DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: R.R. on November 04, 2011, 09:26:51 PM
-
"High Tech Lynching" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSRONjYVvAQ#ws)
-
These dummy's have no idea how messed up they are. They also have no idea how much they energized Cain's campaign.
We all know that Republicans electing Cain as the first black president removes the Democrat Party as the owners of all black people in America and allows them to be free thinkers once and for all.
-
Yes beautiful....awesome R.R.
Thanks for posting this....I had not seen this yet.
Honestly I still get goosebumps...watching that moment
when Clarence Thomas kicked their freaking ass & called out evil for exactly what they are! Disgraceful!
Clarence Thomas High-Tech Lynching (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egTyaIAaqz8#)
-
It's a double tragedy that not only did this Uncle Tom get away completely with the sexual harrassment of Anita Hill, but that the moron still occupies a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court today, to the Court's eternal disgrace.
The only mitigating factor is that the so-called harrassment was so minimal that Anita Hill not only did not file a complaint against him, but didn't even come forward of her own initiative after he was nominated.
-
He's married to a white woman too. That must drive you lib racists crazy. How can you keep them on the plantation if the know their own mind.
-
There was nothing high tech about the non-lynching of Clarence "Uncle" Thomas.
The man is an insult to the court and this country.
-
Because he dares not to remain a sheep on the plantation. Scary racist rhetoric being thrown around here, so effortlessly
-
I don't give a shit what colour his wife's skin is, he can marry anyone he likes. I'm just amused by your childish efforts to paint me as a racist for calling this Uncle Tom what he is. A man should fry in hell for turning his back on his own people and betraying them to their oppressors, whether his name is Vidkun Quisling or Clarence Thomas. There's a name for each of them, according to their respective cultures, and there is NOTHING AT ALL "racist" in calling them by that name. If the shoe fits . . .
-
As I said.....scary. I'm assuming the Klan was pretty easy going in how they threw around their racist remarks as well, nor would they even try to hide it.
-
I don't give a shit what colour his wife's skin is, he can marry anyone he likes. I'm just amused by your childish efforts to paint me as a racist for calling this Uncle Tom what he is. A man should fry in hell for turning his back on his own people and betraying them to their oppressors, whether his name is Vidkun Quisling or Clarence Thomas. There's a name for each of them, according to their respective cultures, and there is NOTHING AT ALL "racist" in calling them by that name. If the shoe fits . . .
How on earth do you define racism?
Your definition must be pretty complex if it allows specific accusations of race betrayal.
-
<<How on earth do you define racism?
<<Your definition must be pretty complex if it allows specific accusations of race betrayal.>>
There is nothing particularly complex about it. Racism is a member of one race thinking that he and his race are better than individuals of another race and better than the other race because his race is better than the other race. Like a white man thinking he is better than any blacks or Asians, or a gentile thinking he is better than any Jew.
White racists think they are better than blacks, but they can't say so because it's politically incorrect and they'll look like ass-holes for saying so. So they think of code words ("welfare queens" was a brilliant one that Reagan invented) and they NEED token blacks - - Uncle Toms like Clarence Thomas or Herman Cain) to include in their party, the GOP, and speak the same codes. Then they can argue, "How can we be racist when [insert name of particular individual Tom] is on our side and says the same thing we say?"
Blacks aren't fooled and we white anti-racists aren't fooled. But GOP racists can't stand that we see right through their childish games and call out the Uncle Toms for what they are. The only thing they can do is point back at us and try to claim that WE are the "racists." It's just childish and hilarious at the same time - - the racists are calling the anti-racists "racist." Fortunately very few people are dumb enough to be taken in by this bullshit. Only the usual self-deluded "conservatives."
-
You must feel quite superior to racists.
Even to racists who allow no overt action or sign of their racism.
You see through them so well , that you see racism everywhere.
So....
Supposeing that racism is defeated and becomes not only unpopular with almost everybody, but for the sake of argument , totally absent.
Would this be good for the Jews?
-
<<You must feel quite superior to racists.>>
No I don't. I know they're just the product of their cultural environment. But they have to be fought, and in some cases, like the Nazis, they have to be killed.
<< Even to racists who allow no overt action or sign of their racism.>>
Well, I consider the use of code like "welfare queens" or "Willie Horton" to be overt actions and signs of racism.
<<You see through them so well , that you see racism everywhere.>>
I see racism where it exists, the Tea Parties, the GOP. I don't see it "everywhere." I don't see it in Occupy Wall Street! I didn't see it in the student anti-war movement. It's easy to see. The problem is that they are so fucking dumb, they think they are covering their tracks with their silly code words and Uncle Toms but any smart high school student can see through them.
<<So....
<<Supposeing that racism is defeated and becomes not only unpopular with almost everybody, but for the sake of argument , totally absent.
<< Would this be good for the Jews?>>
It would be good for individual Jews who are still suffering from anti-Semitism, but it would be a disaster for "the Jews." The Jews of China were faced with an environment of a total absence of anti-Semitism and in a few centuries they vanished from the face of the earth, inter-married with, and absorbed by, the larger culture.
My dad always said that it was European and Christian anti-semitism and only anti-semitism that had kept the Jews alive as a people for thousands of years. All the other races that co-existed with them from ancient days have vanished into the sands of time, only persecution forged the Jewish identity and gave them a reason to hang together. I think anti-Semitism (a form of racism) is good for the Jews in the abstract, if it could be kept to snide remarks, exclusions from country clubs, religious complaints of deicide, etc. but it goes bad when it degenerates into pogroms and genocide or even skin-head assaults.
-
Blowhard: "They were the enemy of the people."
Joesph Goebbels: "Each Jew is a sworn enemy of the German people."
BSB
-
It would be good for individual Jews who are still suffering from anti-Semitism, but it would be a disaster for "the Jews." The Jews of China were faced with an environment of a total absence of anti-Semitism and in a few centuries they vanished from the face of the earth, inter-married with, and absorbed by, the larger culture.
That is an interesting thought. It seems that Chinese cultural has been better at assimilating other cultures for centuries. One reason is that there are so many Han Chinese. of course, but the culture has something to do with it as well.
Jehovah's Witnesses and some other religious sects have endured by having beliefs that keep them separate from the rest of the population (no birthday parties, no celebration of any event, no saluting the flag or serving in the military).
The Quakers used speech (thee and thou) and a dress code for about 200 years, but now are totally assimilated into US society.
Jews, the non-orthodox ones in particular, seem to be assimilating themselves into US society at a pretty fast rate by intermarriage.
I fail to see what the constant quoting of Goebbels has to do with anything.
-
There was nothing high tech about the non-lynching of Clarence "Uncle" Thomas.
The man is an insult to the court and this country.
What really stands out to me is that all these African Americans that you insult with racial slurs are better than you. They are better educated, better off financially, hold & held better job positions, are more successful in life, more intelligent and more logical than you.
XO, you compared to any one of them are a dismal failure. You are pathetically unqualified compared to any one of these people.
And of course I am referring to Herman Cain, Clarence Thomas and Condi Rice. These are people that you have racially insulted on several occasions.
-
You on the other hand, are a walking insult to the human race.
Assuming that you actually are capable of bipedal locomotion, of course.
-
You on the other hand, are a walking insult to the human race.
Assuming that you actually are capable of bipedal locomotion, of course.
I note that you didn't refute my contention that all those African Americans are better than you in every facet of their lives.
-
XO >>I fail to see what the constant quoting of Goebbels has to do with anything.<<
There are are two quotes. Didn't you notice that? One is by Goebbels applying obviously to the holocaust, and other is by none other than our own Michael Tee applying to the Russian Purges.
You go along just fine XO than suddenly you drop off as if you had narcolepsy. Wake up, smell the coffee.
BSB
-
There is nothing to refute. If you think that every person on this planet is in competition with all the rest, you are indeed a pathetic moron, Kramer.
Since you actually think of life as some sort of lame sporting event, I should remind you that you have not achieved any degree of fame and fortune of any sort comparable to say, a former member of the Delaware State Assembly, or a member of the board of whatever company produces Screaming Yellow Zonkers.
-
I fail to see what the constant quoting of Goebbels has to do with anything.
I think he is trying to get his point noticed and acnoledged that being a deadly racist isn't all that much worse than being a class warrior.
