Total Posts:18|Showing Posts:1-18
Jump to topic:

Yes, liberals and blacks can be racists

DoubtingDave
Posts: 380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2013 2:12:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Congressman Charlie Rangel (D-NY) made some colorful remarks in a Daily Beast interview released Friday. Most notably, he called Tea Partiers and other Republicans "white crackers."

"House Republicans? Have done more damage to American competitiveness than al Qaeda ever could. "What is happening is sabotage. Terrorists couldn"t do a better job than the Republicans are doing."

"The Tea Party? Defeat them the same way segregation was beaten. "It is the same group we faced in the South with those white crackers and the dogs and the police."


http://townhall.com...

This is unacceptable speech from anyone - democrat, republican, white or black. Had a white Republican said this about democrats, the media would have a feeding frenzy!
The Great Wall of Fail

"I have doubts that anti-semitism even exists" -GeoLaureate8

"Evolutionists think that people evolved from rocks" -Scotty

"And whats so bad about a Holy war? By Holy war, I mean a war which would aim to subdue others under Islam." -Ahmed.M

"The free market didn't create the massive wealth in the country, WW2 did." -malcomxy

"Independant federal regulators make our capitalist society possible." -Erik_Erikson
DeFool
Posts: 626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2013 5:10:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/3/2013 2:12:35 PM, DoubtingDave wrote:
Congressman Charlie Rangel (D-NY) made some colorful remarks in a Daily Beast interview released Friday. Most notably, he called Tea Partiers and other Republicans "white crackers."

"House Republicans? Have done more damage to American competitiveness than al Qaeda ever could. "What is happening is sabotage. Terrorists couldn"t do a better job than the Republicans are doing."

"The Tea Party? Defeat them the same way segregation was beaten. "It is the same group we faced in the South with those white crackers and the dogs and the police."


http://townhall.com...

This is unacceptable speech from anyone - democrat, republican, white or black. Had a white Republican said this about democrats, the media would have a feeding frenzy

It can all be conceded that any large group of persons will have wide degrees of individual variance. Therefore, there will be liberal racists and blacks who hate whites.

However, there exists a social ideology that suggests that it is "bad" to judge one another on the basis of ethnic, racial or political identity. The misleading "Liberal/Conservative, Left/Right Scale" cannot properly quantify all aspects of social ideology, but we can be assured that the "liberal left" portion of these scales values efforts to correct this bigotry.

Insofar as the self-identified conservative right also values efforts to see beyond race, the right/left adherents are in happy agreement.
Noctan
Posts: 420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2013 8:11:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Yeah, no crap. Anyne can be racist.
I can manage my anger if people can manage their stupidity.
Df0512
Posts: 966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2013 9:25:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/3/2013 2:12:35 PM, DoubtingDave wrote:
Congressman Charlie Rangel (D-NY) made some colorful remarks in a Daily Beast interview released Friday. Most notably, he called Tea Partiers and other Republicans "white crackers."

"House Republicans? Have done more damage to American competitiveness than al Qaeda ever could. "What is happening is sabotage. Terrorists couldn"t do a better job than the Republicans are doing."

"The Tea Party? Defeat them the same way segregation was beaten. "It is the same group we faced in the South with those white crackers and the dogs and the police."


http://townhall.com...

This is unacceptable speech from anyone - democrat, republican, white or black. Had a white Republican said this about democrats, the media would have a feeding frenzy!

No one said black people couldn't be. Whats the point of even putting this here?
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2013 9:26:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
And?

In the words of Avenue Q, "Everyone's a little bit racist."
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Noctan
Posts: 420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2013 10:45:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/3/2013 10:16:19 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 8/3/2013 8:11:03 PM, Noctan wrote:
Yeah, no crap. Anyne can be racist.

Anyone*

Stupid tablet.
I can manage my anger if people can manage their stupidity.
DeFool
Posts: 626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2013 6:52:23 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/3/2013 8:11:03 PM, Noctan wrote:
Yeah, no crap. Anyne can be racist.

Racism is not a conservative trait. However, tolerance and opposition to racism is a major goal of liberal groups.
Noctan
Posts: 420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2013 7:01:29 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/4/2013 6:52:23 AM, DeFool wrote:
At 8/3/2013 8:11:03 PM, Noctan wrote:
Yeah, no crap. Anyne can be racist.

Racism is not a conservative trait. However, tolerance and opposition to racism is a major goal of liberal groups.

And you're telling me this because? I never said it was a conservative trait, and I know many liberals such as myself oppose racism, what was your point here?
I can manage my anger if people can manage their stupidity.
DeFool
Posts: 626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2013 7:14:37 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/4/2013 7:01:29 AM, Noctan wrote:
At 8/4/2013 6:52:23 AM, DeFool wrote:
At 8/3/2013 8:11:03 PM, Noctan wrote:
Yeah, no crap. Anyne can be racist.

Racism is not a conservative trait. However, tolerance and opposition to racism is a major goal of liberal groups.

And you're telling me this because? I never said it was a conservative trait, and I know many liberals such as myself oppose racism, what was your point here?

I am 'responding' to your earlier post, in order to accomplish a number of things.

1) I wanted to voice support for the idea that you presented, which is that the OA is essentially a fallacy.

2) I wanted for your account to be notified of this agreement, so that you may be invited to add anything more to your original thoughts

3) I felt that your original insights might benefit from my adding this new component to them (that opposing racist ideology is not a goal of movement conservatism.)
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2013 7:53:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/4/2013 7:14:37 AM, DeFool wrote:
At 8/4/2013 7:01:29 AM, Noctan wrote:
At 8/4/2013 6:52:23 AM, DeFool wrote:
At 8/3/2013 8:11:03 PM, Noctan wrote:
Yeah, no crap. Anyne can be racist.

Racism is not a conservative trait. However, tolerance and opposition to racism is a major goal of liberal groups.

And you're telling me this because? I never said it was a conservative trait, and I know many liberals such as myself oppose racism, what was your point here?

I am 'responding' to your earlier post, in order to accomplish a number of things.

1) I wanted to voice support for the idea that you presented, which is that the OA is essentially a fallacy.

2) I wanted for your account to be notified of this agreement, so that you may be invited to add anything more to your original thoughts

3) I felt that your original insights might benefit from my adding this new component to them (that opposing racist ideology is not a goal of movement conservatism.)

Did you not respond to my post in that other thread cos you don't want to admit you're essentially pro-slavery? lol

And on the above.. this affirmative action stuff feeds racism.. it's what's kept it alive until today. I mean I'm not sure how you can fight racism with politics, other than removing politics from race altogether.. any other option is adding to racism.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
DeFool
Posts: 626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2013 12:10:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/4/2013 7:53:09 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 8/4/2013 7:14:37 AM, DeFool wrote:
At 8/4/2013 7:01:29 AM, Noctan wrote:
At 8/4/2013 6:52:23 AM, DeFool wrote:
At 8/3/2013 8:11:03 PM, Noctan wrote:
Yeah, no crap. Anyne can be racist.

Racism is not a conservative trait. However, tolerance and opposition to racism is a major goal of liberal groups.

And you're telling me this because? I never said it was a conservative trait, and I know many liberals such as myself oppose racism, what was your point here?

I am 'responding' to your earlier post, in order to accomplish a number of things.

1) I wanted to voice support for the idea that you presented, which is that the OA is essentially a fallacy.

2) I wanted for your account to be notified of this agreement, so that you may be invited to add anything more to your original thoughts

3) I felt that your original insights might benefit from my adding this new component to them (that opposing racist ideology is not a goal of movement conservatism.)

Did you not respond to my post in that other thread cos you don't want to admit you're essentially pro-slavery? lol

I expect that this is a rhetorical question, but I should respond. I very seldom pay much attention to the account name that I am speaking to. I try, as often as possible, to relegate all of my comments to other comments - not commentators.

So, I have no idea what you are referring to here. Rest assured, I do not support slavery.

And on the above.. this affirmative action stuff feeds racism.. it's what's kept it alive until today. I mean I'm not sure how you can fight racism with politics, other than removing politics from race altogether.. any other option is adding to racism.

Affirmative Action policies were implemented by the US Dept of Labor to specifically remove race as a consideration in recruitment, job placement and advancement decision within the Federal Government and its contractors. It allows the massive hiring power of the Federal Government to play a race-neutral role, setting an example and providing opportunities for underprivileged populations.

Many racists pretend that Affirmative Action allows policies that 'favor' minorities, which is specifically forbidden in the policy.

Many whites feel that they should be hired and advanced in their jobs, simply because they are white. Unfortunately for them, Affirmative Action disallows race to be used in these situations.

The US Dept of Labor Policy (known as Affirmative Action) can be studied on the Dept of Labor website, found here: http://www.dol.gov...
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2013 12:23:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/4/2013 12:10:43 PM, DeFool wrote:
At 8/4/2013 7:53:09 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 8/4/2013 7:14:37 AM, DeFool wrote:
At 8/4/2013 7:01:29 AM, Noctan wrote:
At 8/4/2013 6:52:23 AM, DeFool wrote:
At 8/3/2013 8:11:03 PM, Noctan wrote:
Yeah, no crap. Anyne can be racist.

Racism is not a conservative trait. However, tolerance and opposition to racism is a major goal of liberal groups.

And you're telling me this because? I never said it was a conservative trait, and I know many liberals such as myself oppose racism, what was your point here?

I am 'responding' to your earlier post, in order to accomplish a number of things.

1) I wanted to voice support for the idea that you presented, which is that the OA is essentially a fallacy.

2) I wanted for your account to be notified of this agreement, so that you may be invited to add anything more to your original thoughts

3) I felt that your original insights might benefit from my adding this new component to them (that opposing racist ideology is not a goal of movement conservatism.)

Did you not respond to my post in that other thread cos you don't want to admit you're essentially pro-slavery? lol

I expect that this is a rhetorical question, but I should respond. I very seldom pay much attention to the account name that I am speaking to. I try, as often as possible, to relegate all of my comments to other comments - not commentators.

So, I have no idea what you are referring to here. Rest assured, I do not support slavery.

Slave: A person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them.
(Google Dictionary)

Socialism: A political and economic theory of that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated...
(Google Dictionary)

Being that a human and possibly all of their possessions are 'means of production, distribution, and exchange,' how can you meaningfully separate these concepts?
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2013 1:07:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/4/2013 12:23:46 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 8/4/2013 12:10:43 PM, DeFool wrote:
At 8/4/2013 7:53:09 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 8/4/2013 7:14:37 AM, DeFool wrote:
At 8/4/2013 7:01:29 AM, Noctan wrote:
At 8/4/2013 6:52:23 AM, DeFool wrote:
At 8/3/2013 8:11:03 PM, Noctan wrote:
Yeah, no crap. Anyne can be racist.

Racism is not a conservative trait. However, tolerance and opposition to racism is a major goal of liberal groups.

And you're telling me this because? I never said it was a conservative trait, and I know many liberals such as myself oppose racism, what was your point here?

I am 'responding' to your earlier post, in order to accomplish a number of things.

1) I wanted to voice support for the idea that you presented, which is that the OA is essentially a fallacy.

2) I wanted for your account to be notified of this agreement, so that you may be invited to add anything more to your original thoughts

3) I felt that your original insights might benefit from my adding this new component to them (that opposing racist ideology is not a goal of movement conservatism.)

Did you not respond to my post in that other thread cos you don't want to admit you're essentially pro-slavery? lol

I expect that this is a rhetorical question, but I should respond. I very seldom pay much attention to the account name that I am speaking to. I try, as often as possible, to relegate all of my comments to other comments - not commentators.

So, I have no idea what you are referring to here. Rest assured, I do not support slavery.

Slave: A person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them.
(Google Dictionary)

Socialism: A political and economic theory of that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated...
(Google Dictionary)

Being that a human and possibly all of their possessions are 'means of production, distribution, and exchange,' how can you meaningfully separate these concepts?

Rofl.

" A political and economic theory of that advocates that" makes me realise it is obviously an idiot coming up with the definition, or someone rushed to the point of lack of care for accuracy. So let's post the actual definition:

Socialism: a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Capitalism: an economic and political system in which a country"s trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state

So we shall assume that labour classes as part of production. Therefore:

1) Socialism argues for either regulation or redistribution by the state or some other collective institution looking for the equity of the general public.

2) Capitalism argues for distribution of wealth by the owner of the means of production, distribution and exchange, which ought to be private interests, usually self-serving interests.

Note how both argue for an individual to be treated as a commodity. Why? Because economics treats individuals as commodities. That is why we talk about Capital, Land, and LABOUR (and more and more the additional trait of enterprise/entrepeneurship).

I'd also argue that racism is incompatible with liberalism, because liberalism is necessarily tolerant. However, I'm more opposed to silly statements than I am to any claim like this. It is the Randian rhetoric speaking here: a little like Mises in its intention, but nothing like him in the actual content of the argument. With a hint of "only-ever-debated-on-the-internet" of course with the appeal-to-stretched-dictionary-definition-instead-of-common-sense arguments.

Hey! Let's use the best online dictionary for politics instead though!

http://www.answers.com...

Wait? Answers? That's terrible! I hear one say. And it usually is. However, recently they have started posting Encyclopedia and specialised dictionary definitions, and as such is the single greatest source for all these things. I note the beginning of the Britannica Concise:

"The term was first used to describe the doctrines of Charles Fourier, Henri de Saint-Simon, and Robert Owen, who emphasized noncoercive communities of people working noncompetitively for the spiritual and physical well-being of all (utopian socialism)."

Simply put, the claim that socialism is akin to slavery needs either an argument akin to the length and strength of Mises (which I would argue is unsuccessful though good), and not a three sentence definition bastardization to make a case.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
imabench
Posts: 21,220
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2013 1:24:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/3/2013 10:16:19 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 8/3/2013 8:11:03 PM, Noctan wrote:
Yeah, no crap. Anyone can be racist.
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2013 2:05:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/3/2013 2:12:35 PM, DoubtingDave wrote:
Congressman Charlie Rangel (D-NY) made some colorful remarks in a Daily Beast interview released Friday. Most notably, he called Tea Partiers and other Republicans "white crackers."

"House Republicans? Have done more damage to American competitiveness than al Qaeda ever could. "What is happening is sabotage. Terrorists couldn"t do a better job than the Republicans are doing."

"The Tea Party? Defeat them the same way segregation was beaten. "It is the same group we faced in the South with those white crackers and the dogs and the police."


http://townhall.com...

This is unacceptable speech from anyone - democrat, republican, white or black. Had a white Republican said this about democrats, the media would have a feeding frenzy!

Republicans HAVE said Democrats/Obama have damaged the country worse than Al Qaeda.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2013 2:30:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/4/2013 1:24:55 PM, imabench wrote:
At 8/3/2013 10:16:19 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 8/3/2013 8:11:03 PM, Noctan wrote:
Yeah, no crap. Anyone can be racist.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2013 10:36:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/4/2013 1:07:04 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 8/4/2013 12:23:46 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 8/4/2013 12:10:43 PM, DeFool wrote:
At 8/4/2013 7:53:09 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 8/4/2013 7:14:37 AM, DeFool wrote:
At 8/4/2013 7:01:29 AM, Noctan wrote:
At 8/4/2013 6:52:23 AM, DeFool wrote:
At 8/3/2013 8:11:03 PM, Noctan wrote:
Yeah, no crap. Anyne can be racist.

Racism is not a conservative trait. However, tolerance and opposition to racism is a major goal of liberal groups.

And you're telling me this because? I never said it was a conservative trait, and I know many liberals such as myself oppose racism, what was your point here?

I am 'responding' to your earlier post, in order to accomplish a number of things.

1) I wanted to voice support for the idea that you presented, which is that the OA is essentially a fallacy.

2) I wanted for your account to be notified of this agreement, so that you may be invited to add anything more to your original thoughts

3) I felt that your original insights might benefit from my adding this new component to them (that opposing racist ideology is not a goal of movement conservatism.)

Did you not respond to my post in that other thread cos you don't want to admit you're essentially pro-slavery? lol

I expect that this is a rhetorical question, but I should respond. I very seldom pay much attention to the account name that I am speaking to. I try, as often as possible, to relegate all of my comments to other comments - not commentators.

So, I have no idea what you are referring to here. Rest assured, I do not support slavery.

Slave: A person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them.
(Google Dictionary)

Socialism: A political and economic theory of that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated...
(Google Dictionary)

Being that a human and possibly all of their possessions are 'means of production, distribution, and exchange,' how can you meaningfully separate these concepts?

Rofl.

" A political and economic theory of that advocates that" makes me realise it is obviously an idiot coming up with the definition, or someone rushed to the point of lack of care for accuracy. So let's post the actual definition:

Alright.. good point I'll admit haha.

Socialism: a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

So you haven't redefined slavery, does that mean you agree with the initial definition? Because you can be owned not by just one other person, but two, and that's still slavery.. and slavery still, even if you expand that definition to an entire community. Doesn't mean that slavery is necessarily wrong (although I would put that it is,) but this is a form of it, by definition, although very different from what we associate with the word.

Capitalism: an economic and political system in which a country"s trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state

Yeah, it still takes into account labour, but everyone fully owns their own labour, and chooses how to 'spend' it entirely. 'Controlled by private owners' just means that everyone owns their own labour. This is fundamentally different from socialism - where someone else has the right to my labour.

So we shall assume that labour classes as part of production. Therefore:

1) Socialism argues for either regulation or redistribution by the state or some other collective institution looking for the equity of the general public.

Redistributing labour.. so they own it.. or the person it's being redistributed to owns it.

2) Capitalism argues for distribution of wealth by the owner of the means of production, distribution and exchange, which ought to be private interests, usually self-serving interests.

lol yes.. When you're not a slave - when you own your own labour - you tend to use it for self-serving interests.

Note how both argue for an individual to be treated as a commodity. Why? Because economics treats individuals as commodities. That is why we talk about Capital, Land, and LABOUR (and more and more the additional trait of enterprise/entrepeneurship).

In the sense that you can refer to it that way; however in capitalism an individual and their labour are commodities which are owned by themselves, and they can choose how to spend it. This applies even in what is usually the socialist's imagined 'nightmare capitalism' scenario where a big corporation owns everything.. you could still choose not to work for them technically.. what I'm arguing is that technically, socialism by definition implies slavery, whether or not it would look like it in practice.

I'd also argue that racism is incompatible with liberalism, because liberalism is necessarily tolerant. However, I'm more opposed to silly statements than I am to any claim like this. It is the Randian rhetoric speaking here: a little like Mises in its intention, but nothing like him in the actual content of the argument. With a hint of "only-ever-debated-on-the-internet" of course with the appeal-to-stretched-dictionary-definition-instead-of-common-sense arguments.

haha.. you seem kind of insane sometimes.. I don't think it takes much of an argument to prove what I'm arguing TBH. It's pretty clear in the definitions. I'm not trying to make 'common sense arguments' or anything.. I'm just trying to prove that technically socialists do support slavery. I wasn't in this case relating it to any broader point than that.

Hey! Let's use the best online dictionary for politics instead though!

http://www.answers.com...

Wait? Answers? That's terrible! I hear one say. And it usually is. However, recently they have started posting Encyclopedia and specialised dictionary definitions, and as such is the single greatest source for all these things. I note the beginning of the Britannica Concise:

"The term was first used to describe the doctrines of Charles Fourier, Henri de Saint-Simon, and Robert Owen, who emphasized noncoercive communities of people working noncompetitively for the spiritual and physical well-being of all (utopian socialism)."

Simply put, the claim that socialism is akin to slavery needs either an argument akin to the length and strength of Mises (which I would argue is unsuccessful though good), and not a three sentence definition bastardization to make a case.

I see 'utopian' right in the definition there - I mean this idea that socialism is noncoercive doesn't really hold and if you believed in that then we'd agree about the NAP.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx