plastered on the wall? Again, not enough information. They decided not to buy, according to the above quote, because of a mathematical probability based solely on his race. Isn't that stereotyping? Isn't that profiling? And when you strip the language away, isn't placing a set of values that one feels is inferior to their own on another human solely because of his race racism? If I owned a bar and said that black people were not allowed in because statistics prove that urban blacks are more likely to use drugs than urban whites (I have no idea if that's accurate, this is just for the sake of argument), would that be racism or mathematical probability?
|
|
|
Post by millring on Nov 16, 2012 10:48:15 GMT -5
Did the shoppers decide not to buy because the artist was a Democrat? No... Actually, yes, they did. Or, I should say, yes, they believe they did based on a very rational probability -- that in overwhelming numbers, people of color voted Democratic. Were they correct? 1. They could not have known at the time of the decision because probability isn't the same thing as certainty. 2. Yes, as it turns out, they were. Was it a racist observation? I don't believe so. Racism is expressly about believing in superiority based upon race. Not superiority based upon ideology or political affiliation. Is profiling a rational way to pass judgement upon individuals? Not necessarily. I guess it would depend on the situation for which the judgement was being passed. But neither is it an expression of racial superiority or inferiority. It's merely an expression of perceived mathematical probability based upon an outward characteristic.
|
|
|
Post by Lonnie on Nov 16, 2012 10:51:05 GMT -5
If it walks like a duck...
|
|
|
Post by Rob Hanesworth on Nov 16, 2012 10:58:14 GMT -5
Did the shoppers decide not to buy because the artist was a Democrat? No... Actually, yes, they did. Or, I should say, yes, they believe they did based on a very rational probability -- that in overwhelming numbers, people of color voted Democratic. Were they correct? 1. They could not have known at the time of the decision because probability isn't the same thing as certainty. 2. Yes, as it turns out, they were. Was it a racist observation? I don't believe so. Racism is expressly about believing in superiority based upon race. Not superiority based upon ideology or political affiliation. Is profiling a rational way to pass judgement upon individuals? Not necessarily. I guess it would depend on the situation for which the judgement was being passed. But neither is it an expression of racial superiority or inferiority. It's merely an expression of perceived mathematical probability based upon an outward characteristic. If only 15% of neurosurgeons are black, and a black man walks in to the operating room to repair your brain, there is a mathematical probability based upon an outward characteristic that he is not a neurosurgeon.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Nov 16, 2012 11:04:21 GMT -5
There is a 100% certainty that if he walks into the operating room to repair my brain, he is either a doctor or a nurse. If I see him on the street there is an even more slim probability that he is a surgeon than is the probability that the random Indian whose path I cross might be. And it might cross my mind, if I'm walking the streets of Warsaw, that the probability that every Indian whose path I cross is either an engineer or a doctor is very high.
And none of those observations would be racist observations, though they would be based upon race and statistical probabilities.
|
|
|
Post by Lonnie on Nov 16, 2012 11:12:52 GMT -5
Granted... but, if I make assumptions that a person's belief system or ideals are lesser than mine, based solely on their race, and use those assumptions in my interaction with that person, I can gloss it up with whatever language I want to use, but that IS racism.
|
|
|
Post by Lonnie on Nov 16, 2012 11:15:00 GMT -5
There is a 100% certainty that if he walks into the operating room to repair my brain, he is either a doctor or a nurse. ...unless he's a paid assassin masquerading as a doctor or a nurse... sorry, too many episodes of 24.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Nov 16, 2012 11:18:32 GMT -5
If that's the case, then your syllogism would also necessarily conclude that differences of politics are precisely the same prejudice as racism.
I'm not doing a very good job of explaining myself, but I believe you are either minimizing the impetus for racism (thereby making it mean less) or you are overblowing the nature of political disagreements. But either way, you're torturing definitions in such a way that equates racism with political differences. They're not the same.
But I guess that's pretty much symptomatic of politcal discourse these days, isn't it? We don't see ourselves as two sides with a differing opinion for what's best for the country. No, each side sees itself as wanting what's best for the country and the other side not only doesn't want what's best -- it is an evil that wants to destroy the country.
No wonder we can't have logical discussions.
|
|
|
Post by Supertramp78 on Nov 16, 2012 11:36:30 GMT -5
"I'm not doing a very good job of explaining myself"
Actually I think you are making a lot of sense. I'm sorry I derailed this thread. You make a lot of interesting points.