If I hate Charles because he is a Jew Am I worse than Sam over there who hates Charles because he is a landlord?
What if I hate Charles because the Czar told me to, am I worse off than Sam who hates Charles because Lennin told me to?
No reason of this sort prevents Charles from being a good guy , a good neighbor and good for his community, but if I can use a mob and hatred of Charles can help me focus a nice mob , I might just pick whatever feature of Charles I think will seaparate him from the mob best.
One thing here, another thing there, it is still hate used the same way.
http://orringtonlibrary.blogspot.com/2010/09/60-years-of-peanuts.html (http://orringtonlibrary.blogspot.com/2010/09/60-years-of-peanuts.html)
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_eLrWWL_XMhU/TKO4JViJSnI/AAAAAAAAAU8/_8s7C40i-OY/s1600/charliebrown.gif)
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/ (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/)
http://www.gocomics.com/peanuts?ref=comics (http://www.gocomics.com/peanuts?ref=comics)
-
There was nothing high tech about the non-lynching of Clarence "Uncle" Thomas.
The man is an insult to the court and this country.
What really stands out to me is that all these African Americans that you insult with racial slurs are better than you. They are better educated, better off financially, ........
Hey I missed this before.
Not a lynching , not high tech , but an event it was.
What defines the event , what sort of a thing was it really?
Trying to derail a judicial appointee politically , what ought we call that?
-
<<If I hate Charles because he is a Jew Am I worse than Sam over there who hates Charles because he is a landlord?
<< What if I hate Charles because the Czar told me to, am I worse off than Sam who hates Charles because Lennin told me to?>>
What I find extremely interesting in the "conservative" [i.e., GOP, racist, corporate-friendly, flag-waving, militaristic, torture-friendly, immigrant-hating etc., etc., etc.] mindset, is how often words like "hate" or "hater" appear in their descriptions of anyone who opposes them.
It's an absolutely fascinating phenomenon, which probably deserves a book-length treatment. Communist or socialist leaders immediately become "mass murderers," and out of an ideological necessity (the obvious need to distance themselves from their own support of Hitler and his collaborators) on a scale that dwarfs everything that Hitler ever did. Opponents of racism and America's one racist party, the GOP, themselves become "racists" when they denounce the racists and their Uncle Tom tools. Opponents of militarism, war and fascism become "haters of America."
It's absolutely hilarious, but it's true - - the more you OPPOSE racism, war and violence, the easier it is for "conservatives" to brand you as a "hater" and a "racist." It's kind of funny when a clown like BSB tries to link me to Josef Goebbels, but it goes way beyond the Beester and his own particular sick brand of guilt-based lunacy - - it's become the Universal Talking Point of the right-wing lunatic fringe.
-
What I find extremely interesting in the "conservative" [i.e., GOP, racist, corporate-friendly, flag-waving, militaristic, torture-friendly, immigrant-hating etc., etc., etc.] mindset, is how often words like "hate" or "hater" appear in their descriptions of anyone who opposes them.
Is this an arguement that you eschew?It's an absolutely fascinating phenomenon, which probably deserves a book-length treatment. Communist or socialist leaders immediately become "mass murderers," and out of an ideological necessity (the obvious need to distance themselves from their own support of Hitler and his collaborators) on a scale that dwarfs everything that Hitler ever did. Opponents of racism and America's one racist party, the GOP, themselves become "racists" when they denounce the racists and their Uncle Tom tools. Opponents of militarism, war and fascism become "haters of America."
The huge pile of bodys in numerous mass graves are not what make Stalin a mass murderer? Is a historical criminal bad only because we agree he is ? I do not admire Napolion either , I might have to admit that he was always the smartest guy in the room, (he might even have been if I had been there) but when he used his appeal and his resorces and followers to cause massive disruption, misery and death for he aggrandisement of himself and his cause I feel that I can criticise even such a smart guy.It's absolutely hilarious, but it's true - - the more you OPPOSE racism, war and violence, the easier it is for "conservatives" to brand you as a "hater" and a "racist." It's kind of funny when a clown like BSB tries to link me to Josef Goebbels, but it goes way beyond the Beester and his own particular sick brand of guilt-based lunacy - - it's become the Universal Talking Point of the right-wing lunatic fringe.
Oh ?
Are you opposed to racism as a concept ?
Or is there certain Racism you like and certain other racism you do not?
How do you use blatant racism as an argumentitive pointmaker and attempt to call it by some other name?
Is Class hatred a lesser hatred than Racism?
-
The "millions of bodies" remark I am just going to pass over, because we've been all through this before. There's no credible evidence of anything like the numbers that have been quoted and most of them if not all were enemies of the people, whose liquidation, unfortunately, was a necessity for the survival of the Revolution. I don't see the benefit of my being forced to refute, every week or so, a mountain of Cold War propaganda bullshit, and so I'm just leaving that one with a reference to my (too) many posts on the subject.
<<Is Class hatred a lesser hatred than Racism?>>
Always good for a laugh, it isn't so often that you so quickly (in a space of one post) revert to the very thing I was complaining of and give yet another example of the "conservative" tendency to pervert the language. Whereas most non-conservative observers are able to speak in fairly dispassionate terms of the class war, the "conservative" ideologue prefers to speak of "class hatred" rather than the class war. Sorry, plane, I'm not falling for that one, but I'll be happy to talk "class war" with you till the cows come home.
-
Trying to derail a judicial appointee politically , what ought we call that?
==================================
It is an event.It was certainly neither high tech (which requires something with a processor) or a lynching, (which requires a cadaver).
Being as Thomas was clearly not all that sharp a tack, as his zombie tenure on the Court has shown, it was a rational process that unfortunately failed, unlike Juniorbush's attempt to put his campaign aide on the Court. She was also a dud.
Thomas' "high tech lynching" remark showed that he was prone to demented and nonobjective opinions. His wife demanding an apology from Anita Hill 20 years after the fact sort of reinforces this.
-
It's absolutely hilarious, but it's true - - the more you OPPOSE racism, war and violence, the easier it is for "conservatives" to brand you as a "hater" and a "racist."
Then stop with the ever evolving racist rhetoric, transparently disguised as supposedl OPPOSING racism, and whaalaaaa, no more branding of a racist, as a racist. and here's a helpful hint... "Uncle Tom" has become the universal talking point of the racist wing of the lunatic left
-
Thanks, sirs, for the helpful hints, but I'm afraid I'm just going to have to classify your whole post as the sort of "up is down, black is white" kind of lunatic rightwing Bizarro World nonsense that I was speaking of when addressing plane's own reversal of reality earlier in this thread. My earlier response to him will also serve very adequately as my response to your latest exercise in reality-mangling.
-
"Uncle Tom" has become the universal talking point of the racist wing of the lunatic left
Only in the bizarro world of sirs.
-
Thanks, sirs, for the helpful hints, but I'm afraid I'm just going to have to classify your whole post as the sort of "up is down, black is white" kind of lunatic rightwing Bizarro World nonsense that I was speaking of when addressing plane's own reversal of reality earlier in this thread. My earlier response to him will also serve very adequately as my response to your latest exercise in reality-mangling.
Is it more bizzaro to be against racism, or to use racism against racism?
You have not done anything that establishes your lack of racism as far as I can tell, you have simply stated disgust with certain sections of racism, an attitude I am familiar with from the other racists I know.
-
<<Is it more bizzaro to be against racism, or to use racism against racism?>>
Well, since your Bizarro World definition of "racism" includes calling out Uncle Toms and excludes the real examples of racism such as the GOP, Tea Party and their supporters, I'm just going to refer back to my earlier post on "upside-down" or Bizarro World logic of the conservative mind and not get further embroiled in your endless circular arguments.
<<You have not done anything that establishes your lack of racism as far as I can tell, you have simply stated disgust with certain sections of racism, an attitude I am familiar with from the other racists I know.>>
TRANSLATION: I (MT) don't agree with your Bizarro World definitions of racism, therefore I'm a racist like all the other racists you know.
OK, got it. Thanks for your opinion. Thassall, folks.
-
Thassall
Is that supposed to be some kinda weird jive speak?
-
Kramer you bastard are you making fun of the way I speak?
-
Kramer you bastard are you making fun of the way I speak?
