• 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!

Alabama Pastor holds 'whites only' conference

rocket88 said:
Yes, nobody's defending the "Ku Klux Klan." Just people who act like the Ku Klux Klan and want to hold a "Klan-style" rally.

If it walks like a duck....
Click to expand...

Christian Identity is just a new marketing term for the KKK.
 
megaprogman said:
I already answered most of your question Mr V.

For the part I did not answer, I think a congressional white caucus would be fine with me if it passed the same litmus test I defined.
Click to expand...
Thank you.

I think we would be far better off if we did not allow members of our government to intentionally align themselves with racial politics. What individuals do is up to them.
 
Empirica said:
Uh-huh, and according to Dave Chappel the KKK now has a blind black member_
Click to expand...

That bit is funny to two types of people. I was in a limo in Los Angeles with two wealthy colleagues from Texas who are very racist and they think it is hilarious. I think it's hilarious too, but for entirely different reasons. Racists like to laugh at the notion of a black KKK leader unaware and decent humans laugh at the satire and irony. Racists see Chappel's act as minstrel, the initiated know he is a dissident political satirist of the first order.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
LOL. In other words, if I disagree with him and he isn't a liberal, then I'll make him a liberal so I can make a lazy ad hom attack instead of a well-reasoned argument.
Click to expand...

Haven't you heard? If you ever disagree with a Conservative, it's not possible to be anything other than a Liberal. You should subscribe to the newsletters.
 
Tomfoolery said:
Fine, but I am here to assure you that racism runs the gamut of socioeconomic status. If the landed and monied classes were not racist there would be no need for the civil rights act at all. The powerless and havenots can not inflict damage on an insular and oppressed minority. Only the privileged can do that. Those who can decide who gets to sit at the counter, take out a real estate loan, get a job... Some ignorant unwashed rube in an Alabama church living in the same deplorable squalor as the object of his disaffection? Not so much.
Click to expand...
Maybe it does.

That has nothing to do with racism. But for the undisclosed leaning people it blinds you to actual racism. Doesn't it?
 
Misterveritis said:
Thank you.

I think we would be far better off if we did not allow members of our government to intentionally align themselves with racial politics. What individuals do is up to them.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with it personally, people looking at policies along racial lines is as good or bad as looking at policies in accordance to any number of demographics, ideology, social status, geographical location, income, etc. The simple fact is that different segments of the population need different things from government.

I have a problem with groups that promote one group in exclusion to or to the purposeful detriment of other groups for the purposes of dominance (provided all groups involved are legitimate, dominating criminal activity for example would be fine by me). I don't see the CBC as doing that.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
LOL. In other words, if I disagree with him and he isn't a liberal, then I'll make him a liberal so I can make a lazy ad hom attack instead of a well-reasoned argument.
Click to expand...
I think there are lots of people who think they can fool others by having an undisclosed lean or an independent lean. But one's posts reveal one's beliefs. So claim to be independent all you want but people will eventually know what you really are. I was just pointing it out.
 
rocket88 said:
Yes, nobody's defending the "Ku Klux Klan." Just people who act like the Ku Klux Klan and want to hold a "Klan-style" rally.

If it walks like a duck....
Click to expand...
So back to no one. I am so glad we are clear on this. Anyone else?
 
Misterveritis said:
So your answer is the same as all of the other undisclosed, independent and liberal leaning posters. No one has defended the Ku Klux Klan. I am so glad we are all clear on this.
Click to expand...

We are clear you are not facile with English and therefore uninitiated as to the fair import of common idiomatic expressions. The first order of business in dealing with a reprehensible fact pattern shrouding a more nuanced point is to acknowledge the obvious, then move on to the narrow issue. That conservatives here alone do not decry the obvious before insisting on complete race neutrality broadcasts racism like a megaphone on full gain.

You will know them by their fruits. -Jesus
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Intelligent people don't dwell on any single hate group, they lump them all together.
Click to expand...
Intelligence has nothing to do with the morals of the majority, or morality at all.
 
