• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Anti-racism ad campaign in Minnesota town called 'racist' by critics

Oh course it is the same thing. They automatically attack anybody who is trying to counter racism. Just like the folks did the jim crow days. What's the difference?
They attack what they feel are unfair stereotypes levied against whites. One can very easily dismiss the idea of "white privilege" without being a white supremacist themselves, whether they are wrong or right in said assertion. Take the accusatory nonsense down a few notches and you might be taken more seriously.
 
Oh course it is the same thing. They automatically attack anybody who is trying to counter racism. Just like the folks did the jim crow days. What's the difference?

Your side thinks it's okay to keep white kids out of the University of Michigan. When you deny our children the right to education, we have to fight back.
 
They attack what they feel are unfair stereotypes levied against whites. One can very easily dismiss the idea of "white privilege" without being a white supremacist themselves, whether they are wrong or right in said assertion. Take the accusatory nonsense down a few notches and you might be taken more seriously.

Unfair stereotypes levied against whites? What? There are no unfair stereotypes about whites or anything remotely like that in this campaign.
 
Your side thinks it's okay to keep white kids out of the University of Michigan. When you deny our children the right to education, we have to fight back.

LOL don't be ridiculous. You understand that the overwhelming majority of students admitted to Michigan are white, right? What you really mean is that you're mad that they let in some minorities.
 
Unfair stereotypes levied against whites? What? There are no unfair stereotypes about whites or anything remotely like that in this campaign.
I'm not speaking from a personal perspective. Obviously some individuals felt otherwise, to in turn label the entire right wing as bigots is silly, but you should know that by now.
 
Maybe just me, but I recall growing up, hearing nothing from my teachers and at home but about the similarities, the things we all share [as Americans], the things that make us brothers and sisters. Before all that the differences seemed to pale. And dammit, that was working. We were crawling out.

Then we hit the correctness wall. And diversity became the lesson. No longer did we teach we're not different, now we teach we are different. Heck, the differences are throw in our faces daily. The similariites, not so much anymore.

Same thing with political parties.
 
LOL don't be ridiculous. You understand that the overwhelming majority of students admitted to Michigan are white, right? What you really mean is that you're mad that they let in some minorities.

Don't be silly, I realize that universities with athletic programs have to let in some minorities.
 
I'm not speaking from a personal perspective. Obviously some individuals felt otherwise, to in turn label the entire right wing as bigots is silly, but you should know that by now.

I don't know. By all means, there are some Republicans who oppose bigotry. But I can hardly remember the last time I heard one of them openly take a stand against it. When bigotry comes up, the folks on the right seem to come out on the pro-bigotry side, what, 99% of the time? 98%? Sure, it isn't 100%, but it is clearly a dominant characteristic of the right at this point.
 
The problem with the "silent (white and mostly male) majority" is that they don't really understand the level of racism being discussed. They always want to dumb it down to the most common denominator. That being how "racism" affects them in their personal lives as if it really made a difference in the societal scale of things. You ever notice that when you discuss racism on DP, you have about 10-15 people, most right wing or closeted right wingers crying about that one time they got passed over for some black guy at work? A story which can't be verified in any manner, shape or form is the information they want us to take into consideration when discussing racism. That's it. When you show them the mountains of independent sociological studies, government studies, demonstrating executive level discrimination against minorities, women, etc - they simply brush it off with a standard idiotic response of "slavery is over!", "Women get paid!" and "Obama got elected!" - then they parade their tokens - even the ones who pretend to be black on the internet - to show off how slavery is somehow a "societal problem" that affects us all equally. It really isn't. Not in the American context anyways.

White Protestant males have simply had it better in US history. There is not a SINGLE person with any kind of historiographical studies under their belt who'd deny this on purpose. That's where "white privilege" comes from. It's not really speaking about "white women" privilege, though they have benefited from it. The label targets a pretty specific demographic who for one reason of another wants to deny it actually exists. For every rich African-American, Chinese American and Hispanic-American family there exist dozens of rich white protestant families many of whom wouldn't have reached their level if it weren't for the unique accident that they were born white in a country with 200+ years of social, governmental and cultural policies that benefited protestant whites. Sure, there exist some white groups within the US who have been discriminated against. However, they're few, far in between and noticeable exceptions to the general racism experienced by visible minorities in this country.

The day the silent white mostly male majority recognizes this, we'll be able to discuss racism. Until then, we'll have to live with their personal unverifiable tales of racism and purposeful ignorance of the subject.
 
Last edited:
Don't be silly, I realize that universities with athletic programs have to let in some minorities.

Why do you guys bother with the initial denial that you are white supremacists just to a few minutes later admit it? We've all been round this circle 1,000 times. We all know you're going to admit it soon. So why bother with the fake denial first? Why not just admit what you are? Shame? If you're ashamed of your views, why don't you try to improve them?
 
The problem with the "silent (white and mostly male) majority" is that they don't really understand the level of racism being discussed. They always want to dumb it down to the most common denominator. That being how "racism" affects them in their personal lives as if it really made a different in the societal scale of things. You ever notice that when you discuss racism on DP, you have about 10-15 people, most right wing or closeted right wingers crying about that one time they got passed over for some black guy at work? A story which can't be verified in any manner, shape or form is the information they want us to take into consideration when discussing racism. That's it. When you show them the mountains of independent sociological studies, government studies, demonstrating executive level discrimination against minorities, women, etc - they simply brush it off with a standard idiotic response of "slavery is over!", "Women get paid!" and "Obama got elected!" - then they parade their tokens - even the ones who pretend to be black on the internet - to show off how slavery is somehow a "societal problem" that affects us all equally. It really isn't. Not in the American context anyways.

White Protestant males have simply had it better in US history. There is not a SINGLE person with any kind of historiographical studies under their belt who'd deny this on purpose. That's where "white privilege" comes from. It's not really speaking about "white women" privilege, though they have benefited from it. The label targets a pretty specific demographic who for one reason of another wants to deny it actually exists. For every rich African-American, Chinese American and Hispanic-American family there exist dozens of rich white protestant families many of whom wouldn't have reached their level if it weren't for the unique accident that they were born white in a country with 200+ years of social, governmental and cultural policies that benefited protestant whites. Sure, there exist some white groups within the US who have been discriminated against. However, they're few, far in between and noticeable exceptions to the general racism experienced by visible minorities in this country.

The day the silent white mostly male majority recognizes this, we'll be able to discuss racism. Until then, we'll have to live with their personal unverifiable tales of racism and purposeful ignorance of the subject.

I don't see you as black or white. I see you as green.....with envy.
 
I don't know. By all means, there are some Republicans who oppose bigotry. But I can hardly remember the last time I heard one of them openly take a stand against it. When bigotry comes up, the folks on the right seem to come out on the pro-bigotry side, what, 99% of the time? 98%? Sure, it isn't 100%, but it is clearly a dominant characteristic of the right at this point.
Perhaps because racism is a completely subjective term. You're willing to label others as bigots soley because of differing viewpoints on what bigotry is, not outright discrimination.
 
I don't see you as black or white. I see you as green.....with envy.

Great response. You've single handedly destroyed my concise and well thought out argument with the grace expected of a Stormfront poster.
 
Perhaps because racism is a completely subjective term. You're willing to label others as bigots soley because of differing viewpoints on what bigotry is, not outright discrimination.

You live in a pretty naive world. The Republican voting base is in the South. An area where there aren't only racial hostility but an ingrained culture of xenophobia that has seeped its way into every social aspect. To take an open stand against racism as a Republican and in the 21st century is absolute political suicide. Sure, you can have photo ops with NCAA leaders, defend Strom Thurmond, replace him with a Democrat who also has a racist past etc. That's fine and dandy, but to actually take an open stand against racism? You'd cut out at a minimum 5-10% of your voting base. Racism isn't subjective. It's observable and does happen. Don't believe me? Take a look at any sociological journals written on the topic in the last 60 years.
 
Last edited:
Maybe just me, but I recall growing up, hearing nothing from my teachers and at home but about the similarities, the things we all share [as Americans], the things that make us brothers and sisters. Before all that the differences seemed to pale. And dammit, that was working. We were crawling out.

Then we hit the correctness wall. And diversity became the lesson. No longer did we teach we're not different, now we teach we are different. Heck, the differences are throw in our faces daily. The similariites, not so much anymore.

Same thing with political parties.

There's an unsubtle distinction between pointing out inherent difference between the races, and pointing out the fact that people, despite the Jim Crow era being over, are still being treated differently by society on the basis of their skin color.
 
Maybe just me, but I recall growing up, hearing nothing from my teachers and at home but about the similarities, the things we all share [as Americans], the things that make us brothers and sisters. Before all that the differences seemed to pale. And dammit, that was working. We were crawling out.

Then we hit the correctness wall. And diversity became the lesson. No longer did we teach we're not different, now we teach we are different. Heck, the differences are throw in our faces daily. The similariites, not so much anymore.

Same thing with political parties.

Well, I for one I'm glad you've joined us all in the adult world where racism is an issue and you don't get stars for getting the answer correctly.
 
You live in a pretty naive world.

The Republican voting base is in the South. An area where there aren't only racial hostility but an ingrained culture of xenophobia that has seeped its way into every social aspect.

To take an open stand against racism as a Republican and in the 21st century is absolute political suicide. Sure, you can have photo ops with NCAA leaders, that's fine and dandy, but to actually take an open stand? You'd cut out at a minimum 5-10% of your voting base.
Hardly

Yes, that comprises a large portion of their base, but take a quick glance at the 2010 mid term election map and you'll see that it's hardly contained to a single area.

That's an awfully vague statement, I'm going to need an example of actual legal discrimination against blacks that you would like them to take a stand against.
 
Well, I for one I'm glad you've joined us all in the adult world where racism is an issue and you don't get stars for getting the answer correctly.

You mean the world filled with racism, division, extreme partisanship being a norm? Nice world you built with diversity. Let me just tell you - it wasn't what my generation or the one before was aiming for. We wanted to be one, you seem okay with being divided.
 
Hardly

Yes, that comprises a large portion of their base, but take a quick glance at the 2010 mid term election map and you'll see that it's hardly contained to a single area.

Who said it was? I said their base is in the South. Take out the South in any election and Republicans don't have a foothold ANYWHERE in the North East or West. The last time Republicans had a real political presence outside of the South and Midwest was Reagan and that was nearly 30 years ago. Who the hell are you trying to fool with "hardly"? Here I'll give you a quick look at the last 3 elections and you can tell me which part of the South is "hardly" not Republican:

2010:

2010_Senate_election_map.PNG


2008

View attachment 67129858

2006

View attachment 67129859

The common denominator here is simple the South is the Republican base. Without it, they have no hope of winning an election. Think I'm wrong? Named an election in the last 30-40 years where a Republican president has won without taking the South? You can't. Why? Because Republicans simply don't have a real strong foothold in the North East or West.

That's an awfully vague statement, I'm going to need an example of actual legal discrimination against blacks that you would like them to take a stand against.

When you use "vague" words like "legal discrimination", you're betraying your purpose. What is "legal discrimination" seeing race based discrimination is illegal? We're not discussing the legality of discrimination, we're discussing whether it happens at a societal level and isn't restricted solely to "race" as much as its relationship with it. Here are a few universities studying the issue:

UCLA Researchers Identify Race-based Discrimination as a Critical Contributor to Health Disparities in African Americans / UCLA Newsroom

When a person experiences discrimination, the body develops a cognitive response in which it recognizes the discrimination as something that is bad and should be defended against, Mays said. She said this response occurs for the most part even if the person merely perceives that discrimination is a possibility.

Starting with the brain's recognition of discrimination, the body sets into motion a series of physiological responses to protect itself from these stressful negative experiences, Mays said. These physiological responses include biochemical reactions, hyper-vigilance and elevated blood pressure and heart rate. With many African Americans, these responses may occur so frequently that they eventually result in the physiological system not working correctly.

According to Mays, the experience of race-based discrimination for some African Americans is akin to the response a person's body mounts when it experiences significant life-threatening danger, such as fear for a person's life or of a possible attack. She said that if the body mounts a response to protect itself against a "life-threatening" experience on a regular basis, after awhile it is strained and overworked. Many of the chemicals that come to its rescue can damage systems in the body that are associated with disease and obesity.

According to the report's authors, there has been much focus on the emotional impact of discrimination. But other critical factors — such as identifying how the brain recognizes and determines what racial discrimination is and how the body responds biochemically — may help researchers understand why African Americans are not benefiting from protections against negative health outcomes in the same manner as whites.

Class-Based Discrimination Harms Child Health - RWJF

Prior to this research, investigators had not explored social class discrimination as a reason for socioeconomic differences in physical health disparities. “There are several lab-based studies showing that the middle class looks down on the poor. This study builds on this work to show that individuals from low-income families report experiencing discrimination, and that this discrimination is influencing their health,” explains Fuller-Rowell, a RWJF Health & Society Scholar in the department of population health sciences at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, who conducted the study along with Evans, a professor of design and environmental analysis at Cornell University and Ong, a professor of human development at Cornell.

“My Health & Society Scholar program experience has allowed me to focus my research on the mechanisms behind health disparities,” Fuller-Rowell adds. “In an upcoming project, I’ll be exploring the health trajectories of Black and White college students and considering whether various discrimination-related stresses in the lives of stigmatized minority students at predominantly White colleges may be influencing changes in their health over time.”

Fuller-Rowell points out that his current study is unique in that it looks at social class distinctions, plus group health disparities. “Research that looks at the impact of discrimination on health, based on racial differences, can often produce different findings because issues of racial identity come into to play. It can be difficult to link perceived discrimination among African Americans, for example, to health because in some cases, perceived discrimination correlates with a strong sense of racial identity, which can be beneficial to health.”
 
Last edited:
You mean the world filled with racism, division, extreme partisanship being a norm? Nice world you built with diversity.

I didn't know you were an Orwell fan. Let me guess? War is peace, freedom is slavery and ignorance is strength? Or are you playing the non-sequitur game?
 
It's just sick that any of you are so morally depraved to object even to something as innocuous as this. The kneejerk reaction of the right to attack any attempt to lessen racism is just sick. You should be ashamed of yourselves. The Republican party is flat out turning into a white supremacist party. Disgusting.
According to this, and several of your ensuing posts, you are accusing me of being morally depraved, being a republican, and being a bigoted white supremacist.

Before I respond to these accusations teamsoil, can you explain to me why you despise racism and bigotry please? If you think such things are immoral, can you please explain why?
 
I didn't know you were an Orwell fan. Let me guess? War is peace, freedom is slavery and ignorance is strength? Or are you playing the non-sequitur game?

Language does influence thought. It's all about the things we teach and how we teach them, to ourselves and our children. If we stress the differences, that's what we're going to see, the differences. Being human, with difference recognition hardwired into us for survival, conflict is sure to ensue.

However, if we stress the similarities we get a different result. Or at least it looked like we were, before it was abandoned.
 
Language does influence thought.

Good for it. You're playing non-sequiturs. I'm not really interested in the feel good stories you tell your kids.
 
Last edited:
Who said it was? I said their base is in the South. Take out the South in any election and Republicans don't have a foothold ANYWHERE in the North East or West. The last time Republicans had a real political presence outside of the South and Midwest was Reagan and that was nearly 30 years ago. Who the hell are you trying to fool with "hardly"? Here I'll give you a quick look at the last 3 elections and you can tell me which part of the South is "hardly" not Republican:

2010:

2010_Senate_election_map.PNG


2008

View attachment 67129858

2006

View attachment 67129859

The common denominator here is simple the South is the Republican base. Without it, they have no hope of winning an election. Think I'm wrong? Named an election in the last 30-40 years where a Republican president has won without taking the South? You can't. Why? Because Republicans simply don't have a real strong foothold in the North East or West.



When you use "vague" words like "legal discrimination", you're betraying your purpose. What is "legal discrimination" seeing race based discrimination is illegal? We're not discussing the legality of discrimination, we're discussing whether it happens at a societal level and isn't restricted solely to "race" as much as its relationship with it. Here are a few universities studying the issue:

UCLA Researchers Identify Race-based Discrimination as a Critical Contributor to Health Disparities in African Americans / UCLA Newsroom



Class-Based Discrimination Harms Child Health - RWJF
By hardly, I meant they also have quite a influence in the midwest, which your own graphic demonstrates.

And?

Fascinating read, but what actions would you propose to remedy such alleged discrimination? Specifically the Republican party?
 
Last edited:
By hardly, I meant they also have quite a influence in the midwest, which your own graphic demonstrates.

Good for them, they can afford to lose the "Midwest" whatever arbitrary lines make it up depending on the week. Now try and lose Texas and win an election as a Republican. You absolutely can't.

And?

Fascinating read, but what actions would you propose to remedy such alleged discrimination? Specifically the Republican party?

If it's been observed by a study, it's not alleged. If the study has been published and quantitative data backs it up, it's not alleged. Learn to use that word, learn about the Southern Strategy and then we can have a discussion. Until then? Well I welcome you to keep playing semantics and denial.

https://www.google.ca/search?sugexp=chrome,mod=10&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=alleged

al·leged/əˈlejd/
Adjective:
(of an incident or a person) Said, without proof, to have taken place or to have a specified illegal or undesirable quality.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom