PDA

View Full Version : Racism Reversed



Taxcutter
07-12-2013, 12:21 PM
Sources of racism have reversed in the US.

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-on-the-right/070813-662856-racism-has-taken-on-a-startling-new-hue.htm?fb_action_ids=10201222170257620&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_ref=top&fb_source=aggregation&fb_aggregation_id=288381481237582


quote:
“I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.”

“According to a recent Rasmussen poll, 31% of blacks think that most blacks are racists, while 24% of blacks think that most whites are racist.”

“Among whites, according to the same Rasmussen poll, 38% consider most blacks racist and 10% consider most whites racist.”

Taxcutter notes:
Both blacks and whites know the real score.

Quote:
“This was the history of anti-Semitic movements in Eastern Europe between the two World Wars, anti-Ibo movements in Nigeria in the 1960s, and anti-Tamil movements that turned Sri Lanka from a peaceful nation into a scene of lethal mob violence and then decades-long civil war, both marked by unspeakable atrocities.”

Taxcutter says:
Today’s racism holds the same dangers as racism past.

Cigar
07-12-2013, 12:33 PM
Someone needs a hug ... :grin: it's Friday Taxcutter says: Today’s racism holds the same dangers as racism past.

BTW ... I don't think Raacism will ever get that bad ... haven't seen many Tar-n-Feathers or hanging lately.

BTW ... I don't see many white people being turned away from Voting either ...

But nice try ..

Chris
07-12-2013, 12:49 PM
The poll should have asked how racist is our government that uses racism to reverse racism.

Cigar
07-12-2013, 12:54 PM
The poll should have asked how racist is our government that uses racism to reverse racism.

http://i.qkme.me/3od38a.jpg#reverse%20racism%20fail%20311x311

Chris
07-12-2013, 01:05 PM
http://i.qkme.me/3od38a.jpg#reverse%20racism%20fail%20311x311

It's still racism. Here I thought you were against racism but I see you just joke about it.

GrassrootsConservative
07-12-2013, 01:07 PM
IMO even the term "reverse racism" in and of itself is racist. It implies that people who aren't white cannot be racist, only reverse racist.

Which defeats the whole point of not being racist.

Cigar
07-12-2013, 01:10 PM
It's still racism. Here I thought you were against racism but I see you just joke about it.


I am against Racism ... but I love reading about White People whining about it, as if they've somehow development a new intolerance form it.

Welcome to the real world ... we've been waiting for you.

Cigar
07-12-2013, 01:13 PM
IMO even the term "reverse racism" in and of itself is racist. It implies that people who aren't white cannot be racist, only reverse racist.

Which defeats the whole point of not being racist.

It's called an Exclusive Nor :grin: Racial Logic for White People :moron:

http://ts4.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4752210577982179&pid=1.7&w=267&h=125&c=7&rs=1

http://ts3.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.5058510439057410&pid=1.7&w=267&h=183&c=7&rs=1

Chris
07-12-2013, 01:22 PM
I am against Racism ... but I love reading about White People whining about it, as if they've somehow development a new intolerance form it.

Welcome to the real world ... we've been waiting for you.

I don't whine and have all my life found it abhorrent.

Chris
07-12-2013, 01:23 PM
It's called an Exclusive Nor :grin: Racial Logic for White People :moron:

http://ts4.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4752210577982179&pid=1.7&w=267&h=125&c=7&rs=1

http://ts3.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.5058510439057410&pid=1.7&w=267&h=183&c=7&rs=1
That's racist, cigar.

Cigar
07-12-2013, 01:28 PM
I don't whine and have all my life found it abhorrent.

... and I've always believed that there very little Gravity on the Moon, but out of several billion on earth ... only a dozen know for sure.

Chris
07-12-2013, 01:41 PM
... and I've always believed that there very little Gravity on the Moon, but out of several billion on earth ... only a dozen know for sure.

Racism is racism.

Agravan
07-12-2013, 01:42 PM
Racism is racism.

except when it comes from blacks or liberals. Then it's "just pointing out racism" in others.

Cigar
07-12-2013, 01:45 PM
Racism is racism.

I'm sure it hurts to give birth. :wink:

Chris
07-12-2013, 01:55 PM
I'm sure it hurts to give birth. :wink:

Why are you avoiding the elephant in the room?

Cigar
07-12-2013, 01:59 PM
Why are you avoiding the elephant in the room?



It's not wise to tell a Pregnant Women; "I feel your pain" ... you can't, just say you understand and leave it at that.

Chris
07-12-2013, 02:08 PM
It's not wise to tell a Pregnant Women; "I feel your pain" ... you can't, just say you understand and leave it at that.

I didn't say I feel your pain, I simply pointed out instances of reverse racism. Racism is racism.

darroll
07-12-2013, 02:31 PM
It's called an Exclusive Nor :grin: Racial Logic for White People :moron:

http://ts4.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4752210577982179&pid=1.7&w=267&h=125&c=7&rs=1

http://ts3.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.5058510439057410&pid=1.7&w=267&h=183&c=7&rs=1
It's an inverted and gate.

patrickt
07-12-2013, 02:39 PM
Cigar is a racist who hates racists. How bizarre.

And, Cigar has nothing to say about Mr. Sowell's excellent column. That's not bizarre. That's expected.

Dr. Who
07-12-2013, 07:59 PM
IMO even the term "reverse racism" in and of itself is racist. It implies that people who aren't white cannot be racist, only reverse racist.

Which defeats the whole point of not being racist.Actually the term reverse racism if taken without any context would mean tolerance, after all what is the reverse of racism? It otherwise only assumes that there is only one kind of racism. It's really a silly term. There is racism or racism.

roadmaster
07-12-2013, 08:03 PM
Reverse racism is real and people are tired of it. They have no excuse and were never slaves.

Chris
07-12-2013, 08:20 PM
Actually the term reverse racism if taken without any context would mean tolerance, after all what is the reverse of racism? It otherwise only assumes that there is only one kind of racism. It's really a silly term. There is racism or racism.

But in context always involves policies based on race.

Dr. Who
07-12-2013, 08:45 PM
But in context always involves policies based on race.Well exactly. Is white vs black or black vs white preferable, or perhaps brown vs red or vs yellow. It's all just racism. Policies need to be examined for what they are accomplishing. If nothing good then get rid of them. Any policies that presume to favor any race over another are stupid and racist. Any policies that are in fact condescending and really accomplish the opposite of their stated purpose are actually racist policies in disguise.

Mister D
07-12-2013, 08:59 PM
Well exactly. Is white vs black or black vs white preferable, or perhaps brown vs red or vs yellow. It's all just racism. Policies need to be examined for what they are accomplishing. If nothing good then get rid of them. Any policies that presume to favor any race over another are stupid and racist. Any policies that are in fact condescending and really accomplish the opposite of their stated purpose are actually racist policies in disguise.

That's all Affirmative Action polices are and ever could be. Glad you came around. Stay white, bro.

Dr. Who
07-12-2013, 09:12 PM
That's all Affirmative Action polices are and ever could be. Glad you came around. Stay white, bro.I'll ignore that last bit and you know why.

Mister D
07-12-2013, 09:16 PM
I'll ignore that last bit and you know why.

Yes, I do. White people have been subjected to a relentless propaganda campaign. You are not allowed to speak in your own interest. Everyone else can.

Mainecoons
07-12-2013, 09:17 PM
Any policies that presume to favor any race over another are stupid and racist. Any policies that are in fact condescending and really accomplish the opposite of their stated purpose are actually racist policies in disguise.

That's a very well stated indictment of the liberal plantation mentality exhibited towards blacks.

Dr. Who
07-12-2013, 09:31 PM
Yes, I do. White people have been subjected to a relentless propaganda campaign. You are not allowed to speak in your own interest. Everyone else can.I don't believe in elevating any group over another. I also don't believe that the color of your skin is either a reason for pride or shame. You had nothing to do with choosing it. What you do with your life and how you treat others is a reason for pride. The happenstance of your birth is not. That being said, no one should be denigrated for the color of their skin nor should they face discrimination irrespective of what color they have been born to. Public policy should seek to advance people's abilities to be independent and any policy that does not do that has failed in its mandate.

Mister D
07-12-2013, 09:42 PM
I don't believe in elevating any group over another. I also don't believe that the color of your skin is either a reason for pride or shame. You had nothing to do with choosing it. What you do with your life and how you treat others is a reason for pride. The happenstance of your birth is not. That being said, no one should be denigrated for the color of their skin nor should they face discrimination irrespective of what color they have been born to. Public policy should seek to advance people's abilities to be independent and any policy that does not do that has failed in its mandate.

I reject the extreme individualism of modern society which you seem to espouse. I think it's the source of some of our problems.

We agree, however, or at least I think we, do on race based preferences. Thy are wrong or they aren't wrong. We have to choose.

Dr. Who
07-12-2013, 09:50 PM
I reject the extreme individualism of modern society which you seem to espouse. I think it's the source of some of our problems.

We agree, however, or at least I think we, do on race based preferences. Thy are wrong or they aren't wrong. We have to choose.I'm not sure what you mean by extreme individualism. We are all individuals, irrespective of the groups to which we belong by virtue of family and/or religion and/or ethnicity. I think what you really object to is group behavior that has been perversely encouraged by people with an agenda in sheep's clothing.

Mister D
07-12-2013, 10:18 PM
I'm not sure what you mean by extreme individualism. We are all individuals, irrespective of the groups to which we belong by virtue of family and/or religion and/or ethnicity. I think what you really object to is group behavior that has been perversely encouraged by people with an agenda in sheep's clothing.

What I really object to is the disintegration of community (surely progressives would sympathize?). Anti-white race based policies are just a symptom of our disease.

Dr. Who
07-12-2013, 10:23 PM
What I really object to is the disintegration of community (surely progressives would sympathize?). Anti-white race based policies are just a symptom of our disease.
Community doesn't have a specific definition. My neighborhood is a community. I know most of the people and they are all colors and ethnicities. Mostly all nice people. (One old white guy is a creep.) We help each other out. My neighborhood is low crime. Who'd a thunk it!

Chris
07-12-2013, 10:23 PM
Well exactly. Is white vs black or black vs white preferable, or perhaps brown vs red or vs yellow. It's all just racism. Policies need to be examined for what they are accomplishing. If nothing good then get rid of them. Any policies that presume to favor any race over another are stupid and racist. Any policies that are in fact condescending and really accomplish the opposite of their stated purpose are actually racist policies in disguise.

Ends do not justify means.

Mister D
07-12-2013, 10:26 PM
Community doesn't have a specific definition. My neighborhood is a community. I know most of the people and they are all colors and ethnicities. Mostly all nice people. (One old white guy is a creep.) We help each other out. My neighborhood is low crime. Who'd a thunk it!

Well, right. According to the reigning anthropology a community is no more than the sum of the individuals comprising it. That is, it doesn't exist.

Dr. Who
07-12-2013, 10:37 PM
Well, right. According to the reigning anthropology a community is no more than the sum of the individuals comprising it. That is, it doesn't exist.What you are looking for can only be found in small towns with static populations. They still exist. The question is whether you would actually like it. The down side of such communities is that everybody knows and minds everyone else's business. Your ideal of community never really existed. Just because people are not ethnically diverse, doesn't mean that they all get along, that there isn't crime, and that there aren't people who are considered low life types. Take away racial or ethnic diversity and people revert to the class system. Monkey pecking order.

Mister D
07-12-2013, 10:41 PM
What's interesting to me is that "left" and "right" argue all the time but share the the same anthropology. It seems to me that the left just wants to use the anonymous state to ensure the security that community used to provide. That's the only fundamental difference.

Mister D
07-12-2013, 10:43 PM
What you are looking for can only be found in small towns with static populations. They still exist. The question is whether you would actually like it. The down side of such communities is that everybody knows and minds everyone else's business. Your ideal of community never really existed. Just because people are not ethnically diverse, doesn't mean that they all get along, that there isn't crime, and that there aren't people who are considered low life types. Take away racial or ethnic diversity and people revert to the class system. Monkey pecking order.