No Doot Aboot It
-
<<Is it more bizzaro to be against racism, or to use racism against racism?>>
Well, since your Bizarro World definition of "racism" includes calling out Uncle Toms and excludes the real examples of racism such as the GOP, Tea Party and their supporters, I'm just going to refer back to my earlier post on "upside-down" or Bizarro World logic of the conservative mind and not get further embroiled in your endless circular arguments.
<<You have not done anything that establishes your lack of racism as far as I can tell, you have simply stated disgust with certain sections of racism, an attitude I am familiar with from the other racists I know.>>
TRANSLATION: I (MT) don't agree with your Bizarro World definitions of racism, therefore I'm a racist like all the other racists you know.
OK, got it. Thanks for your opinion. Thassall, folks.
How does your definition of racism leave something so plainly racist as calling someone an "Unkle Tom" out?
It must be a pretty convoluted definition if you can decide that a person is an inappropriate type for his race to be and not consider it racist.
Remember all I ever know of you is what you say, the strength of our knoledge or logic is the main thing, I can't tell if you are smiling when you say something racist.
So your lack of racism isn't established by your race, religion or place of birth as far as I am concerned, in fact considering a northern birthplace to confer virtue is merely another brand of racism as far as I can tell.
I like this definition of racism, it is valueless, and this makes it quite apt to the real world.
http://www.goblinscomic.com/10142005/ (http://www.goblinscomic.com/10142005/)
"The catagory you place the creature in makes more diffrence to you than the individual creature."
-
It's OK with me, Kramer, because "Thassall" is something I stole from an old Robert Crumb strip in ZAP COMIX, "Schuman the Human," where Schuman, a seemingly middle-aged balding Jewish hippie, is cornered by two white-coated black attendants in the midst of an extremely bizarre acid-fueled rant and hauled off to a waiting ambulance from the local bug-house. In the final frame, one of the black guys pushing him into the ambulance says, "Thassall, Shoomin."
-
Shoomin
Is that Hebrew or Yiddish?
-
<<How does your definition of racism leave something so plainly racist as calling someone an "Unkle Tom" out?>>
Very simply, there's nothing "plainly racist" in calling someone an Uncle Tom. If the shoe fits . . . In fact, and to the contrary, it's plainly ludicrous that an anti-racist, denouncing a black man whoring for Whitey as an Uncle Tom, is being called a "racist" by the same white racists who are employing the Uncle Tom for their own racist purposes. That's just pure Theatre of the Absurd.
<<It must be a pretty convoluted definition if you can decide that a person is an inappropriate type for his race to be and not consider it racist.>>
That's ridiculous. Black people have group interests and a black person who goes against them and whores for white racists is going way beyond "inappropriate." Most blacks and whites understand this. That's why "Uncle Tom" is such effective short-hand - - everyone gets its meaning at once. Cain's only explanation for the condemnation he receives from the majority of blacks is that they are "brainwashed." That is ridiculous.
-
Schuman is a Yiddish name and it means "shoemaker." "Shoomin" was Crumb's way of writing how the black ambulance attendant would probably have said the name, but it's pretty much the same pronunciation.
-
<<How does your definition of racism leave something so plainly racist as calling someone an "Unkle Tom" out?>>
Very simply, there's nothing "plainly racist" in calling someone an Uncle Tom. If the shoe fits . . . In fact, and to the contrary, it's plainly ludicrous that an anti-racist, denouncing a black man whoring for Whitey as an Uncle Tom, is being called a "racist" by the same white racists who are employing the Uncle Tom for their own racist purposes. That's just pure Theatre of the Absurd.
<<It must be a pretty convoluted definition if you can decide that a person is an inappropriate type for his race to be and not consider it racist.>>
That's ridiculous. Black people have group interests and a black person who goes against them and whores for white racists is going way beyond "inappropriate." Most blacks and whites understand this. That's why "Uncle Tom" is such effective short-hand - - everyone gets its meaning at once. Cain's only explanation for the condemnation he receives from the majority of blacks is that they are "brainwashed." That is ridiculous.
You are missing your own point when you make it.
White people have group intrests, what is the proper term for a white person who places some other value above this group intrest?
Do you really think any white person who doesn't fall into step with the KKK is a whore and shill for antiwhite intrests?