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Nov 16, 2012 11:37:55 GMT -5
While the Republicans see the Democratic party as the party of racism as they treat the minorities as not good enough to get by with out help. So letting your partisanship show. Nobody gets by without help, Doug. Nobody. That's one thing that Republicans haven't been able to grasp so far. As a generalization, Republicans are prejudiced against minorities. Also as a generalization, Democrats are prejudiced in favor of minorities. The two will argue endlessly about who is right and who is or isn't prejudiced. Minorities, meanwhile, are still disadvantaged. Until minorities have just as much a chance at success as the majority, the debate will continue.
|
|
|
Post by Lonnie on Nov 16, 2012 11:47:34 GMT -5
Not at all... Here's my point. They based a decision SOLELY on the artist's race. They made assumptions about his political leanings, they did not bother to find out what those leanings were. They had one point in their decision making and that was the fact that he looked Hispanic.
"Why didn't you buy the painting?" "He's a Democrat." "Do you know that?" "No, we assumed it." "Why did you assume it?" "Because he's Hispanic." "Why didn't you buy his painting?" "Because he's Hispanic."
|
|
|
Post by timfarney on Nov 16, 2012 11:53:37 GMT -5
"I'm not doing a very good job of explaining myself" Actually I think you are making a lot of sense. I'm sorry I derailed this thread. You make a lot of interesting points. Yep. And regarding this: Yes. We can grasp this. I'm with you. But I also have to agree that the GOP has a race problem. The party is not racist. Most of the people in the party are not racist, but they have the problem nonetheless, mostly, I think, because their radical fringe, which is way too high profile and not nearly fringe enough for most people, skirt on the edges (and sometimes cross the line) of racism a lot, and the mainstream high-profile Republicans let them get away with it. If the leadership of the GOP would denounce the nuts, and drive them to a third party where they belong, it would solve the problem. And it may very well have changed this last election. But you just can't let Rush, Beck, Robertson, Coulter, etc. appear to speak for you without getting the stink of them all over you. And when, out of fear of political repercussions, you have a field of presidential hopefuls just a slight notch less nutty than Rush, Beck, Robertson, etc, it doen't really matter if you understand that in the end you'll nominate the moderate. You've got the stink all over you. Republican = racist is grossly unfair. But Republicans are not innocent in the creation of that perception. Tim
|
|
|
Post by millring on Nov 16, 2012 11:55:22 GMT -5
Yes, that's what I'm saying. And I'm saying that is a decision based on race that is not racISM. They were not saying that Hispanics, as a race (which they are not -- discussion for another day) are inferior -- just that they were likely to have voted Democratic.
(on edit: this was in response to Lonnie. Tim's post had not yet appeared)
|
|
|
Post by millring on Nov 16, 2012 12:15:37 GMT -5
"I'm not doing a very good job of explaining myself" Actually I think you are making a lot of sense. I'm sorry I derailed this thread. You make a lot of interesting points. Yep. And regarding this: Yes. We can grasp this. I'm with you. But I also have to agree that the GOP has a race problem. The party is not racist. Most of the people in the party are not racist, but they have the problem nonetheless, mostly, I think, because their radical fringe, which is way too high profile and not nearly fringe enough for most people, skirt on the edges (and sometimes cross the line) of racism a lot, and the mainstream high-profile Republicans let them get away with it. If the leadership of the GOP would denounce the nuts, and drive them to a third party where they belong, it would solve the problem. And it may very well have changed this last election. But you just can't let Rush, Beck, Robertson, Coulter, etc. appear to speak for you without getting the stink of them all over you. And when, out of fear of political repercussions, you have a field of presidential hopefuls just a slight notch less nutty than Rush, Beck, Robertson, etc, it doen't really matter if you understand that in the end you'll nominate the moderate. You've got the stink all over you. Republican = racist is grossly unfair. But Republicans are not innocent in the creation of that perception. Tim Just like Democratic's patriotism problem. Not based in reality, but crafted by the opposition and a handy way to avoid discussing things rationally.
|
|
|
Post by Lonnie on Nov 16, 2012 12:25:06 GMT -5
Yes, that's what I'm saying. And I'm saying that is a decision based on race that is not racISM. They were not saying that Hispanics, as a race (which they are not -- discussion for another day) are inferior -- just that they were likely to have voted Democratic. OK, one more time and I am dropping this argument. They assumed he was Democrat BECAUSE he was Hispanic. It is obvious that they feel a Democratic viewpoint is inferior to their own, therefor they refused to do business with him. This is how racism starts. He must not think like we do because his people don't think like our people. It's an "if A, then B" flawed logic. If I read a study that says that 40% of the black population are thieves as opposed to 15% of the white population and I believe it, and a black man walks into my store and I tell him to leave, my reason being that it's because he's a thief, is that racist? It's not because he's black, he's just more likely to commit a crime than a white guy in my store. If that's not racist, then I need to completely redefine what I think racial prejudice is. One more time, for the record... when an individual makes negative assumptions about another individual based on their race and some survey, that's racism in my book. Scones, anyone?
|
|