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

Grant · Sep 1, 2011

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

theplaydrive said:
theplaydrive said:

My argument is that many of those who call the Tea Party racist do so as the result of an analysis of polices that Tea Party members support.

Click to expand...

Actually it would have more to do with their absolute lack of analysis regarding public policies and their poorly thought out, knee-jerk responses.

We should not encourage these people by sympathizing in any way with their half baked opinions and ridiculous charges as it only debases public discourse.

RiverDad · Sep 1, 2011

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

AdamT said:
Well, let me see if I can fill in the blanks for you. Slavery, followed by Jim Crow, put the black race at a huge disadvantage in a myriad of ways. Therefore, in order to redress those wrongs and to even the playing field a bit, we engage in affirmative action. Correcting a past wrong is not repeating the past wrong.

Or we could use another analogy. Let's say that you defrauded me out of $10,000, and I take you to court and receive a judgment of $10,000 against you. Am I just as bad as you, because we both took $10,000 from each other? No. The $10,000 I received was to redress a wrong that was done to me.

So not really a diversion at all, right?

1.) Why then are we designating Hispanics, Asians, women and other minorities as classes who qualify? The favorite tactic is to invoke slavery and then let all the other groups tag along.
2.) How is someone born 46 years after Jim Crow ended disadvantaged by what happened nearly half a century ago?
3.) How do you justify to a newly arrived Polish immigrant that he should have to be discriminated against so that a minority who was born in the US in the last few decades can be given an advantage for the lack of opportunity that affected his dead grandparents?
4.) How do you justify legalized racism that you say is designed to remedy wrong which result in inequality when the inequality disappears when the relevant factors are controlled for?

Grant · Sep 1, 2011

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

AdamT said:
Well, let me see if I can fill in the blanks for you. Slavery, followed by Jim Crow, put the black race at a huge disadvantage in a myriad of ways. Therefore, in order to redress those wrongs and to even the playing field a bit, we engage in affirmative action. Correcting a past wrong is not repeating the past wrong.

Past wrongs, especially those as heinous as slavery or Jim Crow laws, can never be corrected. They will always be wrong and there is no getting around that.

A more realistic way of putting it is that two wrongs will never make a right. Affirmative action is condescending, and wrong.

AdamT · Sep 1, 2011

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

Why then are we designating Hispanics, Asians, women and other minorities as classes who qualify?

To the extent that we do (and of course it isn't always true that Asians and women receive affirmative action) it's because affirmative action is about redressing the effects of discrmination, generally -- not just discrimination against blacks.

2.) How is someone born 46 years after Jim Crow ended disadvantaged by what happened nearly half a century ago?

The effects of systematic discrimination against an entire race do not disappear with the stroke of a pen.

3.) How do you justify to a newly arrived Polish immigrant that he should have to be discriminated against so that a minority who was born in the US in the last few decades can be given an advantage for the lack of opportunity that affected his dead grandparents?

I would tell a newly arrived Polish immigrant that he could have stayed in Poland if he wasn't happy with our policies.

4.) How do you justify legalized racism that you say is designed to remedy wrong which result in inequality when the inequality disappears when the relevant factors are controlled for?

Not sure what you mean by that.

AdamT · Sep 1, 2011

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

Grant said:
Past wrongs, especially those as heinous as slavery or Jim Crow laws, can never be corrected. They will always be wrong and there is no getting around that.

A more realistic way of putting it is that two wrongs will never make a right. Affirmative action is condescending, and wrong.

I guess you don't believe in our civil justice system, then, because it is all about making people who have been wronged.

I should add that I'm not a strong believer in affirmative action. Some of the issues you and RD raise bother me, too.

RiverDad · Sep 1, 2011

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

AdamT said:
To the extent that we do (and of course it isn't always true that Asians and women receive affirmative action) it's because affirmative action is about redressing the effects of discrmination, generally -- not just discrimination against blacks.

Now the rationale has shifted. It was that blacks suffered under Jim Crow. Hispanics didn't. Asians didn't. Women didn't. Now the rationale is about redressing hypothetical effects arising from hypothetical discrimination.