You may have prooven to your own satisfaction that you are anti racist, but you make no logical case for this, it seems you assume this for yourself that you just cannot be racist so you don't bother to make a real case for it .
-
<<How does your definition of racism leave something so plainly racist as calling someone an "Unkle Tom" out?>>
Very simply, there's nothing "plainly racist" in calling someone an Uncle Tom. If the shoe fits . . .
(http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/mrz110411dAPC20111103064517.jpg)
-
<<White people have group intrests, what is the proper term for a white person who places some other value above this group intrest?>>
Well, that's a very good question. Since whites are the group holding the most power in the society already, we have to define what are white interests? I think it's in the interests of whites to establish a genuinely egalitarian society. To dominate other groups is NOT in the whites' interest, since the domination leads to resentment, and the resentment can be acted out. So I guess it's in whites' interests to liberate others in their community from domination or white power, to (a) eliminate injustice for its own sake and (b) to remove a source of resentment and possible retaliation.
<<Do you really think any white person who doesn't fall into step with the KKK is a whore and shill for antiwhite intrests?>>
No, I think the KKK's interests are illegitimate and in fact counter-productive to the legitimate interests of white people. Same as the Jewish settlers on the West Bank are counter-productive to the interests of the Jewish people generally. Any group which thinks that its interests lie in dominating and oppressing another group are actually doing a disservice to the group, because they are creating enemies and raising bad karma which can come back and bite them in the ass.
<<You may have prooven to your own satisfaction that you are anti racist, but you make no logical case for this, it seems you assume this for yourself that you just cannot be racist so you don't bother to make a real case for it>>
I've always been anti-racist, my mum and dad were always anti-racist and so were all my aunts and uncles. My teachers were anti-racist even in elementary school. My grade 4 teacher taught us about lynchings in the South and they were some of the most sickening things I ever heard. I actually used to wish I'd never heard them. I don't give a shit if you believe me or not. I am the most anti-racist guy you will ever know. Believe it or not. I can't prove it because all I can do is put words on a keyboard, but I don't have to prove it. I know what I am, and you can think whatever you like, it won't change who I am by one atom in my whole body..
-
I am the most anti-racist guy you will ever know.
Seems you harbor some anti-Japanese bigotry, if memory serves.
-
Being a Nazi in the Third Reich was clearly not something that benefited the people of Germany, Austria and the rest of the Reich. About 20 million died, more civilians than military.
The term "Uncle Tom" comes from the rather melodramatic novel "Uncle Tom's Cabin", written by Harriet Beecher Stowe in the 1850's. Uncle Tom was an elderly Black man who always agreed with the Massa on the Plantation. It is a term well known and used by African Americans to describe a Black man who always agrees with the White man. Which is precisely what Thomas, West, Keyes, and the rest of the right wing African-Americans do routinely. As such, I do not consider it to be any sort of racist term., any more than "Mista Charlie" or "Miss Anne" are racist terms.
I think everyone has a way of seeing the world from their own perspective, so everyone has to some degree a bias in favor of their group. I can agree with my Taiwanese friend Ying that chicken feet must be delicious, but I cannot bring myself to eat a chickenfoot, and it bothers me to watch anyone eat a chicken foot, for example. I never felt all that comfortable with the emotional preaching style of many Black preachers, who frequently say things as Gospel that are nowhere in the Bible, and to hear the entire congregation holler back "Amen brother".
I would not think of telling my friend to not eat a chicken foot in front of me, nor could I say anything to correct the preacher. To do so would perhaps be racist on my part. I don't see using the term Uncle Tom to describe Cain, Sowell, West or Thomas as racist: it is simply a correct description. They have a right to be Uncle Toms that I can acknowledge.
-
<<Seems you harbor some anti-Japanese bigotry, if memory serves.>>
Those fucking bastards cut off my neighbour's tongue. How is that bigotry? I gotta accept them cutting off a guy's tongue because it's bigoted to hate their fucking guts for it? Are you out of your fucking mind?
-
So bigotry is acceptable as long as you can point to a wrong committed by the race of the wrongdoer?
-
<<White people have group intrests, what is the proper term for a white person who places some other value above this group intrest?>>
Well, that's a very good question. Since whites are the group holding the most power in the society already, we have to define what are white interests? I think it's in the interests of whites to establish a genuinely egalitarian society. To dominate other groups is NOT in the whites' interest, since the domination leads to resentment, and the resentment can be acted out. So I guess it's in whites' interests to liberate others in their community from domination or white power, to (a) eliminate injustice for its own sake and (b) to remove a source of resentment and possible retaliation.
<<Do you really think any white person who doesn't fall into step with the KKK is a whore and shill for antiwhite intrests?>>
No, I think the KKK's interests are illegitimate and in fact counter-productive to the legitimate interests of white people. Same as the Jewish settlers on the West Bank are counter-productive to the interests of the Jewish people generally. Any group which thinks that its interests lie in dominating and oppressing another group are actually doing a disservice to the group, because they are creating enemies and raising bad karma which can come back and bite them in the ass.
<<You may have prooven to your own satisfaction that you are anti racist, but you make no logical case for this, it seems you assume this for yourself that you just cannot be racist so you don't bother to make a real case for it>>
I've always been anti-racist, my mum and dad were always anti-racist and so were all my aunts and uncles. My teachers were anti-racist even in elementary school. My grade 4 teacher taught us about lynchings in the South and they were some of the most sickening things I ever heard. I actually used to wish I'd never heard them. I don't give a shit if you believe me or not. I am the most anti-racist guy you will ever know. Believe it or not. I can't prove it because all I can do is put words on a keyboard, but I don't have to prove it. I know what I am, and you can think whatever you like, it won't change who I am by one atom in my whole body..
Sorry for the delay, this is a very good post and I apologise for waiting before replying.
It is in the intrest of White people to promote an egalitarian society.
Yes!
WE are in perfect agreement.
It is in the intrest of Black people and other minoritys to work against an egalitarian society and any who favor meritocracy or egalitarianism must be shunned and berated as Unkle Toms or Quislings.
No , I can't see that as smart, reasonable or even doable.
Any solution that includes promoteing the color of skin as a factor of power, above any consideration of content of caricter, is a racist betrayal of the dream.
You seem to think it to be the reverse of racism,(?) a tractor in reverse is still a tractor, reverse racism is just as racist as any other racism.
-
<<Sorry for the delay, this is a very good post and I apologise for waiting before replying.>>
No apologies necessary, plane, we all (hopefully) have lives away from our keyboards and we can only give what time to this that we are able to give.
<<It is in the intrest of White people to promote an egalitarian society.
<<Yes!
<<WE are in perfect agreement.>>
Uh-oh!
<< It is in the intrest of Black people and other minoritys to work against an egalitarian society . . . >>
I don't think so.
<< . . . and any [blacks] who favor meritocracy or egalitarianism must be shunned and berated as Unkle Toms or Quislings.>>
You just confused meritocracy with egalitarianism. Egalitarianism means everyone gets the same regardless of merit; meritocracy means the best minds get the best desk jobs and the best bodies get the best coolie or peon jobs.
<<No , I can't see that as smart, reasonable or even doable.>>
You lost me here. Blacks and whites want an egalitarian society.
At this point in America's long and miserable history of racism and oppression, a meritocracy would obviously disadvantage the blacks to the benefit of the whites, because centuries of racism, persecution and Jim Crow have rendered large segments of the black population handicapped for meritocratic competition.
<<Any solution that includes promoteing the color of skin as a factor of power, above any consideration of content of caricter, is a racist betrayal of the dream.>>
In your ludicrous dream world of an ideal and beautiful America, that would undoubtedly be true. But in today's real world of an ugly, fascist and racist America, it is a sheer absurdity. Any domestic system striving for colour-neutral opportunity is just one more occasion for white racist America to preserve and seal in the benefits that centuries of racism and oppression have given whites over blacks.
<<You seem to think it to be the reverse of racism,(?) a tractor in reverse is still a tractor, reverse racism is just as racist as any other racism.>>
Again you seem to be confused, perhaps because the real subject of our discussion is not tractors but racism and the despicable Uncle Toms whose principal function is to enable white racists and make them less onjectionable to blacks and anti-racist whited. An attack on racism is NOT racism or reverse racism. An attack on racism's enablers and helpers, i.e. the Uncle Toms, is simple anti-racism, not racism or reverse racism.
The attempts of conservatives to twist anti-racists fighting against white racists and their Uncle Toms into "racism" or "reverse racism" is just another example of the twisted kind of Bizzarro World upside down craziness that they live in in the mistaken belief that it is Reality.
-
<< . . . and any [blacks] who favor meritocracy or egalitarianism must be shunned and berated as Unkle Toms or Quislings.>>
You just confused meritocracy with egalitarianism. Egalitarianism means everyone gets the same regardless of merit; meritocracy means the best minds get the best desk jobs and the best bodies get the best coolie or peon jobs.
No, let me aquaint you with the word "or" which is a conjunction distinctive from the word "and".
-
The attempts of conservatives to twist anti-racists fighting against white racists and their Uncle Toms into "racism" or "reverse racism" is just another example of the twisted kind of Bizzarro World upside down craziness that they live in in the mistaken belief that it is Reality.
I have never seen you attempt to attack racism.
I have seen you take sides in a racist way.
Just because one isde IS racist does not prove the other side is not ,and so far that is all you have tried to point to.
Meritocracy is a great idea because it is the most productive of all arrangements, no such ideal should be attempted to be established with zero tolerance for exception ,because the necessacery exceptions would cause misery as they were not served. But the better we can approach meritocracy the better we can support human life without the waste of resorces that is responsible for many miserys itself.
Egalitarianism is great if it is ment to give everyone a good and somewhat equal chance at success,to wit , equal rights. If egalitarianiam is interpreted as an equality of all results then it requires handicapping the strong and smart while gifting the lazy untill by dint of perfect hobbling all runners cross the finish line together, but imagine tieing the whole croud of a marathon together , the finish time would be days later. In reality ensuring an equality of result causes enourmous waste, this waste is miserable.A better egalitarianism puts all the runners at the same starting line instead, that is an egalitarianism that isn't rediculous.
Of course attempting to put all runners at exactly the same starting line with a zero tolerance policy is just as foolish as trying to enforce a perfect meritocracy.
A finely balanced system is probly best acheived by an evoloutionary process in which unfairness and bad results get smoothed out one by one over time as each small change casts its effect across the whole system often acheiveing reverse of the desired effects.
And here we find one of Stalins stupiditys , Stalin was wont to smash the old system hoping that the shards of the old would be less impediment to the new than the whole and healthy old system. Contrasting with the greater wisdom of Dr. Martin Luther King who really never advocated destroying anything and didn't insist on perfect egalitarianism or perfect anything elese. By appealing to the Christian virtues and to the common sense of fairness he asked for the seat at the table that was already earned and a seat in the classroom and workplace that would lead to even better earning. Thus the old system supported the evolution of the new system. Consider also the English who have come from violence and serfdom to a civil society with pretty good respect for individual rights over the course of merely one milinium while handily preseerving all the usefull parts of the nobility as the serfs wind up in real controll.
Since the real desired result is fairness and a good standard of life, what is the profit in attempting to get there by holding anyone back? Meritricious style everyone produces to the limit of his best ability , while in egalitarian style everyone gets his turn but where the seam between these two philosophys is ragged the mis-match needs mending over and over, probly forever.
LBJ enunciated the idea of affirmative action by saying that you can't expect anyone to run a good race the day after he got out of shackles, whatever truth this might have ever had is lost in the passage of generations. Why shoud some runners be carrying others when none of them should have rights above the others?
Republicans have the reputation as the party of well cared for money , without getting into details there, you ought to expect that as Black people become more wealthy that they will act more like Republicans , this is a swing in the direction of meritocracy and is normal. If Democrats are the party of Egalitarianism (strictly?) they have to expect that any who succeed will gradually drift away from them perhaps not into a strict version of Meritocracy but certainly into the melded version that America struggles constantly to form.
Your Unkle Toms are Egalitarians who cannot stomach special treatment for certain groups over others or else Meritricians who can't stand the idea of limiting the full acheievement of talent. Either way your hatred of them is present because of race which from an Egalitarians point of view or a Meritricians POV is equally odius.