VanceMack said:
The "only majority groups can be racist because only they wield power" argument is as goofy today as it was when Spike Lee first made it.
Click to expand...


Newsflash- that idea predates Spike Lee's existence by centuries.
 
Thunder said:
there is an unfortunately common belief out there, that blacks & Hispanics can't be racist, because they don't have the institutionalized power to be racist.

they can be prejudiced, but they can't be racist...they say.

however, I've seen NO definition of "racism", that says it can only be applied to institutionalized racial hatred, stereotypes, & discrimination. Such an understanding, is self-serving bull**** to disregard & handwave away legitimate accusations of black & Hispanic racism in the USA.
Click to expand...

Still have not read his post have you?
 
Tomfoolery said:
We are clear you are not facile with English and therefore uninitiated as to the fair import of common idiomatic expressions. The first order of business in dealing with a reprehensible fact pattern shrouding a more nuanced point is to acknowledge the obvious, then move on to the narrow issue. That conservatives here alone do not decry the obvious before insisting on complete race neutrality broadcasts racism like a megaphone on full gain.

You will know them by their fruits. -Jesus
Click to expand...
We are also clear that one can obfuscate or one can write plainly. You are in the former camp. I am in the latter.
 
Misterveritis said:
We are also clear that one can obfuscate or one can write plainly. You are in the former camp. I am in the latter.
Click to expand...

If you find my prose abstruse, you lack the means to cast judgment. One can dumb down, one can not dumb up.
 
Misterveritis said:
Yeah. Let me rewrite it.

If your lean is undisclosed, or moderate you may still be blind to black or brown racism.

Is that better for you?
Click to expand...

I get your drift but it still contains awkward and nonstandard word choices. I would also insert a comma after "moderate" and perhaps redact the one after undisclosed. I probably would not use "lean" either. I suppose this is just because I'm from the "obfuscation camp."
 
It's such a non-issue. Blatant racism, as a whole, these days are limited to little groups like this. The Klan is not a "violent" group anymore. All they are anymore is a bunch of inbred white hicks sitting around some rural church or VFW post, reminiscing about the "good ol' days".

If this pastor wants a whites-only meeting, go for it. It's not hurting anyone, and it's insignificant on any possible social level you can think of, except maybe local - and that's because it's a podunk area.
 
Tomfoolery said:
Newsflash- that idea predates Spike Lee's existence by centuries.
Click to expand...
newsflash update...if so it was as stupid a notion centuries ago as it is today.
 
VanceMack said:
newsflash update...if so it was as stupid a notion centuries ago as it is today.
Click to expand...

It's more about making a distinction. What makes everyday prejudice different than systematic oppression of a race. The two are not equal. So, some tried to make a distinction between the two with the language. If you approach it a s definition issue, the distinction is not that controvesial, let a lone stupid.
 
Boo Radley said:
It's more about making a distinction. What makes everyday prejudice different than systematic oppression of a race. The two are not equal. So, some tried to make a distinction between the two with the language. If you approach it a s definition issue, the distinction is not that controvesial, let a lone stupid.
Click to expand...
Its more about riding the victim train and excusing ones own racism.
 
VanceMack said:
newsflash update...if so it was as stupid a notion centuries ago as it is today.
Click to expand...

Why would distinguishing between racism by the powerless against the powerful and racism by the powerful against the powerless be a stupid notion? They are indeed distinguishable, as I just did that, and they are different as to effects. Two good reasons the notion is not stupid. Do you have any reasons why making the distinction is stupid?
 
Equating black racism with the white racism that infected this country for 3 centuries and continues to this day, and which led to the oppression and subjugation of an entire race is stupid beyond belief. It is generally done by whites who are unwilling to recognize what systematic racism has done to black people. Instead, they bleat on about the Congressional Black Caucus and the Black Panthers as though that's the moral equivalent of two centuries of slavery and another of Jim Crow.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom