• 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!

An honest conversation about race is not allowed

radcen said:
A reasonable viewpoint on the subject.
Click to expand...

From the article

By contrast, simply disagreeing with affirmative action programs, or supporting a crackdown on crime, or wanting to rein in government spending on domestic programs, or opposing sanctuary cities, is not racism. You can argue that these positions are wrong, but they are not inherently racist.

I agree. But some go further to say racism does not exist in America. And that is ridiculous
 
radcen said:
A reasonable viewpoint on the subject.
Click to expand...

I liked this quote:

The president didn’t respond on Saturday within the prescribed time limit, and he then didn’t use the right words, critics said. But if his detractors were being honest, they would admit that if Trump had read a statement written by them, saying exactly what they wanted — as he basically did Monday — they would still lay the events at his feet.
Click to expand...

That's pretty much true.

The actual evidence surrounding the event (without diversion about the one individual crashing his car into a crowd) shows that both sides came armed for combat and both sides instigated violence. Which means the President was actually speaking truth in his first remarks.

Yet the issue revolved around him not focusing on the White Nationalists, who were only half the problem.

I agree with most of what I read in the article; it is hard to have an honest conversation about race when the focus is always on one race.
 
Captain Adverse said:
I liked this quote:



That's pretty much true.

The actual evidence surrounding the event (without diversion about the one individual crashing his car into a crowd) shows that both sides came armed for combat and both sides instigated violence. Which means the President was actually speaking truth in his first remarks.

Yet the issue revolved around him not focusing on the White Nationalists, who were only half the problem.

I agree with most of what I read in the article; it is hard to have an honest conversation about race when the focus is always on one race.
Click to expand...

It was more than that he didn't focus on White Supremacists, it's that he refused to even call them out by name. For three days.
 
Cardinal said:
It was more than that he didn't focus on White Supremacists, it's that he refused to even call them out by name. For three days.
Click to expand...

Should he have called out the other side too? By what name?

Look, I don't support the ideals of these citizens, but I do support their right to peaceful assembly and demonstration.

Had the Left not come out in force and acted to create the violence (or at least had the mayor properly separated and policed the lines) those White nationalists would have had their rally...and it would have been a non-story a few days later.

But back to the thread. The fact that the Left demanded he "call out" the White side of the event with no support for his attempt at equal condemnation of all participants...that shows up the issue raised in the article.
 
Last edited:
Captain Adverse said:
I liked this quote:



That's pretty much true.

The actual evidence surrounding the event (without diversion about the one individual crashing his car into a crowd) shows that both sides came armed for combat and both sides instigated violence. Which means the President was actually speaking truth in his first remarks.

Yet the issue revolved around him not focusing on the White Nationalists, who were only half the problem.

I agree with most of what I read in the article; it is hard to have an honest conversation about race when the focus is always on one race.
Click to expand...

Because according to a lot of people White Nationalists should not even be allowed to exist, much less attempt to infect others with their flawed ideas., they never should have been at that place on that day, which makes them all of the problem.

According to some new God or something....or maybe the super intolerant believe they are Gods, who knows anymore.

They sure dont believe that those who dont agree with them are their equals.
 
It doesn't matter to the left what Trump does, he's still Trump and must go, well, because he is Trump.
 
chuckiechan said:
It doesn't matter to the left what Trump does, he's still Trump and must go, well, because he is Trump.
Click to expand...

I argue that it does not matter to enough DC R's to keep Trump in the chair....the Left are clearly not the only ones determined to see this "mistake" rectified.

It was decided by Feb, what Trump did after that had nothing to do with it.
 
Last edited:
radcen said:
A reasonable viewpoint on the subject.
Click to expand...

Nope, some of the points made are clearly not reasonable.

Further, I don’t agree with the idea of the Justice Department investigating affirmative action programs at universities under the theory that they might discriminate against whites. White people are doing fine in the United States. Whites haven’t suffered under affirmative action.
Click to expand...

The idea that (good?) racial discrimination is justified and that harm to just a few (dozen, score, hundred, thousand or million?) whites (displaced by equally or lesser qualified blacks under the guise of AA) is acceptable because whites as a whole are doing just fine misses the point entirely. Equal protection of the law (and civil rights) is about individual not (protected vs. unprotected?) group justice.

The fact that most (other?) whites are not harmed is as ridiculous of an assertion as that most (other?) blacks are helped when any one for one swap occurs in student admission or employee hiring/promotion is made based on race. It is simply inpossible to right past wrongs (bad racial discrimination?) by committing current wrongs (good racial discrimination?) under the banner of affirmative action, seeking diversity or seeking proportional representation.

What is next; an honest discussion about gender where so long as most males are not harmed then we can (should?) use 'bent' standards of admission, hiring and/or promotion to acheive a near 50/50 gender balance in a (every?) given classroom or profession?
 
Captain Adverse said:
Should he have called out the other side too? By what name?

Look, I don't support the ideals of these citizens, but I do support their right to peaceful assembly and demonstration.

Had the Left not come out in force and acted to create the violence (or at least had the mayor properly separated and policed the lines) those White nationalists would have had their rally...and it would have been a non-story a few days later.

But back to the thread. The fact that the Left demanded he "call out" the White side of the event with no support for his attempt at equal condemnation of all participants...that shows up the issue raised in the article.
Click to expand...

It's whataboutism, the fun new way to defend something without directly defending it. The way it works is someone deflects aways from the thing being criticized, then mirrors it onto somebody or something else, thus diluting the criticism so that it's less potent. With any luck the criticism is dropped altogether out of sheer frustration. Trump did it for two days straight, and you're doing it right now. And all to defend Nazis.

You know, normally, condemning Nazis is a gimme. If you need just one easy thing to condemn in order to look kind of respectable, you always have Nazis. Over the weekend, Republicans identified that, for better or worse (it's the latter), White Supremacists were a part of their club, and rather than condemn them, they defended them.
 
Captain Adverse said:
Should he have called out the other side too? By what name?

Look, I don't support the ideals of these citizens, but I do support their right to peaceful assembly and demonstration.

Had the Left not come out in force and acted to create the violence (or at least had the mayor properly separated and policed the lines) those White nationalists would have had their rally...and it would have been a non-story a few days later.

But back to the thread. The fact that the Left demanded he "call out" the White side of the event with no support for his attempt at equal condemnation of all participants...that shows up the issue raised in the article.
Click to expand...

I would have had zero problems with Trump calling out Antifa right along with the KKK, Neo-Nazis and the White Separatists. In fact I think that would have been ideal.
 
Cardinal said:
It was more than that he didn't focus on White Supremacists, it's that he refused to even call them out by name. For three days.
Click to expand...

3 days:lamo

Obama didn't call Islam terrorism by name for 8 years
 
volsrock said:
3 days:lamo

Obama didn't call Islam terrorism by name for 8 years
Click to expand...

Islam is a religion. Nazis, White Supremacists, and the Ku Klux Klan are groups that are centered in xenophobia and the superiority of the white race above all others.

Different things are different.

Oh, and George W. Bush referred to Islamic extremism once, and then never again. Know why?
 
Cardinal said:
It was more than that he didn't focus on White Supremacists, it's that he refused to even call them out by name. For three days.
Click to expand...

OK, but what of the violence at the same event done by the antifa loons? Violence does not become an acceptable response no matter how offensive you find someone's policy positions.
 
Cardinal said:
It's whataboutism, the fun new way to defend something without directly defending it. The way it works is someone deflects aways from the thing being criticized, then mirrors it onto somebody or something else, thus diluting the criticism so that it's less potent. With any luck the criticism is dropped altogether out of sheer frustration. Trump did it for two days straight, and you're doing it right now. And all to defend Nazis.

You know, normally, condemning Nazis is a gimme. If you need just one easy thing to condemn in order to look kind of respectable, you always have Nazis. Over the weekend, Republicans identified that, for better or worse (it's the latter), White Supremacists were a part of their club, and rather than condemn them, they defended them.
Click to expand...

I don't understand it either. All these people coming out defending Nazis & the KKK?? WTF??? Just because they haven't done really, really really terrible things lately it's OK that they do really really terrible things? And it's not only OK, but they have a right to say them out loud too? There's freedom of speech and then there's idiocracy. We have reached the state of idiocracy
 
ttwtt78640 said:
OK, but what of the violence at the same event done by the antifa loons? Violence does not become an acceptable response no matter how offensive you find someone's policy positions.
Click to expand...

But what about the Nazis at the rally and one of them trying to murder the other protesters with his car?
 
Skeptic Bob said:
I would have had zero problems with Trump calling out Antifa right along with the KKK, Neo-Nazis and the White Separatists. In fact I think that would have been ideal.
Click to expand...

Most don't say that - they wish to place 100% of the blame for violence on 50% of the perps.
 
Captain Adverse said:
I liked this quote:



That's pretty much true.

The actual evidence surrounding the event (without diversion about the one individual crashing his car into a crowd) shows that both sides came armed for combat and both sides instigated violence. Which means the President was actually speaking truth in his first remarks.

Yet the issue revolved around him not focusing on the White Nationalists, who were only half the problem.

