Is that why republicans usually get <10% of the black vote?
I think they are no different from non blacks in that they can see who is working for their interests and who is working against them. You clearly don't think they are capable of that.

Republicans switched from supporting civil rights to opposing them in order to win the southern white (mostly racist) vote. You aren't ignorant of this historical fact, you simply choose to deny it like any facts you don't like. That history has been accepted for 50 years +-....are you saying I'm so good I made it up at two years old and got the nation to play along?! Damn, I'm good.

In American politics, the Southern strategy was a Republican Party electoral strategy to increase political support among white voters in the South by appealing to racism against African Americans.[1][2][3] As the civil rights movement and dismantling of Jim Crow laws in the 1950s and 1960s visibly deepened existing racial tensions in much of the Southern United States, Republican politicians such as presidential candidate Richard Nixon and Senator Barry Goldwater developed strategies that successfully contributed to the political realignment of many white, conservative voters in the South who had traditionally supported the Democratic Party rather than the Republican Party. It also helped to push the Republican Party much more to the right.[4]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

I may not be the walking encyclopedias my parents were, but at least I know my own language, and my nations history.

$40-$60 million more in undisclosed payments to Manafort surfaced last week....but Trump has nothing to do with the Trump for president campaign, does he?....and did I say collusion, or even Trump? Nope, but a guilty conscience hears accusations that never happened.
The Russians today are doing exactly what you do, pretending to be right wing nutjobs on left leaning sites, and lefty snowflakes on right leaning sites, pushing the narrative to all that the other guy is a total nut by making ridiculous, ignorant claims like you do. If you aren't being paid by Putin, you're working for him for free.

Jesus fucking Christ, Bob. Can you be more deluded and ignorant? Once again, your Russian text book of American history is 100% ass backwards.

Southern strategy: In American politics, the southern strategy was a Republican Party electoral strategy to increase political support among white voters in the South by appealing to racism against African Americans.[1][2][3] As the Civil Rights Movement and dismantling of Jim Crow laws in the 1950s and 1960s visibly deepened existing racial tensions in much of the Southern United States, Republican politicians such as presidential candidate Richard Nixon and Senator Barry Goldwater developed strategies that successfully contributed to the political realignment of many white, conservative voters in the South to the Republican Party that had traditionally supported the Democratic Party.[4] It also helped push the Republican Party much more to the right.[4]
Not Nixon courting the black vote.

Troll: Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting quarrels or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal, on-topic discussion,[3] often for the troll's amusement.
Definitely you, Dimitri. It's almost time to have lucky investigate your ip address to see if you're in Kiev or Moscow.

I'm not thinking in binary. There's gray area.

There's no debate about the fact that virtually everyone is somewhat racist. This isn't a debate about that.

I'm saying making any joke that is related to race isn't racist every single time, just as avoiding saying anything that could be construed as racist doesn't mean you're absolved of being a racist.

A joke that is actually racist is expressing an idea or feeling of one race's superiority over another directly or indirectly through humor.

Ironically making racial statements that I absolutely don't believe is NOT racist because I'm not expressing racial superiority. I'm pointing out the idiocy of racism and poking fun at racists.

About the random black person overhearing my joking, yeah, they'd be offended. Thank you for making my point. They'd be offended precisely because they heard those words out of context.

If you saw a grown man say this to a little girl sternly:

"...go cry me a river..."

You might be inclined to think he was acting like a jerk to her. But what if you had heard....

"It's a figure of speech. If you ever for example hear someone say 'go cry me a river', they don't actually mean one person's tears can be that much water."

It's the SAME THING. That man did nothing wrong, but you heard him say 'go cry me a river' to a little girl without context, it may look bad, when it's not.

Just because someone may get offended by hearing something out of context, it is not automatically something wrong with what that person said.

Even the dreaded N-word... Are you telling me that it was wrong and racist for Mark Twain to use it in The Adventures of Huckleberry Fin?

The one thing I would agree with you is that you also have to be mindful of context before saying the joke. Those racial jokes I make? I'm not going to say those in situations where there's a high likelihood that those statements could be overheard and misinterpreted. If I wanted to tell those to a black person, I'd make REALLY sure they knew I didn't actually believe the racial statement.

And you know what? Usually, it turns out fine. I've played that Louis CK thing for a black friend of mine, but I laid down the context first that it's Patrice O'Neal, etc. And they laughed hysterically at it.

Richard Pryor is considered by most comics as being a pioneer in using comedy to shed light and provide insights into racial tensions, etc., and actually is credited by many people far beyond just comedians to have helped further the cause of fighting against racism.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5048430

His use of the N-word wasn't racist. The use of the word was communicating that he was not Bill Cosby, not that there was anything wrong with Cosby's comedy, but it was to signal that he was talking more about reality, including the rough edges especially about racial topics, and there wasn't anything wrong with that either.

The kill somebody thing. You ever seen someone say something like, "My roommate AGAIN left all the lights on! I'm gonna kill him!"? My point there is you shouldn't call the cops because you think he's homicidal.

I'm curious why this is being described as a racially motivated attack. Just because the assailant was ignorant of his own state's law(s) and an idiot doesn't make him a racist. He may very well be a racist but that can hardly be determined from a silent video; just because the man he tackled is black, doesn't mean the victim couldn't have just as easily been a Caucasian (or Asian, Hispanic, etc.)

I understand the current racial tensions and situation in the US is pretty volatile right now, but not every act of black-on-white or white-on-black violence is racially motivated. By making these assumptions and posting them as facts (e.g. dailykos website), all it does it stir the pot even more and shows a huge lack of journalistic integrity.

Unless there is evidence to suggest that Mr Foster, the assailant, targeted Mr Daniels, the grandfather, because he was a black man carrying a firearm then people should treat it for what it is: an over-zealous wannabe hero who is ignorant of the law. He was arrested, so it's not like he got away with his crime. Maybe more information will come to light (prior arrests, complaints, etc) that will reveal it to be a racially motivated attack.

As for the others being arrested, there were only two other people in physical contact with Mr Daniels, after the initial take-down, and I don't believe that they struck him; they only held him down, which is probably well within the confines of a citizen's arrest. The other bystanders just removed the gun from the area. Big deal. The cops did the right thing in this situation.

Wow.

I know Hawaii has a lot of problems. Overpopulation, poverty issues, racial tension, and a meth-habit that would make Walter White blink.
This woman seems to have some of those.

^"he's divisive to the country since now racial tension is higher"

Oh my fucking God.

This country has a number of bald faced racists, and because they are FUCKING BALD FACED RACISTS, that is Obama's fault?!!!????

You take the cake. My god.

As far as Obama goes, the economy is no better while he added 6 trillion to the debt; he's divisive to the country since now racial tension is higher; he has no regard, or very little for the Constitution, since he essentially said he will do what the Congress (which has been duly elected) failed to do, etc.
So, yeah, Obama is pretty much a failure. Dude can't even wear a tie. Also he puts his feet up on all the furniture. He's an academic with little to no life experience except being schooled by a communist porn-author and being raised a muslim in Indonesia.
Otherwise, at least he aint fat like Chris Crispie.

I agree with quite a bit of what you said, and I should have been more clear. Democrats for the most part do not acknowledge that Affirmative Action is not improving racial tensions. I haven't seen any credible reports that demonstrate it is helping. But they generally insist it is.

And it is a fact that the US military capability is significantly reduced when funding is cut by significant amounts. That may be an acceptable outcome for you, and if so, we can agree to disagree about differing opinions. I'm talking about the Democrats who often say to do it, and then pretend it won't have an impact on military capability. Cutting defense funding for example would have very likely precluded the US from taking Bin Laden out because it took a lot of resources that likely wouldn't have been available. Good chance we wouldn't have had the intelligence, the Seals personnel available to pull it off, basing rights necessary, etc. etc. That stuff gets conveniently forgotten. I'm fine with a disagreement about if more of an isolationist policy would be beneficial for the US, that kind of thing. But some liberals pretend they can have it both ways. We can have just as robust and capable military/intelligence unit with significantly less funding if it's cut too much.

That's the kind of thing I'm talking about. But I do agree with you - the definition of a conservative is narrowing to absurd proportions, and they're broadening the definitions of liberal, socialist, and communist. Obamacare isn't socialism, or communism. It's a few ticks to the left of what we currently have.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^heropsycho:
The only thing that proves is the Democratic party is more splintered, and the GOP is more disciplined. There are plenty of facts the Democrats flat out reject. One issue for example I'm against the Democrats on is Affirmative Action. I think it was a necessary instrument to force racial integration in the beginning, but now it's doing more harm than good. Affirmative Action doesn't seem to be doing a much good, and the cost is having whites constantly assuming a minority only got the job because of a quota, even when it's not true. Yes, there's still racism in the workplace and hiring, but Affirmative Action isn't the way to combat that any longer.
I think most in the Democratic Party are against cutting social safety net spending in the long run even though it is necessary. The cuts in military that would be necessary to prevent having to do that would result in a military that both the Democrats and Republicans would find unacceptable whenever the crap hits the fan. The Democratic Party does also seem to gloss over how bad social programs get gamed by those who don't truly need it.
Both sides are guilty of choosing the facts that suit them.
But, I will agree it's significantly worse on the GOP side. That's why I feel like they're pushing me to vote Democrat. You can call me a lot of things, but it's disingenuous to label me a liberal or conservative. But it seems that the definition of conservative is narrowing as it's pushed farther to the extreme right, and what is labelled liberal is ever expanding.
Obamacare as a perfect example - it's deemed to be an extremely liberal/Socialist policy, and I for the life of me can't see how. It's a very mild liberal reform. It's not the gov't option, or single payer. It's a few clicks to the left on the dial from where we were. Raising the top income tax bracket rate a few percentage points makes this country socialist? Please.
>> ^NetRunner:
At least you recognize there's some asymmetry, but "both sides" aren't guilty of the same thing.
It's sorta like saying punching someone in a bar, and committing murder are the same thing. Technically they are a breach of the same moral edict (don't harm people), but the difference of intensity is so large it puts them into qualitatively different criminal categories.
For example, can you name anything that's the left's equivalent to global warming denial?
Keep in mind, it has to truly be equivalent -- it has to be a belief contrary to an overwhelming majority of experts, and has to be believed (or denied) by virtually everyone who calls themself a liberal. Furthermore, it needs to be a core belief of the liberal movement. It needs to be an issue where saying the (heretical) truth about an issue could get you drummed out of the Democratic party and the broader political movement.
I can't name any issue like that. Can you?
>> ^heropsycho:
I'll agree it's more so on the right, but both sides are guilty of this.
>> ^NetRunner:
It's this kind of behavior from the right that really has me worried. It's one thing for people to be skeptical about information from a particular source, but what we're seeing from the right today is a blanket rejection of all information that comes from outside their own partisan network of sources.



Your two examples of "facts" liberals reject are actually opinions.
This is a statement of fact: "Hiring quotas are illegal in the U.S."
This is a statement of opinion: "I think it was a necessary instrument to force racial integration in the beginning, but now it's doing more harm than good."
And of course, some liberals agree with you. Possibly even several Democrats with seats in Congress.
My point is, conservatives frequently deny verifiable factual information, which is different from spin. Everyone "spins" for sure, but that's minimizing and rationalizing facts that seem to contradict a larger political argument. Conservatives are fond of simply denying the facts themselves.
Conservatives spinning global warming would sound like "Global warming won't be so bad, think of the boom in agriculture when you can grow bananas in Ohio!" Liberals denying the facts on Affirmative action would sound like "Affirmative action doesn't negatively affect any white people, and anyone who says otherwise is part of the vast right-wing conspiracy to reinstate slavery!"
And to your point about cohesiveness, some liberal somewhere saying something like that doesn't mean that liberals and conservatives should be considered equally guilty. Most liberals don't feel that way, whereas the cohesiveness of the conservatives means it's hard for me to find one who doesn't think global warming is some sort of hoax perpetrated for liberal political gain.
A big frustration for me as a self-proclaimed liberal is that I'm already a moderate in the middle. I'm not the left pole in hardly any political debate. And yet there are a ton of people (more in media than around here) who self-consciously try to position themselves "in the middle" by staking out positions to the right of me, and to the left of the Republicans. But doing that doesn't land you in the middle, it lands you way out on the right...because these days "liberal" just means "not a conservative", not that you're some sort of real left-wing ideologue.

Go far enough back and we all have the same ancestors. After that, there were a bunch of people and some of them preyed on others. At the same time, there were any number of disasters and windfalls, any amount of luck, good and bad, death, disease, theft, charity, feuds and reconciliations, new ideas and paradigms; all of which affected the society in which we find ourselves and the advantages our parents could pass onto us, what our grandparents could pass on to our parents, our great-grandparents to our grandparents and on. Historical inequality exists, racially driven and, crucially, otherwise, but all of it completely beyond our control so it may as well have been random. Do we consider every bounce of the die in its course, or do we just say it came up six?

Say a millionaire discovered he would have been twice as rich if only his maid's ancestors hadn't ripped his family off 500 years ago, does the maid write him a cheque? History may make for amusing speculation, but it's not a serious study and can never be applied to anything meaningful. For example, I like the idea that black and white were getting along fine until the 1600s when some scheming rich folk invented racism.

>> ^peggedbea:

I may be misunderstanding your point. So, sure, any anthropology class will teach you that race doesn't really exist and is only a cultural construct, like gender (not sex, gender).
But to say that inequality based on who your ancestors were doesn't exist and that how you may be subconsciously perceived by societal institutions is just a "roll of the dice" is a bit of a stretch.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say with that last line. But American society was indeed set up to intentionally draw lines based on "race" and to both create and exploit racial tensions. And it worked fantastically well. Poor whites and white indentured servants were intentionally pitted against black slaves to be a buffer against revolts. The same concept is still being used to day with extravagant success, pit the lower classes against each other on the basis of some arbitrary tribe identification and they won't look too closely at how actively you're fucking them all over.

I may be misunderstanding your point. So, sure, any anthropology class will teach you that race doesn't really exist and is only a cultural construct, like gender (not sex, gender).

But to say that inequality based on who your ancestors were doesn't exist and that how you may be subconsciously perceived by societal institutions is just a "roll of the dice" is a bit of a stretch.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say with that last line. But American society was indeed set up to intentionally draw lines based on "race" and to both create and exploit racial tensions. And it worked fantastically well. Poor whites and white indentured servants were intentionally pitted against black slaves to be a buffer against revolts. The same concept is still being used to day with extravagant success, pit the lower classes against each other on the basis of some arbitrary tribe identification and they won't look too closely at how actively you're fucking them all over.

>> ^gorillaman:

There's no such thing as white privilege; there's no such thing as a white race or a black race. It seems harsh to say this guy spent an hour talking about literally nothing at all, but there it is. He's living in a fantasy world where people are linked in a way that simply doesn't exist in any objective sense.
The world is a collection of individuals, and some of us were born into disadvantageous circumstances and some of us were born into advantageous circumstances. Yes, in the past some more individuals behaved like dicks to some other individuals, for a variety of reasons, and some of us have benefited incidentally from that while others have not. But that's really all it boils down to, the whole history of humanity is just one big roll of the dice, and some of us rolled higher than others.
Now, if we want to talk about correcting those imbalances on an individual basis through whatever social means - progressive taxes, subsidies, culling racists, fine; that could be a conversation worth having, but if we're going to go on pretending we've all been naturally and necessarily divided into these arbitrary tribes based on vague genetic similarities, well, it's just noise.

>> ^bobknight33:

Its common knowledge that Liberals / Democrats have cause more racial tension the Conservatives / Republicans.


This would make an excellent lolcat caption.

Its common knowledge that Liberals / Democrats have cause more racial tension the Conservatives / Republicans.

Advance placement class on history = Ok.
Presentation on racism in American History = Ok.
Presentation on KKK in American History = Ok.
During presentation, in class, dressing up as KKK = If done appropriately, ok.
Walking through the halls, still dressed up as KKK, with teacher leading the pack = Yeah, probably not the best idea and somewhat distasteful.
Being fired over this? = Not ok. Needs more back story...is the woman a troublemaker or something? She prone to racial insensitivity? Was she just not thinking clearly that day?

Should she have canned the presentation idea completely? = No. To sweep the KKK under the rug in context of discussing racial tensions in our country's history is doing the country a disservice. It should be discussed, it should be remembered and it should continue being an example of how we went wrong in our past (and by some accounts, how we continue to go wrong since there is a percentage of us that continue following in their lead).

>> ^highdileeho:
I rembemer seeing an article in the NY times. I skimmed through it, but it was about the racial tension in the region. The picture that was attached told me all I neede to know. A jewish boy spitting, and at the same time doucing wine at an elderly palestine woman as she walked down the street.
As for the attack on MSNBC that duude talks about. I think the dems have a big enough fight in our country, and have been rightfully dealing with issues in america rather than global ones. 2 people can only be expected to do so much in the political arena.


I am not trying to suggest that the racial bigotry is one sided. I also have no idea what it's like be in that situation, which is why I applaud Bloomenthal's efforts to shed A perspective.

I rembemer seeing an article in the NY times. I skimmed through it, but it was about the racial tension in the region. The picture that was attached told me all I neede to know. A jewish boy spitting, and at the same time doucing wine at an elderly palestine woman as she walked down the street.

As for the attack on MSNBC that duude talks about. I think the dems have a big enough fight in our country, and have been rightfully dealing with issues in america rather than global ones. 2 people can only be expected to do so much in the political arena.