I claim that white privilege must be accepted as existing if one is to take the position that people of non-white races aren't inherently inferior.
This smells like a false dichotomy: either people of color inherently suck, or there's a conspiracy against people of color (masterminded by white people).
Either one is simplistic, and I contend that both deny agency to people of color. (See also the "if your business fails you suck at capitalism, if my business fails it's the government's fault" economics dichotomy among Tea Partiers.)
Well, what you wrote is a false dichotomy, but it's not what I wrote. There is no need for institution bias, etc., to take the form of a conscious conspiracy enacted by an identifiable group of people.
Also, separately, the reason I edited into my previous post is actually insufficient, on second thought. Most racists would probably say their personal experiences tell them their stereotypes are true, so it can't really be used as justification for why my statement isn't prejudice. I'll have to think about that one more.
Edit: I have now found what I believe to be a sufficient justification for my claim:
http://www.racialequitytools.org/resourcefiles/uminnesota.pdf
This survey shows that only 59% of white people asked "believed that prejudice and discrimination in favor of whites is important in explaining white advantage," compared to 83% of black people and 84% of Hispanic people (63% overall).
"believed that prejudice and discrimination in favor of whites is important in explaining white advantage,"
For the most part, I'm leaving this to the educated people but I have to ask about this poll question....
How in the world is the premise of that question valid? I know I would never answer that question.
I do wonder what the other 41%, 17% 16% and 37% (overall) think is important in explaining white advantage....
The respondents appear to have been asked a yes/no question as to whether they believe "prejudice and discrimination in favor of whites is important in explaining white advantage." Presumably this means the remainder believe "[...]" is not the case.
As to your question regarding the premise, presumably you are questioning that white people are advantaged? If so, see, for instance, a (somewhat) recent (2012) story comparing median household net worth by race stated that "White Americans have 22 times more wealth than blacks -- a gap that nearly doubled during the Great Recession" and goes on to say that "the racial wealth divide is nothing new" (money.cnn.com).
Well, what you wrote is a false dichotomy, but it's not what I wrote. There is no need for institution bias, etc., to take the form of a conscious conspiracy enacted by an identifiable group of people.
That's why I said "smells like" But I understand your meaning. And I don't think a lot of subscribers to this theory claim that there is any sort of secret white-supremacist cabal running the show. This only raises the question: how did the system get started in the first place? Something had to erect the invisible labyrinth of advantages and disadvantages, if (a) it's not inherent (i.e. white people are inherently racist and somehow uniquely predisposed to oppress people of color), and (b) it's something affected by our behavior (i.e. one either works with or works against the racist system).
To ironically paraphrase creationists: design implies a designer!
Edit: I have now found what I believe to be a sufficient justification for my claim:
http://www.racialequitytools.org/resourcefiles/uminnesota.pdf
This survey shows that only 59% of white people asked "believed that prejudice and discrimination in favor of whites is important in explaining white advantage," compared to 83% of black people and 84% of Hispanic people (63% overall).
So... popular belief? I would've accepted that one resume study at least.
EDIT: I guess (to use a math analogy) we have to wonder whether any specific gap (e.g., in household wealth) is more dependent on the rules of the system or on initial conditions. So (because of different rules) the affluent areas got white people and most of the black people went to poor areas (note the careful wording)... when those rules went away, the conditions remained, and now under the usual socioeconomic rules (simplistically, "it takes money to make money" and "it's who you know," etc.) we see "the rich" staying mostly white and blacks staying mostly in "the poors." But the privilege isn't in being white, it's in being rich.
The article has two adult males, one who was born white and the other who was born black. Both of which are black and white respectively and are twin brothers.
Quote from Article[/quote »
Alyson got used to the comments and the stares, the s******s about their parentage and the "stupid things people said" when her boys were babies; but then, when Daniel and James went to nursery aged three, the twins' skin colour plunged the family into controversy. "They were at this very politically correct nursery, and the staff told us that when Daniel drew a picture of himself, he had to make himself look black – because he was mixed-race," says Alyson. "And I said, that's ridiculous. Why does Daniel have to draw himself as black, when a white face looks back at him in the mirror?"
After a row with the nursery staff, she gave interviews to her local paper and TV. "I kicked up a fuss, because it really bothered me," she says. "Daniel had one white parent and one black, so why couldn't he call himself white? Why does a child who is half-white and half-black have to be black? Especially when his skin colour is quite clearly white! In some ways it made me feel irrelevant – as though my colour didn't matter. There seemed to be no right for him to be like me."
I think racial issues like this tend to sort themselves out by what culture people identify with rather than race. For example, Haille Berry and Barack Obama call both of themselves "black," however "black" to them means multi-racial.
This stuff isn't clear cut and dry as people began to intermarry to forge the "white race." I think altogether we'll see the rise of regional identities in the US as a race, and already are in some distinctions and pockets after a few hundred years just with colonization. A distinct "American race" may eventually emerge, but I think until that day happens we won't see people's racism go away.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
You familiar at all with the Cascadian Independence Movement, CM? Here is a non-wiki site. I can definitely see the appeal of regionalism. Texas has talked before about how special they are. The various corners of the country seem to get along less and less, polarization as a result (of many things, but in this case) the various existential fears about the future (some of which I believe we talked about prior, before I went an pretty much AFK'd for 2 months)
Regarding skin color, there was a story I remember reading about when Obama visited a country that was predominantly black and they were calling him white because, as someone who was of mixed race, he had non-black in him which means he was, to them, the other race while, of course, in America he is our first black president because, as soon as he got any non-white in him, he was then considered black. There was a technical term for this, but it was basically just giving a technical name to the idea that there is an idea of what the dominant/pure/whatever person is for a given country and the second you deviate from that you cant ever be that race again, no number of mixed/pure gives you a pure in the eyes of culture or w.e, current culture... my cab is here, so I',m not being super complete
Ok, I've been busy so haven't been able to respond or even read this stuff for a few days or however long. I didn't read everything either, so forgive if I stated things already said or whatever the case may be:
Are right wingers inherently more racist? Eh probably, it's a complex question to answer. A core tenant of right wing ideology is the concept of us vs them. This can be displayed positively as a strong sense of community and nationalism, or negatively such as in racist remarks about the out community. This is not exclusive to Republicans either, there are conservative parties in Africa too. There is not a huge skin color divide in Africa, instead in-groups and out-groups are separated by religion, and tribe.
