Page 10 of 93 FirstFirst ... 891011122060 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 921

Thread: Andre Carson: Tea party wants blacks 'hanging on a tree'

  1. #91
    Sage

    Mason66's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    19,462

    Re: Andre Carson: Tea party wants blacks 'hanging on a tree' Read more: http://www.p

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    I do not think it is a direct connection where one leads directly to the other. I suspect - and this is only conjecture - the Congressman is bringing with him lots of baggage in the way of historical record, experience and other facotrs which give him a very negative outlook regarding the right wing.
    OK so for this Congressman because of the historical record, his person experiences and other factors, he knows Republican Congressman want to hang blacks from trees.

    How can you defend what he said and the choice of words he used?

  2. #92
    Sage

    Mason66's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    19,462

    Re: Andre Carson: Tea party wants blacks 'hanging on a tree' Read more: http://www.p

    Quote Originally Posted by justabubba View Post
    the hanging from a tree expression being hyperbole was previously acknowledged
    but what you want to pretend does not exist is the strong racist constituency within the tea party as it currently exists (in contrast to the one begun by Ron Paul's camp and co-opted by disenchanted republicans after the Obama election)
    this article expresses it much better than i could: Michael J.W. Stickings: The Harsh Reality of Tea Party Racism
    here are some salient excerpts (and i also encourage you to watch the resident video):


    it is there for anyone to see. all they have to be willing to do is look
    Carson didn't say anything about Tea Partiers, he was talking about Republican Congressmen specifically.

  3. #93
    Sage

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Texas, Vegas, Colombia
    Last Seen
    11-28-16 @ 06:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    20,295

    Re: Andre Carson: Tea party wants blacks 'hanging on a tree' Read more: http://www.p

    meh.. i don't pay any attention to what anyone in the Congressional Black Caucus says anyways...all they do is racebait while discriminating against other congressmen based entirely on their race.

  4. #94
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Andre Carson: Tea party wants blacks 'hanging on a tree' Read more: http://www.p

    Quote Originally Posted by RiverDad View Post
    Hey Einstein, how do you think dictionary definitions appear? Do they come by messenger angels from god? Do they mysteriously appear on paper or on computer screen and then the editors of the dictionary just publish them? Why do different dictionaries have variations in how words are defined?
    They get agreed upon by the people who decide what real definitions are.



    The real definition? What does that mean?
    Real: Real - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary See definition #2

    Definiti0on: Definition - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary see definition #3

    Now put the two together. No wonder you seem to be confused. You don't know how to work a dictionary.


    How dictionary editors define a word is a ideological/political/sociological/etymological process.
    Correct.

    Which of the following is the "real" definition?

    Merriam Webster


    1: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
    2: racial prejudice or discrimination


    Dictionary.com


    1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
    2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
    3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
    All five of those definitions you quoted would be real definitions.

    There are huge gaping inconsistencies between these two definitions.
    First, there are five definitions there (that you quoted). Serious question: do you known how to use a dictionary?

    Next, they aren't really that inconsistent, they are worded differently, but the first two in both dictionaries speak to a belief that race is a determining factor in qualitative differences between people, and that this relates to a belief in racial superiority. The second one relates to discriminatory practices based on race in both dictionaries.


    The third definition you quoted from dictionary.com is not included by Websters.



    Merriam Webster doesn't allow for what Dictionary.com has as a stand-alone 3rd point.
    This is true. But there was a reason that I quoted the specific definition that I was using for my argument from the start. It was because I anticipated equivocal arguments as rebuttals. Thank yu for not disappointing me.

    Merriam Webster defines racism as believing that race is the PRIMARY determinant of traits but Dictionary.com defines racism as believing in INHERENT difference being determinative. What they agree on is the focus on determinative and on the broad superiority-inferiority framing.
    Actually, they both talk about race being the determining factor in qualitative differences between people and how it relates to beliefs about superiority. Websters has that secondary belief about superiority as a requirement, while dictionary.com's definition does not have it as a requirement.

    If a dictionary definition is determinative, then how on earth can there be such wide variance in dictionary definitions? Which one is wrong?
    None of them are wrong. They are all legitimate. This is why I try to make sure that people know the specific definition I am using for arguments such as these ones.



    Listen up asswipe, I don't hold racist ideas.
    Yes you do.

    Let's look at the definitions from the dictionary.

    1.) I don't believe that race is a primary determinant of human traits and capacities
    Then why do you constantly bring up race as a primary determining for IQ in evolution debates?

    2.) I utterly reject the notion that there can exist an inherent superiority in a particular race.
    Then why do you constantly bring up race as a primary determining for IQ in evolution debates?


    3.) I do not prejudge or discriminate solely on the basis of race.
    I clearly stated that I did not know if you did this.

    4.) I don't believe that there exist inherent differences between races and that these differences determine cultural or individual achievement.
    Then why do you constantly bring up race as a primary determining for IQ in evolution debates?

    5.) I don't hate people because of their race.
    I never said you did.

    So, how do I qualify as a racist when I fail to meet the conditions specified in dictionaries?
    I clearly noted that you fit a specific dictionary definition, but also said I couldn't be sure if you met all of the definitions. I am correct. Your arguments about Racde and IQ with regards to evolution completely fit the first definition from both sources. You don't need to qualify for the other ones in order to qualify as racist.

    You see, you're invoking some peculiar definition of racism which is your own and not in the dictionary you quote, which captures the arguments that I've been making on this board.
    I clearly specified which definition I was using. If you understood how to use a dictionary, you might understand how I did so.


    You and these dictionary editors are not conversant with population genetics nor physical anthropology and you're invoking some platonic ideals about race which diverge quite significantly from the genetic basis for race. Population geneticists are not racists. The work that population geneticists do is not racism. The same for physical anthropologists. The people in these fields have a better and fuller understanding of race than do the linguists and etymologists who work on the editorial staffs of dictionary publishers.
    Nice red herring. It doesn't change the fact that your beliefs are racist, by definition.



    Go and apologize to your grandmother, you fool, you bad grandson.
    Why? are you actually dumb enough to think that definition three at dictionary.com prevents definition 2 from webster's from being accurate? If so, then it explains a lot of your failures at reading comprehension. You'd be practically illiterate.

    See definition #3 of Dictionary.com.
    Oooohhhhhhh.... I'm very sorry for your troubles.

  5. #95
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:42 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,877

    Re: Andre Carson: Tea party wants blacks 'hanging on a tree' Read more: http://www.p

    Quote Originally Posted by Mason66 View Post
    OK so for this Congressman because of the historical record, his person experiences and other factors, he knows Republican Congressman want to hang blacks from trees.

    How can you defend what he said and the choice of words he used?
    I think it was a poor choice of words. He could have got across his point in a different way.
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

  6. #96
    Global Moderator
    Silent Bob for President!

    RedAkston's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    33,800
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Andre Carson: Tea party wants blacks 'hanging on a tree' Read more: http://www.p

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    Then why don't you in your infinite wisdom and knowledge define it properly for me? I could have sworn I studied all this to get my two degrees in college and have fought against racism my entire adult life, but maybe in your vast education and even vaster experience you can add something that has been missing for me? How about it?

    Irony and sarcasm? Is that not the excuse Rush Limbaugh gives when he makes racist or sexist jokes that bomb and reveal him in all his ugliness? At least you preach from the same hymnal while prostrating yourself before that Right Wing altar with the other True Believers.

    Nice that have you taken it upon yourself to pronounces the tea party 95% clean. I wonder how you did that with any reliability of your own results? Its also nice how you decide you can speak for everybody else in that movement. Are you also then accepting responsibility for their transgressions?
    I define racism the same as dictionary.com does - hatred or intolerance of another race. The vast majority of Tea Party supporters don't hate Obama because he's black, in fact many don't hate him at all. They hate his policies, his ideology and his ignorance of basic economics. I don't hate Obama, but I despise what he's doing to this country. ANd just so you know, most Tea Partiers didn't like Bush or Clinton much either. The entire premise of the Tea Party is lower taxes, reduced government and stopping wasteful spending of our tax dollars. It has nothing to do with race, religion or anything else the left-wing media and their blind partisan supporters want to throw at it. The racism thing didn't work before and it appears as though the CBC isn't smart enough to have picked up on that.

    As for the 95% figure, it's just speculation on my part. But since I've actually attended Tea Party events, I do have first hand knowledge of the folks who make up the crowds at these events, so I have a little more knowledge than someone who gets their information from the left-wing media. How many Tea Party events have you attended? Did you watch the videos I presented earlier in the thread? And no, I don't speak for everyone in the "movement", but I have witnessed these events with my own two eyes and the left-wing media is lying. Just like the CBC is lying. Have you been able to provide us with that list of Congressmen who want to see them hanging from a tree yet? I mean since that's what kick-started this thread, maybe we can return to the actual topic at hand.

  7. #97
    Sage
    ric27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Last Seen
    06-15-17 @ 02:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    7,539

    Re: Andre Carson: Tea party wants blacks 'hanging on a tree' Read more: http://www.p

    Quote Originally Posted by Hugh_Akston View Post
    I define racism the same as dictionary.com does - hatred or intolerance of another race. The vast majority of Tea Party supporters don't hate Obama because he's black, in fact many don't hate him at all. They hate his policies, his ideology and his ignorance of basic economics. I don't hate Obama, but I despise what he's doing to this country. ANd just so you know, most Tea Partiers didn't like Bush or Clinton much either. The entire premise of the Tea Party is lower taxes, reduced government and stopping wasteful spending of our tax dollars. It has nothing to do with race, religion or anything else the left-wing media and their blind partisan supporters want to throw at it. The racism thing didn't work before and it appears as though the CBC isn't smart enough to have picked up on that.
    What's really ironic here, is that the Democratic party has never done much of anything for blacks, and in fact, has done worse by them than the Republicans. A predominantly Democratic south denied civil rights for years. Democratic President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights act, but he had to go to Republican Senators and Congressman to get it done. His own party didn't support him. Al Gore's father voted against it. George Bush appointed more blacks to high office in his administration than Clinton ever did. Justice Thomas was appointed to SCOTUS by a Republican.

    The welfare benefits and giveaways to the black community by Democrats have done more to hurt them than help. Most especially by destroying black families by making it more economically feasible for an unmarried woman to have more illegitimate children than it was to be married.

  8. #98
    Sage
    RiverDad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    04-20-14 @ 02:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    5,039

    Re: Andre Carson: Tea party wants blacks 'hanging on a tree' Read more: http://www.p

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    They get agreed upon by the people who decide what real definitions are.
    So we're back to the point I made originally - the definitions are the result of some political/ideological, etc process that is negotiated and debated amongst dictionary editors. Anyone who relies on appeal to dictionary as the basis for their argument is simply playing the appeal to authority logical fallacy.

    Next, they aren't really that inconsistent, they are worded differently, but the first two in both dictionaries speak to a belief that race is a determining factor in qualitative differences between people, and that this relates to a belief in racial superiority. The second one relates to discriminatory practices based on race in both dictionaries.
    The words "primary" and "inherent" are not synonyms. The two definitions take on different meanings when modified by these two words. By your argument, that a dictionary definition is a true representation of a concept, there should not be two different meanings to the same specific instance of a concept, in this case, that race is a determinant of behavior. The Merriam Webster dictionary would allow someone to posit that race is a "SECONDARY determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race" and thus escape being defined as a racist. The Dictionary.com definition allows someone to believe that "NON-INHERENT differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others" and escape being defined as a racist.

    Those are two totally different slants on the idea that they're trying to capture. The editors are doing a poor job of accurately defining the feature of racism that they target because they don't know enough about the topic to accurately define the parameters of the concept.

    The third definition you quoted from dictionary.com is not included by Websters.

    This is true. But there was a reason that I quoted the specific definition that I was using for my argument from the start. It was because I anticipated equivocal arguments as rebuttals. Thank yu for not disappointing me.
    Yeah, yeah, sure. You quoted a definition that appealed to your sensibilities and you tried to pass it off as being the definitive statement on the issue. If you had quoted the Dictionary.com definition then your argument would have vanished into thin air. This selective referencing of evidence would, if you were in academia, get you shunned and would be severely damaging to your reputation. In the real world it just diminishes your credibility, and in your case, you don't have much of that left, so you should probably shepherd what little you have left with great care.

    Then why do you constantly bring up race as a primary determining for IQ in evolution debates?
    This board as a search feature which allows for pretty specific search parameters to be used. Find me an instance where I've argued that race is a primary determinant for IQ.

    I know precisely what I've written, I know precisely the points that I'm making, I know precisely what those points mean. If you're interjecting your own interpretations then the fault lies with your reasoning ability. If you believe that you have evidence that I've written something which meets the strict definition of racism that you're referencing, then by all means present the evidence, but make damn sure that it meets the threshold that you've been arguing is found in the definition found in the Merriam Webster dictionary. You do understand what it means to argue that something is a primary determinant, don't you? In the case of this racism discussion, it means that one must be arguing that a person's race is the quality that is the biggest factor in determining human traits and capacities. To a geneticist that definition is gobbledygook. Good luck on your hunt for my "incriminating statements."

    So, of all the definitions of racism that can be invoked, your beef with me is that I argue that there is a genetic basis to IQ and that there is a genetic basis to race. Neither of these positions meet the criteria for racism. I've never argued that race is a primary determinant and I've never argued that inherent difference between population groups determine cultural or individual achievement. Both of these concepts trade on a very simplistic notion of what race is. What they both do correctly though is identify simplistic determinist thinking as a necessary, but not sufficient condition for racism. They both build on the notion that race is some essential element, a Platonic ideal. Evolutionary sciences are NOT racism. You may want to tar them as racist, and believe me you're not alone, people like you did a very nice job in killing the first iteration of the Human Genome Diversity Project by labeling science as racism. Anti-science and ignorance and name-calling can only last for so long before science climbs out from under the ton of manure that people like you dump on it. Closed minded, anti-science advocates like yourself are easy to deal with. You don't deal with logic nor with facts and so logic and facts can be used to show the world how close-minded, addle-brained and ideologically driven you are. Screaming racism at things you don't understand is the same as screaming witch at the things you don't understand.

  9. #99
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    03-16-12 @ 11:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,624

    Re: Andre Carson: Tea party wants blacks 'hanging on a tree' Read more: http://www.p

    It's sad that we still have such bigoted racists as this still in Congress.

  10. #100
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Last Seen
    11-17-17 @ 12:48 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    19,610

    Re: Andre Carson: Tea party wants blacks 'hanging on a tree' Read more: http://www.p

    Quote Originally Posted by ric27 View Post
    What's really ironic here, is that the Democratic party has never done much of anything for blacks, and in fact, has done worse by them than the Republicans. A predominantly Democratic south denied civil rights for years. Democratic President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights act, but he had to go to Republican Senators and Congressman to get it done. His own party didn't support him. Al Gore's father voted against it. George Bush appointed more blacks to high office in his administration than Clinton ever did. Justice Thomas was appointed to SCOTUS by a Republican.
    How many times to I have to correct people who don't understand the history of both parties? This is a common myth usually perpetuated by Republicans who like make themselves feel better. The constituents of the Civil Rights era Democratic Party moved over to the Republican Party DURING the Civil Rights movement, so pinning that to the Dems is ridiculous. Study the history of the parties before you make such statements.

    Second, appointing blacks to office doesn't mean you're doing much for blacks. By that logic, I should say the Democratic Party is the absolutely least racist organization because it has a black president right now, but I'm sure you wouldn't like that.

Page 10 of 93 FirstFirst ... 891011122060 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •