• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

US PoliGAF 2012 | The Romney VeepStakes: Waiting for Chris Christie to Sing…

Status
Not open for further replies.
There are plenty of people here in the States that honestly do not believe they're racists. Nonetheless they still say racist things out of ignorance or bias.

I uncle will repeatedly tell you he is not a racist, but constantly states that black people don't work as hard as white people. He says it's not racist, just a cultural difference.

Stuff like this is what I'm talking about.
 

Allard

Member
Yes he does. He thinks Ron Paul is a racist as well.

However, he does bring up a good point in that article (which was the original point that started this discussion); If the Tea Party is willing to fall in line to support someone like Gingrich and Romney, then what was their real beef with Obama? Simply that he was a democrat? That makes no sense, because the movement was originally party agnostic.





I'm still waiting for your better reason for the Tea Party's formation.

Look there is some racism in the tea party but its a very VOCAL minority of it. I think a proper way of looking at the tea party is its leaders are insensitive and tone deaf about civil issues in regards to racism, but are not racist and a majority of the tea party isn't racist at all. The actual way they behave though has very much to do with Democrat vs Republican. Us vs them etc. They got misinformed by their media interests, lashed out at someone they deemed 'other' then themselves (democrat) and they have stuck with it. They would have done this with any democrat that got elected, it just happened to happen when the democratic party elected a Black guy to the WH. It actually IS coincidence.

Their party platform is founded on a tangible belief and it morphed into irrational fear and ignorance, but its not directly related to the color of the presidents skin. The one thing I will say is that they didn't do themselves any favors by not separating themselves 'from' that vocal minority that is racist. Their leaders kept allowing stuff like that to get out of hand and in return because they didn't condemn the behavior got attached with the label. That is there own fault, but its really not a good idea to put wide sweeping generalizations on a group due to a small portion that happened to come into focus with there dangerous rhetoric or insensitive comments. As a society we do ourselves a disservice when we do that.
 

Servizio

I don't really need a tag, but I figured I'd get one to make people jealous. Is it working?
Then can you give me a better reason why the tea party formed, and what their motivations were outside of an irrational fear of Obama?


These seems like as good a post as any to throw these two cents in on; The problem with describing a large group of people as racists when they themselves don't is that you're basically calling them liars about their stated intentions. There's no where to go once you do that, because it basically shuts down any argument about anything. I don't have to listen to what you're saying because I already know what your innermost unstated motivations are.

The other part of it is that it really seems to devalue the word 'racist.' There are groups who publicly believe in things like racial purity, racial segregation, and race wars. Those people are racists. People who make ignorant statements about stereotypes might be saying something that is racist but aren't necessarily motivated by, let's say, genocidal ideologies.

Of course, another problem with the whole discourse is how it's all about people and their motivations, rather than the policies they endorse. It's not like you'd go hungry purely arguing against the policies of the tea party rather than the reasons you think they're pushing them.
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
1/4 of Republicans believe that Obama's not a citizen. And a majority of Tea Partiers think that the government helps black people "too much".
 
Excuse me while I go into ultra-partisan librul nazi mode, but seriously now? There's a million things I disagree with the tea baggers, stuff that I do think would actively harm a good portion of the population. BUT this debt ceiling thing is a completely different kettle of fish. Every person with one of them fancy college DEE-grees spoke about the utter devastation that would arise from not raising the debt ceiling. That they'd be putting the entire GLOBAL FUCKING ECONOMY at risk, and we'd have a worldwide depression. This is inarguably several times worse than gutting the entirely of medicare and social security. "Economic Terrorists" is more than appropriate for such behavior.

That's a fair criticism, but I didn't think the segment was framed as equivalency at all. Stewart calls out hypocrisy on both sides of the aisle, and that woman's actions were certainly hypocritical. "Economic terrorists" may be an accurate descriptor, but it's a pretty terrible choice of words if your stated goal is to improve civil discourse.
 

ReBurn

Gold Member
These seems like as good a post as any to throw these two cents in on; The problem with describing a large group of people as racists when they themselves don't is that you're basically calling them liars about their stated intentions. There's no where to go once you do that, because it basically shuts down any argument about anything. I don't have to listen to what you're saying because I already know what your innermost unstated motivations are.

The other part of it is that it really seems to devalue the word 'racist.' There are groups who publicly believe in things like racial purity, racial segregation, and race wars. Those people are racists. People who make ignorant statements about stereotypes might be saying something that is racist but aren't necessarily motivated by, let's say, genocidal ideologies.

Of course, another problem with the whole discourse is how it's all about people and their motivations, rather than the policies they endorse. It's not like you'd go hungry purely arguing against the policies of the tea party rather than the reasons you think they're pushing them.

Also, "prove me wrong" is a weak position to argue from. There's no credibility in it.
 

Measley

Junior Member
I still think saying it's just racism is far too easy of an answer. I think this is what happened. All of these sentiments from differing factions in the republican party coalesced around Obama. He was painted very quickly as an "other" in many different ways, and then feared because that. For some that really was racism. For others it was kind of an inward racism in that he is just foreign or different from them. Republicans painted him as a socialist and as getting a lot of inspiration from European socialism. The stuff about Kenya came up and conspiracy nuts jumped on that. Add to all of that the fear of a democrat in office after 8 years of Bush and the fact that he campaigned on changing everything, and you just have an overall sentiment of difference and fear among a large portion of republican voters. Add in the typical Fox 6 type politics of fear and you have a veritable powder keg ready to go off at a bit of a spark. All of this got swirled around and mixed in with an air of legitimate discourse on a problem that some people might have actually had even without this president.

Racism is just too easy. It was all of these things and then it was all of these things combining in different ways that add to it. And then it was the realization of this process by the Republican party and the media outlets like Fox 6 that sparked things further.

I think you're giving them way too much credit. You have a dark skinned man named Barack Hussein Obama ascending to the presidency of the United States. This is only seven years after the country experienced a devastating terrorist attack from Muslim extremists. A lot of people simply weren't ready for it. In those seven years since 9/11, Americans were fed on a steady diet of hating Muslims. They still get fed it from right-wing media and other outlets. Which is why we see it springing up from time to time. The Ground Zero mosque was one example, and the ridiculous boycott of the Muslim American reality show was another.

A large group of Christian America doesn't like Islam, and I would argue that a majority of conservative Christian Americans don't like Islam. That seven years of muslim-bashing and muslim fear mongering is where a lot of the hatred comes from. The other source is good old fashioned American racism.

Look, I'm not saying these people are evil, or that they deserve to be arrested, or killed or something. I'm saying these people are scared and ignorant. You mix fear and ignorance together, and all kinds of bad things can emerge from the stew. You can see that fear in the videos I posted. They honestly believe this president is going to hire Al-Qaeda on Sundays to slam planes into their homes and churches. They really believed that shit, despite the fact that part of the vetting process involved his former pastor in a very Christian church.

You had the double whammy of a muslim-sounding name (that even sounded like two of the most reviled Islamic figures in American history), and an African American. That was simply too much for people in Middle America, the Rust Belt, and the South to take. So you ended up with the Tea Party.



Also, "prove me wrong" is a weak position to argue from. There's no credibility in it.


It wasn't so much a "prove me wrong" as a "If you have a better reason for this behaviour, then state it". Phoenixdark pretty much dismissed my evidence for my argument, without providing any counter evidence. Thus, I don't think my request was out of line at all.

And I'm still waiting.
 
The other part of it is that it really seems to devalue the word 'racist.' There are groups who publicly believe in things like racial purity, racial segregation, and race wars. Those people are racists. People who make ignorant statements about stereotypes might be saying something that is racist but aren't necessarily motivated by, let's say, genocidal ideologies.

I'm pretty much in agreement with you, but to play devil's advocate: many (if not most) of those obvious racists probably wouldn't identify themselves as racists either.
 

Zabka

Member
There are plenty of people here in the States that honestly do not believe they're racists. Nonetheless they still say racist things out of ignorance or bias.

I uncle will repeatedly tell you he is not a racist, but constantly states that black people don't work as hard as white people. He says it's not racist, just a cultural difference.

Stuff like this is what I'm talking about.

Just look at Newt Gingrich's recent comments about foodstamps and paychecks. He genuinely believes the NAACP should be thankful for his idiocy.
 

Suikoguy

I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
I'm pretty much in agreement with you, but to play devil's advocate: many (if not most) of those obvious racists probably wouldn't identify themselves as racists either.

Yeah, I see that first hand all of the time.
Although, regarding Beck's comments, I think it's more about latching onto a person, rather then looking into what he/she actually stands for. I bet the majority of people who support Gingrich know little about him.
 

Measley

Junior Member
The other part of it is that it really seems to devalue the word 'racist.' There are groups who publicly believe in things like racial purity, racial segregation, and race wars. Those people are racists. People who make ignorant statements about stereotypes might be saying something that is racist but aren't necessarily motivated by, let's say, genocidal ideologies.

Racism doesn't have to go as far as genocide. Racism can simply be that you don't think someone of a different ethnicity or race belongs in a certain position of power or influence. You can see this when people question Obama's birth certificate, his education, his patriotism, and his temperament (uppity). The vast majority of that comes from Tea Party sources.

It truly is interesting watching it on display. On one hand, Obama is an evil genius who engineered his rise to power from the womb, and has a nefarious scheme to destroy the United States and the Constitution. However he's also a bumbling idiot who can't speak without a Teleprompter, and has no idea how to run the country.
 
Excuse me while I go into ultra-partisan librul nazi mode, but seriously now? There's a million things I disagree with the tea baggers, stuff that I do think would actively harm a good portion of the population. BUT this debt ceiling thing is a completely different kettle of fish. Every person with one of them fancy college DEE-grees spoke about the utter devastation that would arise from not raising the debt ceiling. That they'd be putting the entire GLOBAL FUCKING ECONOMY at risk, and we'd have a worldwide depression. This is inarguably several times worse than gutting the entirely of medicare and social security. "Economic Terrorists" is more than appropriate for such behavior.

Or a more informative thing to call them would be stubbornly and recklessly anti-government rather than use words to compare them to actual terrorists.

I'm not saying it isn't necessarily not true, it's just a dumb way convince people of a point of view who hadn't already agreed with it.
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
Quick question, who was the person who started it in the first place?

Started what?

Also you read the space policy (well glanced at as it's a lot to read) I linked to yesterday?

Glanced, sadly. I'll read up on more of it though, hopefully later tonight when I get home from work! So I'll keep my mouth shut on that until I'm caught up on the matter. ;)
 

Zabka

Member
Republican stonewalling during the Clinton years was nowhere near as bad as it currently is with Obama. In spite of the ridiculous impeachment bullshit, Republicans and Democrats did actually work together in the 90's.

Today, any Republican that even hints at agreeing or working with Obama on any issue is ripped to shreds by conservative media and the base. They've taken it to such a level that they've constructed a completely alternate version of reality that everything is now filtered through to prevent themselves from ever having to acknowledge that Obama has accomplished anything worthwhile.
 

PantherLotus

Professional Schmuck
Have I subscribed to this yet?

I'm still bathing in the glow of the Bain attacks. Holy crap, the Republicans are really trotting out a fucking Robber Baron during the second worst depression we've ever seen. Truly outstanding.
 
Jerry Falwell endorsed Newt.

Oh GOP, you never stop entertaining me.
KuGsj.gif
 
I definitely believe we'll see an explosion in right wing anger/vitriol if Obama wins, especially if it's against Romney. The tea party will only take that as vindication of their message all along, which was that the GOP truly needs to be changed and down with the establishment, moderate republicans, etc.

Those Palin rallies in October 08, when it was clear Obama would win, were some of the darkest and most ugly events I've seen. I really don't want to see a repeat of that, but who knows. The far right has kept the rhetoric as apocalyptic as possible demonized the president and his supporters, etc. It could get ugly.

this is not to say liberals aren't guilty of similar offenses. see: Bush
 

ToxicAdam

Member
What would be the great fear of a second Obama term? What exactly is he going to do that scares conservatives? Nothing. Especially if Republicans maintain one of the branches.



--- /// ---

Clinton/Obama

Of course it's worse for Obama now. If you are a good hand-wringing liberal, it's ALWAYS worse now than it's ever been. That's the pathetic mindset you have to carry through life to get attention.


OMGreatDepressionahhhhh
 
I think some of it has to do with race, but not as much as people tend to think. I remember conservatives hating Clinton with just as much passion as they do toward Obama.
 

Puddles

Banned
I come from a Christian household.

There was quite a lot of talk that Clinton might be the antichrist. I have absolutely no idea where that came from, but I heard it all the time from acquaintances of my parents.
 

GhaleonEB

Member
This is kind of a fun test. Find out which candidate is best for you.


Mine went: 1. Huntsman 2. Obama 3. Paul.

1) Obama (66%)
2) Huntsman (33%)
3) Paul (33%)

A lot of those questions had a very incomplete slate of options. All answers on the Social Security question were bogus; I wanted to lift the cap on the payroll tax, but it wasn't an option. I wanted to expand Medicare through buy-in, but that wasn't an option. I wanted to let all of Bush's tax cuts expire, also not there. So several of my answers were the nebulous 'none of the above'.
 
So if someone is voting for Romney, what are they really looking for?

He just doesn't seem like that guy, I have a feeling that he won't be winning anything in the end.
 

Nert

Member
A lot of those questions had a very incomplete slate of options. All answers on the Social Security question were bogus; I wanted to lift the cap on the payroll tax, but it wasn't an option. I wanted to expand Medicare through buy-in, but that wasn't an option. I wanted to let all of Bush's tax cuts expire, also not there. So several of my answers were the nebulous 'none of the above'.

Yeah, I had the same problem with the test. There was no immigration reform option that actually allowed for easier (and more) legal immigration, for example. All of the options felt like flavors of "immigration taking place at all is bad," which I strongly disagree with. The current process in place for legal migration is a total clusterfuck, with it often taking over 10 years for people to have a chance to enter.

So I guess it was useful in reminding me that none of the candidates really support most of my own viewpoints :p
 

tranciful

Member
I did feel like the questions didn't offer enough options, but I believe that is because they stuck with answers that the candidates have actually given. I mean, if no candidate takes that stance, it would have zero effect on the test. That's what the 'none of the above' option is for.
 

Puddles

Banned
If you ever want to see what evil looks like, read this blog post and some of the comments:

http://www.qando.net/?p=3767

I wish these people would come out and say directly what they're implying the whole time: if you're poor or unemployed, your life is not worth the resources it would take to keep you alive in an emergency.

Hayek comes off as a fucking asshole based on the quotes of his this author used.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom