Jump to content

Do You Get Bullied?


Karoka

Recommended Posts

Originally Posted By: Harehunter
You are exactly right. SOME does NOT mean ALL. But in the political forum, accusations such as this are intended to paint with a broad brush the idea that if SOME want you killed, then that equates to MOST want you killed, which escalates to ALL want you killed. When Carson uses this expression of 'hanging from a tree', he is painting a very painful picture, one that goes directly to the emotions, bypassing the more logical response you gave, and reigniting the rage against the KKK, and by extension, all white people.

To what purpose does he make these baseless accusations? There has to be a reason.

The reason is that there is now a major political player that does, in fact, show a greater tendency towards racism. This is backed up by surveys and anecdotally.

—Alorael, who also wants some kind of evidence on health care being the major brake on the economy, because that's not what actual economists are saying.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 396
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Originally Posted By: Excalibur
Then why did attendance at anti-war protests decrease when Obama was elected, and especially among Democrats?

Presumably because the people who stopped going believed (rightly or wrongly) that their cause was more likely to be taken seriously by the administration.

Originally Posted By: Harehunter
You are exactly right. SOME does NOT mean ALL. But in the political forum, accusations such as this are intended to paint with a broad brush the idea that if SOME want you killed, then that equates to MOST want you killed, which escalates to ALL want you killed... To what purpose does he make these baseless accusations? There has to be a reason.

I agree with you that painting with too broad a brush is not helpful. But he SPECIFICALLY said SOME. That is not using a broad brush.

As for the emotional language: all I can say is that clearly, you have been less affected by our history of horrible public lynchings of blacks, than he has been. Generally I hate the use of emotion for political purposes. I hate the use of pathos to get a reaction and move on beyond logic. However, when emotion serves to remind us of critical incidents from our past that we would do well to remember, I have less of a problem with it.

Originally Posted By: Harehunter
The medical insurance reform bill was written behind closed doors, totally excluding the Republican Representatives. During his campaign, Obama had promised that that would not happen, and that all legislation would be posted on the internet for a week before he would sign it. The truth was not in him. When congress passed that bill, only a small handful of people knew what was in it. In fact, the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, declared that Congress would have to pass the bill so we can find out what's in it. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot Hotel, Over!
Meanwhile, the economy keeps getting worse, and unemployment is on the rise. One of the biggest reasons for businesses freezing on spending is the uncertainty of what impact of the federal healthcare law is going to have on them. The requirements made by this bill are going to cost a lot of money, and the since many of the provisions of this bill won't occur until 2012, there is no way to determine that cost. And businesses have a big problem with increased expenses; they aren't allowed to print more money, and they don't have an infinite credit limit. Insurance companies have already reacted to the bill by dropping policies that would bankrupt them within months of certain provisions taking effect. And as to Obama's promise to publish the bill five days before signing it? Yea, right.
And all this brouhaha over a bill that has been judged in federal court to be unconstitutional in the first place.


Most of this has nothing to do with what the thread's been discussing. If you really feel the need to make a laundry list of all your complaints against one politician, start another thread for it, please.

Quote:
As to the racial slurs made at Tea Party rallies, it has been posited that they were made by Democrat activists who are trying to put a false face on the movement. Anecdotal only, but in the polarized atmosphere of U.S. politics, where epithets fly freely, with the intent of polarizing our society further ...

Yes, this has been posited. Is there any evidence for this whatsoever, or is it just an idea?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Harehunter
To what purpose does he make these baseless accusations? There has to be a reason.


true accusations are not baseless. we have pointed out, and you agreed in that very post, that what he said was in fact true. to what purpose do you make the baseless accusation that his accusation was baseless? is he to be taken to task because his political enemies chose to interpret him as saying something he did not say?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, we had slavery in this country at one time. It was instituted at the time that we were colonies under the dominion of Great Britain. Do they share culpability? After the revolution we failed eliminate it. We fought a civil war over the issue with the greatest cost of life of any war fought before or since. There were the decades of oppression under the Jim Crow laws and the KKK. Yes, I understand all this. How does the re-iteration of all this heal the racial rift that exists now? It is one thing to be reminded of history, it is another to be cudgeled with it.

 

I have had experience with the careful crafting of sentences to carry emotional messages in such a way that they are subliminal. You, yourself use it quite well. Your well thought out posts are as carefully crafted as I attempt to do to remain as emotionally neutral as possible.

 

Politicians make or break their careers on the basis of their ability to convince people to agree with their political platform. How they say something is just as important as what they say. It is despicable that they resort to the tactic of emotional manipulation, but it should be obvious that they do, not only Dems, or blacks but Reps and whites as well.

 

My objection to statements such as Congressman Carter's is that they do not solve racial tensions, but rather they aggravate them. You and I can be rational about it, but that is because we deal with it on a daily basis. Most people don't make the effort to parse the content of such statements to understand both the explicit meaning as well as the implicit one. All they get is the implied meaning.

 

Point taken on the references to general policies. Economics is being taken up on another thread.

It just disturbs me considerably that our politicians are passing legislation that they have absolutely no idea what it contains or what impact it will have on society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there is a basis to accuse some members of congress of willfully pre-meditating murder, then what is it? Just as it is untruthful to accuse an individual muslim of being a potential terrorist on the basis that most of the recent attacks and attempted attacks were committed by muslims, it is untruthful to accuse someone of a certain political party of being a potential murderer.

 

Either way, there must be some evidence to support such claims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Harehunter
If there is a basis to accuse some members of congress of willfully pre-meditating murder, then what is it?


For the umpteenth time, stop twisting words. He said that they would be happy to see lynchings, not that he expected them to actually commit lynchings.

Quote:
Just as it is untruthful to accuse an individual muslim of being a potential terrorist on the basis that most of the recent attacks and attempted attacks were committed by muslims, it is untruthful to accuse someone of a certain political party of being a potential murderer.


Again you're twisting words. He said SOME members of congress. He didn't accuse any "individual" member of congress of enjoying lynchings based on some stereotype of lynch-happy senators, to my knowledge.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Harehunter
Yes, we had slavery in this country at one time. It was instituted at the time that we were colonies under the dominion of Great Britain. Do they share culpability? After the revolution we failed eliminate it. We fought a civil war over the issue with the greatest cost of life of any war fought before or since. There were the decades of oppression under the Jim Crow laws and the KKK. Yes, I understand all this. How does the re-iteration of all this heal the racial rift that exists now? It is one thing to be reminded of history, it is another to be cudgeled with it.

And he is saying that the rifts are not healed, and that racism is alive and well in America. This is demonstrably true, and sweeping it under a rug does not fix the problem.

Are there members of Congress who are racist? Almost certainly. Is it wrong to speak truthfully about it? I certainly hope not.

Quote:
Politicians make or break their careers on the basis of their ability to convince people to agree with their political platform. How they say something is just as important as what they say. It is despicable that they resort to the tactic of emotional manipulation, but it should be obvious that they do, not only Dems, or blacks but Reps and whites as well.

Again, that's not emotional manipulation, that's frustration. Given the fact that his base seems largely ecstatic to hear someone speaking the truth as they see it, I think he's only boosting his career. No mistakes made.

Quote:
My objection to statements such as Congressman Carter's is that they do not solve racial tensions, but rather they aggravate them. You and I can be rational about it, but that is because we deal with it on a daily basis. Most people don't make the effort to parse the content of such statements to understand both the explicit meaning as well as the implicit one. All they get is the implied meaning.

And the implied meaning is true.

—Alorael, who thinks the basic problem here is that you believe that what he is saying is wrong, and what most other people here believe is that what Carter said is true in implication if not in fact. Carter has no interest in appealing to all of the people, just 51% of them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Harehunter
If there is a basis to accuse some members of congress of willfully pre-meditating murder, then what is it? Just as it is untruthful to accuse an individual muslim of being a potential terrorist on the basis that most of the recent attacks and attempted attacks were committed by muslims, it is untruthful to accuse someone of a certain political party of being a potential murderer.

Either way, there must be some evidence to support such claims.


well, let's start with this michelle bachmann ad, featuring a lasso wrapping around the White House in a manner evocative of a noose. or how about sarah palin's infamous list of targets, one of whom has already been shot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: HOUSE of S
Oh, geez, Lilith. Now Harehunter is going to get distracted by your trollish sideshow there and miss the main point. Those ads were incredibly stupid, but nobody really thinks that either of those constituted premeditated murder. Geez.


i wasn't trolling. obviously these politicians probably don't actually intend to personally murder anyone, but it can hardly be disputed that those ads deliberately foster attitudes conducive to hostility and violence in their supporters
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Tyranicus
Originally Posted By: Harehunter
We fought a civil war over the issue with the greatest cost of life of any war fought before or since.
This is a myth. More American soldiers died in combat during World War II than the Civil War.

Counting soldiers who died of disease, the Civil War is first.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

By being purposefully vague in his accusation, he artfully sidesteps committing slander, but still paints the emotionally charged picture of racial persecution that ran rampant at one time but is now prosecuted with a strong will to prevent its recurrence.

 

The past is the past. We cannot undo it and we MUST remember it, lest we repeat it. But let us not be shackled to it as we try to remedy the causes of racial prejudice as we move from the present to the future. A wound that is constantly being re-opened, will never heal. That is all I am trying to say.

 

P.S. Lilith's barbs don't distract me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Harehunter
By being purposefully vague in his accusation, he artfully sidesteps committing slander, but still paints the emotionally charged picture of racial persecution that ran rampant at one time but is now prosecuted with a strong will to prevent its recurrence.

The past is the past. We cannot undo it and we MUST remember it, lest we repeat it. But let us not be shackled to it as we try to remedy the causes of racial prejudice as we move from the present to the future. A wound that is constantly being re-opened, will never heal. That is all I am trying to say.


a noble sentiment. perhaps, then, when you see white Americans doing things to re-open said wound you should take them to task for it, rather than blaming black Americans for pointing out what is being done?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Harehunter
That is what the legal system in our country is all about. We have laws that prohibit such actions and our courts prosecute violations of those laws.

So explain to me how Congressman Carter's accusation improves racial relations.


was his accusation against the law? no? then by your own argument, there was nothing wrong with it. if you are dissatisfied with the conclusion of this argument, perhaps you should re-evaluate your premises and accept that the legal system is an inadequate tool for dealing with racism.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Harehunter
How does his accusation improve race relations?


if people don't know the reality, they can't deal with the reality, and any policy on race relations has to address the reality of the situation. his accusation was true: as far as I'm concerned, that's reason enough to make it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Lilith
his accusation was true: as far as I'm concerned, that's reason enough to make it.

How do you know this? Which congressmen would like to see lynchings? Let's bring them up on charges and impeach them. We have a legal system to deal with it. Let's use it. Otherwise the accusations have no basis.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Harehunter
How do you know this? Which congressmen would like to see lynchings? Let's bring them up on charges and impeach them. We have a legal system to deal with it. Let's use it. Otherwise the accusations have no basis.


are you suggesting that wanting someone to be lynched is illegal? i'm not aware of any US law to that effect

in any case, if michele bachmann's noose-around-the-White-House ad isn't proof enough for you then nothing will be. as far as i'm concerned, it's proof enough for me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think the noose-around-the-house ad proves that Michele Bachmann wants lynchings, either. I do think it's likely that the ad was put together by people who were well aware that it might evoke the image of a lynching, and who hoped that would appeal to some voters.

 

Originally Posted By: Harehunter
How does his accusation improve race relations?

 

Okay, let's analyze this. I'll offer three possible scenarios.

 

Scenario 1: His accusation is false. In this case, quite clearly it will not improve race relations, and indeed would only be stirring up bad feelings. (There is an argument to be made that if those bad feelings exist to be stirred up, they need to be stirred up and dealt with regardless, but I would certainly agree that making false accusations is the wrong way to do that!) I think we can both agree with my analysis of this scenario.

 

Scenario 2: His accusation is true. In this case, quite clearly it is something that needs to be discussed. If racism exists at the top level of our government to the point of people wanting lynchings, it is a major impediment to positive race relations going in both directions, for obvious reasons. I THINK we can both agree that major impediments should be acknowledged and dealt with rather than swept under the carpet.

 

Scenario 3: We don't know for certain whether the accusation is true or false. In this case, it becomes a question of which way we want to err. If we err on the side of making accusations, we risk stirring up bad blood over nothing, and promote a climate of noise and conflict. Yet if we err on the side of not making accusations, we risk letting problems fester and grow unseen and promote a climate of silence and suspicion. I THINK we can both agree that the answer is not "make every accusation possible" nor is it "never make an accusation" and that it requires some amount of personal judgment to decide what is appropriate.

 

You've avoided answering a few of my direct questions in recent posts, so I am going to specifically call out for an answer on this one: Harehunter, please tell me whether or not you agree with my analyses of scenarios 1 and 2; and for scenario 3, please tell me whether you think we should err entirely towards making accusations, entirely towards not making them, or if you think the answer is subtler than that (as I have suggested). Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Lilith
Originally Posted By: Harehunter
How do you know this? Which congressmen would like to see lynchings? Let's bring them up on charges and impeach them. We have a legal system to deal with it. Let's use it. Otherwise the accusations have no basis.


are you suggesting that wanting someone to be lynched is illegal? i'm not aware of any US law to that effect

in any case, if michele bachmann's noose-around-the-White-House ad isn't proof enough for you then nothing will be. as far as i'm concerned, it's proof enough for me.


Don't worry. Obama has already commended the labor leader that plans to "take those SOBs out".

Violent rhetoric abounds on either side.

Taking either side seriously on those comments in ludicrous.

On the original subject, I was bullied until the day I stood up for myself. After showing a willingness and ability to fight unprofessionally and win, I was left alone by the bullying class.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Slarty, I don't have time for a lengthy response, so I will be brief. You have clearly and succinctly described my position on the subject, in all three scenarios. My initial reaction was that we were facing a scenario 1 condition. My gut feeling still says that is so.

 

Lilith, on the other hand, has apparently taken it on faith that the 2nd scenario is more accurate.

 

On the other hand (now where did that third hand come from?) your 3rd scenario accurately portrays the divide between you and I in our initial discourse on this topic. I can understand your position more clearly in this perspective.

 

Bottom line: Your scenario 3 falls directly in line with my opinion on the subject. Politicians, and the media that reports on them, should be more responsible in the accusations that they make. Making false accusations, or marginally probabalistic ones, only exacerbates the problem. Even worse, it makes it harder to accept such accusations as true when a situation 2 arises. REF "The Boy Who Cried Wolf".

 

But on the fourth hand the problem is much more subtle. It is the responsibility of the voting constituents to take their elected representatives to task when it comes to the use of such inflammatory rhetoric. Unfortunately, they do not, but indeed they encourage it. Herein lies a much deeper problem, that I have absolutely no idea how it can be solved.

 

My sincere thank you for your right on target analysis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Major General
On the original subject, I was bullied until the day I stood up for myself. After showing a willingness and ability to fight unprofessionally and win, I was left alone by the bullying class.

I continue to hold my position that there are many ways to stand up to a bully. The only important thing is that you do. In some cases it is not necessary to resort to violence, in some it is.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Harehunter
Originally Posted By: Major General
On the original subject, I was bullied until the day I stood up for myself. After showing a willingness and ability to fight unprofessionally and win, I was left alone by the bullying class.

I continue to hold my position that there are many ways to stand up to a bully. The only important thing is that you do. In some cases it is not necessary to resort to violence, in some it is.


I used the Casey Heynes approved solution. Ignore, deflect, destroy.

I'll also say I despise violence. Finally, I'll say that when violence is necessary, I'll use every possible, most effective means available.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A wound that is never treated gets infected. If only I was in the experimental group getting penicillin.

 

Of course, it's actually true that "both sides" are guilty. Coloreds and proles have been completely abusive in their rhetoric: How can they expect to get anything done when they aren't polite? How else did we dismantle Hitler's death camps?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I don't understand, Harehunter, is why you think it's okay to go ahead and judge the situation as if it is indeed scenario 1 and the accusation is false. I know it's your gut feeling, but that's not evidence.

 

It would probably be safe to assume that there are vicious racists in congress on purely demographic grounds: there are still people in this country who will admit to wanting non-white Americans dead or exiled when you ask them, and if you adjust for demographics -- congress is overwhelmingly older, white, male, wealthy, straight, and Christian -- it starts to sound pretty unlikely that NONE of those sentiments are represented in congress. Particularly in the House, where, depending on your district, you can get away with saying some pretty extreme things without being voted out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're still assuming that Carson acted in bad faith. If he believes that scenario 2 holds, he should have said what he said. If we believe the same, we'll support him on it. If you believe that scenario 1 is true instead, what he said was needlessly incendiary.

 

But whether or not it is literally true that there are Congressmen who would like to see blacks lynched, it is true that there are Congressmen whose constituencies would largely happily see blacks lynch, who are beholden to racist interests, and who have no vested interest in improving race relations. That isn't what Carson said, and maybe his words were impolitic, but they should be the start of a discussion of racism—white racism against blacks—and not a chance to snipe at someone for choosing the wrong words.

 

—Alorael, who has spoken to plenty of people who candidly admit that they think whites are better than blacks. They don't even see that there is anything wrong with that sentiment. And they'll simultaneously vociferously defend the fact that they aren't racist. Racism isn't what you say you believe, and it isn't even what you believe. It's what you do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: HOUSE of S
What I don't understand, Harehunter, is why you think it's okay to go ahead and judge the situation as if it is indeed scenario 1 and the accusation is false. I know it's your gut feeling, but that's not evidence.

It would probably be safe to assume that there are vicious racists in congress on purely demographic grounds: there are still people in this country who will admit to wanting non-white Americans dead or exiled when you ask them, and if you adjust for demographics -- congress is overwhelmingly older, white, male, wealthy, straight, and Christian -- it starts to sound pretty unlikely that NONE of those sentiments are represented in congress. Particularly in the House, where, depending on your district, you can get away with saying some pretty extreme things without being voted out.


Is Strom Thurmond still alive and kicking? He was a pretty obviously unabashed racist, and he also served in Congress for what, 50 years? I seem to recall there was some serious discussion about amending the Constitution to take the president pro tempore of the Senate out of the line of succession for the Presedency when it became clear that he'd be that person a few years back...

I'm not sure if there are any current members of Congress that are as blatant or as Turner-Diaries level insane about it as Thurmond, but I'd pretty much agree with you that there are almost certainly some closet racists in the House, if not the Senate.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Had Congressman Carter leveled his accusation at people who had attended Tea Party rallies, who openly carried signs giving basis to his remarks, I would have to agree with you 100%. There might even be a small thread of truth to your 'profiling' the Tea Party congressmen on the basis of an extremely small minority of their constituents.

 

But even when profiling is justifiable in the investigation of suspected perpetrators, it is still unlawful to make an accusation until evidence has been acquired in accordance with the 'due process' of the law. Only after such evidence has been presented to a grand jury can any indictment be lawfully made. And only after an indictment may the suspect be tried. And only when a jury of their peers is convinced 'beyond reasonable doubt' may they convict the perpetrator.

 

The first amendment to our constitution gives Congressman Carter the right to freely speak his mind, but the freedom of speech is limited in that it may not violate the rights of others. The fourth amendment to our constitution was written specifically to protect our citizens from the type of false accusations that were made by British soldiers in the days before the revolution. It stands today to prevent our current government from doing the same.

 

As I have said before, not only does this type of rhetoric serve to further inflame racial tensions, it destroys the credibility of any accusations that are true, and do need to be prosecuted.

 

When you suggested that the problem may be more subtle, Slarty, I realized that I had nearly overlooked one important point. In America, our politicians are the servants of the people who elected them. It is therefore the responsibility of the electorate to take its representatives to task when they trod heavily upon the protections guaranteed us by our constitution. We have for too long ignored that responsibility, by either actively encouraging them, or tacitly by silently allowing it to go on. You are correct in pointing that out.

 

The main reason for the formation of the Tea Party is because of the realization of our lack of responsibility in that regard. Representatives of both the Republican and the Democrat parties have gone unchecked for too long, with the result of rampant fiscal waste, and the involvement in foreign policies that are against the best interest of the U.S and the rest of the world. There are many misconceptions of who the people are who comprise the Tea Party. Those who feel threatened by it, on both the left and the right, attack it by using references of fringe elements to portray the entire group.

 

The image of the all white, all wealthy, all straight, all Christian, science-denying, racial bigots is about applicable as to the Tea Party as the image of Paul Hogan in 'Crocodile Dundee' being the portrait of all Australians, or Mel Gibson's portrayal of William Wallace with regard to the Scots. The broad accusations being made are based upon less than 1% of the movement. The vast majority of the party is made up of people who actually work for a living, from industrial towns like Houston, to the farmers across the land. Most are what would be considered socially moderate, not the bible-thumping evangelists they are portrayed to be. And though minorities are under represented, there are a few adherents who are actually shunned by the black caucus Allen West, for one. There are hispanic and Indian representatives of the Tea Party movement, and almost all of the newly naturalized citizens I know, and in Houston there are a lot, agree with the aims of the movement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Read the numbers again. We're not talking about a lunatic fringe. The average Tea Partier is white, Christian, straight, science-denying, and racist. Yes, most of them work; they're wealthier than average, after all. Yes, in a big movement you can find representatives of all types. That's not the point. The movement as a whole is white, and it isn't very friendly to interests that aren't.

 

Carson violated no one's rights. You cannot commit libel without a target, and Carson's broad brush was, at least, politic in its generality. He is also not a court; he is a frustrated politician. He can say what he wants, and unless it is demonstrably untrue and demonstrably harmful, it is not only fine, it is legally protected. That is in the Constitution, and the Fourth Amendment has nothing to do with speech and everything to do with search and seizure, which is irrelevant because there are no judicial proceedings involved.

 

You're creating a no true Scotsman problem. You say Carson's remarks are harmful because the incite racial tensions and obscure valid claims of racism. Well, the same could be said of any claim. A plurality here believe he's onto something. He may be wrong, but isn't it worth bringing up if America is racist enough that it seems eminently possible that he's right? There's already a problem if his accusation isn't ludicrous on its surface, and it's not.

 

—Alorael, who wouldn't say that Democrats and Republicans have gone unchecked. They're checks on each other, after all. No, it's not a great system, and it has problems. But the Tea Party isn't a reasonable actor in the politics game (see the debt ceiling crisis) and federal budgetary waste is hugely overblown. Also, "starving the beast" has been a Republican plank for decades. The result is generally ballooning deficits, not fiscal responsibility. And cost controls on the major government expenses that aren't ideologically aligned with "small government" are also categorically opposed by the Tea Party.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Harehunter
The broad accusations being made are based upon less than 1% of the movement.


You sound pretty confident. whistle.gif


Originally Posted By: Harehunter
And though minorities are under represented, there are a few adherents who are actually shunned by the black caucus Allen West, for one. There are hispanic and Indian representatives of the Tea Party movement, and almost all of the newly naturalized citizens I know, and in Houston there are a lot, agree with the aims of the movement.

http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/39/
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Harehunter
But even when profiling is justifiable in the investigation of suspected perpetrators, it is still unlawful to make an accusation until evidence has been acquired in accordance with the 'due process' of the law.


can you show me what exact law he broke, keeping in mind that his accusation wasn't against any specific person?

Quote:
The main reason for the formation of the Tea Party is because of the realization of our lack of responsibility in that regard.


actually the main reason for the formation of the tea party is the Koch brothers not wanting to pay taxes

Quote:
The vast majority of the party is made up of people who actually work for a living, from industrial towns like Houston, to the farmers across the land.


can you please clarify what jobs count as "working for a living" and what jobs don't? also, since you're implying that the same isn't true of the two major parties, please provide demographic breakdowns of Tea Party membership compared to Democratic and Republican membership, with actual statistics and sources, if you want to continue this line of conversation

Quote:
And though minorities are under represented, there are a few adherents who are actually shunned by the black caucus Allen West, for one. There are hispanic and Indian representatives of the Tea Party movement, and almost all of the newly naturalized citizens I know, and in Houston there are a lot, agree with the aims of the movement.


i notice you conspicuously failed to mention middle eastern representatives. could that perhaps be because one middle eastern dude who tried to attend a tea party rally got beaten up by other protesters so badly he had to be hospitalised?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Note to Self
Read the numbers again. We're not talking about a lunatic fringe. The average Tea Partier is white, Christian, straight, science-denying, and racist. Yes, most of them work; they're wealthier than average, after all. Yes, in a big movement you can find representatives of all types. That's not the point. The movement as a whole is white, and it isn't very friendly to interests that aren't.


Correct me if I'm wrong, which I highly doubt in this case, but if you selected a random sample of American citizens with, say, n=1000+, I'd be willing to bet that the most frequently represented ethnicity would be white, the most frequently represented religion would be Christianity by a long shot, far and away the most frequent sexuality would be straight, the majority would not be well-educated on scientific matters, and a very significant minority, if not a majority, would have little to no higher-level grasp of complex racial relations. How exactly is it an indictment of the Tea Party for also satisfying conditions that could be true of any random grouping of American?

I wouldn't say the average Tea Partier has above-average income. That might be true of the Republican Party as a whole, but the meme that "TP-ers are Republicans by another name" isn't one I buy into. There economic polices march in lockstep, true, since both are broadly libertarian- but there is more to policy then economics. I'd be willing to bet that there are plenty of die-hard free market Republicans that are less then sold on the die-hard social conservatism that the Tea Party shows, and I'm certain that there are neocons that strongly disagree with their foreign policy- if it can even be called that.

And it's rather disingenuous to say that "the movement as a whole is white and isn't friendly to nonwhites" like that's a trait exclusive to protesters in the Tea Party. While I personally think it's true, haven't the last eight or so pages demonstrated how that's true for America, as well? So how, exactly, is this an issue endemic to the Tea Party and the Tea Party alone that merits their rubberstamping as "RACISTS" on par with the KKK


Also, as somebody who satisfies from two to four of those conditions dependng on your definitions, I object to their use as a borderline insult. And it's a pretty stupid argument to say that "you are guilty of x because you made the rational choice to support a system that indirectly endorses x", which is what we're getting close to quickly.

EDIT:
Originally Posted By: lilith
actually the main reason for the formation of the tea party is the Koch brothers not wanting to pay taxes


You could probably generalize that to "people who are making over $50,000,000 a year who are not Warren Buffet or Bill Gates not wanting to pay taxes" and still be largely correct.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you take a random sample of Americans and a random sample of Tea Partiers, the Tea Partiers are whiter, straighter, wealthier, and more Christian.

 

—Alorael, who doesn't think the Tea Party in particular needs a RACIST label. America does, and it needs to own up to its racism and do something about it. Yes, that means accepting Congressmen who speak before they think in terms of electability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Harehunter
There might even be a small thread of truth to your 'profiling' the Tea Party congressmen on the basis of an extremely small minority of their constituents.

I wasn't profiling the Tea Party congressmen. I was profiling all of congress! All of congress, democrats included, is mostly wealthy, white, male, straight, Christian, et cetera.

Quote:
...it is still unlawful to make an accusation until evidence has been acquired in accordance with the 'due process' of the law. Only after such evidence has been presented to a grand jury can any indictment be lawfully made.

Um, how did we magically get from "accusation" to "indictment"? Let alone "conviction" as you go on to say. We didn't. You just changed the word for no reason, as the quote above shows. If Carter had attempted to indict I'd agree it was ridiculous. He didn't. He said, this is what's going on.

Perhaps you were thinking of libel and slander laws -- but surely you know that those don't apply to public figures such as politicians precisely because they were not intended to stifle speculative political discourse?

Quote:
The fourth amendment to our constitution was written specifically to protect our citizens from the type of false accusations that were made by British soldiers in the days before the revolution. It stands today to prevent our current government from doing the same.

AN ACCUSATION BY A PRIVATE CITIZEN IS NOT THE SAME THING AS BEING CHARGED WITH A CRIME. The Constitution protects against the latter being done when it isn't reasonable; the Constitution protects against the former being outlawed, because it is part of free speech to be able to voice your suspicions, and doing so about government officials is a critical part of free speech.

Quote:
There are many misconceptions of who the people are who comprise the Tea Party. Those who feel threatened by it, on both the left and the right, attack it by using references of fringe elements to portray the entire group.

The image of the all white, all wealthy, all straight, all Christian, science-denying,

Wikipedia says:

"Several polls have been conducted on the demographics of the movement. Though the various polls sometimes turn up slightly different results, they tend to show that Tea Party supporters are mainly white and slightly more likely to be male, married, older than 45, more conservative than the general population, and likely to be more wealthy and have more education." It goes on to mention that gender (male) and income (wealthier) show up in all the results, and at least one connects religion (identifying as a "born-again Christian").

Quote:
And though minorities are under represented, there are a few adherents...

I don't think anybody said that the movement was entirely white. We said that it is mostly white. The polls agree with us, and I'm glad you do too.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been (successfully) bullied one time for a comic book when I was about 9 years old. That was an older guy which I remind asked me to lend him that comic book I bought that very morning and I didn't read yet. I knew I would never seen it again, that was clear to me, but I failed to say "no". I felt so angry to myself that from then on I fought any further bullism attempt with physical reactions and always succeded. By the way, I bought again that comic book sort of 15 years later completing the collection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...