Journal Timex's Journal: Obama: Racist? 44
Before you flip out on my title, consider this: Many Liberals[1] consider anyone against Obama and his policies "racist" by default. Why? Simply because that's the way they think. They classify other people according to to the way they think, whether they publicize their train of thought or not.
Consider, too, that Obama recently called on "young people, African-Americans, Latinos, and women who powered our victory in 2008 [to] stand together once again."
Why assume that all "African-Americans"[2] and Latinos[3] were on Obama's side in 2008? Because that's the way he thinks. Statistically, one could make the case that the number of people that fit into the "African-American" and "Latino" labels he refers to that stood against him would be relatively insignificant, and therefore not worth counting, but I'm sure they would beg to differ. Every person's opinion matters, whether they are statistically worthy or not.
Is Obama actually a racist? I don't know. I don't think I have enough information to make that call accurately. If we were to go with the Liberal definition (which the Liberals themselves surely wouldn't), the answer would be a resounding "YES!" (See, the Liberals tend to be completely blind to their hypocrisy. They are like Congress, applying rules they make to others, without applying the same rules to themselves.)
The sad thing is that there are racists on both sides, to the Left and the Right. The Left focus in on the right-wing racists and (wrongly) accuse all "right wingers" as being of the same ilk, all the while ignoring the fact that the Left has similar issues that need to be dealt with[4].
--
[1] I'm referring here to American Liberals, not to be confused with the Canadian or European variety.
[2] We'll ignore the fact that "African-Americans" don't really exist, as such, any more than "Asian-Americans" or "European-Americans" do. Yes, there are people whose ancestors originated from the African continent, but we generally aren't sure exactly which country they originated from.
[3] LasCulturas.com has an interesting perspective on the term, its usage, its history, and its acceptability.
[4] I'm thinking specifically of the Reverend Jesse Jackson and Reverend Al Sharpton, both of whom sided with an alleged rape victim, a case in which charges were dropped and the case dismissed. Interestingly enough, both Jackson and Sharpton have yet to apologize for comments they made "on Magnum's behalf" against the accused.
Consider, too, that Obama recently called on "young people, African-Americans, Latinos, and women who powered our victory in 2008 [to] stand together once again."
Why assume that all "African-Americans"[2] and Latinos[3] were on Obama's side in 2008? Because that's the way he thinks. Statistically, one could make the case that the number of people that fit into the "African-American" and "Latino" labels he refers to that stood against him would be relatively insignificant, and therefore not worth counting, but I'm sure they would beg to differ. Every person's opinion matters, whether they are statistically worthy or not.
Is Obama actually a racist? I don't know. I don't think I have enough information to make that call accurately. If we were to go with the Liberal definition (which the Liberals themselves surely wouldn't), the answer would be a resounding "YES!" (See, the Liberals tend to be completely blind to their hypocrisy. They are like Congress, applying rules they make to others, without applying the same rules to themselves.)
The sad thing is that there are racists on both sides, to the Left and the Right. The Left focus in on the right-wing racists and (wrongly) accuse all "right wingers" as being of the same ilk, all the while ignoring the fact that the Left has similar issues that need to be dealt with[4].
--
[1] I'm referring here to American Liberals, not to be confused with the Canadian or European variety.
[2] We'll ignore the fact that "African-Americans" don't really exist, as such, any more than "Asian-Americans" or "European-Americans" do. Yes, there are people whose ancestors originated from the African continent, but we generally aren't sure exactly which country they originated from.
[3] LasCulturas.com has an interesting perspective on the term, its usage, its history, and its acceptability.
[4] I'm thinking specifically of the Reverend Jesse Jackson and Reverend Al Sharpton, both of whom sided with an alleged rape victim, a case in which charges were dropped and the case dismissed. Interestingly enough, both Jackson and Sharpton have yet to apologize for comments they made "on Magnum's behalf" against the accused.
"Racism" is very insidious anymore (Score:2)
Sociologists have been running a poll for a very long time, back far enough that the majority of people responded to "Why do black people have less money?" answered with: "because black people are stupid/inferior."
While it is true that this answer has received less answers every year, it's also true that an alternate answer "because they're lazy/unmotivated" has pressed to the fore, and if you add up both of them, you end up with not a single person becoming non-racist, but rather they all just traded one s
Re: (Score:2)
"When right-wingers push for "we speak English here, so LEARN IT!" they're biasing themselves against Mexicans. They don't complain much about the Chinese who come here and contribute to our technological progress, or the Europeans who come here, perhaps speaking little English. No, they only seem to complain about SPANISH. They also fail to realize that Puerto Ricans are fully US citizens, but do not naturally learn English, but not even that, about a quarter of the state of New Mexico speak Spanish (and s
Re: (Score:2)
Actually- in high tech, it's usually a complaint about either Chinese or some thick accent from the Indian Subcontinent. But what it really comes down to is who you personally are in direct competition with.
What I think the big thing is, because this pattern has followed for Italians and Irish, and Polish, and Jews...
It's a situation of Americans hate the newest immigrants, and this has caused "quotas" to be placed on how many immigrants from one nation can come through at a time.
These quota, and "racism" stick around with people talking about how the newest group of immigrants will never be able to integrate, but then they do.
Eventually, their culture becomes part of American culture, and people stop being ra
Re: (Score:2)
But WHY do "Americans hate the newest immigrants"?
Usually it's directly *because* of competition on the job site. The newest immigrants are always seen as taking jobs away from those who need jobs to survive (never mind the fact that the immigrants, too, need the jobs to survive). And thus, who you're biased against, is going to depend largely upon who you're in competition with- blue collar workers will hate the Mexicans, where high tech workers will hate the Chinese and Indians- just because of what job
Re: (Score:2)
But WHY do "Americans hate the newest immigrants"?
Usually it's directly *because* of competition on the job site. The newest immigrants are always seen as taking jobs away from those who need jobs to survive (never mind the fact that the immigrants, too, need the jobs to survive). And thus, who you're biased against, is going to depend largely upon who you're in competition with- blue collar workers will hate the Mexicans, where high tech workers will hate the Chinese and Indians- just because of what jobs they are taking.
Has almost nothing to do with culture, other than as a way to separate people out, and everything to do with us-vs-them competition.
Quite agreed. But this doesn't make them JUSTIFIED, and in fact, is directly unjustified by the principles of the free market, or free economy, or capitalism.
The whole point of all these "-isms" and in particular the anti-immigrant versions thereof is the same "us-vs-them" notion that causes racism.
While you hold that the cultural targeting is only the means to effect the end, I hold that both are equally racist. Even yet! If the end were not intentionally racist, the means directly are.
Re: (Score:1)
Quite agreed. But this doesn't make them JUSTIFIED, and in fact, is directly unjustified by the principles of the free market, or free economy, or capitalism.
First, that you agree means you don't think it is racist. So you're contradicting yourself.
Second, no, it is not in any way unjustified by capitalism or free market principles. Those principles you speak of are about how the economy works, and how it works best, and not about how people feel. There's nothing uncapitalist about hating Goobacks for taking our jobs. It's uncapitalist to then put that hate into protectionist government policies.
The whole point of all these "-isms" and in particular the anti-immigrant versions thereof is the same "us-vs-them" notion that causes racism.
No. They are related, but not the same. This one is -- as you
Re: (Score:2)
First, that you agree means you don't think it is racist.
NO LISTEN TO MY FUCKING WORDS!!!!
It's fucking RACIST, because IT'S US-VS-THEM!
Re: (Score:1)
NO LISTEN TO MY FUCKING WORDS!!!!
It's fucking RACIST, because IT'S US-VS-THEM!
Incorrect. Your "fucking words" were that you "agreed" with the claim that it was not about race, but about economics.
Re: (Score:2)
There's nothing uncapitalist about hating Goobacks for taking our jobs. It's uncapitalist to then put that hate into protectionist government policies.
OMG, explicit racism... why the fuck would I want to argue with you?
Do your right-wingers a favor and SHUT THE FUCK UP. You're the reason left-wingers convinced that right-wingers are racist.
Awesome job by the way, of insidiously justifying your explicit racism in implicit racism and proving my point.
Re: (Score:1)
OMG, explicit racism
Where?
Do you have any idea what I actually said? There was nothing in there that was remotely racist, let alone explicit. Perhaps you think the word " Goobacks [wikipedia.org]" is racist? It's not. Educate yourself. I was referring to an episode of South Park that relates to this issue; the word was completely made-up and refers to no actual group of people.
Or maybe you know about Goobacks, but you were just thinking my statement that hating [any group] for taking jobs is not uncapitalist. But that's an obvious fact;
Re: (Score:2)
Quite agreed. But this doesn't make them JUSTIFIED, and in fact, is directly unjustified by the principles of the free market, or free economy, or capitalism.
Funny, I thought the principle of the free market was "crush your competition at any cost".
While you hold that the cultural targeting is only the means to effect the end, I hold that both are equally racist. Even yet! If the end were not intentionally racist, the means directly are.
Even when the cultural targeting is a
Re: (Score:1)
...But this doesn't make them JUSTIFIED, and in fact, is directly unjustified by the principles of the free market, or free economy, or capitalism.
But it DOES explain why, for example, the "tech people" are so set against H1-B visas being granted to people so they can come to the US and "take" jobs that are already scarce. H1-Bs are supposed to be granted when employers cannot find enough workers from the "local" pool of potential employees. What really happens is that larger companies have seen it more economical to set unrealistic requirements for the positions they have to fill, not "find" any workers to satisfy their need, and then foster cheap
Re: (Score:1)
Sociologists have been running a poll for a very long time, back far enough that the majority of people responded to "Why do black people have less money?" answered with: "because black people are stupid/inferior."
While it is true that this answer has received less answers every year, it's also true that an alternate answer "because they're lazy/unmotivated" has pressed to the fore, and if you add up both of them, you end up with not a single person becoming non-racist, but rather they all just traded one set of racist bias for another.
This is why I don't trust polls. The question itself demonstrates an assumed bias, and the two answers you used as examples (though I'm sure there are others) also make certain assumptions.
A better mindset would be based on the fact that regardless of the color of one's skin, regardless of the shape of one's eyes, the person is still human, and should be treated accordingly.
The way that this causes a problem is that people push for revoking ideas that are used to equalize racial-disproportionate disadvantages, such as food-stamps and welfare, etc.
The real problem is that the so-called "racial equality" rules are simply reverse discrimination at their core. They are written by l
Re: (Score:2)
This is why I don't trust polls. The question itself demonstrates an assumed bias, and the two answers you used as examples (though I'm sure there are others) also make certain assumptions.
A better mindset would be based on the fact that regardless of the color of one's skin, regardless of the shape of one's eyes, the person is still human, and should be treated accordingly.
It is a statistical fact that blacks make more average money than whites.
The "non-racist" answer to the question on the poll is: "Because they are disadvantaged", or "they lack the same opportunities".
One cannot simply plop equal treatment on the floor and call everything good. Whites have had two hundred years of "equal footing" to start with, while Blacks have been dug an enormous hole for them before being given "equal footing".
A good example for women in a field that we here on slashdot can associate w
Re: (Score:1)
It is a statistical fact that blacks make more average money than whites.
I think you mean "less," no?
The "non-racist" answer to the question on the poll is: "Because they are disadvantaged", or "they lack the same opportunities".
False. Indeed, I consider it racist to say that the problem is entirely external to themselves. Bill Cosby certainly has much to say about how the African American community needs to take more responsibility for itself; is he a racist? Perhaps you think so.
One cannot simply plop equal treatment on the floor and call everything good. Whites have had two hundred years of "equal footing" to start with, while Blacks have been dug an enormous hole for them before being given "equal footing".
First, it is not racist to say, "well, tough luck, you're now on your own." It might be unfair, but it's not inherently racist.
Second, at what point are you done? When a particular measurement is reached? For example, no
Re: (Score:2)
The "non-racist" answer to the question on the poll is: "Because they are disadvantaged", or "they lack the same opportunities".
No, it is because on average people tend to only make small economic steps beyond their parents, no matter what their race is.
Poor whites are poor whites because their parents were poor whites. Poor blacks are poor blacks because their parents were poor blacks.
Obviously there are historical events that caused a large number blacks in America to start from essentially the bottom of
Re: (Score:1)
It is a statistical fact that blacks make more average money than whites.
The "non-racist" answer to the question on the poll is: "Because they are disadvantaged", or "they lack the same opportunities".
No. The "non-racist" answer is not an option in this case, because the question itself causes one to consider the race as a problem. It is a loaded question, and the available answers are no better.
One cannot simply plop equal treatment on the floor and call everything good. Whites have had two hundred years of "equal footing" to start with, while Blacks have been dug an enormous hole for them before being given "equal footing".
That is the fault of people, not necessarily the government. People, whether the laws require equality or not, will still treat people poorly if the other person is different. It happens with handicapped people, it happens with people that (whether they actually are or not) are perceived as homosexual, it hap
Re: (Score:1)
The way that this causes a problem is that people push for revoking ideas that are used to equalize racial-disproportionate disadvantages, such as food-stamps and welfare, etc.
You're committing the question-begging fallacy. In fact, there's no evidence that such policies DO "equalize racial-disproportionate disadvantages." In fact, we've seen our greatest advances against racism before those policies were fully implemented federally, and after we cut back on federal welfare in the 90s ... which tells me that these policies, rather than equalizing a damned thing, increased resentment from the people being taken from.
You only "equalize racial-disproportionate disadvantages" by pr
Re: (Score:2)
It's almost all about practicality, and not about racism.
Your Honor, this test required for voting has nothing to do with racism. It is there to ensure that voters are capable of reading and sufficiently understanding the issues which they are to be voting on.
Have people forgot how often Jim Crow laws attempted to use nominal apologetic arguments to justify themselves?
Re: (Score:1)
Your Honor, this test required for voting ...
... has nothing to do with this discussion. It's not "right-wing," it's not a modern policy, and it bears no resemblance of any kind to the policies we are ACTUALLY discussing.
Have people forgot how often Jim Crow laws attempted to use nominal apologetic arguments to justify themselves?
Have you forgotten that in this century, we aren't swayed by such race-baiting, and that we require actual logical arguments that something ACTUALLY IS RACIST or HAS RACIST EFFECTS?
You're form of argument is insipid. You're drawing a comparison to racist policies even though no sound comparison actually exists, as if raising the mer
Re: (Score:2)
Your Honor, this test required for voting ...
... has nothing to do with this discussion. It's not "right-wing," it's not a modern policy, and it bears no resemblance of any kind to the policies we are ACTUALLY discussing.
The English-only policies at workplaces have been held by the Supreme Court to be illegally discriminatory.
Have people forgot how often Jim Crow laws attempted to use nominal apologetic arguments to justify themselves?
Have you forgotten that in this century, we aren't swayed by such race-baiting, and that we require actual logical arguments that something ACTUALLY IS RACIST or HAS RACIST EFFECTS?
You're form of argument is insipid. You're drawing a comparison to racist policies even though no sound comparison actually exists, as if raising the mere spectre of a completely unrelated racist policy will prove your point that these policies are racist.
We are not fooled.
I can provide reasoned arguments how poll taxes are racist. You cannot provide reasoned arguments for how the welfare reform act in the 90s was racist. So you resort to this illogical crap.
Fuck you, I'm done arguing...
As per my original argument, racist don't see how their effects are racist anymore...
You're proving my point.
Re: (Score:1)
Yawn. No one believes you, troll.
Re: (Score:1)
The English-only policies at workplaces have been held by the Supreme Court to be illegally discriminatory.
Which also has nothing to do with what we're discussing.
Hey, I can play this game too! Stalin was a communist and was on the left, therefore, you're a Nazi!!!!!
(Yes, that makes no sense. That's my point: you are making no sense.)
Fuck you, I'm done arguing...
I didn't realize you'd started. You see, I've been the one arguing: bringing up points, backing them up, and so on. You're simply throwing out claims, many of them incorrect, without backing up a single thing. You're not arguing, you're just contradicting.
As per my original argument, racist don't see how their effects are racist anymore...
You're proving my point.
As per my original poi
Re: (Score:2)
And almost no Europeans come here illegally. It's quite simple to understand.
Why do people think that "they don't come here illegally almost at all" is somehow a defense to the sort of assumptions that go on that result in the statements "it's ok to target Hispanics for looking at illegal immigration, because they do it more often than others."
Illegal immigration is illegal immigration, is illegal immigration whether they are from Germany, France, Russia, Australia, Canada, or Mexico.
It is the wrong assumption to assume that a sufficient enough majority of Hispanics are illegal in o
Re: (Score:1)
Why do people think that "they don't come here illegally almost at all" is somehow a defense to the sort of assumptions that go on that result in the statements "it's ok to target Hispanics for looking at illegal immigration, because they do it more often than others."
I didn't defend anything, I explained. There is a difference, you know. And it's simple and obvious: we have tens of millions of Mexicans and others from south of our border who entered this country illegally, or entered the country legally under false pretenses and stayed here. This -- obviously -- causes massive problems for our society. (I do not deny there's benefits too, and I am not saying on balance there's more or less good than harm, I am just noting the fact that there's obvious problems that
moof (Score:1)
Think of the Duke University lacrosse team players case. The faculty (i.e Liberals) and news media (i.e. Liberals) had them convicted on day one. It's because Liberals are racist -- they feel that white males of Western world descent are evil and have oppressed peoples of color and would naturally continue to do so if unchecked, and unpunished.
I am a racist (Score:1)
and like George Wallace, I am trying, at least from time to time, to be a better man before I die.
I am also a liar, a cheater, a thief, a glutton, and I have known lust in my heart.
I ask myself the rhetorical question, "Is Timex a racist?", because you seem to think Obama is a racist, and if you are one too, you might want to offer a disclaimer.
By the way, I think that is likely true, under your scrutiny, for a majority of Americans, and Kenyans, to be slurred as being racist. For some Americans, it is not
Re: (Score:1)
I am not a racist.
I applaud you for recognizing that you are and trying to be better.
Sucks for you that you carry this burden of being a racist, though. I certainly do not have such a burden, nor do most people I know.
Re: (Score:1)
Thanks for that completely nonresponsive response! Bravo!
Re: (Score:1)
Yawn.
If you would come up with a single fact, for anything you say, it would be a notable event. Until then, you continue to be simply boring.
Re: (Score:1)
DAMN! you still here? You just don't listen, do you?
You post racist comments. That is a fact. I don't know if that's part of your job, or if you actually are one. But your comments certainly are. Now please.. you're upsetting people.. I beg you.. go back to the kids table, you're being a pest. That's also a fact.
Re: (Score:1)
You post racist comments. That is a fact.
Yawn. Where?
I won't hold my breath, because you've never demonstrated a single assertion you've made to me.
Re: (Score:1)
Oh damn! Was that ME??? Oh well, I'll talk to you after I've had my morning beer..
Re: (Score:1)
Now then... you were saying?
Re: (Score:1)
Thank you, thank you, thank you.
I appreciate applause.
Ciao,
Jimmy
Re: (Score:1)
I am a racist
Liar... no wait...
False... that's not it..
Oh yeah, Speed kills [roblog.nl]!...
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
I ask myself the rhetorical question, "Is Timex a racist?", because you seem to think Obama is a racist, and if you are one too, you might want to offer a disclaimer.
You might do better by re-reading my JE. about half-way through, I point out that *I* don't have enough information to make the call, but if he were held to the Liberal standard, he would be.
Am I a racist? I like to think I'm not, because I try to give everyone the "benefit of the doubt" until they prove themselves otherwise. There is, after all, only one "race" that should be at play here: The Human Race.
What is your post about? You, or President Obama?
Neither, actually. It's an observation on the hypocrisy of the Liberal Left. Obama is just a tool.
No Racist IMO (Score:1)
I do not think he puts one race above or below others, and that, to me, is racism. Maybe he does do that, but I don't know that he does. I know he favors SOME preferential treatment, but that means he has some racist policies, not that he is himself a racist. Depends on how exactly he thinks/feels about those policies etc.
But.
Remember the complete insanity when Sarah Palin supposedly implied that by saying she was speaking to "real Americans" that other people were NOT "real Americans"? Shouldn't that a