Our posts crossed. I'm sleepy. will respond in AM/

Dr. Who
07-12-2013, 10:49 PM
What's interesting to me is that "left" and "right" argue all the time but share the the same anthropology. It seems to me that the left just wants to use the anonymous state to ensure the security that community used to provide. That's the only fundamental difference.The anonymous state is in part a product of large urban centers. Secondarily people have less reason to socialize than ever before. You might say that the radio was the beginning of the end. With radio people had less reason to talk to each other for information. Add TV, the internet, cell phones and texting and people never have to leave their homes. Anonymity. You would have to join the Amish to recreate the community of old times.

Chris
07-12-2013, 10:51 PM
I reject the extreme individualism of modern society which you seem to espouse. I think it's the source of some of our problems.

We agree, however, or at least I think we, do on race based preferences. Thy are wrong or they aren't wrong. We have to choose.

The problem isn't extreme individualism but extreme collectivism in the replacement of society by statism

Chris
07-12-2013, 10:54 PM
Well, right. According to the reigning anthropology a community is no more than the sum of the individuals comprising it. That is, it doesn't exist.

Sure would love to see some links for some of the stuff you claim.

The community is not the mere sum of its individual parts but an order that emerges from their interaction.

Private Pickle
07-12-2013, 11:07 PM
Sure would love to see some links for some of the stuff you claim.

The community is not the mere sum of its individual parts but an order that emerges from their interaction.

The interaction is defined by the sum of the individual parts....

Germanicus
07-13-2013, 03:20 AM
Anti-semitic movements in Easten Europe between the first and second world wars? Really? Are you sure? So they were the first though right? I think we can still blame Hitler. It was Hitler that turned most of Europe against the chosen people.

Anti-American groups seem to be all the rage these days.

edit- I dont care what kind of American you are though. You are all the same to me. So I guess anti-Americanism isnt racism. Nationism?

Im pretty sure I think the American public is much worse than your corporate overlords.

As long as the American public ends up doomed I dont even care if your overlords either move or make the USA like South Africa ( Rich in razor wire gated communities and general public are third world. ) Let them get away with it. As long as the US public is doomed I dont care.

The American public is the real problem. Americans are the problem.

edit- The conditions that gave rise to evil Hitler exist again in Europe today. A new Hitler lives in Europe today. We just havent met him yet. Or does he live in the Middle East? Maybe there will be more than one.

USA cause GFC. GFC cause Europe to collapse. IMF enslaves Europe. USA=IMF.

zelmo1234
07-13-2013, 03:34 AM
Anti-semitic movements in Easten Europe between the first and second world wars? Really? Are you sure? So they were the first though right? I think we can still blame Hitler. It was Hitler that turned most of Europe against the chosen people.

Anti-American groups seem to be all the rage these days.

edit- I dont care what kind of American you are though. You are all the same to me. So I guess anti-Americanism isnt racism. Nationism?

Im pretty sure I think the American public is much worse than your corporate overlords.

As long as the American public ends up doomed I dont even care if your overlords either move or make the USA like South Africa ( Rich in razor wire gated communities and general public are third world. ) Let them get away with it. As long as the US public is doomed I dont care.

The American public is the real problem. Americans are the problem.

Says the man that lives in the country formed as a Prison

But I think you are right I think we should stop giving all the money and medical aid to the rest of the world and give to our farmers to not grow crops for a decade? Let about a third of the worlds population starve to death and maybe they would change their mind.

By the By, what is it that you export down their again???? Goat Cheese or something like that? I forget?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8VoIP9ZM8U

But it is funny that we are starting to make fun of your neck of the world because as he says you are really not part of the planet! And so insignificant that nobody cares????

Mister D
07-13-2013, 09:22 AM
The problem isn't extreme individualism but extreme collectivism in the replacement of society by statism

One leads to the other. IMO, that is well demonstrated historically. The extreme individualism espoused by liberals uproots and isolates human beings. It's no surprise they have sought meaning and (above all) security in the anonymous state.

Mister D
07-13-2013, 09:38 AM
Sure would love to see some links for some of the stuff you claim.

The community is not the mere sum of its individual parts but an order that emerges from their interaction.

Links to what? We already discussed this here:

http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/5598-Critique-of-liberal-ideology

Individualism is a basis of liberal ideology and it tends to destroy social ties. Liberalism envisions a man who is not fundamentally social.

In the modern sense of the term, individualism is the philosophy that
regards the individual as the only reality and takes him as the principle of
every evaluation. The individual is considered in himself, in abstraction
from his social or cultural context. While holism expresses or justifies
existing society in reference to values that are inherited, passed on, and
shared, i.e., in the last analysis, in reference to society itself, individualism
establishes its values independently of society as it finds it. This is why it
does not recognize the autonomous status of communities, peoples,
cultures, or nations. For it sees these entities as nothing but sums of
individual atoms, which alone have value.

I agree with this. You don't. That's fine.

Dr. Who
07-13-2013, 10:32 AM
Links to what? We already discussed this here:

http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/5598-Critique-of-liberal-ideology

Individualism is a basis of liberal ideology and it tends to destroy social ties. Liberalism envisions a man who is not fundamentally social.

In the modern sense of the term, individualism is the philosophy that
regards the individual as the only reality and takes him as the principle of
every evaluation. The individual is considered in himself, in abstraction
from his social or cultural context. While holism expresses or justifies
existing society in reference to values that are inherited, passed on, and
shared, i.e., in the last analysis, in reference to society itself, individualism
establishes its values independently of society as it finds it. This is why it
does not recognize the autonomous status of communities, peoples,
cultures, or nations. For it sees these entities as nothing but sums of
individual atoms, which alone have value.

I agree with this. You don't. That's fine.
Even without liberalism, cultures and communities will change. It is the nature of man and especially so in the context of a technological world. The world is a much smaller place than it once was. People can no longer live in isolation unless they live like the Amish. Take places like Iran for instance. No liberalism there, but the young people are exposed to ideas from the rest of the world and so have changed and are now demanding change in their own country.

Mister D
07-13-2013, 10:38 AM
Even without liberalism, cultures and communities will change. It is the nature of man and especially so in the context of a technological world. The world is a much smaller place than it once was. People can no longer live in isolation unless they live like the Amish. Take places like Iran for instance. No liberalism there, but the young people are exposed to ideas from the rest of the world and so have changed and are now demanding change in their own country.

Of course they will. They always have. I'm not sure what exactly you are responding to or if you were just making a general point.

Chris
07-13-2013, 10:38 AM
The interaction is defined by the sum of the individual parts....

I suppose on some views it is, but on others it's not. In groups something else emerges from that interaction and feeds back on the parts. A simple example is found in traffic patterns which cannot be explained as the sum of all vehicles/drivers. A more complex example is the free market.

Chris
07-13-2013, 10:41 AM
Links to what? We already discussed this here:

http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/5598-Critique-of-liberal-ideology

Individualism is a basis of liberal ideology and it tends to destroy social ties. Liberalism envisions a man who is not fundamentally social.

In the modern sense of the term, individualism is the philosophy that
regards the individual as the only reality and takes him as the principle of
every evaluation. The individual is considered in himself, in abstraction
from his social or cultural context. While holism expresses or justifies
existing society in reference to values that are inherited, passed on, and
shared, i.e., in the last analysis, in reference to society itself, individualism
establishes its values independently of society as it finds it. This is why it
does not recognize the autonomous status of communities, peoples,
cultures, or nations. For it sees these entities as nothing but sums of
individual atoms, which alone have value.

I agree with this. You don't. That's fine.

Links to the literature you're drawing on.

Dr. Who
07-13-2013, 10:45 AM
Of course they will. They always have. I'm not sure what exactly you are responding to or if you were just making a general point.My point is that individualism is not just a product of liberalism, it is a product of an expanding frame of reference and an increase in the number of choices available.

Mister D
07-13-2013, 10:57 AM
My point is that individualism is not just a product of liberalism, it is a product of an expanding frame of reference and an increase in the number of choices available.

Who said it was? I think individualism has primordial roots in Western man. As a political and social philosophy, however, liberals have been the standard bearers of individualism since the Enlightenment. You seem to be confusing cause and effect as well as change and disintegration or atomization. What is interesting to me is that liberals rally around core values regardless of their economic disagreements.

Dr. Who
07-13-2013, 11:25 AM
Who said it was? I think individualism has primordial roots in Western man. As a political and social philosophy, however, liberals have been the standard bearers of individualism since the Enlightenment. You seem to be confusing cause and effect as well as change and disintegration or atomization. What is interesting to me is that liberals rally around core values regardless of their economic disagreements.Why? At the core of all liberal views are the ideas of liberty and equality.

Bigred1cav
07-13-2013, 11:28 AM
38% oddly is the same percentage of tea baggers in the gop.



Sources of racism have reversed in the US.

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-on-the-right/070813-662856-racism-has-taken-on-a-startling-new-hue.htm?fb_action_ids=10201222170257620&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_ref=top&fb_source=aggregation&fb_aggregation_id=288381481237582


quote:
“I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.”

“According to a recent Rasmussen poll, 31% of blacks think that most blacks are racists, while 24% of blacks think that most whites are racist.”

“Among whites, according to the same Rasmussen poll, 38% consider most blacks racist and 10% consider most whites racist.”

Taxcutter notes:
Both blacks and whites know the real score.

Quote:
“This was the history of anti-Semitic movements in Eastern Europe between the two World Wars, anti-Ibo movements in Nigeria in the 1960s, and anti-Tamil movements that turned Sri Lanka from a peaceful nation into a scene of lethal mob violence and then decades-long civil war, both marked by unspeakable atrocities.”

Taxcutter says:
Today’s racism holds the same dangers as racism past.

GrassrootsConservative
07-13-2013, 11:31 AM
38% oddly is the same percentage of tea baggers in the gop.

Care to stay on topic?

Chris
07-13-2013, 11:56 AM
Why? At the core of all liberal views are the ideas of liberty and equality.

Actually I see two liberal traditions, one focused on liberty, the freedom to pursue happiness, and the other focused on equality, freedom from such responsibility handed over to government. See F. A. Hayek's expose on the difference between the Scottish/English tradition of liberty and the French/Continental traditional of equality in "Liberalism" (http://www.scribd.com/doc/8760510/Hayek-Liberalism).

Mister D
07-13-2013, 12:43 PM
Why? At the core of all liberal views are the ideas of liberty and equality.

Right. I agree. Some liberals reject that notion. For others, such as yourself, it's obvious.

Dr. Who
07-13-2013, 01:36 PM
Actually I see two liberal traditions, one focused on liberty, the freedom to pursue happiness, and the other focused on equality, freedom from such responsibility handed over to government. See F. A. Hayek's expose on the difference between the Scottish/English tradition of liberty and the French/Continental traditional of equality in "Liberalism" (http://www.scribd.com/doc/8760510/Hayek-Liberalism).The precepts of classical liberalism are fundamental to the US Constitution. Liberals do diverge into two main groups. Those who lean toward libertarian values and those who are social liberals. I would not think that equality is lost in either group.

Chris
07-13-2013, 01:50 PM
The precepts of classical liberalism are fundamental to the US Constitution. Liberals do diverge into two main groups. Those who lean toward libertarian values and those who are social liberals. I would not think that equality is lost in either group.

Equality means different things to each branch of liberalism. One advocates equality before the law in pursuit of happiness, the other equality by law of results.

Dr. Who
07-13-2013, 02:03 PM
Equality means different things to each branch of liberalism. One advocates equality before the law in pursuit of happiness, the other equality by law of results.
To me this is not an either or situation. Social liberals believe in equality before the law in the pursuit of happiness as well as equality of outcome, however there is variation as to the degree of the latter that is viewed as optimal.

Chris
07-13-2013, 02:15 PM
To me this is not an either or situation. Social liberals believe in equality before the law in the pursuit of happiness as well as equality of outcome, however there is variation as to the degree of the latter that is viewed as optimal.

The two are opposing concepts. The only way to achieve equal outcomes is by unequal means, this the collectivist central planning of the redistribution of wealth. That equality by violates equality before the law.