I'm someone who could be convinced of supporting a policy which gave blacks affirmative action for a set time. Blacks alone. I could be persuaded by the historical oppression argument. Well, not really, but that doesn't matter - as a matter of politics I'd go along with it just to get to a point where this whole oppression argument gets buried and done with. I believe that a lot of opponents of affirmative action policies would go along with this, and this means that we'd be violating our own principles, if everything was specified at the outset and an end-date was established and all other groups were cut out.

As it stands now I'm opposed to the whole shooting match because it is out and out racism.

The effects of systematic discrimination against an entire race do not disappear with the stroke of a pen.

Says you.

I would tell a newly arrived Polish immigrant that he could have stayed in Poland if he wasn't happy with our policies.

Having an answer for every point doesn't mean that the answer adds anything of value to the conversation. This Polish immigrant has to endure legal discrimination against him and his family in order to repay some debt that society, you say, owes to black people. Why burden him with a debt he has no relation to? Why not excuse him from the obligation? Why not explore the issue instead of giving a flip, content-free answer.

LuckyDan · Sep 1, 2011

Well what the hell else is member of a race-based "caucus" gonna say but their race is a victim? Especially a member of this caucus?

That such a group as the CBC even exists is baffling. That anyone cares what it has to say is almost laughable. Who speaks of them until they say something really stupid? Like this.

They base their name on race. It's all they have. Without a race question, they have no reason to be.

They seem to have a conflict of interest. Do their members have only black constituents?

AdamT · Sep 1, 2011

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

Now the rationale has shifted. It was that blacks suffered under Jim Crow. Hispanics didn't. Asians didn't. Women didn't. Now the rationale is about redressing hypothetical effects arising from hypothetical discrimination.

No, the rationale has always been the same. Slavery and Jim Crow were just examples. Women, for example, were also systematically discriminated against. In many respects they still are. Nothing hypothetical about it.

I'm someone who could be convinced of supporting a policy which gave blacks affirmative action for a set time. Blacks alone. I could be persuaded by the historical oppression argument.

I seriously doubt that.

As it stands now I'm opposed to the whole shooting match because it is out and out racism.

If it was you would support it.

Having an answer for every point doesn't mean that the answer adds anything of value to the conversation. This Polish immigrant has to endure legal discrimination against him and his family in order to repay some debt that society, you say, owes to black people. Why burden him with a debt he has no relation to? Why not excuse him from the obligation? Why not explore the issue instead of giving a flip, content-free answer.

Why should someone who has been given the privilege of coming here step in front of an American citizen who has been disadvantaged by centuries of immoral and unethical U.S. policy?

justabubba · Sep 1, 2011

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

mtlhdtodd said:
Yea lets correct racist policies and history of the past by creating, implementing and using overt racist policies in the present. Yea that's perfect liberal logic

or, we could adopt the reich wing approach to allow the disparities of inequality emanating from decades of racial discrimination to continue to inflict successive generations of minorities

ThePlayDrive · Sep 1, 2011

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

Grant said:
Actually it would have more to do with their absolute lack of analysis regarding public policies and their poorly thought out, knee-jerk responses.

That's just how you see it, but as I said in another post, when you support a policy that affects a specific group of people, you should expect to have your relationship with that group analyzed. Republicans who want to end funding to PP will be called sexist even if they aren't, Democrats who want to heavily regulate business will be called anti-business even if they aren't and Tea Partiers who support eliminating or severely cutting programs that affect much of the black community will be called racist even if they're not. I don't think those judgments are poor analyses of the policies [necessarily], I think they just attribute intention where intention is unknown.

We should not encourage these people by sympathizing in any way with their half baked opinions and ridiculous charges as it only debases public discourse.

Eh, I don't know if I "sympathize" with them, but I think I understand how they get to their conclusions and understanding is not something I look down upon.

justabubba · Sep 1, 2011

Grant said:
All the way back to Abraham Lincoln?

Or perhaps only as far back as Orval Faubus, George Wallace or maybe just to Robert Byrd.

an examination of the reasons for moving to the republican party by jesse helms and strom thurmond might allow the truth to be explored

teamosil · Sep 1, 2011

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

jamesrage said:
Supporting race based hiring preferences and quotas makes one not a racist, but opposing race based hiring preferences and quotas makes on a racist or supporting racist policies?

I know this is kind of counter-intuitive, but yeah, that's true. Overall the market gives whites a massive preference. If a white job applicant and a black job applicant apply for exactly the same job with exactly the same resume, the white applicant is a shocking 2.4 times more likely to get called up for an interview. That is a massive, overwhelming, disadvantage blacks face, and advantage whites get, just because of the color of their skin. So, programs designed to give preference to minorities are only a small, inadequate, step to counter balance that. They don't amount to giving blacks an advantage overall, they just amount to dialing the advantage whites are given and the disadvantage blacks are given back a bit. Say maybe without those programs overall whites would be getting called up for interviews 2.5 times as much instead of 2.4 times as much. So, they make the system overall less racially biased, so yeah, whatever the good motives, opposing those programs is supporting the continuation of a racist system.

haymarket · Sep 1, 2011

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

MrVicchio said:
And you found it chock full of angry racist out to restore white power in America didn't you?

What I found was two different things. When I attended the first two tea Party events in 2009, both on the same day, I took an Obama election poster with me and held it as i walked around. I was met with lots of hostility and angry remarks, a few of them racist in nature. At one point, a police officer came and shadowed me and told me it was for my own good.

When I attended the events at the Michigan capitol building this past Spring, I simply was there to photograph people, and asked their permission to do so. everyone I met was nice and friendly and cooperative. I saw no racial hostility at all.

ecofarm · Sep 1, 2011

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

haymarket said:
I strongly suspect that if I wore a T-shirt that said "I am a freedom killing Marxist" - and then on the back listed reasons why the far right perceives me as such, you and others would focus only on the front of it stating that it reveals truth in the disguise of satire.

Paranoid, victim projection. And you gotta have "Yup," and "..." so as to indicate more is to be read; let's not lose context.

haymarket · Sep 1, 2011

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

regarding opposition to Affirmative Action and racism:

I believe that one can be opposed to AA and do so on grounds other than racist beliefs. I also believe that one can oppose AA as part of their racist beliefs. One cannot conclude that simple opposition to this one program makes one a racist.

At the same time, I cannot help but notice that there are those who vehemently deny any personal racism but they still have a very long list of race based issues on which they come firmly down on the far right conservative side and AA is but one of them.

I vividly remember one such poster on a different message board who
*** supported the South in the Civil War
*** opposed reconstruction and the 14th Amendment
*** defended separate but equal and Plessey v. Ferguson
*** found reasons to deny African Americans the right to vote for most of the 20th century
*** was against all the various Civil Rights Laws of the last half of the 20th century
*** supported Wallace for President
*** had vitriolic and disparaging things to say about leaders such as King, Parks and many others

and a bunch of other far right positions on all matters that touched on race.

Does this persons stance against AA make them a racist? No. But consider the entire record and you get a different answer.

ric27 · Sep 1, 2011

theplaydrive said:
Eh, I'm bored of this conversation. Go read the history of the Republican Party and get back to me.

The fact is....Obama is a racist. The MSM has given him a free ride with statements that would not have been allowed by a white politician

Another thing....and it isn't just white and black. There is a large portion of the Hispanic population who are more prejudiced against blacks than any segment of the white population.

Tucker Case · Sep 1, 2011

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

RiverDad said:
Merriam Webster dictionary is not the authority which defines what the term racism means. For that claim to be true we'd have to discount other dictionaries which offer different definitions.

The part in bold is false. All real dictionaries are legitimate authorities on the meanings of words. One does not cancel out the other. You may wish for that to be the case, but it isn't.

Well, so much for your contention that an appeal to authority is valid when the authority is the entity which defines a term. Now he have conflicting authorities and meaning is muddled.

They aren't conflicting. In order for their to be conflict, the definitions would have to oppose each other. One definition would not be able to coexist with the other. If we cannot consider a dictionary to be an authority on a word's meaning, then words lose all meaning.

And below you claim that you're in academia. Give me a break. This addled thinking is good for comedic effect but really doesn't belong in a serious discussion. Now the people you're debating are supposed to know what your favored dictionary is.

No, the people I'm debating only need to know my favored dictionary if they are going to make the claim that I was engaging in "selective referencing". In order to engage in selective referencing, I must be making my choices based on which definition I prefer, not which dictionary I prefer. The only evidence that could exist which showed that I am doing this would be if I used different dictionaries based on my personal preference regarding the definition in question.

Someone who was actually in academia would actually research their hypothesis before claiming it as fact. I can see why you might form said hypothesis while remaining ignorant of the facts, but to claim that the hypothesis as true while remaining ignorant of the facts shows that you have zero credibility in your assessments. It sghows that you are willing to build your claims upon a foundation of ignorance.

You asked and I delivered.

You delivered nothing. You actually refused to provide sources for that particular post for me. Instead you provided a link to a totally different thread with many different

Do you not recall our PM exchange. I followed the practice I use with everyone, so I'm not revealing any privileged information of our discussion. For arguments that I've already made in an earlier thread, I provide a link to that discussion and all of the supporting evidence I cite. I won't jump through hoops where the person I'm corresponding with wants me to repeat, for their benefit, all the work that I've already done. I would tell anyone, and I usually do, to get off their lazy butt and read the link(s) I sent them and then I inform them if they had any further questions that arose from that material that I'd be happy to engage them on those questions. I give you my permission to release that e-mail if you think it helps your case in this matter.

And this incompetent understanding of how one cites sources in academia is absolute proof that you are not familiar with academia. Imagine what would happen to a doctoral student who decided to not cite sources for her dissertation and took the stance, when sources were requested, that she put all those sources in their master's thesis and if the lazy doctoral review board wasn't interested in sifting through all of her other work in order to find the sources used in this work, she wasn't about jump through hoops" citing sources with competence.

I'll tell you what would happen. She'd never get that PhD. If you actually knew what you were talking about, you wouldn't take this lazy, plagiarizing stance on providing citations for every post in which you cite sources. Your academic incompetence is not a reflection on those who wish for you to be academically competent, despite what you may claim from your foundation of ignorance.

When your defense is an admission that you use citations incompetently, it isn't really a defense.

If you're going to make accusations then you should at least TRY to base them on evidence:

Irony. You has it.

RiverDad: This is actually the least controversial point I've made in this entire discussion. Those numbers are seen all throughout the literature. No one is disputing them. The dispute, as it is, centers on whether the numbers arise from genes, environment or a combination of both factors. The extremist creationists argue for environment, the moderates argue for genes and environment. No one argues for genes alone.

The part in bold is known to be a false claim because we know that you do argue for genes alone creating the variation between races because you claim that evolution causes the variance seen between races.

While you might not actually understand what that means, when evolution is cited as the causal factor for variance it means that the only role that environment plays in the variance is in determining the genetic differences between races which, in turn, leads to the variance.

There is a reason that I worded my statement to which you responded in the way that I did. Notice that I said, very specifically, the fact that environmental factors also exist hampers your evolution hypothesis.

I very specifically did not say that the presence of environmental factors hampers the hypothesis that their is a genetic influence on overall IQ variation.

I also carefully highlighted the word "also" in my post for a reason.

Instead of taking a moment to assess what your response to that very carefully worded statement might say about your overall argument, you instead made it very clear that the variance between races was not caused by environment. You actually stated, very clearly, that you could "shoot down" any environmental factor.

You clearly stated that the very thing that determines race is also the thing that causes the racial variance in IQs.

The entire superiority-inferiority framework presupposes that it is possible to rank racial groups from superior to inferior. On what basis does this ranking occur? Therein lies the fallacy of this framework. We are all the sum of many parts. Are taller people superior to shorter people? How about the tall child molester, is he superior to the short nurse? How about smarter people, are they superior to less intelligent people? How about the smart serial killer, is he superior to the average intelligence person who is a cop working to put him in prison.

Most of these are false analogies because what you are doing is ranking groups of people, not individuals. Individuals won't be similar across a multitude of characteristics that have clear inferior and superior classifications the same way that groups will. Comparing Bill to Tom directly will have many more differences between variables than comparing all of the world's Bills to all of the world's Toms would.

Only one of your examples actually meets the criteria for a valid comparison and that would be the smarter people vs. less intelligent people example. when these groups are separated out by their intelligence, the other natural traits that they have will actually become far less varied. The average heights of both groups will only vary insignificantly, for example. Thus, the two groups will be for all intents and purposes identical save for one trait. In comparing the two groups, one can claim that one is superior to the other on this particular trait. With all other traits being equal or not having an inferior/superior dichotomy, the superiority of one group is based entirely on the single trait that can be considered one that has superiority or inferiority characteristics.

Thus, those who believe in a rank ordering of races are racists.

So are you claiming that you've never given a rank ordering of races based on IQ?

ecofarm · Sep 1, 2011

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

haymarket said:
I have no problem with I HATE OBAMA signs. I have lots of problems with OBAMA IS A NIGGER signs or their equal.

People complain when you do that, right?

haymarket · Sep 1, 2011

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

ecofarm said:
Paranoid, victim projection. And you gotta have "Yup," and "..." so as to indicate more is to be read; let's not lose context.

Still proudly defending that "I'M A RACIST" tea party shirt huh?

Being a whole lot slicker and cleverer than Ross Barnett or George Wallace was fifty years ago is not something to give credit for.

ecofarm · Sep 1, 2011

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

In the context of your "I'm a racist" = someone trying to say what they mean while covering it with supposedly making a point, how do we fit "OBAMA IS A NIGGER" posts.

haymarket · Sep 1, 2011

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

ecofarm said:
People complain when you do that, right?

huh??????????

haymarket · Sep 1, 2011

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

ecofarm said:
In the context of your "I'm a racist" = someone trying to say what they mean while covering it with supposedly making a point, how do we fit "OBAMA IS A NIGGER" posts.

I do not follow you - sorry.

whysoserious · Sep 1, 2011

MrVicchio said:
Isn't about time we moved past such vile, angry bull****?

Oh wait, I can't say that about the esteemed Rep. Carson, to criticize him, since I am a white male and tea partier, is racist.

Just reading that filthy dung heaps rant makes my stomach churn in disgust.

So your way to convince everyone that he is incorrect is to call him a filthy piece of ****? You need to work on your argumentative skillz.

justabubba · Sep 1, 2011

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

haymarket said:
huh??????????

he posted that while taking a break from beating his wife

ecofarm · Sep 1, 2011

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

haymarket said:
I do not follow you - sorry.

Well, you claim that a guy wearing a shirt that reads "Yup, I'm a racist... because the left says so" is actually a racist... no matter what point he is supposedly trying to make. So, what are we to make of your "OBAMA IS A N" post. Are we to excuse it based on context? You wouldn't, and you wrote that you expect us not to:

haymarket said:
I strongly suspect that if I wore a T-shirt that said "I am a freedom killing Marxist" - and then on the back listed reasons why the far right perceives me as such, you and others would focus only on the front of it stating that it reveals truth in the disguise of satire.

haymarket said:
I have no problem with I HATE OBAMA signs. I have lots of problems with OBAMA IS A NIGGER signs or their equal.

Wow. What a racist post. Did you buy that post at a TP rally?

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

Grant

RiverDad

Grant

AdamT

AdamT

RiverDad

LuckyDan

AdamT

justabubba

long standing member

ThePlayDrive

justabubba

long standing member

teamosil

haymarket

ecofarm

global liberation

haymarket

ric27

Tucker Case

Matthew 16:3

ecofarm

global liberation

haymarket

ecofarm

global liberation

haymarket

haymarket

whysoserious

justabubba

long standing member

ecofarm

global liberation