I agree with most of what I read in the article; it is hard to have an honest conversation about race when the focus is always on one race.
Click to expand...
Mike, if that is true that both sides came armed, then the Alt Right showing was pathetic. Their opponents (in America will be more dedicated, in far great numbers, with far better arms) will always rumble with neo-nazis. Count on it.
 
Good article and pretty much on point.

Something that I think has gotten worse in the past decade or so is people failing to see things from the other side. I don't mean agreeing with the other side. I mean trying to see things from their point of view without assuming the worst of them.

Not to toot my own horn but I feel like I am pretty good at that. Not because I am gifted with super-human empathy, but because my political views have changed so much over the course of my life.

At various points in my life I was a born-again Christian, a conservative Republican, a deist, an agnostic, an atheist, an anarchist, a Democrat, a Green party voter, a Libertarian party voter, pro-open borders, pro-strong immigration policy, pro- flat tax, pro-progressive tax, a "tax is theft" guy, and so on and so on.

Damn, reading that all at once makes me look pretty scattered brained. :) But part of that is I spent my whole adult life moving from country to country. I never really experienced "living in a bubble" like most people do. Even growing up my family members held very different political views from each other spanning the whole spectrum.

So I have no problem assuming the best of a right-wing conservative Christian because I used to be one. And back then my heart wasn't filled with hate. My motives were pure. My views on race have also evolved. I know being against Affirmative action doesn't make you a racist. I know there are some non-bigoted reasons for not wanting gays in the military and non-sexist reasons for not wanting women in the military. I disagree with those positions, but I can see where they are coming from.

I can disagree with your path of reasoning without assuming your starting point is one of intolerance and hate. Now, there are people starting from a point of intolerance and hate. But they really are the minority.

People need to just stop automatically thinking the worst of people who disagree with them politically.
 
Cardinal said:
But what about the Nazis at the rally and one of them trying to murder the other protesters with his car?
Click to expand...

OK, what about that bigoted moron? He was arrested and will likely spend a long time in a racially charged prison environment. Does that somehow justify prior, present or future violence by others on either side?
 
ModerateGOP said:
I don't understand it either. All these people coming out defending Nazis & the KKK?? WTF??? Just because they haven't done really, really really terrible things lately it's OK that they do really really terrible things? And it's not only OK, but they have a right to say them out loud too? There's freedom of speech and then there's idiocracy. We have reached the state of idiocracy
Click to expand...

Don't confuse defending the right to free expression with defending those who exercise it.

When you start drawing lines about who can exercise this right simply because you don't like the message...those lines can eventually encompass YOUR message.
 
Last edited:
ttwtt78640 said:
Most don't say that - they wish to place 100% of the blame for violence on 50% of the perps.
Click to expand...

I agree with that if he isn't specific. People were out raged when Turmp hastily threw the "from all sides" comment into his denunciation of hate and bigotry. But I really do believe the vast majority of people wouldn't have been as upset if he had been specific. I don't believe most people would have faulted a statement like

"I want to condemn the hatred and violence from some of the protesters in Charlottesville, to include the KKK, Antifa, Neo-Nazis, White Nationalists and the Anarchist Black Block."

Yeah, that will piss the radicals off from both sides but the vast majority of Americans and even the media would be hard pressed to criticize that.
 
Last edited:
Captain Adverse said:
Don't confuse defending the right to free expression with defending those who exercise it.

When you start drawing lines about who can exercise this right simply because you don't like the message...those lines can eventually encompass YOUR message.
Click to expand...

Based on that logic, you will let pedophiles run freely in playgrounds preaching to children while passing out candy bars about how great their belief system is.
 
Cardinal said:
Islam is a religion.
Click to expand...

So its OK if people of a religious group commit terror acts and spew hate in the name of their religion...got it
 
Skeptic Bob said:
I agree with that if he isn't specific. People were out raged when Turmp hastily threw the "from all sides" comment into his denunciation of hate and bigotry. But I really do believe the vast majority of people would have been as upset if he had been specific. I don't believe most people would have faulted a statement like

"I want to condemn the hatred and violence from some of the protesters in Charlottesville, to include the KKK, Antifa, Neo-Nazis, White Nationalists and the Anarchist Black Block."

Yeah, that will piss the radicals off from both sides but the vast majority of Americans and even the media would be hard pressed to criticize that.
Click to expand...

I would hope that would be the case but if one of your example groups (or some other group found to have been present and hateful, bigoted and/or violent) was accidentally omitted then the Trump haters would screech that proves Trump's support for that group. Safer to simply do as he did - condemn any and all bigotry, hate and violence and call for civil discussion of the issues.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom