Ultraconservatives pretend homophobia/racism doesn't exist

Post Reply New Topic

If MP wants to debate honestly and without all the sensationalizing, then I'd happily engage with him on the level, that's his call to make. You seemed to be using some faulty logic to "prove" that birthers and such are racially motivated because their motivation doesn't seem to make sense otherwise; I used our convenient example of someone who believes so strongly in their cause that they feel justified in using questionable tactics as an alternative explanation. I'm sure there are plenty of genuine racist within the birthers, but I don't think being a birther automatically makes someone a racist, it just marks someone as really against Obama, which could have any number of root causes having nothing to do with his race.

* As a quick disclaimer to the greater WP audience, Marshall and I actually know each other IRL and get along just fine, despite our radically different politics..

There really are very few people on this forum who are genuinely interested in non-sensational, academic, point-by-point debate. AwesomelyGlorious is one person who comes to mind, but he's already mostly on your side of the fence.


For one thing, I used the word xenophobic which I believe to be the more general and accurate term. I'm aware that people on the left often insert "racist" where they really mean xenophobic just because "racist" is more emotionally loaded in this day and age, so I've been careful to avoid falling into that trap.

However, I don't think I've made an error of logic. There's no way for me to deductively "prove" what's going on in other people's heads, but there's still plenty of evidence to glean from the movement itself, including many of the signs and and posters they carry. I'm not sure what the exact figure is but I'm sure a majority of conservatives who espouse the 'birther' conspiracy theory also espouse the 'closet Muslim' conspiracy theory. I recall seeing some rather disturbing poll results concerning this. If those polls I saw are not evidence for widespread irrational xenophobia within the 'birther' movement then I don't know what is.

Another thing, I think you're argument using MP's "tactics" is a faulty equivocation. There is a difference between people who use generalizations / sensational language for emotional impact and people who believe blatantly false things out of extreme prejudice .


Like the fact that he has a Muslim-sounding name and his father came from Kenya?


I don't think my politics is that radically different from yours actually.

I have real life stuff to attend to and cannot sit and make lengthy debates. This may look like getting pwn3d but I really don't care what it looks like ATM. I'll get back to this when I have sufficient time.

That's a healthy approach to PPR, I find that since making the decision that I don't have to *win* every thread I participate in I both enjoy the forum more and actually argue better too. I think it's because I don't feel like I have anything actually riding on any given debate, so I don't go too far out of my way trying to make all the pieces fit together or trying to "justify" my positions, I just present them and own them without too much worry about how they'll go over.

There's no dishonor in a temporary disengagement, I think a lot of people here could benefit from taking that observation to heart.

Of course this is true; there are a lot of Teabaggers who just want anarchocapitalism and don't give a damn what color the person is who brings it to them. However, poll after poll has shown that there is a higher concentration of racism in the Tea Party movement than in the population in general.

So what? That racists as a group like the Tea Party does not prove the Tea Party necessarily is itself racist; it's a false correlations/causation issue. It's like saying that pedophiles tend to live in poorer areas, therefore poor people are more likely to be pedophiles, if that make it any clearer for you.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 06381.html

For those who don't know, Clinton is a white Democrat, Meek and Steele are black. I guess if you believe actions speak louder than words, it's still the Democrats who have the biggest bigots.

That's not bigoted. Clinton wanted the liberal candidate who was doing poorly in the polls to drop out and give his prospective votes over to the moderate candidate so that the far right candidate doesn't win and strengthen the Republicans' numbers in the senate. It's a very good strategy regardless of what race the candidates are.

Man, when it comes to racism, you liberals see boogiemen and black helicopters everywhere.

See this, people? This is a self professed "right wing gun nut" coming out against a Republican's attempt to call Bill Clinton a bigot... Commence heads spinning.....NOW!

Seriously JB, you're absolutely correct, that's not racism or bigotry, that's just good politics. I've been coming down hard on some liberal posters here lately for just this sort of thing, and here's the proof that the questionable accusations of racial or other prejudice know no party affiliation. A black Republican accusing Bill Clinton of racial bias? Now I have seen it all.

I know a lot of people on the progressive side are weary of being accused of racism for hating Clarance Thomas. Luckily Antonin Scalia hasn't retired yet so we can still hate him instead.

Accused of racism you say? You mean because they do things like put this on magazine covers?:



I think this pretty much sums up a lot of attitudes on the left towards minority conservatives:

I reserve the right to dislike anyone I damn well please and to say so!

No I do NOT approve of homosexuals. I am not going to shoot them or beat them up or even insult them to their face. But I don't like what they do and what they stand for.

As for races, I get along with or approve of some more than others.

What next? Must we approve of Satanists or Pedophiles and people who are into Bondage or Bestiality?

Must we have quotas to make sure that people who are into sacrificing goats (or having sex with them) are not "underrepresented" in the workforce or universities?

It is true that the correlation would be meaningless if that were as far as it went, but unfortunately it is not. Teabaggers are, for example, strongly in support of the Arizona law which would have allowed state and city police officers to act as immigration agents, and in its initial form (which was supported by the teabaggers) would have allowed these police to consider brown skin and a Mexican accent (or worse, no English skills) to be probably cause to demand doccuments - basically meaning that native-born brown people would have to carry proof of citizenship on them at all times. Having been pulled aside at a border crossing and made to demonstrate my 'American-ness' under the *old* Arizona system, I can only imagine that I might not have been allowed to come home under the new one (for the record, I'm dark Irish).

Another example of where this plays out in actual policy is the proposal put forth by the Tea Party Caucus to end birth-right citizenship or even repeal the 14th amendment entirely, using language very similar to that which was used to oppose it when it was first proposed (though at that time they were worried about the scary Chinese children rather than the scary Mexican children).

No one is saying that you don't have the right to say whatever you damn well please - but everyone else also has the right to then tell you what they think about what you've said. In this case, that you don't know what the f**k you're talking about. Being attracted to men is not the same as being attracted to boys (or goats!) any more than being attracted to women is the same as being attracted to girls.

Quotas of any sort are illegal; it is doubtful that they will be reinstated to require goat sacrificers or goat lovers in any social setting.

Firstly, "teabaggers"? Seriously? Disputing their point of view is just fine, but the name calling is nothing but juvenile.

Again though, a person can be in support of strong immigration laws without any implication of racism, it's just a political tactic to claim demonize supporters of such laws by ascribing racist motives to them when their reasoning could be as simple as protectionism. I don't care for the Arizona law myself, nor am I involved in any way with the Tea Party, but I still take umbrage at the accusation of widespread racism against a large group of people for reasons that are flimsy at best.

The 14th Amendment thing falls into the same category, though I'd put that one down to pure election year saber rattling, since the chances of repeal are slim to none, and a number of Tea Party causes are actually dependent upon the 14th Amendment. Even wanting to strip birthright citizenship is not a sure sign of racism, it's far from universal internationally and can easily be argued as an entitlement system cutting measure.

Basically, you're consistently trying to take the worst possible interpretation of the actions of a group I suspect you plain just don't like and push them like they're the only possible motivations for said actions. Like I'm always saying when arguing with people here in PPR, attack the idea not the person; who cares who came up with an idea if it's good, and if it's bad attack it as such rather than going after who thought of it. Attacking the person may seem easier in the short term and may even be personally satisfying, but it doesn't really prove anything and reflects poorly on one's arguing skills.

Look at this, I'm agreeing with John_Browning. Meek has no realistic chance here in Florida. It's either the moderate Republican Crist or the lunatic Rubio.