Black and Republican?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Doogie, I’m not even going through all of what you wrote because you are arguing against Farrakhan. No one cares. I am not arguing FOR Farrakhan. I do not support Farrakhan. Most of the people who attended that rally do not support Farrakhan. You want to believe otherwise. Explaining it further is a waste of time.

[/quote]

I accept your surrender, but would like to point out that you immediately came to Farrakhan’s defense by attacking Bush after I quoted Farrakhan’s speech from the March.

102

I’d say your probably right in terms of race – when you have a substantial majority race, they look to subgroups rather than the whole, especially when there is a lot of disparate culture that is evident to the majority. The minority may still do it, but it’s not as obvious because, frankly, they’re the minority. It’s no better logically or morally, but it’s not as noticable.

However, w/r/t culture, I disagree. Depending on how you slice “culture,” I think a lot of entire “cultures” get labeled based on individuals. Southerners, particularly, get this – and Texans, particularly – and yes, some people will even go so far as to attribute “stupidity” to Texans generally due to President Bush. While the names may be geographic, the idea is particular to white, working-class people who live there.

And, actually, the logic is the same w/r/t even trying to attribute everything or all characteristics of political leaders to all members of their respective parties. We may have decided that morally it offends us more when the “group” is based on race or ethnicity, but the logic of attributing average characteristics of any group to any particular individual is bad (and, of course, it’s worse when you’re guessing about the “average characteristics” to begin with…).

103

[quote]doogie wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Doogie, I’m not even going through all of what you wrote because you are arguing against Farrakhan. No one cares. I am not arguing FOR Farrakhan. I do not support Farrakhan. Most of the people who attended that rally do not support Farrakhan. You want to believe otherwise. Explaining it further is a waste of time.

I accept your surrender, but would like to point out that you immediately came to Farrakhan’s defense by attacking Bush after I quoted Farrakhan’s speech from the March.[/quote]

That is because the quotes you chose were about mistakes he made in speech. I mean, if you are going to tear a man down because of a mistake in a public speech, prepare to have Bush torn asunder.

104

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

BostonBarrister wrote:

Anyway, I’m not saying that there are not those individuals who generalize illogically (committing the classic “part to whole” logical fallacy). What I am saying is that it happens on both sides of the fence, and it’s equally illogical either way.

Professor X wrote:

It no doubt happens on both sides of the fence, but only in terms of minorities do these negatives become representations of the entire race or culture instead of the mistakes of the individual. Never will you hear that Bush represents most or all white people. How many times in this thread has the attempt to link most or all blacks been made in relation to individuals?

I’d say your probably right in terms of race – when you have a substantial majority race, they look to subgroups rather than the whole, especially when there is a lot of disparate culture that is evident to the majority. The minority may still do it, but it’s not as obvious because, frankly, they’re the minority. It’s no better logically or morally, but it’s not as noticable.

However, w/r/t culture, I disagree. Depending on how you slice “culture,” I think a lot of entire “cultures” get labeled based on individuals. Southerners, particularly, get this – and Texans, particularly – and yes, some people will even go so far as to attribute “stupidity” to Texans generally due to President Bush. While the names may be geographic, the idea is particular to white, working-class people who live there.

And, actually, the logic is the same w/r/t even trying to attribute everything or all characteristics of political leaders to all members of their respective parties. We may have decided that morally it offends us more when the “group” is based on race or ethnicity, but the logic of attributing average characteristics of any group to any particular individual is bad (and, of course, it’s worse when you’re guessing about the “average characteristics” to begin with…).[/quote]

So tell me then, why do you all still do it? Why was Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton even brought up in this thread?

105

pox wrote:

“And JeffR is just an idiot.”

pox, I appreciate your honesty.

However, as usual, you didn’t answer the core questions.

That speaks volumes.

Now back to your little game of dodge ball.

JeffR

106

[quote]Professor X wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:

Anyway, I’m not saying that there are not those individuals who generalize illogically (committing the classic “part to whole” logical fallacy). What I am saying is that it happens on both sides of the fence, and it’s equally illogical either way.

It no doubt happens on both sides of the fence, but only in terms of minorities do these negatives become representations of the entire race or culture instead of the mistakes of the individual. Never will you hear that Bush represents most or all white people. How many times in this thread has the attempt to link most or all blacks been made in relation to individuals?
[/quote]

The problem is that the media tends to give Farrakhan and other minority wackos too much attention as if they do represent the minority group they come from. The media does not appear to give White wackos like the clan leader a lot of airtime. So the perception is created that the minority racists represents the views of that race, when that is far from accurate.

107

That’s not what anybody wants to discuss.

They would rather find a way to show how it works in reverse as well… once accomplished they can just point their fingers and brush off any concern.

[Edit: Look at the next post for a case in point example…]

108

[quote]Professor X wrote:

So tell me then, why do you all still do it? Why was Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton even brought up in this thread?[/quote]

If you don’t expect yourself to answer for other ‘black folk’, why would you expect BB to answer for other ‘white folk’?

Just for that, I’m going to lock my car doors at you!

109

[quote]Professor X wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:

BostonBarrister wrote:

Anyway, I’m not saying that there are not those individuals who generalize illogically (committing the classic “part to whole” logical fallacy). What I am saying is that it happens on both sides of the fence, and it’s equally illogical either way.

Professor X wrote:

It no doubt happens on both sides of the fence, but only in terms of minorities do these negatives become representations of the entire race or culture instead of the mistakes of the individual. Never will you hear that Bush represents most or all white people. How many times in this thread has the attempt to link most or all blacks been made in relation to individuals?

I’d say your probably right in terms of race – when you have a substantial majority race, they look to subgroups rather than the whole, especially when there is a lot of disparate culture that is evident to the majority. The minority may still do it, but it’s not as obvious because, frankly, they’re the minority. It’s no better logically or morally, but it’s not as noticable.

However, w/r/t culture, I disagree. Depending on how you slice “culture,” I think a lot of entire “cultures” get labeled based on individuals. Southerners, particularly, get this – and Texans, particularly – and yes, some people will even go so far as to attribute “stupidity” to Texans generally due to President Bush. While the names may be geographic, the idea is particular to white, working-class people who live there.

And, actually, the logic is the same w/r/t even trying to attribute everything or all characteristics of political leaders to all members of their respective parties. We may have decided that morally it offends us more when the “group” is based on race or ethnicity, but the logic of attributing average characteristics of any group to any particular individual is bad (and, of course, it’s worse when you’re guessing about the “average characteristics” to begin with…).

So tell me then, why do you all still do it? Why was Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton even brought up in this thread?[/quote]

Did I bring them up, or are you lumping me with some group? =-)

110

[quote]Professor X wrote:
doogie wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Doogie, I’m not even going through all of what you wrote because you are arguing against Farrakhan. No one cares. I am not arguing FOR Farrakhan. I do not support Farrakhan. Most of the people who attended that rally do not support Farrakhan. You want to believe otherwise. Explaining it further is a waste of time.

I accept your surrender, but would like to point out that you immediately came to Farrakhan’s defense by attacking Bush after I quoted Farrakhan’s speech from the March.

That is because the quotes you chose were about mistakes he made in speech. I mean, if you are going to tear a man down because of a mistake in a public speech, prepare to have Bush torn asunder.[/quote]

They were about his insanity, also.

111

[quote]JeffR wrote:
pox wrote:

“And JeffR is just an idiot.”

pox, I appreciate your honesty.

However, as usual, you didn’t answer the core questions.

That speaks volumes.

Now back to your little game of dodge ball.

JeffR

[/quote]

No one is playing dodge ball with you. You are simply a dumb ass. You think people are just throwing insults at you randomly when the truth is, you really are considered stupid by most of the people on this forum. I have no doubt this is the case. Your status is possibly the lowest of any poster on this forum. That is simply the truth so I find talking with you a drain on my mental faculties.

Blacks can be racists too. There, does little Jeffry feel better? Want a cookie? Whites can be racist and Asians can be racist. Old people can be agist, and you, you Jefffrrreefy are still a dumbass.

112

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
The problem is that the media tends to give Farrakhan and other minority wackos too much attention as if they do represent the minority group they come from. The media does not appear to give White wackos like the clan leader a lot of airtime. So the perception is created that the minority racists represents the views of that race, when that is far from accurate.

[/quote]

This isn’t the media’s fault. The “media” didn’t log on and throw Jesse Jackson into this thread.

113

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Professor X wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:

Anyway, I’m not saying that there are not those individuals who generalize illogically (committing the classic “part to whole” logical fallacy). What I am saying is that it happens on both sides of the fence, and it’s equally illogical either way.

It no doubt happens on both sides of the fence, but only in terms of minorities do these negatives become representations of the entire race or culture instead of the mistakes of the individual. Never will you hear that Bush represents most or all white people. How many times in this thread has the attempt to link most or all blacks been made in relation to individuals?

The problem is that the media tends to give Farrakhan and other minority wackos too much attention as if they do represent the minority group they come from. The media does not appear to give White wackos like the clan leader a lot of airtime. So the perception is created that the minority racists represents the views of that race, when that is far from accurate.

[/quote]

It has nothing to do with race. If a klan leader could draw a crowd of over 600,000 he would get the same amount of attention as Farrakhan. In fact, he would probably get many timese the attention. There would be endless hand-wringing about how such a racist can draw a crowd like there.

114

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

Did I bring them up, or are you lumping me with some group? =-)[/quote]

You are part of the Tammy Faye Bakker, President “can’t pronounce real words” Bush, and random other white political leaders group. I mean, if you throw it at me, I am simply going to keep the ball moving.

115

[quote]doogie wrote:

They were about his insanity, also. [/quote]

Doogie, a fact was explained to you and you tried to tell me this was not the case. I told you that people attended that rally for deeper reasons than Ferrakhan and you told me that you can’t seperate the message from the messenger. You WANT to believe what you want to believe. Discussion is pointless if you refuse to even open your mind to any other points of view than your own. You want to believe you know more about being black than I do. Fine. Continue onward my tenacious black brother.

116

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:

Did I bring them up, or are you lumping me with some group? =-)

Professor X wrote:

You are part of the Tammy Faye Bakker, President “can’t pronounce real words” Bush, and random other white political leaders group. I mean, if you throw it at me, I am simply going to keep the ball moving.[/quote]

If who throws it at you? I don’t think there is a “royal you” to go with the “royal we.”

117


White Leader

118

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

BostonBarrister wrote:

Did I bring them up, or are you lumping me with some group? =-)

Professor X wrote:

You are part of the Tammy Faye Bakker, President “can’t pronounce real words” Bush, and random other white political leaders group. I mean, if you throw it at me, I am simply going to keep the ball moving.

If who throws it at you? I don’t think there is a “royal you” to go with the “royal we.”[/quote]

BB, let’s get serious. I know you’re a lawyer, but some of this shit ONLY works in the courtroom on half sleep jurors. You wrote this earlier:

This implies that you go right along with the flow, ignore those screaming from the shore than they aren’t the ones who built this river, as you pretend you are an innocent in “the system”. Either stand against it, or admit you are a part of it.

119

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:

Did I bring them up, or are you lumping me with some group? =-)

Professor X wrote:

You are part of the Tammy Faye Bakker, President “can’t pronounce real words” Bush, and random other white political leaders group. I mean, if you throw it at me, I am simply going to keep the ball moving.

BostonBarrister wrote:

If who throws it at you? I don’t think there is a “royal you” to go with the “royal we.”

Professor X wrote:

BB, let’s get serious. I know you’re a lawyer, but some of this shit ONLY works in the courtroom on half sleep jurors. You wrote this earlier:

This is at least in part because both of those individuals hold themselves out as “speaking for the black community,” and are given credence in that role by the media. When the media wants the “black” perspective (whether that exists is another matter), how often do we get Jesse’s or Al’s take? Without at least the perception that they are leaders in the black community, neither of them would have any sway whatsoever.

This implies that you go right along with the flow, ignore those screaming from the shore than they aren’t the ones who built this river, as you pretend you are an innocent in “the system”. Either stand against it, or admit you are a part of it.[/quote]

No it doesn’t. And I suggest you drink more coffee. You’re making a large assumption about any other meaning than what it says on its face – particularly given you cut it out of the context of the statement, which was an analysis of why Jesse or Al is given credence as a “black leader”. And my answer, much to vroom’s chagrin, was that the press is largely at fault because it holds them up as black leaders, and as representative voices of the black community. This action by the press exacerbates the problem – and may even create it with respect to those particular individuals, Al and Jesse.

BTW, what part of my analysis of the logic escaped you?

120

[quote]Professor X wrote:
White Leader[/quote]

I love this site…

I’m a capitalist…if a market exists it can be worked. There apparently was a market for the march. I don’t care who promoted the thing…if it hadn’t struck a cord there would have been very few people there.
Black and white folks made money from the effort.
I’ve not heard of any problems that were a direct result of the march.

Can black folks be racist? Yep…
Is there normally a difference in the outcome of that racism in this society? yep