[quote]vroom wrote:
Boston,
Are you saying that black people have to denounce these folks, because they claim to represent black viewpoints, when in fact they don’t represent all black viewpoints?
[/quote]
That would be almost as silly as saying you can’t use the term white pride because the klan uses it too.
[quote]That would be almost as silly as saying you can’t use the term white pride because the klan uses it too.
[/quote]
Doogie,
It has nothing to do with the fact that the Klan uses it, per se, but that in common usage it is associated with racial supremacy.
I suppose if someone goes out there and erases the connotation associated with the phrase, then it would be okay to use it.
Do you see the difference?
[quote]vroom wrote:
That would be almost as silly as saying you can’t use the term white pride because the klan uses it too.
Doogie,
It has nothing to do with the fact that the Klan uses it, per se, but that in common usage it is associated with racial supremacy.
I suppose if someone goes out there and erases the connotation associated with the phrase, then it would be okay to use it.
Do you see the difference?[/quote]
The connotation is applied to it on an individual basis by people, just like some individuals claim that Jackson and Sharpton speak for all Black people. Do you see the similarity?
Ha! Why don’t you point out where you get these silly talking points?
[quote]doogie wrote:
The connotation is applied to it on an individual basis by people, just like some individuals claim that Jackson and Sharpton speak for all Black people. Do you see the similarity?
[/quote]
Dumbest thing posted today. I CHALLENGE you to put up a poster in your classroom with large letters reading “WHITE PRIDE” and see what response you get and if it is just “individuals” who respond and not a general sentiment of society. Get to it. Prove me wrong. Take a Polaroid of the poster and of children and other teachers looking at it.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
doogie wrote:
The connotation is applied to it on an individual basis by people, just like some individuals claim that Jackson and Sharpton speak for all Black people. Do you see the similarity?
Dumbest thing posted today. I CHALLENGE you to put up a poster in your classroom with large letters reading “WHITE PRIDE” and see what response you get and if it is just “individuals” who respond and not a general sentiment of society. Get to it. Prove me wrong. Take a Polaroid of the poster and of children and other teachers looking at it.
[/quote]
Dumbass, of course it would just be “individuals” who took offense. Do you think the walls or desks or markerboard would take offense? And you know what? If there were individuals who took offense, it would just prove that person is as racist as you.
You, the most divisive person on this board, can’t now be claiming there is a “general sentiment of society.” You’ve argued so many times that not all Black people think alike, but now you think ALL of society thinks alike?
I know you think you are being cute with your challenge. However, I’ve stated over and over again that I don’t have “white pride” and I think it is silly for people to take pride in other people’s accomplishments. Putting a poster up in a math class that said “white pride” or “black pride” or “brown pride” would all be equally retarded things to do.
I suppose internet etiquette demands I respond with an equally juvenile challenge. I CHALLENGE you to wear a dashiki to your next formation and see what response you get.
[quote]doogie wrote:
Dumbass, of course it would just be “individuals” who took offense. Do you think the walls or desks or markerboard would take offense? And you know what? If there were individuals who took offense, it would just prove that person is as racist as you.[/quote]
You honestly think no white people would take offense? It is only black people who see what “White Pride” implies currently in society? Only a racist would understand the racist implications of that statement?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
doogie wrote:
Dumbass, of course it would just be “individuals” who took offense. Do you think the walls or desks or markerboard would take offense? And you know what? If there were individuals who took offense, it would just prove that person is as racist as you.
You honestly think no white people would take offense? It is only black people who see what “White Pride” implies currently in society? Only a racist would understand the racist implications of that statement? [/quote]
I’m sure some liberal fool like vroom, more concerned with self-congratulation than rational thought, would take offense. These are the same kind of liberal, racist scum who think the SAT is biased because “it isn’t fair to expect a Black person to know those big words.” The same type of scum who support clearly failed social programs that prevent minorities from improving their station in life–either because it just makes the liberal feel warm and fuzzy inside or because they like knowing that minorities “need” their help. Either way, I don’t give a rats ass about their opinion.
Hello all. I’ve been pretty busy lately and haven’t been able to post for a while. I’m still catching up on these threads, but I would like to ask a question. Is this post about being black and conservative or is it about being black and republican? Because those are two entirely different things.
