Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Started to NOT derail another thread.

Mad Rabbit wrote:

Your point about Clinton is totally irrelevant. No one suggested that he was a foreigner, a terrorist, a secret Muslim, a socialist or a fascist. People said that he was an idiot who who cheated on his wife. I take no offense to saying that an adulterer cheated on his wife. I do take offense to someone whose skin is a different color being called a foreigner or un-American.

This makes you prejudiced and a hypocrite. Alot of Obama's politics are distinctly foreign (to both sides of the party line) AND a lot of his ideas are very un-American. Just because somebody calls him on his socialist policies, and communist ethics, doesn't mean they're automatically doing it 'just because he's black'.
Obama's defenders don't seem to have the ability to ignore the color of his skin. Which is exactly what they harp about in his detractors. Also, I seem to remember a LOT of commentary about Clinton being a communist, socialist, and a deserter. There is simply the fact that Democratic president will ALWAYS receive this kind of criticism from those who oppose their presidency. Obama just proves that this is REGARDLESS of race, color or creed.

Alot of Obama's politics are distinctly foreign (to both sides of the party line) AND a lot of his ideas are very un-American.

Complete BS.

I seriously doubt a white guy would have to prove he was born in the U.S.

Neither the Right or the Left have the best interests of the country in mind.

I agree with lordhat. The fact his Supporters automatically assume you are racist if you don't like him, in turns makes them more racist than his opponents ever are.

Honestly, you're welcome to your opinion. Mine is that that statement had a racist edge to it.
You're welcome to call me whatever you want to if that makes you feel better.

The assertion that his ideas are un-American is ridiculous. His policies are similar to FDR, who was just about as all American as they come (and a good President, according to many). You cannot honestly claim that there is no racism present in Obama's critics. Not that they all are, but you'll have trouble convincing me that they're all totally innocent of it.

And no one called Clinton a terrorist. No one said that his wife was a militant white hater.

The title of the thread is pretty ridiculous too. That is nothing like the statement I made. This started because I thought that what someone said sounded racist. You're making this about me and about Obama supporters.

Mad Rabbit wrote:And no one called Clinton a terrorist. No one said that his wife was a militant white hater.

Bush was frequently accused of being a terrorist and a racist, among other things.

Orkeosaurus wrote:

Mad Rabbit wrote:And no one called Clinton a terrorist. No one said that his wife was a militant white hater.

Bush was frequently accused of being a terrorist and a racist, among other things.

Accused of?

<Quote> This behavior is coupled with offensive behavior committed by the same manager several weeks ago. While I understand Texas is a predominantly Republican state, we do have some Democrats here, and when the manager begins to start up a conversation in which he insults the current president and calls him a foreigner and un-American, some of us would find that offensive. </Quote>

This is the statement where racism was inferred on the part of the manager.

Scrabb wrote:<Quote> This behavior is coupled with offensive behavior committed by the same manager several weeks ago. While I understand Texas is a predominantly Republican state, we do have some Democrats here, and when the manager begins to start up a conversation in which he insults the current president and calls him a foreigner and un-American, some of us would find that offensive. </Quote>

This is the statement where racism was inferred on the part of the manager.

That is about as Racist as Calling Black Pudding Black

I wouldn't necessarily trust the source on that one. There was quite a bit of bias in that account...

(Also, you gotta use the square brackets for the quotes.)

This has started as one of those arguments where people keep pretending the other side is saying something it isn’t.

It’s quite simple, ultimately. There is a racial element to some of the criticism of Obama. This does not mean all criticism of Obama is racist. It means some is racist. The people claiming Obama isn’t a US citizen, or that he’s a secret Muslim… these people are making arguments with a racial element and if they pride themselves on being non-racist then they will have to reconsider their worldview.

‘Un-American’ is a little different, and depends on context to decide whether or not it is racist. It’s absolutely nonsense, but whether or not it is racist is another question.

Lordhat wrote:Just because somebody calls him on his socialist policies, and communist ethics, doesn't mean they're automatically doing it 'just because he's black'.

Yeah, look, I have no idea if you're racist or not, and even if you were it'd only be of the minor, unexamined variety almost all of us have to some extent.

But the thing about equating any form of social policy with socialism has to stop. It makes you look bad and destroys any chance of productive discussion. It is ridiculous.

I'd say there's a correlation between an active, vociferous dislike of Obama and being racist, at least towards those of muslim or African descent. Certainly stronger than among, say, Obama's supporters.

That doesn't mean every single opponent is racist, and probably relatively few are.

On the other hand, there's a broad range of attitudes, opinions, and actions that while not strictly racist show a generally provincial view of racial matters. Meaning, it's not exactly racist to rail against welfare mothers or spending on Section 8 Housing, etc., but it's not exactly a nuanced and well developed view of racial politics.

There is more to racism than overt acts, and pretending that just because you avoid slurs or certain actions means that it's impossible to read racism between the lines is a bit insulting to people with any experience.

My opinion is that the quoted statement sounds racist. Whether it was actually said by the manager in question or not doesn't really matter in this context. And yes, there was a fair amount of bias revealed after my original post.

To respond to Ork's statement, yeah, people said such things about Bush (like Kanye) but my point was that the criticism of Obama and Clinton was different in a significant way.

The obama administration is full of racism.
Whether it be the supporters or the people appointed by him.
remember how sotomayor said she latinas can make a better decision then white male.

I knew that I was just testing you.

I dont understand? What do you mean?
Are you talking to me?

garret wrote:The obama administration is full of racism.
Whether it be the supporters or the people appointed by him.
remember how sotomayor said she latinas can make a better decision then white male.

This is the sort of stuff that cracks me up. I'm not a far left guy, but there is simply no way reverse racism has any chance of being as hurtful as white racism. First off, she wasn't saying a latina judge is always better than a white judge. Her point was that the experiences a latina have could be useful in rendering decisions. A point, which to an extent, you're helping her make. A judge that has never experience true discrimination (in education, employment, housing, by the police, etc) is more likely underestimate the damages or the likelihood of harm. Don't forget that trial court judges frequently are finders of fact. Not every case goes to a jury.

Okay how about what she said the she would rather let her house burn then have it put out by a white firemen.
or the whole case about the firemen promotion test?
And yes it can be just as hurtful. any racism is.

Sorry garret I was responding to Orkeosaurus.

I think the way everyone always gets worked up about these sorts of things proves there's more going on then is being said. I also think Obama's supporters are too quick to jump to the worst conclusions from the scantiest of evidence.

garret wrote:Okay how about what she said the she would rather let her house burn then have it put out by a white firemen.
or the whole case about the firemen promotion test?
And yes it can be just as hurtful. any racism is.

Well, the first statement sounds stupid.

The fireman promotion test case is actually a pretty complicated piece of law. I've read the case, and I'll be honest, I don't have the background in the field of law to fully understand it. The city was going to get sued either way, they didn't certify the results to avoid a charge of discrimination. There's an irony there, I'm sure. It's actually pretty cutting edge legal theory, and deals with the tough spot cities are in due to Federal anti-discrimination laws. The city is attempting to comply (or more likely avoid the negative press and hoopla not promoting any black fire fighters would cause), while still promoting the best people. Keep in mind that federal law presumes racial bias in a test when there is such a wide performance gap.

I'm going to make the statement, and maybe I'm wrong, but racism is like any other kind of hatred. And yes, all hatred is bad and it all hurts. But when the people doing the hating are more powerful, the impact is a naturally greater.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Scrabb wrote:Sorry garret I was responding to Orkeosaurus.

I think the way everyone always gets worked up about these sorts of things proves there's more going on then is being said. I also think Obama's supporters are too quick to jump to the worst conclusions from the scantiest of evidence.

I'm not a big fan of any immediate support or disdain for politicians, policies, etc. The world is a lot more complex and a lot more interesting than most people would believe. There is, and it's hard to deny that it exists, a deep undercurrent of hatred for Obama that goes beyond his politics. I don't know how much of it there really is, but there is a decent amount.

I disagree. Hatred can be great, it can motivate people to fight against things that need to be fought against.

Racism is illogical hatred, which is often devastatingly bad.

That is wrong cause right know whites are a minority.

garret wrote:That is wrong cause right know whites are a minority.

QFT

Gwar! wrote:That is about as Racist as Calling Black Pudding Black

If the issue is the colour of pudding and you say 'black' there's nothing racist in the answer.

If the issue is how long the pudding will take to cook and you reply 'It's a black pudding. Black puddings will take longer because they are full of foreign ingredients that don't work like our ingredients. I'm not going to give any specific examples because I don't know any but I mean come on look at the pudding it's black'... well then that's pretty racist.

Some criticsm of Obama is racist. Of course, some accusations of racism against criticizers of Obama is not valid.

Eh? Worldwide maybe.

:EDIT: (In response to garret.)

Polonius wrote:

garret wrote:Okay how about what she said the she would rather let her house burn then have it put out by a white firemen.
or the whole case about the firemen promotion test?
And yes it can be just as hurtful. any racism is.

Well, the first statement sounds stupid.

The fireman promotion test case is actually a pretty complicated piece of law. I've read the case, and I'll be honest, I don't have the background in the field of law to fully understand it. The city was going to get sued either way, they didn't certify the results to avoid a charge of discrimination. There's an irony there, I'm sure. It's actually pretty cutting edge legal theory, and deals with the tough spot cities are in due to Federal anti-discrimination laws. The city is attempting to comply (or more likely avoid the negative press and hoopla not promoting any black fire fighters would cause), while still promoting the best people. Keep in mind that federal law presumes racial bias in a test when there is such a wide performance gap.

I'm going to make the statement, and maybe I'm wrong, but racism is like any other kind of hatred. And yes, all hatred is bad and it all hurts. But when the people doing the hating are more powerful, the impact is a naturally greater.

Agreed on the last point (can't speak to any of the legal talk that came before).
I don't think that anything Sotomayor says can come close to the history of discrimination in this country. White people are the best off in terms of socio-economic standings. Which means that they are in the position (as they have been for hundreds of years) to do far more damage with their discrimination than other racial groups.

sebster wrote:'It's a black pudding. Black puddings will take longer because they are full of foreign ingredients that don't work like our ingredients. I'm not going to give any specific examples because I don't know any but I mean come on look at the pudding it's black'... well then that's pretty racist.

Um... I'm pretty sure black isn't a race in the context of pudding.

garret wrote:That is wrong cause right know whites are a minority.

In the world maybe. Not in the United States, and that's not even counting white Hispanics.

Orkeosaurus wrote:

sebster wrote:'It's a black pudding. Black puddings will take longer because they are full of foreign ingredients that don't work like our ingredients. I'm not going to give any specific examples because I don't know any but I mean come on look at the pudding it's black'... well then that's pretty racist.

Um... I'm pretty sure black isn't a race in the context of pudding.

It is, cause you can get White Pudding (oats and stuff) and Black Pudding (Made from blood).

I wonder if some crazy American has tried to get it Changed to African American Pudding. I wouldn't be surprised.

Gwar! wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote:

sebster wrote:'It's a black pudding. Black puddings will take longer because they are full of foreign ingredients that don't work like our ingredients. I'm not going to give any specific examples because I don't know any but I mean come on look at the pudding it's black'... well then that's pretty racist.

Um... I'm pretty sure black isn't a race in the context of pudding.

It is, cause you can get White Pudding (oats and stuff) and Black Pudding (Made from blood).

I wonder if some crazy American has tried to get it Changed to African American Pudding. I wouldn't be surprised.

Actually, sebster was using the same example that Gwar originally used. Don't be intentionally daft.

Gwar! wrote:It is, cause you can get White Pudding (oats and stuff) and Black Pudding (Made from blood).

Yeah, but that's not a race.

I wonder if some crazy American has tried to get it Changed to African American Pudding. I wouldn't be surprised.

I've heard people call people from other countries African-American on account of being black.

It's sad.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mad Rabbit wrote:Actually, sebster was using the same example that Gwar originally used. Don't be intentionally daft.

I'm not playing dumb here, I'm saying it wasn't a great example.

Assuming that black pudding is made with "foreign" ingredients, and thus takes longer to cook, is completely illogical, but that doesn't make it racism.