Using the "core tenant is an us vs. them" idea is blatantly false. Us vs. them is a core tenant of the military hawks of the world, regardless of left or right. It's impossible to nail that down as a core tenent of right wing ideology and act as though it's a foundational principle when it's not and the view of such is so patently limited and restrictive it's akin to tunnel vision. The Us vs. Them idea is something that permeates someone and something altogether different than a basic right or left philosophical outlook.
Creative destruction and natural competition are principles of right wing ideology but these things aren't even close in scope to us vs. them. I'm literally cracking up that you look to the idea of "conservative parties in Africa" as an example here. As I mentioned previously in the thread there's a Grand Canyon gulf between American Conservatism and that which is found throughout the rest of the world so really using them as some counter or indicative of American Conservatism doesn't work at all.
"You are confusing Republicans and conservatives, which are two overlapping but distinct entities, not unlike a rectangle and a square. It's possible to be an intelligent, thoughtful conservative, and many Republicans are such. The problem is that the Republican party as a platform isn't actually fiscally conservative. But we can discuss that elsewhere, I won't continue here and take it off topic. I don't have a problem with conservatives, I have a problem with Republicans, and mostly its because of a sense of betrayal between the rhetoric I believed and reality, and partially because of a sense of unease with an increasingly radical minority that's willing to hurt our economy in order to score political points and seem more concerned by irrelevant and often hypocritical social stances.
I should be clear here that I'm not a Democrat, either. I'm now an Independent and vote for the lesser evil. Often (especially locally) that is Republican."
I'm not confusing Republicans and Conservatives, I've made the recognizing point of such and provided some illustrations of contrast.
I agree that the Republican party as a whole isn't even close to Conservative, I've mentioned that before here too. The Beltway Establishment types are basically light versions of Democrats, aka statists. The reality is that as time goes on it becomes more apparent to regular people everywhere that these guys with very, very few examples are cut from the same cloth and wearing different shaped pins. It's a ridiculous game that favors only statists, corporatists, big government types, whatever you'd like to call them.
Republicans are only worth mentioning or considering the closer they get to Originalism, which is the hallmark of the Founding Principles. That period in time in which Individualism was not in any sense unhinged from a moral base. Now in context to this thread it's easy to note that going back to Originalism there's changes that could have been made, the exclusion of slavery being the most relevant but when that always comes up I always think of the "forming a more perfect Union" line. No one with any reason thinks that those guys were infallible, they were definitely a reflection of the times. I'd like to think that the ideas and radical differences between America as intended and America as existed created the questions that led to expressions that led to actions that led to results.
I'm still registered Republican and I voted McCain in the 2004 primary and McCain in the 2008 election, despite the abomination that was Sarah Palin insulting my intelligence right and left.
My views didn't change until I actually worked in the inner city and did research on the various social welfare programs I'd been taught to believe were terrible and learned the truth was a lot more complicated.
Does that help clarify?
It does help clarify though at the same time I'll argue that voting for McCain doesn't get you off very many hooks, haha. Lukewarm moderate types are the worst type of politicians, of any stripe. Also working in an inner city is not some mystic potion to dissolve the very valid and documented abuses of social welfare. I'm not going to sit here and tug-of-war over the likely percentages of valid use to total abuse but I have my own work(ed) in inner cities card to play and it represents both sides of that argument though unfortunately much more on the abusive side. I have several decades of experience in this regard and early on the whole this must be an isolated incident thing really drove my view of things but looking at things with open eyes and not being unwilling to keep score in a sense and also remember the more outrageous abuses I'm fully on the side of the push for a complete reworking of social programs not only in a fiscal sense but also in their scope and availability.
While the truth is more complicated we cannot pretend that there's nothing along the lines of leading by example to be found in those that are abusing the system. I experienced first hand how it can totally take over poor families where you've got everyone from grandparents down to teenagers working the system and damn proud of it too. This isn't racially exclusive either.
"Here is the problem with this argument: if Republicans want to stop being called 'racist' (which I think is an incorrect for most conservatives), they need to stop their policies that disproportionately hurting minorities. Republicans may see it as closing loopholes, preventing fraud, etc, but everyone else sees it as making it harder for minorities and poors to vote, to get financial assistance, etc.
That actually has very little to do with what I was talking about, however. Let me clarify what I meant to say:
The conservative mindset is slow to change or resistant to change, and so it often rejects newer ways of thinking for the comfort of the old. Conservative literally means holding to traditional values and attitudes.
They skew older, they grew up in a different time and generally come from more homogenous times, so it's really not a surprise that they might, in a simple ration of racist to non-racist, skew more racist than liberals. It doesn't mean they are all racist, or that what liberals perceive as racist (the aforementioned damage to the poor and minorities) is accurate. It doesn't even mean that they hate minorities, more often it's simply because they don't understand them or don't understand how things they meant innocently may come across.
To give an example, a friend of my wife's back in college came from Ohio. Her mother, while an incredibly sweet and open women, had the habit of calling anyone who wasn't white or black an 'international'. Was she racist in the sense it's usually used in? Absolutely not. But it can be perceived as racist and the sweet mother did have prejudices because she was unfamiliar with the culture of her new home on the East Coast as opposed to her 99% White Anglo-Saxon Protestant former home. Prejudice =/= racism, and I think that's the problem here, we're getting offended over 'racist', rather than talking about the simply fact that the populations that skew Republican tend to be more rural and more homogenous than the Democrats. And it's pretty clear that Republicans don't really know how to reach into other populations (it's an ongoing topic of much debate with all the talking heads)."
Conservatives don't need to stop their policies that supposedly disproportionately hurt minorities. Minorities need to stop thinking that because they're minorities they somehow need extra laws, programs and such directly for them. It's almost 2014, it's not the 50s or 60s anymore. To be frank, it really doesn't matter how the perception is from minorities and the poor in regards to these policies. We're a nation founded on the premise of Law, not on social perception. Some of these are holdovers from the Civil Rights era and by far no longer applicable due to the results of 50 years of equal rights, demographic shifts and the like. This is most obviously shown in the push for voter ID laws especially in states hardcoded into the Voting Rights Act as problem areas back then.
It blows my mind that people say these laws disproportionately hurt minorities. Since when is having to provide a legal and valid ID something exclusively painful to one group over another? Why is it no big deal for White people(or for minorities who actually give a damn) to do so? Proving you're a citizen and legally eligible to vote in your district is not an end of the world, impossible and completely denigrating thing to ask for. Having a valid ID is something that everyone of legal age SHOULD have but it's been my experience that many do not. As I mentioned before I spent a long time in Banking and I've had literally thousands, maybe tens of thousands of potential transactions unable to be completed in my time due to no ID/expired ID. I've had people present ID that was expired for a decade. I've had them present things like gas credit cards and other cards with no picture ID and think that's enough.
Those do NOT prove who you are, especially in this day and age of widespread identity theft, computer fraud and everything else that goes on. It is completely unreasonable to assume that you could make a bank transaction or in relation to state or federal policy or participants cast a vote without up to date valid picture ID. There is no middle ground here, there can't be a tolerance of those who don't wish to present ID just because they don't have it, don't want to bother updating it, etc. The only way the voting system works is if each voter can prove who they are and that they're legally entitled to cast a vote in the district they're in. If we entertain the flipside of this argument, which is really the end result of those who suggest that ID shouldn't be a requirement at all, then anyone can be anyone without a burden of proof and most disgustingly make a grand tour around their area voting at every polling station imaginable.
Let's look at the two worst case scenarios here:
1. Everyone has to have a valid ID to vote: those who do not wish to acquire it EXCLUDE THEMSELVES from the system.
2. No ID is required to vote: rampant abuse of the voting process up to and including mass vote casting within a region.
Which is actually worse? The person who denies themselves their vote or the person who abuses the voting process to cast extra ballots?
We cannot exist in a system that has requirements that are waved for certain people at the whim of social pressure, regardless of who or how many are calling for it. The only reasonable expression of that is campaigning for a changing of the law and do to the natural context of US law it must be uniform, not a one sided fearmongering hackjob that shames and slanders any who support voter ID laws as anti minority racists. Continuing onward.....
Conservative beliefs aren't slow to change, they change as appropriate for the topic or issue at hand, some are even outright resistant to change and the reality is this is a good thing. A belief system that isn't sufficiently anchored and is just as prone to flux as to being concrete isn't much of a belief system. Every belief system has foundational, core principles that are the bedrock of the entire viewpoint and these aren't subject to change without the viewpoint becoming something else. Principles of belief systems change at the expressionary level, not the definitionary level, the recognition of what it is.
The indictment of Conservatism as racist as found in the OP as well as several other posts throughout this thread IS a joke as I've rightly said several times. There's too much effort made to infer racism based on the perceived goals of belief or policy. There is NO racism inherit in the foundational principles, at all. Thus racism that would exist would exist at the individual level and the occurance of such starts the swift separation of the individual from the belief until it is either corrected or completed. Too often both here and elsewhere Conservatism is defined by people who aren't even Conservative and in many cases haven't lived a single day of it in their lives, they are frankly the WORST people to ever ask what the hell Conservatism is as most of the time especially in this thread you get the smoky quartz filter effect of someone elses' ideology defining what is bad, what is wrong. Liberals and others standing as some moral judge using their own views as the gavel is a crock. Is racism wrong? Yeah, let's move the hell on and frankly stop talking about it, because some people act like nothing else exists in the world.
The whole "they grew up in a different era, different time" thing really starts failing in modern times when it's the hippies all grown up and approaching geezer status that are either jumping or trying to jump into the government they grew up protesting, hating and in some cases carrying out bomb attacks against. 60s radicals and run of the mill Liberals are just as much a part of the 'they came from different times' schtick as any old timey Republican you want to pull off their rocking chair and set as exhibit A.
Your "rural Republican racist" thing can also be reversed and turned into Liberal Coastal Elitist. If we're trying not to be prejudiced here, we should abandon the stigma of location and any other factor and just call bad people bad people. It's completely hypocritical that this exists as some connotation against 'racist Republicans' but there's seemingly no issue with the coastal areas being loaded to the brim with Liberals who get away with their intolerance because it's not race/sex centric(most of the time). This is often done under the guise of education and refinement on the coasts versus country bumpkins of the Heartland. It's stupid in all its forms and really does no good towards the stated and implied goals expressed herein. And honestly lets not get started on the homogenous bit, really. ANY minority who declares themself a Republican or Conservative or anything other than a Democrat is absolutely skewered the media whether social or traditional.
Liberals, Democrats, "Independents" and others really need to look in the mirror and fix themselves before they go trying to fix someone else because the reality is that pretty much everyone except people with some skin in the "racist" game are sick of dealing with it, hearing it and having it affect people and society but as with most things it's often easier to fix someone else than fix yourself or someone sharing your point of view. If you've ever been to CPAC or any other Conservative conference you'll know that anyone even suggesting anything racist gets browbeaten, ostracized and in some cases escorted out(before it gets worse for them). There's no tolerance for that type of thing. It should be left to Conservatives to police their own with the recognition that it is the random person not the policies that are racist and deserving of criticism and scorn.
Does the tea party hold any higher ground above the liberals? The tea party uses the rules for radicals when it suits their ends. Try any smear once.
That guy definitely has no bias. nope, none. Zero, not in any way, nope. And "teaparty using the rules for radicals" is something that has and will continue to happen, unfortunately. That's called escalation.
The "higher ground" argument depends on what type of person you're dealing with, so that's a hard issue to really nail down. You can go all the way from single issue people to full spectrum with everything inbetween so it turns into a case by case basis. Talking purely of the broad umbrella of "Tea Party" versus the broad umbrella of "Liberal" I'd say that the major root thing I could point to would be the Tea Party focus on the Constitutional Republic which is completely American versus the Liberal focus on Social Democracy which is rooted in Europe and Asia before it was transplanted elsewhere. This is key because of course America was creating to be pro individual, anti Monarchy, anti Statist and I'd be really hard pressed to ever be convinced that Social Democracy and Statism aren't hand in hand or eventually lead to each other.
CAMILLA: You, sir, should unmask.
STRANGER: Indeed?
CASSILDA: Indeed it's time. We all have laid aside disguise but you.
STRANGER: I wear no mask.
CAMILLA: (Terrified, aside to Cassilda.) No mask? No mask!
Minorities need to stop thinking that because they're minorities they somehow need extra laws, programs and such directly for them. It's almost 2014, it's not the 50s or 60s anymore.
Other than all the racism, sexism, homophobia etc etc that still exist just fine...
I mean, the fundamental power structure that existed before black people were allowed to vote hasn't been toppled. Concerted effort has been made to create laws and movements against discrimination of many kinds but somehow gaybashing and rape culture is still a thing.
Yeah, it's almost 2014, but history doesn't progress inevitably towards an ever brighter future. The world doesn't work like that. **** don't get done without someone getting around to doing it. Injustice isn't done away with by pretending that it isn't happening.
Seriously, if all you have is the "White Priviledge Powerstructure" argument, don't bother. That and Critical Race Theory are some of the worst trash ever to be spewed out of the mouths and brains of mankind.
I swear if leftists could let go of Confucius in favor of Lao Tzu the world would be much better off.
If you want to be a great leader, you must learn to follow the Tao.
Stop trying to control.
Let go of fixed plans and concepts, and the world will govern itself.
The more prohibitions you have, the less virtuous people will be.
The more weapons you have, the less secure people will be.
The more subsidies you have, the less self-reliant people will be.
Therefore the Master says:
I let go of the law, and people become honest.
I let go of economics, and people become prosperous.
I let go of religion, and people become serene.
I let go of all desire for the common good, and the good becomes common as grass.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
CAMILLA: You, sir, should unmask.
STRANGER: Indeed?
CASSILDA: Indeed it's time. We all have laid aside disguise but you.
STRANGER: I wear no mask.
CAMILLA: (Terrified, aside to Cassilda.) No mask? No mask!
Seriously, if all you have is the "White Priviledge Powerstructure" argument, don't bother.
You live in a country that was built on exploiting black people and murdering natives. That's how the US became the US*. There are hundreds of years of racism that have a measurable effect upon the economic situation of people today. Black people wanting to vote was met with massive resistance and was pushed through not even fifty years ago. Never mind modern-day poverty!
These are things you have to be wilfully ignorant to not acknowledge.
I don't think anybody here is failing to acknowledge that history. I think the differences of opinion lie in what to do about it going forward: ethically, in the analysis of blame, responsibility, and just desserts; and practically, in the expected results of the various policy proposals on the table.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I swear if leftists could let go of Confucius in favor of Lao Tzu the world would be much better off.
If you want to be a great leader, you must learn to follow the Tao.
Stop trying to control.
Let go of fixed plans and concepts, and the world will govern itself.
The more prohibitions you have, the less virtuous people will be. The more weapons you have, the less secure people will be.
The more subsidies you have, the less self-reliant people will be.
Therefore the Master says:
I let go of the law, and people become honest.
I let go of economics, and people become prosperous.
I let go of religion, and people become serene.
I let go of all desire for the common good, and the good becomes common as grass.
I swear if leftists could let go of Confucius in favor of Lao Tzu the world would be much better off.
If you want to be a great leader, you must learn to follow the Tao.
Stop trying to control.
Let go of fixed plans and concepts, and the world will govern itself.
The more prohibitions you have, the less virtuous people will be.
The more weapons you have, the less secure people will be.
The more subsidies you have, the less self-reliant people will be.
Therefore the Master says:
I let go of the law, and people become honest.
I let go of economics, and people become prosperous.
I let go of religion, and people become serene.
I let go of all desire for the common good, and the good becomes common as grass.
So yeah Gun Control right?!
um? Read it again. FYI, it's talking about defense spending.
Seriously, if all you have is the "White Priviledge Powerstructure" argument, don't bother.
You live in a country that was built on exploiting black people and murdering natives. That's how the US became the US*. There are hundreds of years of racism that have a measurable effect upon the economic situation of people today. Black people wanting to vote was met with massive resistance and was pushed through not even fifty years ago. Never mind modern-day poverty!
These are things you have to be wilfully ignorant to not acknowledge.
*Of course being massively terrible to non-white people isn't unique to the US but that other countries are also racist doesn't exactly help your claim.
If you think that slavery and the conflicts against the Indians are the sole reason America exists or was successful, you're crazy. Do you legitimately think that America would not have become America without slavery? The fact that it existed back then was terrible. Said that for the 5643rd time in this thread. The shallow idea that no slavery=no US is just insane.
Here's what I'll do for you. I'll cut Slavery out of the picture entirely. Some would argue that would mean cutting blacks out of America, but I won't go that far. We'll just say blacks were here, slavery wasn't. I'll also pretend that Indians weren't killed and also that Indians didn't attack and kill Settlers. I'll also give both blacks and women the right to vote.
Edit: I mean all Americans here, not excluding anyone you paragraph nitpickers.
After doing all that, I contend America STILL would have become what it did because the underlying principles of limiting governmental influence, rights of personal property, self defense, free speech, religion, assembly and everything else you have in the Founding documents beats the absolute **** out of the rest of the world and the entirety of its Hereditary/Monarchist/Dynasty/Caste System/WHATEVER you want to call it in whatever country you're in wouldn't stand a chance. The very NATURE of America is a natural incentive, you want to define it by the **** and ignore the gold, but the **** can be flushed, too easily.
These are things you have to be willfully ignorant to not acknowledge.
Back at ya, kid.
Europe and the rest of the world stretching back to the earliest recorded history have always bowed to SOMEONE and pretty much always will. The opportunities and freedom that are available here are at the heart of why people from every failed country and political coterie around the world has come here. The protective gaze of our missile shield systems and defensive pacts give the rest of the world the leeway to dump all its cash into bloated and dying social programs(which they then use as supposedly fiscally sound examples to advocate for such programs here) at the expense of running their own national defense at anything more than a rudimentary, ceremonial level. What happens when we pull that back? Dozens of Little Russias or Little Chinas pop up around the world, overnight. Can you imagine the screaming the world over if America went isolationist again? I can.
For a world that would for sure be better off it America never existed by all accounts, it sure does look to us to move the discussion forward, lead the charge, do whatever it can't find in its collective heart to do. I wonder why.
Slavery was addressed, everyone and their fool brother can vote and yet this isn't enough. Economic conditions, the horror! The goal of the struggle was equal opportunity and rights not equal economic result. Starting out on the bottom of things doesn't mean you're doomed to stay there but making economic success based on legislation makes so many wards of the state they can't be counted.
Hundreds and thousands of years of slavery didn't stop oh, I don't know EVERY OTHER RACE ON THE PLANET that has been enslaved at one point or another. EVERY single culture found in my family tree has been enslaved at one point! The atrocities of slavery, genocide, etc have been visited on people across the entire world of all ethnicities and countries of origin. Terrible yes, excuse for lack of success? No, but this is something people the world over like to forget or dilute because it gives them some skin in the racism game in their own backyard or elsewhere and also maintains the status quo of crybaby antics from those too scared to let go of racism as an institutional idea because wtf would they really have then? Seriously, Al Sharpton and crew would be broke if it wasn't for the racism industry.
White Priviledge, Critical Race Theory and everything like this are a scam, a fraud, a shell game which makes everyone lose.
These are things you have to be willfully ignorant to not acknowledge.
CAMILLA: You, sir, should unmask.
STRANGER: Indeed?
CASSILDA: Indeed it's time. We all have laid aside disguise but you.
STRANGER: I wear no mask.
CAMILLA: (Terrified, aside to Cassilda.) No mask? No mask!
I swear if leftists could let go of Confucius in favor of Lao Tzu the world would be much better off.
If you want to be a great leader, you must learn to follow the Tao.
Stop trying to control.
Let go of fixed plans and concepts, and the world will govern itself.
The more prohibitions you have, the less virtuous people will be.
The more weapons you have, the less secure people will be.
The more subsidies you have, the less self-reliant people will be.
Therefore the Master says:
I let go of the law, and people become honest.
I let go of economics, and people become prosperous.
I let go of religion, and people become serene.
I let go of all desire for the common good, and the good becomes common as grass.
So yeah Gun Control right?!
um? Read it again. FYI, it's talking about defense spending.
Yes, the particular line is dealing with weapons held by the State, not the Individual, an expression of "protect, don't oppress". The Tao was written not only as a guide for philosophical enlightenment but also for wise national leadership.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
CAMILLA: You, sir, should unmask.
STRANGER: Indeed?
CASSILDA: Indeed it's time. We all have laid aside disguise but you.
STRANGER: I wear no mask.
CAMILLA: (Terrified, aside to Cassilda.) No mask? No mask!
It's not nice to draw connections between "Republican" and "Racist" because no one is drawing lines from "Child Molester" and "Democrat."
Why is this thread not locked? Geez.
We have become so corrupted by political correctness that, unless something urgent is pushed forward to restore the culture of England ... entire communities will no longer exist.
Could you explain to me why England has to have the culture that you envision?
It's not nice to draw connections between "Republican" and "Racist" because no one is drawing lines from "Child Molester" and "Democrat."
Why is this thread not locked? Geez.
This is a really weird post to make. I mean... Okay, people are analysing how Republican policy allows and is based on racism. That's a real thing you can check how it holds up.
So what do you have that shows how Democratic policy allows and is based on child molestation? Why not just do the same thing for it as for Republican policy and check how it interacts with racism?
A child molester, a necrophiliac, or a rapist views its actions as a sexual deviation rather than a form of assault. Which party do you think has invested more money into the progression of various sexual freedoms?
It would go on to suggest that the entire group of these people who view themselves as only sexual deviants would back the party that would inevitably come to their aid and protect them in some way.
Does that mean that every Democrat is a child molester, or a rapist?
Even if every racist was a Republican, not every Republican would be a racist.
Well, no one asked Indian people if they wanted to be colonised by the Brits...
There's also the teeny tiny issue of immigration happening under the legal framework designed to handle it. Yeah, some nazis whine about dark-skinned people but a lot more don't mind or actively welcome immigration.
A child molester, a necrophiliac, or a rapist views its actions as a sexual deviation rather than a form of assault. Which party do you think has invested more money into the progression of various sexual freedoms?
It would go on to suggest that the entire group of these people who view themselves as only sexual deviants would back the party that would inevitably come to their aid and protect them in some way.
Does that mean that every Democrat is a child molester, or a rapist?
Even if every racist was a Republican, not every Republican would be a racist.
So how does Democratic policy support paedophilia, necrophilia and rape in a manner similar to Republican policy supporting racial inequality?
I don't even like Democrats but what you're doing is just silly. Linking conservative policy to racism isn't remotely new. If that makes you mad you'd be way better off linking liberal policy to racism than going on about whatever else. A legit good job could be made out of that.
Actually, linking pedophiles to Democrats isn't remotely new, either. Democrats are known for being soft on crime, their understanding of environment causing their "condition" and yes, their non-traditionalist views of sexuality, relationships, and social norms.
But we don't make a thread discussing it, because it's RIDICULOUS, just like linking Racism to Republicans. As half the people on this thread have been trying to explain.
@MrMagicByng: you sound like you're confusing culture with skin colour. Also, people who move to a nation tend to do so because they see value in moving there. Being open and kind can encourage people to take part in a culture and become more normalized. Being racist to imigrants tends to encourage people to isolate themselves.
Semirelated: I've not seen you getting angry about Polish people emigrating to the UK. Polish emigration was a pretty major thing when I was last there. Of course, Poles are generally white.
So how does Democratic policy support paedophilia, necrophilia and rape in a manner similar to Republican policy supporting racial inequality?
It's a slippery slope argument, I think? They keep talking around the point so I'll state it (even though it's a stupid ****ing argument).
1) Democrats support homosexuals!
2) Homosexuals are sexual deviants (according to the argument. I'm using the definition of Sexual Deviancy where deviancy is stuff that should be banned for the protection of people)
3) Therefore, the argument states, Democrats are the party that supports sexual deviants
4) Pedophiles are sexual deviants (according to any reasonable measure)
5) Therefore, Democrats support pedophiles and will do so openly once homosexuality is accepted into the culture!!!!!
The argument ignores concepts like informed consent, so it's a really stupid argument. It's also embarassingly common on the political sites I skim, second only to "if a man can marry a man, why can't I marry a horse" which has the same problem(s).
Golly gee, these right-wingers seem to have problems understanding consent...
Are we really going to be surprised that a country with a predominantly caucasian population has a predominantly caucasian parliament?
It's more like almost everyone in Congress is rich, white, male, and (Protestant) Christian, which one wouldn't expect if there were equal odds of anyone achieving political office. True, there would be quite a few WASPy people in Congress, but probably more than what, two black people? Et cetera.
Because it's the right of every nation to be able to maintain their own culture within their nation; no-one asked the English citizens if they wished to be flooded with foreign entities, or immigrants, and yet somehow it happened.
So aside from pockets of sharia law, what's the problem with immigrants? A mixed culture is a healthy culture, I think.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Do I Contradict Myself? Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
Well, what you wrote is a false dichotomy, but it's not what I wrote. There is no need for institution bias, etc., to take the form of a conscious conspiracy enacted by an identifiable group of people.
Also, separately, the reason I edited into my previous post is actually insufficient, on second thought. Most racists would probably say their personal experiences tell them their stereotypes are true, so it can't really be used as justification for why my statement isn't prejudice. I'll have to think about that one more.
Edit: I have now found what I believe to be a sufficient justification for my claim:
http://www.racialequitytools.org/resourcefiles/uminnesota.pdf
This survey shows that only 59% of white people asked "believed that prejudice and discrimination in favor of whites is important in explaining white advantage," compared to 83% of black people and 84% of Hispanic people (63% overall).
For the most part, I'm leaving this to the educated people but I have to ask about this poll question....
How in the world is the premise of that question valid? I know I would never answer that question.
I do wonder what the other 41%, 17% 16% and 37% (overall) think is important in explaining white advantage....
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
The respondents appear to have been asked a yes/no question as to whether they believe "prejudice and discrimination in favor of whites is important in explaining white advantage." Presumably this means the remainder believe "[...]" is not the case.
As to your question regarding the premise, presumably you are questioning that white people are advantaged? If so, see, for instance, a (somewhat) recent (2012) story comparing median household net worth by race stated that "White Americans have 22 times more wealth than blacks -- a gap that nearly doubled during the Great Recession" and goes on to say that "the racial wealth divide is nothing new" (money.cnn.com).
That's why I said "smells like"
To ironically paraphrase creationists: design implies a designer!
So... popular belief? I would've accepted that one resume study at least.
EDIT: I guess (to use a math analogy) we have to wonder whether any specific gap (e.g., in household wealth) is more dependent on the rules of the system or on initial conditions. So (because of different rules) the affluent areas got white people and most of the black people went to poor areas (note the careful wording)... when those rules went away, the conditions remained, and now under the usual socioeconomic rules (simplistically, "it takes money to make money" and "it's who you know," etc.) we see "the rich" staying mostly white and blacks staying mostly in "the poors." But the privilege isn't in being white, it's in being rich.
Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
Which white people?
*I'm not questioning the premise, I outright reject it.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
The problem with "white people" is also that they, like any other race, can be blended and their traits mixed.
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2011/sep/24/twins-black-white
The article has two adult males, one who was born white and the other who was born black. Both of which are black and white respectively and are twin brothers.
I think racial issues like this tend to sort themselves out by what culture people identify with rather than race. For example, Haille Berry and Barack Obama call both of themselves "black," however "black" to them means multi-racial.
This stuff isn't clear cut and dry as people began to intermarry to forge the "white race." I think altogether we'll see the rise of regional identities in the US as a race, and already are in some distinctions and pockets after a few hundred years just with colonization. A distinct "American race" may eventually emerge, but I think until that day happens we won't see people's racism go away.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
Regarding skin color, there was a story I remember reading about when Obama visited a country that was predominantly black and they were calling him white because, as someone who was of mixed race, he had non-black in him which means he was, to them, the other race while, of course, in America he is our first black president because, as soon as he got any non-white in him, he was then considered black. There was a technical term for this, but it was basically just giving a technical name to the idea that there is an idea of what the dominant/pure/whatever person is for a given country and the second you deviate from that you cant ever be that race again, no number of mixed/pure gives you a pure in the eyes of culture or w.e, current culture... my cab is here, so I',m not being super complete
Increasingly those white people cannot be considered to be much like other white people.
Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
This is an incredibly stupid question
OP should be ashamed
Using the "core tenant is an us vs. them" idea is blatantly false. Us vs. them is a core tenant of the military hawks of the world, regardless of left or right. It's impossible to nail that down as a core tenent of right wing ideology and act as though it's a foundational principle when it's not and the view of such is so patently limited and restrictive it's akin to tunnel vision. The Us vs. Them idea is something that permeates someone and something altogether different than a basic right or left philosophical outlook.
Creative destruction and natural competition are principles of right wing ideology but these things aren't even close in scope to us vs. them. I'm literally cracking up that you look to the idea of "conservative parties in Africa" as an example here. As I mentioned previously in the thread there's a Grand Canyon gulf between American Conservatism and that which is found throughout the rest of the world so really using them as some counter or indicative of American Conservatism doesn't work at all.
I'm not confusing Republicans and Conservatives, I've made the recognizing point of such and provided some illustrations of contrast.
I agree that the Republican party as a whole isn't even close to Conservative, I've mentioned that before here too. The Beltway Establishment types are basically light versions of Democrats, aka statists. The reality is that as time goes on it becomes more apparent to regular people everywhere that these guys with very, very few examples are cut from the same cloth and wearing different shaped pins. It's a ridiculous game that favors only statists, corporatists, big government types, whatever you'd like to call them.
Republicans are only worth mentioning or considering the closer they get to Originalism, which is the hallmark of the Founding Principles. That period in time in which Individualism was not in any sense unhinged from a moral base. Now in context to this thread it's easy to note that going back to Originalism there's changes that could have been made, the exclusion of slavery being the most relevant but when that always comes up I always think of the "forming a more perfect Union" line. No one with any reason thinks that those guys were infallible, they were definitely a reflection of the times. I'd like to think that the ideas and radical differences between America as intended and America as existed created the questions that led to expressions that led to actions that led to results.
It does help clarify though at the same time I'll argue that voting for McCain doesn't get you off very many hooks, haha. Lukewarm moderate types are the worst type of politicians, of any stripe. Also working in an inner city is not some mystic potion to dissolve the very valid and documented abuses of social welfare. I'm not going to sit here and tug-of-war over the likely percentages of valid use to total abuse but I have my own work(ed) in inner cities card to play and it represents both sides of that argument though unfortunately much more on the abusive side. I have several decades of experience in this regard and early on the whole this must be an isolated incident thing really drove my view of things but looking at things with open eyes and not being unwilling to keep score in a sense and also remember the more outrageous abuses I'm fully on the side of the push for a complete reworking of social programs not only in a fiscal sense but also in their scope and availability.
While the truth is more complicated we cannot pretend that there's nothing along the lines of leading by example to be found in those that are abusing the system. I experienced first hand how it can totally take over poor families where you've got everyone from grandparents down to teenagers working the system and damn proud of it too. This isn't racially exclusive either.
Conservatives don't need to stop their policies that supposedly disproportionately hurt minorities. Minorities need to stop thinking that because they're minorities they somehow need extra laws, programs and such directly for them. It's almost 2014, it's not the 50s or 60s anymore. To be frank, it really doesn't matter how the perception is from minorities and the poor in regards to these policies. We're a nation founded on the premise of Law, not on social perception. Some of these are holdovers from the Civil Rights era and by far no longer applicable due to the results of 50 years of equal rights, demographic shifts and the like. This is most obviously shown in the push for voter ID laws especially in states hardcoded into the Voting Rights Act as problem areas back then.
It blows my mind that people say these laws disproportionately hurt minorities. Since when is having to provide a legal and valid ID something exclusively painful to one group over another? Why is it no big deal for White people(or for minorities who actually give a damn) to do so? Proving you're a citizen and legally eligible to vote in your district is not an end of the world, impossible and completely denigrating thing to ask for. Having a valid ID is something that everyone of legal age SHOULD have but it's been my experience that many do not. As I mentioned before I spent a long time in Banking and I've had literally thousands, maybe tens of thousands of potential transactions unable to be completed in my time due to no ID/expired ID. I've had people present ID that was expired for a decade. I've had them present things like gas credit cards and other cards with no picture ID and think that's enough.
Those do NOT prove who you are, especially in this day and age of widespread identity theft, computer fraud and everything else that goes on. It is completely unreasonable to assume that you could make a bank transaction or in relation to state or federal policy or participants cast a vote without up to date valid picture ID. There is no middle ground here, there can't be a tolerance of those who don't wish to present ID just because they don't have it, don't want to bother updating it, etc. The only way the voting system works is if each voter can prove who they are and that they're legally entitled to cast a vote in the district they're in. If we entertain the flipside of this argument, which is really the end result of those who suggest that ID shouldn't be a requirement at all, then anyone can be anyone without a burden of proof and most disgustingly make a grand tour around their area voting at every polling station imaginable.
Let's look at the two worst case scenarios here:
1. Everyone has to have a valid ID to vote: those who do not wish to acquire it EXCLUDE THEMSELVES from the system.
2. No ID is required to vote: rampant abuse of the voting process up to and including mass vote casting within a region.
Which is actually worse? The person who denies themselves their vote or the person who abuses the voting process to cast extra ballots?
We cannot exist in a system that has requirements that are waved for certain people at the whim of social pressure, regardless of who or how many are calling for it. The only reasonable expression of that is campaigning for a changing of the law and do to the natural context of US law it must be uniform, not a one sided fearmongering hackjob that shames and slanders any who support voter ID laws as anti minority racists. Continuing onward.....
Conservative beliefs aren't slow to change, they change as appropriate for the topic or issue at hand, some are even outright resistant to change and the reality is this is a good thing. A belief system that isn't sufficiently anchored and is just as prone to flux as to being concrete isn't much of a belief system. Every belief system has foundational, core principles that are the bedrock of the entire viewpoint and these aren't subject to change without the viewpoint becoming something else. Principles of belief systems change at the expressionary level, not the definitionary level, the recognition of what it is.
The indictment of Conservatism as racist as found in the OP as well as several other posts throughout this thread IS a joke as I've rightly said several times. There's too much effort made to infer racism based on the perceived goals of belief or policy. There is NO racism inherit in the foundational principles, at all. Thus racism that would exist would exist at the individual level and the occurance of such starts the swift separation of the individual from the belief until it is either corrected or completed. Too often both here and elsewhere Conservatism is defined by people who aren't even Conservative and in many cases haven't lived a single day of it in their lives, they are frankly the WORST people to ever ask what the hell Conservatism is as most of the time especially in this thread you get the smoky quartz filter effect of someone elses' ideology defining what is bad, what is wrong. Liberals and others standing as some moral judge using their own views as the gavel is a crock. Is racism wrong? Yeah, let's move the hell on and frankly stop talking about it, because some people act like nothing else exists in the world.
The whole "they grew up in a different era, different time" thing really starts failing in modern times when it's the hippies all grown up and approaching geezer status that are either jumping or trying to jump into the government they grew up protesting, hating and in some cases carrying out bomb attacks against. 60s radicals and run of the mill Liberals are just as much a part of the 'they came from different times' schtick as any old timey Republican you want to pull off their rocking chair and set as exhibit A.
Your "rural Republican racist" thing can also be reversed and turned into Liberal Coastal Elitist. If we're trying not to be prejudiced here, we should abandon the stigma of location and any other factor and just call bad people bad people. It's completely hypocritical that this exists as some connotation against 'racist Republicans' but there's seemingly no issue with the coastal areas being loaded to the brim with Liberals who get away with their intolerance because it's not race/sex centric(most of the time). This is often done under the guise of education and refinement on the coasts versus country bumpkins of the Heartland. It's stupid in all its forms and really does no good towards the stated and implied goals expressed herein. And honestly lets not get started on the homogenous bit, really. ANY minority who declares themself a Republican or Conservative or anything other than a Democrat is absolutely skewered the media whether social or traditional.
Liberals, Democrats, "Independents" and others really need to look in the mirror and fix themselves before they go trying to fix someone else because the reality is that pretty much everyone except people with some skin in the "racist" game are sick of dealing with it, hearing it and having it affect people and society but as with most things it's often easier to fix someone else than fix yourself or someone sharing your point of view. If you've ever been to CPAC or any other Conservative conference you'll know that anyone even suggesting anything racist gets browbeaten, ostracized and in some cases escorted out(before it gets worse for them). There's no tolerance for that type of thing. It should be left to Conservatives to police their own with the recognition that it is the random person not the policies that are racist and deserving of criticism and scorn.
That guy definitely has no bias. nope, none. Zero, not in any way, nope. And "teaparty using the rules for radicals" is something that has and will continue to happen, unfortunately. That's called escalation.
The "higher ground" argument depends on what type of person you're dealing with, so that's a hard issue to really nail down. You can go all the way from single issue people to full spectrum with everything inbetween so it turns into a case by case basis. Talking purely of the broad umbrella of "Tea Party" versus the broad umbrella of "Liberal" I'd say that the major root thing I could point to would be the Tea Party focus on the Constitutional Republic which is completely American versus the Liberal focus on Social Democracy which is rooted in Europe and Asia before it was transplanted elsewhere. This is key because of course America was creating to be pro individual, anti Monarchy, anti Statist and I'd be really hard pressed to ever be convinced that Social Democracy and Statism aren't hand in hand or eventually lead to each other.
STRANGER: Indeed?
CASSILDA: Indeed it's time. We all have laid aside disguise but you.
STRANGER: I wear no mask.
CAMILLA: (Terrified, aside to Cassilda.) No mask? No mask!