There are many black people who have conservative viewpoints and are not members of the republican party or any political party for that matter. Conservative is a personal viewpoint that is independent of political affiliation. Republicans do not have the monopoly on conservative viewpoints. In fact, you could argue that the republican party has not been acting very conservative at all for the last several years. So in that light, making republican equal to conservative could be considered ridiculous. But that is another topic for another time and I don’t want to take away from my question.
So is the topic about being black and conservative or is it about being black and republican? If you clear that up, then the rest of the arguements on here will clear themselves up.
I think it’s about being black and an outspoken conservative, particularly on economic policies, but also on certain social policies – very particularly, on social policies on which a lot of liberals hold very strong opinions and that a lot of people associate with either race or underclass issues.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
I think it’s about being black and an outspoken conservative, particularly on economic policies, but also on certain social policies – very particularly, on social policies on which a lot of liberals hold very strong opinions and that a lot of people associate with either race or underclass issues.[/quote]
Then, why does this surprise you? I would expect someone who grew up like I did to understand the problems of the inner city a little better and the obstacles facing those who come from that background. I probably wouldn’t like someone who came from that background yet thought some initiative that would screw the people in that environment in some way was a great idea.
[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
I think it’s about being black and an outspoken conservative, particularly on economic policies, but also on certain social policies – very particularly, on social policies on which a lot of liberals hold very strong opinions and that a lot of people associate with either race or underclass issues.
Professor X wrote:
Then, why does this surprise you? I would expect someone who grew up like I did to understand the problems of the inner city a little better and the obstacles facing those who come from that background. I probably wouldn’t like someone who came from that background yet thought some initiative that would screw the people in that environment in some way was a great idea.[/quote]
Because it doesn’t allow for good-faith disagreement on the causes of the problems, nor for the policy prescriptions that should be undertaken to solve the problems.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
I think it’s about being black and an outspoken conservative, particularly on economic policies, but also on certain social policies – very particularly, on social policies on which a lot of liberals hold very strong opinions and that a lot of people associate with either race or underclass issues.
Professor X wrote:
Then, why does this surprise you? I would expect someone who grew up like I did to understand the problems of the inner city a little better and the obstacles facing those who come from that background. I probably wouldn’t like someone who came from that background yet thought some initiative that would screw the people in that environment in some way was a great idea.
Because it doesn’t allow for good-faith disagreement on the causes of the problems, nor for the policy prescriptions that should be undertaken to solve the problems.
[/quote]
What? Disagreeing with a republican stance means you can’t have “good faith” disagreement? What does that even mean? Do you have “good faith disagreement” with policies you don’t agree with? Every argument on this board has shown that not one screaming Republican here believes they could possibly be wrong on hardly any issue so where is the “good faith disagreement” and why would that even be necessary in politics? You either vote for or against something. You don’t mark a box that reads “good faith disagreement”.
[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
I think it’s about being black and an outspoken conservative, particularly on economic policies, but also on certain social policies – very particularly, on social policies on which a lot of liberals hold very strong opinions and that a lot of people associate with either race or underclass issues.
Professor X wrote:
Then, why does this surprise you? I would expect someone who grew up like I did to understand the problems of the inner city a little better and the obstacles facing those who come from that background. I probably wouldn’t like someone who came from that background yet thought some initiative that would screw the people in that environment in some way was a great idea.
BostonBarrister wrote:
Because it doesn’t allow for good-faith disagreement on the causes of the problems, nor for the policy prescriptions that should be undertaken to solve the problems.
Professor X wrote:
What? Disagreeing with a republican stance means you can’t have “good faith” disagreement? What does that even mean? Do you have “good faith disagreement” with policies you don’t agree with? Every argument on this board has shown that not one screaming Republican here believes they could possibly be wrong on hardly any issue so where is the “good faith disagreement” and why would that even be necessary in politics? You either vote for or against something. You don’t mark a box that reads “good faith disagreement”.[/quote]
No, you have it exactly backwards. Taking the position that “someone who came from that background yet thought some initiative that would screw the people in that environment in some way was a great idea,” does not allow for good faith disagreement on ideas.
It’s actually the ultimate conceit. Someone who takes that position is so sure he is correct on the issues that he thinks the person disagreeing with him must be lying because he won’t admit “the truth.” And so, he will continue to accuse the other person, and not allow that the other person has a good-faith opinion that differs – whether it be an opinion that no one would get “screwed” or whether it be an opinion that a painful solution is necessary to a painful problem because it is the lesser of evils.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
No, you have it exactly backwards. Taking the position that “someone who came from that background yet thought some initiative that would screw the people in that environment in some way was a great idea,” does not allow for good faith disagreement on ideas.
It’s actually the ultimate conceit. Someone who takes that position is so sure he is correct on the issues that he thinks the person disagreeing with him must be lying because he won’t admit “the truth.” And so, he will continue to accuse the other person, and not allow that the other person has a good-faith opinion that differs – whether it be an opinion that no one would get “screwed” or whether it be an opinion that a painful solution is necessary to a painful problem because it is the lesser of evils.[/quote]
You can only make a statement like this if you YOURSELF believe one party to be incorrect on a stance. Doesn’t that mean that you are guilty of what you are accusing others of? Are you saying that anyone who disagrees with a Republican stance simply can’t see the other side? Does this mean disagreement with a Republican is only an act committed by those who don’t understand the issues?
[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
No, you have it exactly backwards. Taking the position that “someone who came from that background yet thought some initiative that would screw the people in that environment in some way was a great idea,” does not allow for good faith disagreement on ideas.
It’s actually the ultimate conceit. Someone who takes that position is so sure he is correct on the issues that he thinks the person disagreeing with him must be lying because he won’t admit “the truth.” And so, he will continue to accuse the other person, and not allow that the other person has a good-faith opinion that differs – whether it be an opinion that no one would get “screwed” or whether it be an opinion that a painful solution is necessary to a painful problem because it is the lesser of evils.
Professor X wrote:
You can only make a statement like this if you YOURSELF believe one party to be incorrect on a stance. Doesn’t that mean that you are guilty of what you are accusing others of? Are you saying that anyone who disagrees with a Republican stance simply can’t see the other side? Does this mean disagreement with a Republican is only an act committed by those who don’t understand the issues?[/quote]
No, I’m not saying you cannot disagree – obviously – I mean, come on, look at me… – anyway, what I’m saying is that if you take a position that someone is worse because he is “from” somewhere and yet is for positions that are “bad” for others from the same place, you are not allowing for the fact the HE MIGHT NOT BELIEVE THEY ARE BAD FOR THOSE PEOPLE. You are assigning to him your belief, because you are so convinced it’s correct.
It’s great to be convinced you are correct – I am quite often convinced I am correct. But, at the same time, you also need to allow that the other person is ALSO convinced he is correct, and not just out there lying or trying to screw people over.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
It’s great to be convinced you are correct – I am quite often convinced I am correct. But, at the same time, you also need to allow that the other person is ALSO convinced he is correct, and not just out there lying or trying to screw people over.[/quote]
It’s all fine and good for both parties to believe that they are correct. The problem lies when one party has the ability to affect the lives of the other party. When that happens, their version of what is “correct” for them gets forced onto a group that doesn’t agree with that version. The result is that the group being affected feels like they are being screwed over. Unfortunately, this is what happens in this country more often than not.
In addition, when some individuals who are from that affected group begin to take to the version of “correct” of the other group for themselves, they get viewed in a negative light.
[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
It’s great to be convinced you are correct – I am quite often convinced I am correct. But, at the same time, you also need to allow that the other person is ALSO convinced he is correct, and not just out there lying or trying to screw people over.
ALDurr wrote:
It’s all fine and good for both parties to believe that they are correct. The problem lies when one party has the ability to affect the lives of the other party. When that happens, their version of what is “correct” for them gets forced onto a group that doesn’t agree with that version. The result is that the group being affected feels like they are being screwed over. Unfortunately, this is what happens in this country more often than not.
In addition, when some individuals who are from that affected group begin to take to the version of “correct” of the other group for themselves, they get viewed in a negative light. [/quote]
That’s called representative government, and it happens to the losing side after every vote.
In addition, your second paragraph illustrates my problem – people are being looked down upon for daring to have their own opinion that is different from the prescribed group opinion.
I hope Prof notes this, given his position on attributing any “group” beliefs to a member of the group (which, it has been stated, should be the same as mine, which is against it).
Republicans don’t always treat Black conservatives so well.
Republicans and blacks
By Thomas Sowell
Jan 31, 2006
A promising new black political figure is emerging in Ohio – Ken Blackwell, a solid, pro-life conservative who has fought for lower taxes. He is seeking the Republican nomination for governor of Ohio and polls indicate that he has substantial support.
Unfortunately, Ohio’s Republicans are a lot like Ohio’s Democrats – both are for higher taxes. On this and other issues, Blackwell is described in the current issue of City Journal as “often at war with his own party as well as the Democrats.”
The Republican Party has not had much success attracting black votes in recent decades and conservative blacks have not had an easy time in the Republican Party.
Blacks have voted so overwhelmingly for Democrats for so long that Republicans have few incentives to try to gain black votes – and little success when they do.
Political inertia can be powerful. The “solid South” voted consistently for Democrats for more than a century. Today, the Jewish vote is just as automatically for Democrats as the black vote is, and with even less reason, since Jews have little to gain from the welfare state and Israel’s strongest supporters are religious conservatives.
When Republicans from time to time try to reach out to blacks, they tend to do so ineptly, if not ridiculously. For reasons unknown, they seem to want to appeal to black voters in the same ways that Democrats appeal to black voters, by adopting a liberal stance.
Why would anyone who wants liberalism go for a Republican imitation when they can get the real thing from Democrats? Republicans do not have a snowball’s chance in hell of winning the votes of liberal blacks.
Nor are they likely to win a majority of the black vote as a whole any time soon. But if Republicans can get just a fourth or a fifth of the black vote nationwide, that can shift the balance of power decisively in their favor.
It is not rocket science to see that whatever chances the Republicans have of making inroads into the black vote are likely to be better among more conservative blacks.
Black religious groups opposed to abortion or homosexual marriage are an obvious group to try to reach. So are black business owners or military veterans.
Does anyone think that President Bush’s awarding a Medal of Freedom to Muhammad Ali was likely to appeal to such groups? Yet this continues a pattern in which Republicans have tried to approach black voters from the left.
Back in 1997, when black Republican Congressman J.C. Watts denounced people like Jesse Jackson and then D.C. mayor Marion Barry as “race-hustling poverty pimps,” House Speaker Newt Gingrich took it upon himself to apologize to Jesse Jackson.
To apologize for what another man said is to treat that man as if he were your child or your servant. Gingrich then added further insult by inviting Jesse Jackson to join him in his box for the Clinton inauguration for his second term as president.
Pulling the rug out from under your friends, in order to appease your enemies, may seem like clever politics to some people. But what could possibly have led Republicans to think that pro-Jesse Jackson blacks were ever going to vote for them?
Did they think that conservative blacks who might have voted for them were more likely to do so when Republicans embraced Jesse Jackson? Did they think that conservative blacks who might have considered becoming Republican candidates were more likely to do so after seeing how J.C. Watts had been treated?
Another conservative black Republican who had the rug pulled out from under him was Michael Williams, when he was in charge of civil rights at the Department of Education. Mr. Williams ruled that setting aside scholarships exclusively for minority students was racial discrimination in violation of civil rights laws.
This courageous ruling was over-ruled in the first Bush administration, leaving Michael Williams with egg on his face.
Ken Blackwell’s candidacy for the Republican nomination for governor in Ohio is a golden opportunity for Republicans, not only in that state but on the national political scene as well. Still, Mr. Blackwell would do well to watch his back.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
It’s great to be convinced you are correct – I am quite often convinced I am correct. But, at the same time, you also need to allow that the other person is ALSO convinced he is correct, and not just out there lying or trying to screw people over.
ALDurr wrote:
It’s all fine and good for both parties to believe that they are correct. The problem lies when one party has the ability to affect the lives of the other party. When that happens, their version of what is “correct” for them gets forced onto a group that doesn’t agree with that version. The result is that the group being affected feels like they are being screwed over. Unfortunately, this is what happens in this country more often than not.
In addition, when some individuals who are from that affected group begin to take to the version of “correct” of the other group for themselves, they get viewed in a negative light.
That’s called representative government, and it happens to the losing side after every vote.
In addition, your second paragraph illustrates my problem – people are being looked down upon for daring to have their own opinion that is different from the prescribed group opinion.
I hope Prof notes this, given his position on attributing any “group” beliefs to a member of the group (which, it has been stated, should be the same as mine, which is against it).[/quote]
Looked down upon for daring to have their own opinion? Who is looked down upon SIMPLY because of an opinion? If a minority chooses an opinion that negatively affects other minorities, you don’t think there should be any negative feelings there? If not, why not? Your assumption is that this “dared opinion” is in everyone’s best interest. How is it you think like this?