Thursday, August 9, 2012

White Supremacists Hear Mitt Romney's Racist Welfare "Dog Whistles" Crystal Clear



The political scatology which is Mitt Romney's willful and racist lie that President Obama wants to end welfare reform, and give free money to all those lazy black and brown human parasites that want to live off of white people, has attracted some flies.

The media spins its wheels, debating the role of racial "dog whistle" politics by Republicans in their hostility and opposition to the country's first black president--as opposed to calling out Mitt Romney for the racist liar that he has proven himself to be.

The central element of dog whistle politics is that the cues are so subtle and coded that only the target audience will pick up on a given speaker's real intent. Ostensibly, these secret codes and signals give a politician plausible deniability, where in Romney's case (and the Republican Party in mass) racism can be denied, and then the assertion flipped in a game of political Aikido that plays on white victimology and spurious claims of "reverse racism."

In theory, those candidates that deploy racial dog whistles can win on both ends of the deal: they get to communicate their onerous message; this same candidate then mines white racial resentment for electoral gain when they are critiqued for their racism.

Romney and his defenders will continue to deny the obvious racial invective in the "Barack Obama is a Welfare King" ad. However, there is one group of people who hear Romney's racial appeals crystal clear and in stereo.

As I discussed in this post, I do a daily survey of some of the more prominent (and public) white supremacists websites. The views expressed in the white nationalist online community are the racial id of contemporary populist conservatism in the Age of Obama. As such, these spaces are a telling barometer for the backstage and frontstage racism of the New Right and the Tea Party GOP.

Here is a featured essay on Mitt Romney's candidacy and his welfare queen meme from one of the more "respectable" White Nationalist Neo-Confederate websites (I will not directly link to it, but you can do a simple online search to confirm these quotes):
Mitt Romney was in a Chicago suburb today speaking to White voters blasting the Obama campaign for dismantling welfare reform... 
So Mitt Romney is speaking to our people, promoting popular issues with subtle and not so subtle racial themes. 
Again, I note that Mitt Romney is a racial “pussy-footer” – very similar to George HW Bush Sr (US President 1988-92). Pussy-footers are the most common American racial renegades. Pussy-footers look and act White. They marry White, they don’t have any real hatred towards our/their White American people. But, they rarely if ever defend our people and in live or die racial conflicts, racially charged political campaigns they pussy-foot around; they try to pretend that there aren’t any racial conflicts and any racial problems are some misunderstanding. Pussy-footers like to be liked and they tend to agree with whoever is in the room with them. 
So today, please pass the word on to all of your contacts that you approve of the Romney campaign’s new direction: 
Targeting our people, our voters – “hunting where the ducks are”. The Romney campaign is no longer pandering to NW voters who will never vote for White Republicans. Instead, the Romney campaign is connecting with the voters he/we need to win and the Romney campaign is standing up for the legitimate rights of our people. 
There is no super conspiracy controlling the Romney campaign. Mitt Romney doesn’t hate our people. He doesn’t want to destroy the Whites in the South. He’s not trying to bring back Black Reconstruction or incite Blacks to riot and murder in you town. There is no reason to hate Mitt Romney because he is rich, was the governor of a Northeastern state or hate all the beautiful White people associated with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Mitt Romney is a solid White guy with a large, very beautiful White family. 
But he is a…..Pussy-footer. Please understand the situation and act accordingly.
White supremacists clearly understand Mitt Romney's evolving campaign strategy, his appeal for a not insignificant part of the white voting public, and how Red State America--fearful of the country's changing demographics and submerged in the Right-wing echo chamber--could see him as protection from "oppression" by black and brown folks and the country's first black president.

Mitt Romney's race baiting is a dangerous political game. Romney's use of white identity politics pays dividends in that it helps him look like a "legitimate" and "real" Conservative to the Tea Party base. Mitt Romney's lying and racism will also attract an element of the Right that could become more of a liability than an asset.

At this moment in the 2012 campaign, Mitt Romney is Mickey Mouse in Fantasia, playing with elements that he can not fully control. He best be careful or the politics of hate could blow up in his face.

70 comments:

ish said...

CDV do you have a theory as to why the "media" is so unwilling to identify this obvious racism? Even NYT columnist Charles Blow, who I think is frequently smart and incisive, is completely pulling his punches here:

http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/08/the-welfare-gambit/?hp

This has concerned me from day one of the Tea Party's rise: a willingness to humor them when they (lyingly) claim they're all about government spending.

chaunceydevega said...

@ish. Fear. The worst crime in America is to call a white person a racist. Add to that the "post-truth" political moment we are in because of how the right has skillfully massaged the public discourse and consciousness. The journalist from Politico stated a plan fact about Romney and his comfort level with people who are not like him and dude got fired. Message sent and received.

Lakhoff, Chomsky, Wholin, Zizek, Giroux and others have done real work sketching this out. There is something Orwellian going on/has occurred.

I also think--and this is not hyperbole--anecdotes and more substantial evidence suggests that the talking heads get "approved" topics lists. Talking clearly about Romney and his b.s./lies and racism is a no go.

OTB said...

@CDV: Your daily surveys of white supremacist sites give needed insight into your insistence that Romney is a racist.

Since you connect him with white supremacists where no association has been shown (please provide evidence to the contrary if you have it, as truth is what should be sought here) would it be just as fair to associate Barack Obama with the words of Wright, Farrakhan, and violent Black Panthers?

chaunceydevega said...

@OTB. I will break my rule and interact with you for my own entertainment.

I imagine you sitting around watching Fox News, surfing drudge, and listening to rush and other assorted bloviators all day long. Ideal typical. Weber would smile.

All those scary negroes all associate with each other. How you can connect Reverend Wright to Farrakhan is funny. To the NBP even more foolish.

As I and others have said repeatedly there is not one damn thing that Wright said which isn't true to any thinking person with even a passing understanding of American history.

The New Black Panthers are a bunch of clowns and a joke. Please explain their "crimes." Standing around yelling at white folks holding sticks and making them uncomfortable?

Romney is running a campaign increasingly based on white racism and white identity politics. Part of the dog whistle trick is plausible deniability--which here is an epic fail by Romney. It is telling that white nationalists hear Romney's signal pretty clear and can explain it plainly.

If Obama ran a campaign based on black bigotry against white people and then he denied it and there were black racial chauvinists who could recite the dog whistle and explain it, then some bare minimum similarity could perhaps exist.

Of course granting the fact that no "black racists"--silly language btw--have historically killed, murdered, and hung white folks from trees by the thousands or leverage any institutional power in this country as a group.

My turn my sophistry practicing friend. Is Romney's Obama is a welfare king ad accurate? Is it playing on racial invective and white racial resentment?

Your answers will be very revealing.

Thrasher said...

OTB,

Your move when CD is in a zone even I get the fuck out if the way..

I find it pitiful how folks like you try to link the good pastor wright to your propaganda a good man who is no Obama robot..

Mitt better watch his back when the good Christians come looking for his Mormon underwear after bible class....

chaunceydevega said...

@Thrasher. I promised I wouldn't respond to that OTB/Colorbind character. He is a very dishonest interlocutor and a talking point conservative. Still instructive. Maybe you can respond if he musters up a logical and coherent answer.

OTB said...

@Chauncey:

1) I am not a conservative. I am a lifelong independent. I do not even receive Fox News on my TV system, and never have.

2) I am not dishonest. If you can demonstrate otherwise, please do. Just because my views don't fit your echo chamber doesn't mean I'm dishonest. I would be happy to line up your comments and mine and test each for "dishonesty".

3)I'm clearly not a white supremacist, because I'm missing all the dog whistles.

4)As stated, the "Welfare King" ad (titled by you, not Romney) showed only one black person, the rest were white. Sophistry? Not me.
BTW, since more whites are on welfare than blacks, how would working to reduce welfare costs be racist?

5) You linked Romney with white supremacist groups with which he has no association. Again, if you have evidence, show it. Otherwise, why convict him for the words of someone else? (I know, you try it with me all the time. It still doesn't wash).

6) I gave the NBP, etc, as examples of what you are doing to Romney. I asked if it would be as fair to link Obama to the words of people like that as it is to link Romney with the words of white supremacists. I'm still waiting for your answer.

7) Does Obama use his own "dog whistles"? Let's see: African Americans for Obama (I get their mailings and have been on their conference call); telling people in the south they needed someone who looked like him in Washington; having Holder repeatedly play the race card; putting twelve human props behind him for his "don't raise taxes speech" -- seven out of twelve were black (not exactly proportionate, do you think?); consistently saying things like "no matter what you look like" in his speeches.

My "agenda" since you keep making it up -- is to see equal treatment for all sides. Your objection -- other than the fact that I don't buckle to your tactics?

Thrasher said...

I can always sic my comrades on OTB... Give me the green light to release the dragons ..lol lol lol

Comrade Physioprof said...

Like I said on the last thread, I don't think the media are "afraid" to hold Romney accountable. Rather, they have no desire to hold him accountable because it is in their interest that he continue to not be held accountable.

This is for a number of reasons:

(1) The political media are almost all wealthy coddled white millionaires who are embedded in the white racial frame and benefit from it socially and financially.

(2) The political media benefit from a presidential "horse race" that is as close as possible. They thus refrain from reporting or analysis that they perceive as possibly leading to a widening of the gap between candidates, and engage in reporting and analysis that they perceive as closing any gap.

Thrasher said...

OTB was born in Detroit in a segregated neighborhood a mile from my house at that time Mormons would not allow my parents to be Elders in the cult invoking your twisted logic about BO and Rev.Wright that would Mitt a home school bigot and racist like his religious leaders and cult was ...

I will add more to the early years of Mitt in Detroit while under the influence of the Mormons.

Stay tuned ...

chaunceydevega said...

@thrasher. you can counsel him. he picked up that how can the obama is a welfare king/queen allusion when more white people are on welfare crap defense from newt gingrich who was pandering that crap all day yesterday. arguing with these conservative talking point types is tiring; don't do it.

@otb. i broke my rule twice. won't do it again. i will leave others to unpack your mess. you remind me of that old joke where a white sheriff comes upon a black man who has been hung from a tree and had his throat cut.

the sheriff looks at his partner and says, "this is the most damn peculiar suicide I have ever seen. how did this niggra manage to hang himself then cut his own throat?"

i will leave that for you to decipher.

OTB said...

@Chauncey: Again, you fail to respond to my challenge, and continue with your skewed assumptions. (I do not know what Gingrich said yesterday, but why let reality get in the way of your "perspective"?)

The question here is simple (although it keeps getting ignored.):

Is it fair to brand one candidate with the words of people who he is not associated with, yet rate the other candidate by a different standards? (If you find anything dishonest in that question, please, please, please, please provide your enlightenment.) Better yet, and this goes back to earlier questions where I was attacked rather than the questions answered:

You are a teacher (although as far as I know you have not revealed where or of what). Let's call this "Logic 101". My questions above (and before) are a simple essay quiz. You are grading the answers given. What grade would you give the "student"? (Be honest, please).

Finally, before you accuse ME of derailing this convo, I'm just the person who asked a simple question, and is still waiting for a direct answer.

OTB said...

@Thrasher:

If you can provide the "evidence" that thus far has not been given, it would be appreciated. Specifically (since this is the question on the table) what direct connection does Romney have with the white supremacist groups CDV links him to?

PS: CDV already has plenty of dragons in this lair.

chaunceydevega said...

@OTB/Colorbind. You vex me. I can't resist. You haven't answered my questions by the way. Let's try some more.

1. When white people are asked about poverty and welfare in public opinion surveys what racial group do they assume is poor? Do Republicans, when they talk about "poor people" evoke images of poor whites or stereotypes about the black and brown poor? Why do progressive and liberals and others always have to make the intervention that more whites are on welfare when conservatives smear black and brown people as "welfare queens" and the undeserving poor.

2. What did Lee Atwater and the Southern Strategy detail about "welfare," the poor, crime, and race?

3. How did Ronald Reagan use the idea of the welfare queen during his tenure? How did he use anti-black and brown resentment for electoral purposes?

4. Why Americans hate welfare is a great book that you should read. It directly tracks how white conservatives strategically shifted the image of the poor in the popular imagination from white before the 1960s to black and brown in the post-civil rights era. I know you will not. But I like to make suggestions anyway.

5. You are the same person who believes that Romney did not intentionally send his surrogate to suggest that Obama is not part of the American political tradition because he does not have the right type of blood and racial stock. You have zero credibility. I ask, why do you even proceed with these conversations when there is nothing to convince you of any alternatives even when the facts are plain.

Did you decipher my joke from before? You fit it perfectly.

Folks don't engage you because it is like punching water or jello.

Thrasher said...

OTB,

In the interim I have used your own reasoning to defeat you perhaps you are in an avoidance mode let me reiterate Mitt was born into a religion which did not accept Blacks as equals his early youth in church was segregated and no doubt subject to tortured themes about inclusion and racial purity ..

Mitt according to your own flawed conflated example about BO and Rev. Wright is therefore a racist given his upbringing in a Mormon church circa 60's ...


Your move ...

OTB said...

@Chauncey and Thrasher:

My questions to you remain unanswered.

Thank you.

PS: Chauncey. I would prefer answers instead of fairy tales you create about my beliefs regarding Obama's racial stock and blood. What happened to your "honesty"?

fred c said...

@OTB

Fairness? Equal treatment? Do you also believe in truth and beauty? How about Santa Claus?

And: anybody who would cheerfully exploit the Blackness of his opponent by pandering to White fears, White resentments, and/or White elitism/supremacism is just as guilty as his target group(s). (Whether they are guilty of racism or of merely misreading a benign situation.) If Romney is courting votes from anybody who'll listen to the anti-Black thing, he's as guilty as the neo-nazis among them too. Romney's connection to these groups is his pandering to them.

"Fairness," I still can't get over that one. Go back to sleep, Goldilocks, the bears aren't due home for a couple of hours yet.

fred c said...

Good example of those old jokes, Professor. It reminded me of one I heard when I was ten or so, with the punchline: "he shouldn't have stolen more chain than he could swim with."

Did you feel at bad sharing yours as I do now for sharing this one? These things are vile, but I guess we're all friends here.

nomad said...

I was just wondering, how come we call em dog whistles if erbody can hearem? I dunno. As for where it comes from. I think it can be demonstrated, a la Thrasher, that Mormonism is a racist institution. Sadly, the sly racism in Romney's ad does not necessarily originate from this source. It could originate from virtually any institution in the US. You may have heard of the term coined by Stokely & co: institutional racism? It's ambient in America. That said, there is nothing particularly unusual about Obomey's use of racial dogwhistles. Reagan's use of it is infamous (Willie Horton). E'en white Democrat presidential candidates use them to court the Bubba vote (Souljah). Race is the quintessential wedge issue and has been used to win many a political race. Usually its used to attract racist white voters. In this case its probably mean to manipulate blacks. To unify them not on the basis of Obama's pitiful record on the issues that concern blacks, but to make them rally around him in indignation over covert racist tactics of his opponent. The game is deep, folks. Before you rally round poor lil'ol Barama, make sure you examine closely just what it is you're fighting for. Insanity? Repeating the same thing and expecting a different result. You were fooled in 2008, just like me. But after 4 years, you what to expect. You are no longer innocent. You've become good Germans.

OTB said...

@Fred:

While fairness is something I strive for, I do not expect the same standards from others. (I recently sent a $100 check to a manufacturer because I felt the refund they paid me was too high). And no, I do not believe in Santa Claus. Nor do I believe in Romney's alleged connections to white supremacist groups without EVIDENCE, something asked for but not provided. Evidence provided is instructive. Requests for evidence that are ignored and distracted from do not show good faith.

I do, however, hope for objectivity on a site with claims to a basic level of maturity.

Seeking equal treatment of both candidates is in line with objectivity.

Entering a "salon" and requesting a glass of orange juice -- then being served a screwdriver spiked with roofies -- is neither fair nor objective.

It's fascinating how legitimate questions from me are attacked and avoided but not answered, while I am asked to go off on numerous tangents to fit the assumptions of others (assumptions not shared). And I am then attacked for not following a path of diversion laid out by those refusing to answer the questions that began the trek.

I get accused of derailing a conversation when I'm not the one doing the derailing. I ask a straightforward question and expect a straightforward answer. That's my objective. Any detours from that course are not of my making.

Maybe expecting objectivity from some on this site is a fairy tale. I'm still hoping for better. And I'm still hoping for legitimate questions long asked, and yet to be answered.

Bruto Alto said...

@OTB

O.K. Romney is not connected to any hate group.

Yet let me explain things in a different way. My bother has two stuborn kids. When he wants them to do something he doesn't tell them. He just leaves less things for them to do.
Example he wants them to do chalk on the sidewalk and not run in the road. He locks the other toys in the house and leaves the chalks out on the sidewalk.

Mitt is leaving chalk on sidewalk in the form of racial resentment.(Example the NAACP speech) The people who choose to follow see their america locked up by the POTUS and DRAW their own remarks.

OTB said...

@Bruto Alto:

1) Thank you for your objective answer.

2) Another objective question: What in Romney's NAACP speech was demonstrably racist?

Thank you.

Thrasher said...

I am not responsible for people like OTB who refuse to acknowledge their inability to accept the truth. Part of OTB's shortcomings clearly included his lack of maturation in confronting his intellectual blind spots so in this absence he continues to stay in denial.

Many moons ago whites like OTB could hide their underdevelopment under the cloak of white privilege not any more lol lol lol

chaunceydevega said...

@Bruto. Great example. You are nicer than I am. But please don't feed the trolls until he/they offer up some basic answers to the fair questions which I and others have offered.

Colorbind/OTB wants to use you and others who are kind enough to engage him as vetting boards where he can ask all sorts of trite and silly questions. I am all for trite and silly questions when the person asking them is willing to offer up answers to the more substantial questions he has been asked and avoids. He is delusional and possessed of some fiction about his own magnanimity as we damn well know any thinking person would cash a rebate check sent to them by a corporation. But then again he probably thinks that corporations are people too and wants to be nice to them.

@Fred. That is a good one. I am going to save it. I have a few jokes I am going to offer up next week in the same spirit.

Bruto alto said...

I never said racist but for someone not black who thinks of blacks as a drag on America this speech has smart jabs. Blacks are familyless, uneducated, and missing out on the free enterprise system. Those are his three points in the speech. Yet his answers are what upset me. Charter schools to replace public schools. Equal value per child for charter schools sound like a good idea unless your one of his three points then as he said you have a76% chance of being poor. (his words).
Romney basicly said it sucks to be you but if you pick me things will be better than they are now. Yet his facts flow into an endless cycle.
Sorry to your question, if I wanted to crap on a black guy I could give six items from Romney's speech and they would seem valid but the reasons behind each of those issues Romney could never address. 41% of black kids are at underpreforming schools, yet he's idea is to send them to private schools. The real question is why only schools out of white areas are failiing schools? Why teachers make crap and less than crap at a failing school?

Stop with the silly questions though, I know you understand how this works. Trolling is silly in a real blog.

OTB said...

@CDV:

When I read something here or elsewhere that I don't know, don't understand, or don't have evidence to believe, I ask for details. To quote you, "There is no shame is saying 'I do not know, please enlighten me.'". Why attack me for following your own teachings?

Do you deserve equal condemnation for all the questions asked of you that have gone unanswered? Wouldn't this all be a lot simpler and take up less space with an easy procedure? 1) Ask a question 2) Get an answer 3) Move on.

Your rules seem to be: See a question you're not comfortable answering -- attack the questioner in an attempt to wear them out or distract from the original question. Is that the procedure you use in your teaching? If you answered questions on a test the way you (don't) answer my questions, what grade would you expect?

OTB said...

@Thrasher: Other than your assumption on my race, I have a question for you regarding "shortcomings clearly included his lack of maturation in confronting his intellectual blind spots so in this absence he continues to stay in denial."

I'm watching an interview you did with Dr. Telford, in which you both agreed that Detroit Public Schools are a disaster, yet you attack Arne Duncan as a white man for making the same charge (while black leaders did not object). Would your reaction be different if Duncan were black? Is it objective to chastise a white for saying the same thing you are saying?

I have no inability to accept the truth -- when it is shown to be the truth. I do have an intentional inability to accept unproven statements just because somebody said so. I am also suspicious of people who attack rather than answer questions. Fair enough?

OTB said...

@Chauncey: I'm not delusional -- you are the one making it up here. It was not a rebate, it was a refund for a defective product. The day it was received is the day I wrote out a check for $100 and sent it back to the company. Just because you wouldn't do it doesn't mean that some of us can't have higher standards.

Fantasize all you want. Sometimes facts are facts, regardless of your "first principles". You can continue to imagine what's in the minds of others. You will continue to be wrong.

Musings on London Semester said...

Thanks for the "pussy-footer" tag. It is an apt description of the majority of white folks I interact with; as a older woman (60+) who has been recovering from her white consciousness for 35 + years, I have observed how any discussion of racial inequality is shut down as "racist" by most whites who then diverge off topic into a riff designed to absolve themselves as racial innocents. Your posts on Daily Kos are excellent and brought me over here to peep out more. If one more person asks me if I have seen "the Help," I don't know if I can hold back on I think that movie is a perfect example of a devise intended to make white folks comfortable that they are not racists--as if not using a toilet was the largest injustice we have inflicted on people of color.

Thrasher said...

OTB

Again you maturation in your logic Dr. Telford is white and I agreed with him according to your underdeveloped logic since Dr. Telford is white like Arne Duncan I should have attacked as well.

BTW thanks for confirming for me you are white and please continue to view my video's please check out my appearances on American Black Journal ( oldest Black news show in America) where I forecast Obama's election win down to the decimal level . Please also check out my CNN interview regarding the shortcomings of the MLK memorial

BTW I was able to assist Dr. Telford to be named the superintendent of Detroit Public Schools I roll like that... Just sayin

Thrasher said...

Again you lack maturation in your logic Dr. Telford is white and I agreed with him according to your underdeveloped logic since he is white like Arne Duncan I should have attacked him as well.

OTB said...

@Thrasher:
Your reading comprehension is apparently as "underdeveloped" as you claim my logic is. It's obvious from the video that Telford is white. That has nothing to do with my still unanswered question.

I confirmed nothing regarding either my race or my gender. You are free to make stuff up about me (that seems to be a sideline activity here).

BTW: congratulations on helping Dr. Telford. However, this is another diversion from the question at hand.

My question remains: would you have had the same reaction if Arne Duncan were black?

PS: As I seem to be an "outsider" here, I would really appreciate knowing if there is some secret code needed to get a direct answer to a direct question. My efforts to date have not been successful.

Thrasher said...

OTB

My logic remains the same you are a white poster and Dr. Telford is white just like Arne Duncan I agreed with Dr. Telford so your race card analysis has no merit .

Your move

Ps: your imagination is lacking it sounds like an excuse lol lol lol for your inability to measure up in here as I noted you are an underdeveloped thinker... Lol lol lol

Bugboy said...

Unfortunately the conversion about welfare is exactly the "welfare queen" conversation the Clinton campaign faced in the 90's. We know from that episode there is no reasoning with this, as in you can't out-nut a nut.

Welfare is a minor Federal expenditure, not even worthy of political debate. Look at the comments here, a plague of dissemble, dissemble, dissemble, by those that have no logical intent to debate the issue, but whom merely wish to sling their festering pestilence upon us all under the guise of legitimate debate.

If you are going to cloak your insecurities under some kind of mantle of social respectability, at least you can do is not be "pussy-footed" about it, and be able to support it without dog whistles.

Thrasher said...

OTB,

Your silence is an admission...

Allow me to use your own admission against you

"It's obvious from the video that Telford is white"

Therefore since Telford like Duncan is white and I agreed with Telford that makes your logic as I have noted is underdevelopment..

Your Move....lol,lol,lol

OTB said...

@Thrasher:

While you lol lol lol in your own lack of logic, allow me to reply.

My "silence" is an admission of nothing other than that I had other things to do besides return to this site. To be equally "objective", your refusal to answer my question is an admission of racism. Make sense? Of course not. Why don't we just deal with reality? I won't challenge your undeveloped logic (or ability to tell time) if you take your time to respond).


What logic do you base your assumption of my race on? Dr. Telford's race has nothing to do with this, so why do you keep dodging with that diversion?

Once again, I will repeat the question. Lollollol around all you like, I'd still appreciate an answer.

Arne Duncan was attacked as a white man criticizing Detroit schools while you (a black man) also called those schools a disaster. It looks like you are attacking a white man for doing precisely what you, a black man are doing. Here we go again: Would you have also had the same reaction if Arne Duncan were a black man?

If you use your logic and stop avoiding the question, I imagine you can produce an answer. Thanks.

Thrasher said...

OTB,

This is my final attempt to express logic to you..

You made an admission that Telford like Duncan is white

You made the false statement that since Duncan was white I attacked him for his opinion about Detroit Schools

I agreed with a white man Telford which according to your logic I should have attacked because he was white like Duncan

More importantly if you would have done any research you would know I did not attack Duncan for being white and having an opinion . I was critical of Duncan for demonizing an entire school district without any foundation or basis for his indictment.

I was and remain critical of the Detroit schools but I have never demonized them like Duncan did by calling the DPS the worst school district ever in America

So in summary I have used my logic and inserted your own words and admissions to dfeat your underdeveloped logic. You thought by playing the 'race card" that would allow you some leverage with me but instead playing the 'race card" never is a good idea ..Never ..lol,lol,lol

katinphilly said...

Jesus H. on a cracker. Obviously it's Duncan's right wing views on education, and "school choice and standardized testing" mantra that warrants outrage, not his "whiteness". His and Michelle Rhee's corrupt, bankrupt views on public schools are the issue.

Late to be posting here, but I couldn't resist, since I was just called "oversensitive" on Alternate.org for outlining, very dispassionately, for some obtuse reader, why exactly Rep. Joe Walsh's latest screed of a speech was racist dog whistling (more like a foghorn, actually).

PS. I am white, and I can instinctively smell racist dog whistles a mile away precisely because I am white, and grew up in a very racist environment. People like Walsh know exactly what they are doing, and they are indeed pandering to racist voters, including the Neo-Nazi voting block. There is your goddamn connection, OTB. And no, both sides don't do it - there is just no comparison. And if you insist on one, I am going to start getting a whiff of you all the way to Philly.

katinphilly said...

Yikes! I meant Alternet.org. The Phillies must be losing again...

lokywoky said...

Mitt clearly showed his racist bent the day following the NAACP speech when he appeared at a small fundraiser in the very small community of Hamilton, Montana. While there, he commented that if "blacks just want to get more free stuff from the government then he was not their candidate".

There. Is that racist enough for you?

OTB said...

@Thrasher:

If that's your version of "logic", I'm glad we can now move on to objective dialog.

Your first admission should be that you are the only one with a race card in this conversation.

Your second admission should be that Telford has absolutely NOTHING to do with this conversation. He just happened to be who you were speaking to.

You might research the definition of "admission". There was never any question as to the race of Telford. But thanks again for the diversion.

We can quibble over "attack" vs "critical of", but the fact is that you used words against Duncan. That is my point. I NEVER said you attacked Duncan for being white, but thanks for trying. Attacked, critical of, dismissive of, opposing, take your pick: You clearly had an issue with Duncan criticizing Detroit schools as a white man, while you then did the same as a black man. Let's try some specifics:

From 16:20 to 17:28 of YOUR video "Social Justice" you "quote" Arne Duncan as saying "The Detroit School System was the worst in the world."

You then, before calling Detroit Schools a "disaster", shared your disappointment of "the whole notion that a white man (Duncan) coming into a predominately black city" and demonizing the people in the schools there.

You then (didn't like) "the vulgarity of white liberalism coming to a black community" and demonizing it.

Drop the race card. Drop the silly references to Telford's color. Look at your own words, and then please answer my question. (CDV is correct, this can be exhausting because some people will not give a straight answer to a direct question.)

Once again, you have a direct question before you -- based on your own words. Would your words (see above) have been different had Arne Duncan been black?

OTB said...

@Katinphilly:

You wrote: "People like Walsh know exactly what they are doing, and they are indeed pandering to racist voters, including the Neo-Nazi voting block."

Which Walsh are you referring to? (I cannot find the name in the comments above).

@lokywoky:

Agreed. It would look like racism if Romney said ""blacks just want to get more free stuff from the government then he was not their candidate" as you quote.

However, here is the actual quote (from Mediaite.com): (Pardon the length, but I have been criticized in the past for "editing" quotes. So here is the entire quote:

“By the way, I had the privilege of speaking today at the NAACP convention in Houston and I gave them the same speech I am giving you. I don’t give different speeches to different audiences alright. I gave them the same speech. When I mentioned I am going to get rid of Obamacare they weren’t happy, I didn’t get the same response. That’s ok, I want people to know what I stand for and if I don’t stand for what they want, go vote for someone else, that’s just fine. But I hope people understand this, your friends who like Obamacare, you remind them of this, if they want more stuff from government tell them to go vote for the other guy-more free stuff. But don’t forget nothing is really free. it has to paid for by people in the private sector creating goods and services, and if people want jobs more than they want free stuff from government, then they are going to have to get government to be smaller. And if they don’t want to repeal Obamacare they are going to have to give me some other stuff they are thinking about cutting, but my list takes Obamacare off first and I have a lot of other things I am thinking of cutting.”

Which quote is correct?

chaunceydevega said...

@OTB. Breaking my rule again. You have a habit of asking lots of questions. What is irksome is that you do not answer any questions posed to you, and when you do they are the ones most convenient for you. As the host here at WARN that is a bad look in my book.

In the interest of sparing people your sophistry, as it is tedious, really, I would like you to answer the following questions that you have to this point avoided.

If you do not answer these questions consider yourself up for being kindly moved on under the new comments policy as your are very circular and not moving things forward--in fact you are deflecting and wasting time. WARN is not a space for you to ask endless questions and contribute nothing back.

1. I label my ip's. Have you posted here on WARN under a different name in the past. If you are using a proxy server that is pretty easy to figure out. If so, what was your earlier name? Please be honest. If you are not honest that is immediate grounds for being banned.

From before with a few new ones added:

1. When white people are asked about poverty and welfare in public opinion surveys what racial group do they assume is poor? Do Republicans, when they talk about "poor people" evoke images of poor whites or stereotypes about the black and brown poor? Why do progressive and liberals and others always have to make the intervention that more whites are on welfare when conservatives smear black and brown people as "welfare queens" and the undeserving poor.

2. What did Lee Atwater and the Southern Strategy detail about "welfare," the poor, crime, and race? Do you believe he was telling the truth, accurately describing republican strategy?

3. How did Ronald Reagan use the idea of the welfare queen during his tenure? How did he use anti-black and brown resentment for electoral purposes?

4. You are the same person who believes that Romney did not intentionally send his surrogate to suggest that Obama is not part of the American political tradition because he does not have the right type of blood and racial stock. As such, you have zero credibility.

I ask, why do you even proceed with these conversations when there is nothing to convince you of any alternatives even when the facts are plain?

5. Please define racism or give an example of something that you think we could all agree is "racist" that has occurred in recent American politics, especially since 2008.

6. Does "reverse racism" exist? Does white privilege exist? Is America a racist society?

I await your answers as do the other folks who contribute here on WARN in good faith. If you do not answer these questions consider yourself escorted out the virtual door.

Thrasher said...

OTB

My previous quote was my final attempt to illustrate your underdeveloped logic I did just that .

Observing you struggle to convince yourself that you are not illogical bores me. Of course I have met many white people like you who hate the very idea that I am smarter than they are. I understand your condition so you can stop straining in denial and defeat .... Lol lol lol

OTB said...

@Chauncey:

Even though I still await direct answers to direct questions (See Thrasher who disavows his own words and will not respond to them), I will answer your questions. I note that you have yet to show any of my dishonesty that you claim.

1) I have no idea what a proxy server is. I previously posted as colorbind, wherein your badgering and refusal to answer my questions led you to ban me rather than dialog. If I used different names in the past, I do not recall them.

I will answer the following in a way that is honest for me. Although it will likely not fit your template, that does not make me wrong. You were wrong about the rebate, you were wrong about my test scores. You have been wrong about me repeatedly. Please don't criticize or diminish me because we disagree. You claim to invite disagreement. Despite the fact that you are trying to exhaust me -- rather than answer my questions, I will keep my answers brief. Just because they don't match yours doesn't make them wrong.

1) Some whites and Republicans may think of poor as black, that doesn't mean I do or that a majority do. I don't believe that all liberals or progressives have to intervene as you claim, and I personally am not hearing blacks and poor smeared as welfare queens. You refer to Reagan's words from decades ago. I'm not hearing them today.

2) I don't have all the details on the southern strategy, although I understand there are at least two sides to it. I believe the Willie Horton ad depicted somebody who happened to be black. I prefer to focus on what is happening today.

3) Again with Reagan, I do not have all the details. I realize this is your goal to make me appear ignorant, but I like to focus on today. From what I have read (and if I didn't have to spend so much time defending simple comments here I'd have a lot more I could do more research) I think one comment by Reagan is being way over attacked. Kinda like Obama's "you didn't build that"

(This must be split as the answer is too large for your page. And you say I'm exhausting?)

.

OTB said...

(Continued)
4) I am always open to plain facts. I have trouble with one-side interpretations. I see nothing in the comments you cite regarding blood or racial stock. If you have such evidence, PROVIDE IT, then we can discuss it. We cannot honestly discuss something that wasn't said. I believe the adviser was referring to the way Obama had treated artifacts from the British, etc. I see NOTHING regarding racial stock or blood in this conversation. Your evidence, please.

5) I think racism is diminishing the value of somebody because of their race. I believe it works both ways. People who state that blacks are inferior can be racist, people who state the same about whites are likewise defined. FWIW, I have been collecting "racist" actions for over a year -- and many things that are called racist by one side are also used by the same side with impunity. I prefer to judge everyone by the same rules.

6) I believe reverse racism does exist. I believe there is some white privilege in some, just as there is some black privilege in some. I believe you paint the issue with far too broad a brush. I prefer to deal with specifics (as I keep asking you for and not getting) rather than generalizing.

OTB: Objectivity Trumps Bias. Outside The Box. We agreed that I would again participate here under your guidelines, which I have followed. Yet you have again tried to diminish me, divert me, and prevent reasonable conversations.

You have also failed to answer many of my questions. I have now answered yours, so that you can now diminish me further, as I'm sure this is your goal.

You cannot, however, demonstrate any dishonesty on my part as you have claimed. I'm all for answering honest questions. I'm not for putting my head in a toxic noose with no purpose other than to derail legitimate conversation.

I play by your rules. I -- despite your wrong omniscience -- do not fit your stereotype. Why do you have such a problem with an independent thinker? Are you really so desirous of shutting down a different view that you would silence my voice?

BTW: I DO NOT LIE. IT IS NOT A PART OF ME. If you can point out any dishonesty, please do so. Otherwise, stop accusing me of something for which you have no evidence. Thank you.

Thrasher said...

OTB,

You Doth Protest To Much...

OTB said...

@Thrasher
I answered questions that were "required" to be answered. Why won't you answer a direct question based on your own words?

Would you have a different opinion of Arne Duncan if he were black, as you were upset that this "white man" came into a black community and said about the same thing you did about Detroit schools.

I have given you the specific point in your own tape to verify your own words. There is no diversion at this point. Either you will answer an legitimate question or you won't.
Thank you.

chaunceydevega said...

@OTB. Thank you for answering those questions. They are very, very revealing and explain much of why you ask the types of questions you do and the faulty conclusions that you reach. Your answers are also a great insight into contemporary conservatism and the damage its particular type of "colorblindness" and post-fact reality has done to people in this country.

I will let others chime in too. There are so many inaccuracies and misunderstandings of social reality in your answers that it would take a good amount of time to deconstruct.

I will take on one--no, the Southern Strategy is not something deployed by "both sides." This is a typical right-wing talking point. It was authored by Atwater, and used by his students such as Karl Rove. They explicitly said that you can use stereotypes about black people--welfare queens, crime, law and order, bad citizens, disloyal etc-to move white voters (esp. Independents) to vote for Republican candidates. Given the electoral coalition that the Democrats are dependent upon the Southern Strategy would be an epic fail and destroy any chances of getting a candidate elected.

Your points on Romney's adviser are just willful denial and foolishness on your part. How you can make a leap from a returned bust and not see how said comments are part of a pattern where Republicans have suggested repeatedly that "Obama is not really American" is surreal.

Your answers here reveal that you are either profoundly naive or plain old willfully ignorant.

Colorbind, I gave you a probationary reprieve. I have not decided if I will ban you again or not given your past offenses--cyberstalking especially. In the future be sure to answer people's questions and to proceed in good faith.

OTB said...

@Chauncey:

I ALWAYS proceed in good faith. I did NOT say both sides deployed the Southern Strategy. I said there are at least two sides to it. I asked for verification of your claim on blood type and racial stock because I have never seen such a statement. Just as above, someone claimed Romney said blacks should get stuff for free, when the quote says otherwise. I like facts.

The way my mind works is that I see things that are (or appear to be) out of place. When I watch a movie, I note the prop that doesn't fit; I see the film reversed. I do the same in life. When something looks out of place to me (claims that do not match data I'm aware of) I question it. I do so politely. This should meet several of your "guidelines" here.

I am fine with facts that counter my perspective. You have stated that people here should ask for data when they are unclear on something. That's precisely what I do. In court, there is a phrase: "Asked and answered". That's my goal. I came here to learn. I'm still trying. Asking questions that will fill in the gaps is the best way to do it.

If I am, as you say, "profoundly naive or willfully ignorant", what better way to "heal" than to ask questions on that which I do not understand?

Isn't that precisely what I have done here? I have done the same on other sites, and added a further question: Have I ever said anything that was unfair or untrue?

I offer the same question here. And, as always, I am seeking answers that are objective, not critiques because my perspective is different.

Aside from our clear difference in viewpoints, I would think that you would welcome the tone of my questions, as they invite expansion on stated viewpoints. (Instead of answers, though, for some reason I get diversions and assaults).

Very odd. One might surmise that your guidelines here aren't really observed all that well.

In all frankness, I do appreciate the chance to learn from your site, and I wouldn't be here if that wasn't my objective. I have no desire to "derail" anything -- and any derailing here is due to attacks and diversions from others. I ask a question looking for a response. Simple enough. The answer would (at least to my thinking) move this topic forward, which is also your goal.

Just so we're all on the same page (and I realize I don't have the range here that Thrasher and CNu have), kindly tell me precisely how I can do my part here in a way that will not offend you, and how can I ask a question to clarify something that is unclear to me, or that seems to counter published data?

Thank you.

chaunceydevega said...

@Colorbind. Last time really. You cannot shift the facts to fit your conclusions. Ironic given your new name OTB.

from the Telegraph:

"As the Republican presidential challenger accused Barack Obama of appeasing America's enemies in his first foreign policy speech of the US general election campaign, advisers told The Daily Telegraph that he would abandon Mr Obama’s “Left-wing” coolness towards London.
In remarks that may prompt accusations of racial insensitivity, one suggested that Mr Romney was better placed to understand the depth of ties between the two countries than Mr Obama, whose father was from Africa."

Stop playing.

Also, two sides to the Southern Strategy. Pray tell, what is this "other side" to mobilizing white racism for electoral gains. Wow me. Please.

Romney did say that blacks want free stuff. Your reading comprehension is off. When you tell a group of people if you want a president to give you free stuff then vote for the other guy and I am not your man, what in god's name is he 1)saying and 2) implying and 3) what is the historical and contemporary context for suggesting that black people are uniquely desirous of free things from the government.

Stop it. Now. I am not here to teach you. Others are not here to teach you. You need to go to a good library and talk to a bibliographer about books on American history 101, Sociology 101, and Race 101. I would suggest Feagin's Racist America would be good for you--very accessible.

You are glibly ahistorical. The present is a function of the past, and in many cases the near past which lives today. Bizarre.

As I said, really, last time. You are playing a game that is a time suck and utterly dishonest.

OTB said...

@Chauncey:
I am digging for the facts, no matter what they are. I appreciate your link to the Telegraph (7/24//12), but did not find an adviser mentioning Obama's father. The writer did, however write the following:

"Mr Obama has appeared less interested in relations with London than Mr Bush. He repeatedly rebuffed Gordon Brown when the then-prime minister sought a meeting at the UN in 2009 and was criticised for responding to an elaborate gift with a set of DVDs that did not work in Britain.

"A change in tone was reflected by the enthusiastic welcome extended to Mr Cameron during an official visit and dinner in March. However, British diplomats remain frustrated by their “transactional” relationship with the Obama White House and lack of support on issues such as the Falkland Islands.

"Mr Romney has not made any commitments on the Falklands, but several in his foreign policy team favour backing Britain and publicly rejecting claims of sovereignty by Christina Kirchner, the Argentine president. Under Mr Obama the US remains neutral."

The writer seems to imply that Romney has some common ground with England that Obama does not. If you think Romney MEANT blacks, that's your prerogative. However, those were not the words he used -- which was my point. I prefer people to be judged by their actual words rather than by interpretations. (Romney was also called a racist for using the term "kitchen cabinet", a term first used, I believe, by Thomas Jefferson.)

I'm not asking for a response. I just wanted to make it clear that I am basing my positions on words that were or were not stated. If we were all judged by what others thought we meant, we'd all be incarcerated. (And I hardly see how going by actual quotes is dishonest. I'm not playing a game -- I'm trying to distinguish facts from opinions.) Thank you.

chaunceydevega said...

@OTB. "one suggested that Mr Romney was better placed to understand the depth of ties between the two countries than Mr Obama, whose father was from Africa."

You also vehemently defended George Zimmerman so your ethical and cognitive abilities are already suspect.

I have concluded that discussing these matters about politics with you is a waste of time. Assuming you are just ignorant--willfully so--and not just run some type of con online trolling, the problem is that we are proceeding from different priors. It is akin to someone who believed in evolution talking to a creationist. Alternatively, a 300 level physics class where you have students that do not understand gravity.

You need to do much more reading and work to participate in these conversations.

I, and others here, are many steps ahead of you--you don't even understand the Southern Strategy and want to play a "both sides" to the story silly game-which the facts in no way support. You also uttered another nonsense phrase, "black privilege" in your earlier response. Orwellian doublespeak.

Good luck on your journey.

Thrasher said...

OTB,

You Doth Protest To Much...

OTB said...

@Chauncey:
The journey is interesting, indeed. The quote you have at the top of your comment above is from the WRITER, not from the adviser. (As I said, I'm looking for actual quotes, not opinions of outsiders).

I do quite a bit of reading, including checking your sources so that we are both on the same page. I have yet to find the quotes you claim in your arguments.

I said I understand there are at least "two sides" to the topic of the "Southern Strategy". That means there are different perspectives on it. Surely you agree there is more than one view of it? Isn't that irrefutable?

The "nonsense phrase black privilege" was in direct answer to your question about white privilege, to which I responded:
"I believe there is some white privilege in some, just as there is some black privilege in some."

Surely you won't argue that in some ways blacks don't have advantages over whites? You won't argue that in some areas blacks are treated better than whites?

I vehemently defended Zimmerman's right to be tried based on the evidence, rather than opinions. I also stated that if he were guilty as you charged, that he should be hung. So far, it looks like the evidence does not support his guilt as charged. I'm open to additional facts but, as stated, I seek facts, not opinions.

Apparently we also have different educational backgrounds. Where I come from, documented facts trump opinions and statements of writers somehow attributed to people who apparently never said them. Again (hate to be redundant) I am fully open to being shown that either Romney or his adviser actually said what is claimed here. In my book, to accept opinion that contradicts fact would indeed be willfully ignorant.

Again, I'm not asking for your response. Anyone else who can provide what you refer to would help a lot in this direction. But without that evidence, what am I to believe? Documented quotes or third party opinion?

Sorry for the extra space taken up, but it's apparently still not clear what my motive here is -- to zero in on the facts (and not be called dishonest for doing so).

Thank you.

OTB said...

@Thrasher:

I assume you would protesif someone called you dishonest or willfully ignorant for seeking the truth.

I also assume you have no answer to my question based directly on your own words. I would rather get your response than "You Doth Protest To Much."

Thank you.

chaunceydevega said...

@colorbind.

from the ny times:

"In 1981, during the first year of Mr. Reagan’s presidency, the late Lee Atwater gave an interview to a political science professor at Case Western Reserve University, explaining the evolution of the Southern strategy:

“You start out in 1954 by saying, ‘Nigger, nigger, nigger,’ ” said Atwater. “By 1968, you can’t say ‘nigger’ — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now [that] you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things, and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites.”"

Please explain the "other side" of the Southern Strategy. I would love to hear you explain racism deployed for electoral gains by Conservatives.

"(As I said, I'm looking for actual quotes, not opinions of outsiders)"

An off the record interview was summarized by a respected journalist. You would like this inside adviser to appear in your home and tell you what he said to your satisfaction.

You practice the worst type of sophistry where you exclude the obvious for a default where despite all of the available evidence--even from the agents involved--that racism is a fiction.

White privilege is a grand thing; I now understand why so many are willing to fight tooth and nail to defend it.

You are really dishonest and a bit off. You are a racism denier and the worst type of racist. Thus, my reference earlier that you would come upon a lynched man and argue that he committed suicide.

"Where I come from, documented facts trump opinions and statements of writers somehow attributed to people who apparently never said them."

Huh. Romney "censured" his own aide because of what he said about Obama's father.

I am reminded why I banned you. You need help if this is not some type of game on your part. If it is a game you need help of a different kind. Are you just bored and enjoy troubling and vexing people?

"Surely you won't argue that in some ways blacks don't have advantages over whites? You won't argue that in some areas blacks are treated better than whites?"

In what country do you live? Who birthed you?

Please find that data so that we can write an article together and in an award from the Academy of American Arts and Sciences or the SSRN.

Thrasher said...

OTB

You Doth Continue To Protest To Much...

Thrasher said...

OTB

Observing you struggle to convince yourself that you are not illogical bores me. Of course I have met many white people like you who hate the very idea that I am smarter than they are. I understand your condition so you can stop straining in denial and defeat ....

You Doth Continue To Protest To Much...

chaunceydevega said...

@Thrasher. He really is childish and anti-intellectual. I keep reading his responses because his answers are white conservative colorblind racism 101.

It is really textbook where the white racism denier in the post civil rights era starts with a default that racism does not exist and is fiction in the minds of people of color.

They then construct standards of evidence in order to be convinced that are impossible to meet, because it is they, in their twisted racist minds, who determine what counts as sufficient proof.

From this framework the white racism denier can then come up with fictions about black privilege, reverse discrimination, and how white people are "oppressed" in America.

It is actually really neat to see something you have read and studied about come together so perfectly in the persona known as OTB/Colorbind.

Also notice how he suggested that the evidence to date in Zimmerman's case has proven that he is "innocent" and should not be convicted. I don't know what planet colorbind lives on but what I have read paints Zimmerman as a perjured liar who has contradicted himself repeatedly about the events of that evening.

OTB said...

@Thrasher:
Based on both your writing and your refusal to answer a question based on your own words, I am quite clear that there is very little chance that you are smarter than I am. If you were, it wouldn't bother me. But based on the evidence to date. you protest too much (There are two o's in the word "too"). Still making assumptions about my race?
(Wouldn't that make you racist?)

@Chauncey:

Thank you for the Lee Atwater quote -- I had never seen it before. (I do have other interests). You are right (although I'm unclear how the "late" Lee Atwater gave an interview). So you are right. And there are different perspectives on the meaning of it. Can we both get an amen?

If you read my words before, you know I am not a racism denier. So I'm not sure how your misreading my words makes me the worst kind of racist. Harry Reid will prove that Romney personally killed Joe Soptic's wife before you will be able to document any racism on my part. As always, evidence to the contrary is welcome.

I don't defend white privilege or black privilege or Jewish privilege or Muslim privilege or academic privilege. I'm aware that there are lots of different types of privilege. (Feel free to deny this).

Huh? PLEASE provide the quote from Romney's adviser about Obama's father. I would be happy to see it. But an added phrase from the writer does not equal a quote from Romney's adviser. Agreed?

A black guy and a white guy walk into the Apollo Theater. Do they both get treated the same? Does a black get attacked for using the "n-word"? Does Chris Rock get rich doing just that? Did Michael Richards get burned for doing the same thing? Are you seriously telling me you don't believe that in some situations blacks have advantages over whites?

I was born in and live in America. Land of the free to think independently and be brave enough to be honest with yourself and others. That's what I strive to do (and disagreeing with you while seeking actual quotes does not disqualify me).

Thank you for the Atwater quote. Now I have an actual quote I can cite. I'm still looking for a few others.

Thank you.

OTB said...

@Chauncey:
Just to be clear: I said "I vehemently defended Zimmerman's right to be tried based on the evidence, rather than opinions. I also stated that if he were guilty as you charged, that he should be hung. So far, it looks like the evidence does not support his guilt as charged. I'm open to additional facts but, as stated, I seek facts, not opinions.

You said: "Also notice how he suggested that the evidence to date in Zimmerman's case has proven that he is "innocent" and should not be convicted."

There's a big difference between the two quotes. Agreed?

chaunceydevega said...

@colorbind

More silliness from you.

"And there are different perspectives on the meaning of it. Can we both get an amen?" No you can't. Please explain an alternative perspective on Atwater's explanation of how republicans can and have used white racism as a cornerstone of their electoral strategy. Please do try.

"So far, it looks like the evidence does not support his guilt as charged."

Yes, it does. What case have you been following.

"You are right (although I'm unclear how the "late" Lee Atwater gave an interview)."

You do have reading comprehension issues. Read the times piece.

"If you read my words before, you know I am not a racism denier."

Your points here and elsewhere strongly suggest otherwise. Read my post to Thrasher where I explain how you are right out of a textbook.

"you will be able to document any racism on my part." Racism denying, deflecting, and the sophistry you have demonstrated here does qualify as racism. A belief in black privilege in this society would also qualify one as being at the very least racially resentful if not an active racist.

"A black guy and a white guy walk into the Apollo Theater. Do they both get treated the same? Does a black get attacked for using the "n-word"? Does Chris Rock get rich doing just that? Did Michael Richards get burned for doing the same thing? Are you seriously telling me you don't believe that in some situations blacks have advantages over whites? "

You haven't been to the Apollo lately it would seem--white folks have been treated better than blacks there for decades. Please discuss some meaningful examples where life chances are in play in order to construct this fiction of "black advantages."

Do you want to suggest that Rock, Chappelle's, or Pryor's use of some language is the equivalent in intent, nuance, and context as Richards, Gibson and others who have had white racist meltdowns? Really? As I said, what a simple world you live in.

And yes, black people and members of other communities that have been marginalized and oppressed in this society can use language that whites and others cannot. Don't lose sleep over this fact. My gay friends can say things that me as a straight person should not. Why? I do not understand the nuances of speech and that community; I also live in a society that is bigoted against gay people. Thus, as a straight person I do not go there. Does this upset me. Of course not.

More game playing and racism denying: "Thank you for the Atwater quote. Now I have an actual quote I can cite. I'm still looking for a few others."

This is another typical white racism denying ploy. You give them the evidence and then they marginalize it. You get the quote from the horse's mouth and then they need to continue to look for more evidence with the hope of finding a contradictory source. Open your eyes.

I think you just like needling people. Or alternatively, you are the racist you have proven yourself to be.

Thrasher said...

OTB

Thanks yet again for confirming you are white your continued attention to this issue is yet another admission on your part.

One other note I agree with you anytime you want to by my human spell checker you have my permission BTW of course since you are white like Duncan I should have not agreed with you...lol lol lol

As I noted you simply do not measure up in here or with me ...

You doth continue to protest to much

Thrasher said...

I am enjoying your surgery of OTB his denial is reaching incredible depths..

OTB said...

@Thrasher: Thanks for getting off your smart jealousy high horse (if you did). That's a silly place to sit. My continuing to defend my honor says nothing about my race. Your refusal to give a straight answer on your different standards for Arne Duncan (the vulgarity of white liberalism coming into a black community) & you as a black man saying the same things (that Detroit schools were a disaster) beg the question of why you refuse to stand behind your own words. I don't hate you because you are smarter (which I doubt you are). I do reduce my respect for you as you avoid a direct question.

@Chauncey: There are different perspectives on the Southern Strategy today (if you think everyone sees it identically, then I think you devalue the concept of individual thought processes.)

Zimmerman was charged with second degree murder. I am far from alone in believing he will not be found guilty of those charges. Alan Dershowitz for one, a man who has forgotten more about the law than you or I will likely ever learn. What case are you following?

"I'm still looking for a few others" is a racism denying ploy -- HOW? I asked for Romney's statement where he mentioned blacks, I asked you for the quote where his adviser mentioned Obama's father, among others. How is asking for a direct quote from someone who claims it was made (contrary to published reports) "racism denying"?

Racism is denigrating others because of their race. I have NOT denied racism exists. I do not need to deny racism on my part, because I have not exhibited it. Disagreeing with you does not constitute racism. If you can find a legitimate definition to the contrary, as always, I am willing to see it.

No, I should not have picked the Apollo, as I have not been there recently. (It seemed an apt example). There are many places that blacks can go and be treated with respect where the same courtesy would not be extended to whites. There are likewise some places where the alternative is true. Why can't both be true? You complained of racist persecution at Navy Pier. Do you honestly believe that there are not places where whites might feel the same way?

Please note I did acknowledge your Lee Atwater quote. That must be worth something, right?

We are clearly not going to agree on this. You are not going to show that I am a racist, and I am not going to convince you of my viewpoints. Let's move on.

OTB said...

@Chauncey:

PS: As to my reading comprehension, the article says the late Lee Atwater gave an interview. Dead people do not give interviews. ("the late Lee Atwater gave an interview"). My comprehension is just fine. The sentence did not make sense as written, which was my point.

chaunceydevega said...

@Colorbind. The sentence made total sense. I called you out for a pattern that is common to white racists, especially of your stripe, where they play games with facts, standards of evidence, and the like. Arguing minutia to overlook the obvious is a common tactic of white racists such as you.

Again, and this is fun, please give me an alternate explanation for what the father of the Southern Strategy admitted to. "There are different perspectives on the Southern Strategy today (if you think everyone sees it identically, then I think you devalue the concept of individual thought processes.)"

Yes, people have individual thoughts. Many of them are in error, incorrect, and do not adequately describe reality. As such, I do not play a false equivalence game. There are holocaust deniers for example. Is that just another "opinion" to be given equal weight? There are those who suggest that non-whites are genetically inferior to "white" people do we give such nonsense equal thrift and time?

Maybe you clutter your mind with intellectual bovine scatology. I do not. The former would explain much of your worldview however.

Again, please offer up a contrary explanation for the reality that is the Right's use of racial bigotry to win elections. Can you?

Your definition of racism is from a dictionary, one designed to give basic answers for simple minds. Again, you are still stuck in american political and race (the remedial section) we are trying to get you to the 101 level. Do read some of the books I suggested.

"There are likewise some places where the alternative is true. Why can't both be true? You complained of racist persecution at Navy Pier. Do you honestly believe that there are not places where whites might feel the same way"

please give me an example of a social structure or institution where white people are systematically disadvantaged in terms of their life chances in this country. As I said, come up with one and we will write an article and win an award for a breakthrough in social scientific thought.

Stop playing games. "I asked for Romney's statement where he mentioned blacks, I asked you for the quote where his adviser mentioned Obama's father, among others."

Listen to his NAACP speech and the one he gave shortly thereafter. I gave you the quote from the reporter--one who Romney did not say was inaccurate. Why is your default that racial animus does not exist and that you need to have it proved to you otherwise?

I cannot convince you that gravity is real. The reality of how racism over-determines life chances in the USA is one of the most repeated findings in social science. Again, stop your foolishness. I am very tired of you OTB. Move along.

chaunceydevega said...

continued:

"Zimmerman was charged with second degree murder. I am far from alone in believing he will not be found guilty of those charges."

Innocence before the law does not mean that one is not guilty. By example, was OJ Simpson innocent? I imagine that was a case that put you into fits.

Zimmerman has lied under oath, committed perjury, told multiple versions of the story, and the autopsy of Martin's body did not support Zimmerman's version of events. How does Zimmerman have any credibility after lying under oath, his wife lying as well, and it having been suggested by a witness that he was a child molester and pederast.

SYG is a joke; one of the witnesses is dead. He may walk. But, Zimmerman is far from innocent.

You are a racist and a racism denier Colorbind. As I said in this string and elsewhere, you get no "points" for proceeding from a fallacy that racism is a fiction and an "opinion"--and/or that it may exist and is rare--when the preponderance of the evidence suggests otherwise.

You get no points Colorbind by constructing a set of standards for evidence that allow you to devalue and reject the preponderance of the facts and the lived experiences of black and brown people.

As a racist deeply invested in white privilege and conservative colorblindness there is little if any evidence that can convince you otherwise. You are textbook. The myopia of whiteness is indeed grand.

I am done talking with you. If you comment again on this thread I will delete said comments. Move along to more recent posts please or be gone.

ajm5007 said...

So you don't know how the past tense works?