I'd be surprised if the US had a predominantly Caucasian parliament. Because we hav ea congress, not a parliament
Seriously, if all you have is the "White Priviledge Powerstructure" argument, don't bother. That and Critical Race Theory are some of the worst trash ever to be spewed out of the mouths and brains of mankind.
I swear if leftists could let go of Confucius in favor of Lao Tzu the world would be much better off.
STRANGER: Indeed?
CASSILDA: Indeed it's time. We all have laid aside disguise but you.
STRANGER: I wear no mask.
CAMILLA: (Terrified, aside to Cassilda.) No mask? No mask!
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
So yeah Gun Control right?!
um? Read it again. FYI, it's talking about defense spending.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
If you think that slavery and the conflicts against the Indians are the sole reason America exists or was successful, you're crazy. Do you legitimately think that America would not have become America without slavery? The fact that it existed back then was terrible. Said that for the 5643rd time in this thread. The shallow idea that no slavery=no US is just insane.
Here's what I'll do for you. I'll cut Slavery out of the picture entirely. Some would argue that would mean cutting blacks out of America, but I won't go that far. We'll just say blacks were here, slavery wasn't. I'll also pretend that Indians weren't killed and also that Indians didn't attack and kill Settlers. I'll also give both blacks and women the right to vote.
Edit: I mean all Americans here, not excluding anyone you paragraph nitpickers.
After doing all that, I contend America STILL would have become what it did because the underlying principles of limiting governmental influence, rights of personal property, self defense, free speech, religion, assembly and everything else you have in the Founding documents beats the absolute **** out of the rest of the world and the entirety of its Hereditary/Monarchist/Dynasty/Caste System/WHATEVER you want to call it in whatever country you're in wouldn't stand a chance. The very NATURE of America is a natural incentive, you want to define it by the **** and ignore the gold, but the **** can be flushed, too easily.
Back at ya, kid.
Europe and the rest of the world stretching back to the earliest recorded history have always bowed to SOMEONE and pretty much always will. The opportunities and freedom that are available here are at the heart of why people from every failed country and political coterie around the world has come here. The protective gaze of our missile shield systems and defensive pacts give the rest of the world the leeway to dump all its cash into bloated and dying social programs(which they then use as supposedly fiscally sound examples to advocate for such programs here) at the expense of running their own national defense at anything more than a rudimentary, ceremonial level. What happens when we pull that back? Dozens of Little Russias or Little Chinas pop up around the world, overnight. Can you imagine the screaming the world over if America went isolationist again? I can.
For a world that would for sure be better off it America never existed by all accounts, it sure does look to us to move the discussion forward, lead the charge, do whatever it can't find in its collective heart to do. I wonder why.
Slavery was addressed, everyone and their fool brother can vote and yet this isn't enough. Economic conditions, the horror! The goal of the struggle was equal opportunity and rights not equal economic result. Starting out on the bottom of things doesn't mean you're doomed to stay there but making economic success based on legislation makes so many wards of the state they can't be counted.
Hundreds and thousands of years of slavery didn't stop oh, I don't know EVERY OTHER RACE ON THE PLANET that has been enslaved at one point or another. EVERY single culture found in my family tree has been enslaved at one point! The atrocities of slavery, genocide, etc have been visited on people across the entire world of all ethnicities and countries of origin. Terrible yes, excuse for lack of success? No, but this is something people the world over like to forget or dilute because it gives them some skin in the racism game in their own backyard or elsewhere and also maintains the status quo of crybaby antics from those too scared to let go of racism as an institutional idea because wtf would they really have then? Seriously, Al Sharpton and crew would be broke if it wasn't for the racism industry.
White Priviledge, Critical Race Theory and everything like this are a scam, a fraud, a shell game which makes everyone lose.
STRANGER: Indeed?
CASSILDA: Indeed it's time. We all have laid aside disguise but you.
STRANGER: I wear no mask.
CAMILLA: (Terrified, aside to Cassilda.) No mask? No mask!
Yes, the particular line is dealing with weapons held by the State, not the Individual, an expression of "protect, don't oppress". The Tao was written not only as a guide for philosophical enlightenment but also for wise national leadership.
STRANGER: Indeed?
CASSILDA: Indeed it's time. We all have laid aside disguise but you.
STRANGER: I wear no mask.
CAMILLA: (Terrified, aside to Cassilda.) No mask? No mask!
Why is this thread not locked? Geez.
Could you explain to me why England has to have the culture that you envision?
A child molester, a necrophiliac, or a rapist views its actions as a sexual deviation rather than a form of assault. Which party do you think has invested more money into the progression of various sexual freedoms?
It would go on to suggest that the entire group of these people who view themselves as only sexual deviants would back the party that would inevitably come to their aid and protect them in some way.
Does that mean that every Democrat is a child molester, or a rapist?
Even if every racist was a Republican, not every Republican would be a racist.
Actually, linking pedophiles to Democrats isn't remotely new, either. Democrats are known for being soft on crime, their understanding of environment causing their "condition" and yes, their non-traditionalist views of sexuality, relationships, and social norms.
But we don't make a thread discussing it, because it's RIDICULOUS, just like linking Racism to Republicans. As half the people on this thread have been trying to explain.
Semirelated: I've not seen you getting angry about Polish people emigrating to the UK. Polish emigration was a pretty major thing when I was last there. Of course, Poles are generally white.
It's a slippery slope argument, I think? They keep talking around the point so I'll state it (even though it's a stupid ****ing argument).
1) Democrats support homosexuals!
2) Homosexuals are sexual deviants (according to the argument. I'm using the definition of Sexual Deviancy where deviancy is stuff that should be banned for the protection of people)
3) Therefore, the argument states, Democrats are the party that supports sexual deviants
4) Pedophiles are sexual deviants (according to any reasonable measure)
5) Therefore, Democrats support pedophiles and will do so openly once homosexuality is accepted into the culture!!!!!
The argument ignores concepts like informed consent, so it's a really stupid argument. It's also embarassingly common on the political sites I skim, second only to "if a man can marry a man, why can't I marry a horse" which has the same problem(s).
Golly gee, these right-wingers seem to have problems understanding consent...
Art is life itself.
It's more like almost everyone in Congress is rich, white, male, and (Protestant) Christian, which one wouldn't expect if there were equal odds of anyone achieving political office. True, there would be quite a few WASPy people in Congress, but probably more than what, two black people? Et cetera.
So aside from pockets of sharia law, what's the problem with immigrants? A mixed culture is a healthy culture, I think.
Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.