I'm not a racist or a homophobe

[Bluzmann57]

I do not feel a need to justify the fact that I am not a racist or a homophobe so I won't. But if I meet or observe an African-American and/or a homosexual person saying or doing things I don't care for, I still have a right to call them a**holes and not be accused of being a racist or homophobe. I stated earlier that Sharpton was and is an asshole, and I stand by that. I guess that means to some people that I am indeed a racist or something like that. Or maybe I should be ashamed that I am a caucasian. I am not and never will be. I am proud to be a member of the human race however, just as Sharpton, Imus, Barney Frank, John Edwards, my neighbor, and all of you are. I see no color. In other words, I prefer to judge a person by content rather than by any other criteria. Racism and other forms of bigotry have no place in a civilized society and should be wiped out.
Btw, I have nothing against Barney Frank, he's just the first notable openly gay person I thought of and so I included him in the above commentary.

[Squatch]

1. Race is only skin deep, but asshole goes all the way to the bone.

or something along those lines.

[William769]

60. Actually it goes all the way to the rectum.

:evilgrin:

[spoony]

88. Bwahahahaha LOL :-)

[BreweryYardRat]

63. OH yeah.

Example: One of the biggest asshats back when I was in high school was gay as they came.

[demosincebirth]

104. Let put it this way

If it wasn't for assholes, we'd all be full of shit.

[ThomCat]

2. There is no such thing as color blind.

Those who refuse to see racism only serve to enable it.

I'm not commenting on you directly. I have no personal knowledge of your prejudices one way or the other. But your post is ridiculous.

Edit for spelling.

[Squatch]

4. Presume much?

[ThomCat]

5. And your point is?

:shrug:

[Squatch]

8. My point is that you're presumptuous.

[ThomCat]

10. And what, exactly, am I presuming?

Or are you simply going to write another post with absolutely no content whatsoever? :shrug:

[Squatch]

16. Let's review, shall we?

"There is no such thing as color blind. Those who refuse to see racism only serve to enable it.

I'm not commenting on you directly. I have no personal knowledge of your prejudices one way or the other. But your post is rediculous."

Translation: I have no knowledge of whom you are, but that's not going to stop me from PRESUMING to know you and deriding your beliefs/feelings.

[ThomCat]

18. I don't presume to know anyone.

The idea that anyone can be colorblind is delusional, at best. Saying so doesn't presume anything about anyone, except that they're wrong about being colorblind.

You're presuming my intentions just to have a reason to get self-righteous. Go ahead if it makes you happy. :eyes:

[Squatch]

20. But that doen't stop you from calling him/her delusional?

How is that NOT presumptuous?

You know, taken to an extreme form, presumption manifests as racism. You're not a racist, are you?

[ThomCat]

22. Wow.

That's quite a straw man you've constructed there.

You know, being argumentative, taken to the extreme form, manifests as being a troll. You're not a troll, are you?

[Squatch]

25. LOL. Nice try.

I've made my point with you.

[ThomCat]

28. You haven't made any point at all

other than that you like to argue and insult people. :shrug:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

23. He didn't call him delusional, he called his post ridiculous.

As it happens, the guy's been defending Imus, and calling Sharpton a racist.

So, IMHO, both qualify.

[Squatch]

31. And I quote:

"The idea that anyone can be colorblind is delusional"

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

33. I agree, it is delusional.

However, he was criticizing racist rhetoric. Not necessarily the OP.

[Bluzmann57]

35. Whoa! Hold on a minute!

Where did I defend Imus? Please find any post where I defended Imus. You can't. So don't lie to these people like that. I did say Sharpton is a racist and I stand by that. But that is in no way defending Imus.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

37. ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=608386#608422

[Bluzmann57]

53. Ok, I ask you once again,

Where in that post did I defend Imus? I guess one can read anything they want to into damn near anything. If you wish to read something into a post, then feel free to do so. But don't try and pass it off as a fact just because you interpret it in your own way.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

9. He's right.

This whole "I'm color blind" thing is a joke. Look how many closet racists use it.

"I'm color blind" is the new "I'm not racist, I've got lots of black friends."

[Squatch]

11. Maybe FOR YOU it's a joke.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

12. It's a joke, period.

Just because people don't realize they're making fools of themselves, it doesn't mean it's not funny.

[CatWoman]

29. LOL

www.blackpeopleloveus.com

[ronnykmarshall]

62. I love this one!

Sally's always saying: "You go girl!" while "raising the roof" to mainstream hip-hop tracks at cheesy bars. That's fun! I relate to that.

[crikkett]

7. ridiculous.

adjective form of the verb "to ridicule"

[SammyWinstonJack]

14. ..

:spray:

[La Lioness Priyanka]

38. this is what my sociology professor often stated. we cant grow up knowing about race

and be color blind. the schemas and stereotypes are well implanted. we can learn to fight them and become less racist. but no one is color blind about social issues.

[Madspirit]

50. Exactly.

We are all racist. Our choices are denial or doing the right thing and recognizing it and struggling with it every day.
The worst are those who deny it.
Lee

[Strawman]

70. that's right

Unfortunately the racism debate always gets personalized and the discussion rarely goes beyond accusations of this or that individual being a bad person with a personal problem of extreme racial prejudice. White people personalize the issue and get really defensive. Nobody wants to think of themselves as a racist. In a way, that's a good thing, but it's also kind of led to a stalemate in terms of racial politics. Eduardo Bonilla-Silva has a good description of it. He says that what we have in this country today is "racism without racists." We have systematic racism, but almost nobody thinks of himself or herself as a racist or acknowledges his or her part in the social construction of racism.

[Odin2005]

85. A lot of sociology is crap.

As a biologist I tend to be wary of social scientists because they are the usual defenders of the "blank slate" and other such nonsense disproved by genetics.

The social sciences are called the "soft" sciences for a reason.

[ThomCat]

89. And a lot of sociology is very valid.

There is a known tendency of people in the hard sciences to belittle the soft sciences. But biology doesn't do nearly as good a job of understanding or explaining people's actions, beliefs, and cultures.

[Odin2005]

92. Sociology, in my experience, has a very strong tendency to be infected with ideology.

Back in the 70s Harvard zoologist E. O. Wilson attacked the notion of the blank slate in is book Sociobiology. He was immediately attacked not on the scientific merits of his book but was instead attacked as a racist and a reactionary (he is neither, he a left-winger AFAIK). There is a reason us biologists have a bad taste in our mouths when it comes to the social sciences.

[ThomCat]

94. It's called social theory.

And it should be attacked. The whole point of social theory is to try to build a framework to explain behavior, and then prove the flaws in that theory so that a better theory can be developed.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

100. the idea sabout schemas/stereotypes are well establed by cognitive science research on memory

and how we encode information.

[Solo_in_MD]

65. Nonsense...your position is racial mcarthyism at its worst

[ThomCat]

67. How so?

:shrug:

The idea that there is no such thing as color blind in a racist society is well known and accepted.

So is the idea that pretending to be color blind is a defense used by racists.

If you've got an argument that somehow proves both of these ideas wrong, I'm sure a whole lot of people would love to hear it.

[Odin2005]

86. The US isn't a "racist" society.

It is a society that has a fair number of racists, but that doesn't make it "essentially" racist. A society can't be "essentially" anything.

[ThomCat]

90. Only a white person could say that.

We are a society in which every major social institution has pervasive racism, and in which people face differences in how they are treated and in the outcomes they achieve based on their race even in the abscense of blatant racism. In healthcare, education, law enforcement, hiring, promotion, housing choices, and every other aspect of our society racism is an inherent part, and an inherent part that we have never been able to eradicate anywhere.

The idea that racism is limited to certain people, or that only overt racism counts as racism are good ways of totally ignoring the scope of racism in our society.

[Odin2005]

95. Typical crap sociological argument.

Societal attitudes are just the sum of the attitudes of the people that make up that society. Get rid of the racist notions in peoples heads and you get rid of the "pervasive racism." As I said above, societies cannot be "essentially" anything.

[ThomCat]

97. Way to totally dismiss sociology.

If you don't agree with it, then it must not exist. :eyes:

[Odin2005]

99. nice way of not trying to refute my argument.

I am dismissing the notion that societies can show "strong emergence."

[ThomCat]

102. What's to refute?

No matter how common it is, or how impossible it is to issolate and remove, you don't think it's inherent.

I see that as wishful thinking with blinders on. There is no substance there to refute. I have no idea how widespread or systematic something would have to be before you'd accept it as a defining part of a society.

If you don't think that anything is ever an inherent part of a society then there's obviously nothing to discuss.

[BoneDaddy]

119. People

act as if only "white" people are racist. I work in a multicultural school where 85 languages/dialects are spoken. I have seen racism by almost every single culture represented at some point or another. I can even argue that the "white" kids often tend to be the most sensitive to it because they have been told, for years, through educational programs (and appropriately so) the effects of their dominant culture upon others through slavery, the decimation of native populations, etc. I find a great deal of ignorance and racism from many of the non-white cultures. Interesting observations.

I get so tired of the intellectual void that is often represented on this board about the realities of life. In many people's minds, only white people can be racists and that has to be the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Just turn on some of the "black" radio shows if you want a taste of what I mean. Some of the all or none statements are not only racist, they are split from reality.

[Burma Jones]

68. True True

Everyone has racism in their psyches. Not everyone is a Racist. How you handle it is what counts.

[cgrindley]

71. Those who live by idiotic aphorisms will...

breaking out reductivist aphorisms doesn't help your case. Firstly, it is illogical to presuppose that since the OP doesn't recognize the importance of race in forming a judgment of others (laudable to say the least) that he or she is incapable of recognizing racism in others. Secondly, you have not proven that even if that were the case, that a person unable to recognize racism would by necessity be aiding the racism of others.

Your post is ridiculous.

[ThomCat]

72. LOL! I'm so glad I could entertain you.

:)

I never said he was incapable of recognizing racism. He claimed he doesn't take race into account, and that's highly unlikely. It fact, it's virtually impossible in a racist society. We all live with conceptions of race that color our perceptions.

Nobody who opposes racism ever claims to be blind to race. Only people who are defending themselves from charges of racism ever claim to ignore race. It's so common that's it's practically a truism.

If you find my post ridiculous then clearly you and I have radically different experiences and perspectives. Oh well. :shrug:

[cgrindley]

73. You just did it again

Nobody who opposes racism ever claims to be blind to race. Only people who are defending themselves from charges of racism ever claim to ignore race. It's so common that's it's practically a truism

1. Prove it.
2. That's a stretch.
3. No it isn't.

[ThomCat]

75. Right...

I won't convince you, and you have no point with which to convince me.

My civil rights experience convinces me that I'm right on this. I've known many, many people who work and fight and speak out to oppose racism and none of them have ever claimed to be color blind, but many racists have. That may be anecdotal, but it's proof to me.

You can dismiss it, but while you're demanding that I prove my personal experiences you're offering absolutely Nothing to back up your view. That, in itself, speaks volumes.

And yes, it is so common that it's practically a truism. Perhaps you have little or no knowledge/experience in the subject. :shrug:

[cgrindley]

79. I work exclusively with minorites

in the poorest zip code in the USA.

I'm not asking you to cite personal experiences in defence of your perspective, just to attend to some sweeping generalizations. I don't have to give any reasons for wanting proof of the truthfulness of these generalizations. The desire to have someone prove a claim requires no justification.

And even though it applies equally to both of us, personal experience doesn't really cut the mustard as far as proof goes.

I just don't think that you can conclusively demonstrate that every single person who strives for civil rights for all always consciously filters their preceptions of a person's actions through the lens of race. I doubt it's true. I certainly doubt you can prove it.

I'm not claiming anything in particular except that you probably can't prove your claims.

[ThomCat]

80. Find, if you can,

any evidence that anyone, anywhere, in a racist society is able to be totally free of racially-based conceptions, perceptions and filters then I'd love to know about it.

If it were possible then I would accept your premise that I have to prove someone uses such filters. You're assuming that someone does not have such filters unless it's proven that they do. But the whole point is that nobody is entirely free of them. Some people just recognise that they are there and work to influence them. Those lenses are there by default, and you should prove that it's possible for them to be absent.

If you can prove that then you are a shoo-in for a nobel prize.

On the very face of it, your idea that someone, anyone, doesn't filter their perceptions through the lens of race (and gender, and disability, and a whole bunch of other lenses too) is counter to the very idea of what prejudice is. I'm not sure how to address your idea that those lenses might not be there.

All I can figure is that perhaps you think racism is some trivial, episodic thing that only exists in certain people. And that only racists view people and notice race. :shrug:

[cgrindley]

83. But you made the first claim

I merely challenged you on that first claim. It's now your turn.

By the way, to repeat myself a little, I proposed that everyone does indeed have these filters, but I claimed that these filters are not always in place, and I would add that these filters are not always 100% negative. As far as the first point goes... EG your claim is that if Louis Farrakhan acts like an asshole then we are necessarily seeing him as an asshole through the filter of race. Whereas I think that a determination of Farrakhan's assholery can be made oblivious to his race. As far as the second point goes... I do think that racism is probably episodic and that it only exists in certain people. I modify what you wrote and would suggest that only racists view people negatively with regard to race. After all, noticing race is not inherently racism.

Racists only see race and not people. Normal people see people and sometimes notice race.

[ThomCat]

87. You're asking me to prove that the filters are always in place.

In otherwords, prove that they can never be removed. That involves proving a negative, since I'd have to somehow prove that absolutely everyone alive has them. You, on the other hand only have to prove that one person does not.

The pervasiveness of racism is proof that those lenses can't be removed. If they could, then certainly we would be able to site at least one person somewhere who doesn't use them.

I am not claiming that if Farrakhan is an asshole that everyone thinks it's because of race. I have no idea where anything even resembling that claim comes from.

If he's an asshole, and if someone like Rush Limbaugh is also an asshole, race will play a part in how seriously people take each of them. Race will play a part in how many repercussions each one faces. Race will play a part in whether or not they spend the rest of their life being beated over the retorical head for something they said, or if it will be forgiven.

People will not all view Farrakhan the same way, nor will everyone view Limbaugh the same way. I'm not claiming that race homogenizes people's reactions. But race influences the way they are both treated as a result of being assholes, or despite being assholes.

Your idea that racism is episodic is a classically white way of viewing racism. It ignores institutional racism, cultural racism, and socially pervasive racism. It ignores all the ways that programs, agencies, and services are designed to "coincidentally" benefit white people even in the absence of episodic racism.

The idea that racism is episodic is a way of blaming a few bad apples, which absolves everyone else. It says that even if we all participate in a society that is racist, and even if we all support institutions that are racist, nobody is responsible for it. That view of racism has been thoroughly discredited since at least the 60s.

This idea that "normal people" notice "people" doesn't match any reality that I've ever seen. I've never known anyone who doesn't notice race. That sounds like a nice, idealized concept, but it's a fairy tale. It's a rationalization created by people for whom racism isn't a personal reality.

And let's go back to the idea that if you can't see race then you enable racism. If you can't or don't see race, then how would you know racism when you see it? And if you don't see racism, then how are you going to help in the fight against racism?

[cgrindley]

103. Okay

Can a person view Limbaugh as an asshole without seeing him as a white asshole? I certainly think so.

I also think that you are Americanizing the experience of race and racism. America's experience with race is not the global experience. Many people here, myself included, are not Americans, nor did we grow up in America.

I think that you would also have to define "society" before I would be willing to accept that "society" is inherently racist. The same goes for "institutions" which ones? All of them? Is the Whitney racist? What about the Red Cross? Habitat for Humanity? The CDC?

I also would like to have some decent footnotes that demonstrate that an episodic view of racism has been discredited since the 1960s.

As you have already conceded in the first part of the post, you are in a position where you simply cannot prove your claims. This isn't the fault of my argument, but of your claims.

Finally, I have never seen a white rhino, and yet I still donate to the WWF.

Seriously, I never claimed that people cannot see race, I claimed that reality isn't always viewed through a filter of race. I don't think that concept has been even remotely demonstrated by any sort of science. I daresay you can probably find a few dozen poorly written sociology articles claiming it, but I doubt they can prove it either.

Really, a blind observer would still be able to tell that the Star bellied vs None attempt at ethnic cleansing is deeply fucked up.

[JackRiddler]

98. Andover, MA?

http://wealth.mongabay.com/tables/100_lowest_income.html

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

101. Weren't you living in Bellingham a few weeks ago?:

[gollygee]

91. I agree

http://www.tolerance.org/news/article_tol.jsp?id=687

[ThomCat]

96. Excellent article.

Thank you!
:)

[Random_Australian]

115. Ok, who else makes no sense of that post? I mean, the OP said he

preferred to judge people on whether or not they are arseholes, rather than their race or ethnicity.

Then, we get this reponse saying "anyone who believes there is no racism in the world, at all, is going to propogate racism"

Did the OP say that? I think not. I could have sworn he said he didn't care about the colour of people's skin, not that they thought no-one was racist.

Eh.

As an aside, I could 'demonstrate' that the OP is racist from what he said, but attack psychology is for sillies. :)

[Done]

3. Is that you Colbert?

Colbert is the only person who doesn't see color.

[Rosemary2205]

13. LOL :) nt

[Madspirit]

6. Huh?

If you see a black person or a gay person doing something or saying something you don't care for what does their color or orientation have to do with it?
Lee

[Bluzmann57]

15. Nothing

That was the point of the post. I don't give a damn about all of that stuff, although we all see people who are different in some way than us and take notice. I am saying that there are gays and African-Americans as well as many other humans who do and say things we disagree with. And I get tired of being called a "racist" or a homophobe" when I call them on it. It happens, at least in the real world.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

17. "And I get tired of being called a "racist" or a homophobe""

Is this happening frequently?

[Bluzmann57]

26. No

Any other questions? Someone commented on the fact that I called Sharpton a racist asshole (which he is) in another post and I felt like setting the record straight. Fuck it. I know the truth.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

30. So you like making phony accusations of racism...

but you can't take it?

[Bluzmann57]

40. So you are saying that Sharpton is a saint?

Some of us will never forget the Tawana Brawley incident, where Sharpton proved that he really doesn't care much for white people.

[ThomCat]

41. So those are the choices?

He is either a saint or a racist?

Do you hold yourself to that same standard? Or anyone else? Or only Sharpton?

[ContraBass Black]

42. Are you actually beating your head into a wall like your sig pic?

It never occurred to me before what an appropriate expression it is.

[ThomCat]

45. There are definitely days.

:)

[ContraBass Black]

55. Between Imus, the Neutron Bomb, and the Hydrogen-Powered Ford

This is definitely that day for me.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

43. Yeah, I don't forget Tawana Bradley either.

Tawana Bradley accused white men of rape, an accusation she stands by to this day, Sharpton defended her.

How that's supposed to make Sharpton a racist, I haven't a clue.

Some how I think the word "uppity" is involved in this.

[ThomCat]

47. Funny, I was thinking the same thing.

The word "uppity" definitely seems to be floating in the air around here somewhere, unsaid but definitely implied.

[uppityperson]

106. Excuse me?

I'm floating!!!!!!!11

airily yours,
uppityperson, world citizen

[ThomCat]

21. If people keep calling you a racist or homophobe

then maybe you should ask yourself what they're seeing. :shrug:

[Bluzmann57]

32. Read post no. 17

And I have had it. I can't even make a fucking comment without people judging me in a negative light. Fuck it!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Madspirit]

36. Exactly!

If people keep calling you this, you might want to look inward.
Lee

[Laughing Mirror]

19. I did not have lunch with that woman

This is NOT a nuthouse.

I am NOT a crook!!

[CatWoman]

24. ok, I know

but last night you stayed at a Holiday Inn Express, right?

[peacetalksforall]

27. The issue is tolerance combined with numbers or volume.

If a person hates all - it's volume and a phobia. If selective and there is a reason to call them your favorite all encompassing swearword - for reasons other than race - you don't have to worry, I think.

I have equal disrespect for Rice and Coulter. Maybe more for Rice because she or they pass her off as accomplished and qualified - Stanford, Chevron, scholar, pianist, government servent, head of NSC, Secretary of State and she is nothing but a war proliferator and a perpetual liar - a very poor liar. I won't use a swear word - I just say traitor to the people.

And to even this out - Coulter and they pass off Coulter as lawyer, Constitutional Law expert, author - she is nothing to me but a joke and a vicouos operator and a spectacle for the way she speaks and coifs, tosses, and dresses to draw attention. Since she works at being a spectacle, I kinda pity her, but my anger goes to Rice - she (or any person holding the present position) is in a position to do great things and she just destroys.

If you say why you're calling them something that has nothing to do with their color, you're safe, aren't you?

[Bluzmann57]

46. I guess you are more eloquent than I

More or less, that is what I was trying to convey. Ms. Rice is indeed an educated and accomplished woman, and I guess Coulter is educated as well, although she sure doesn't act like it, but both are bad people. And the fact that Ms. Rice is an African-American woman has nothing to do with the fact that she is reprehensible.
Granted, my original post has nothing to do with either of the above mentioned women, but it conveys what I was trying to say.

[nini]

93. well said

:thumbsup:

[Karenina]

34. "This has been a Public Service announcement."

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[mudesi]

39. If you have to say you're not....

If you have to say you're not a racist or a homophobe....well a good percentage of the time that's a somewhat subconscious declaration of bigotry.

[Matamoros]

44. So have you slept with a black man then?

Just curious. How about a Mexican?

[Bluzmann57]

48. Now that is ridiculous

I am a heterosexual. Therefore, I am not sexually attracted to men. So why would I sleep with them?

[Matamoros]

51. So you're homophobic then, not racist.

Just kidding.
:-)

[WilliamPitt]

49. I am not a jelly doughnut.

[CatWoman]

52. mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Jelly Donut...............................

[stanwyck]

54. You wouldn't have to start a thread

like this if your posts didn't belie your premise.

[Madspirit]

56. heehee

Exactly Stanwyck.
Lee

[BuyingThyme]

69. One wouldn't be compelled to start a thread if

somebody else publicly called him or her a racist based solely on the fact that he or she didn't happen to like a particular black person?

Tell me, won't you, how can you possibly come to such an outrageous conclusion? And how can a statement of such possibly belie the premise? Do you not understand what people (perhaps like yourself) are doing when they attack so baselessly and viciously, without any logical reason for doing so?

What is it you're trying to say?

[stanwyck]

78. Do some research

and you'll understand. This isn't an isolated incident. Personally, I'm not a fan of those defending the "nappy headed hos" ugly insult to an accomplished group of young women. There's basis for our condemnation. But you'll have to read more than you have or else you'll continue to be lost.

[BuyingThyme]

81. I was responding to your post.

I guess you don't really believe what you said.

[stanwyck]

105. Like I said

you need to read more in order to understand our reaction. The originator has a collective history which you don't seem to be cognizant of -- and which prompted this original thread. This is not in response to one incident. But to many. (and we have to be careful due to DU rules on attacks based on previous posts. Read the DU rules).
And your response to my post made no sense. I wasn't responding to one statement. But to many.

[BuyingThyme]

57. Believe it or not, language like this offends some people here.

And it's those same few people who think they have to misrepresent what you say in order to satisfy their needs to stifle debate.

Of course, the fact that it's so easy to demonstrate their dishonesty only serves to undermine their causes.

Well, you already know that.

[Matariki]

58. why do i always expect to see statements like this followed by the word 'but'?

btw, what is it you don't like about Sharpton?

[Bluzmann57]

59. Ok boys and girls,

The Cubs have their home opener coming up in a few minutes so I am going now. It's been a pleasure discussing this with you. Feel free to rip me, as I won't be around to defend myself. Maybe that African-American first baseman for the Cubs will hit a couple of long ones. It is unknown to me whether either team has any gay people, but if so, they are good enough to be Major Leaguers, so they have athletic talent.

[BuyingThyme]

66. Hey Bluzmann57, at least one of the people attacking you

tried to paint me as a homophobe because I said it might be embarrassing to accidentally kiss your friend for whom you had no romantic feelings. I even dared suggest that such a situation might make for a funny commercial.

Now, everybody here knows this statement to be true, but the truth simply does not serve some people. Some will lie, they will prompt others to lie, they will attack by any means possible.

No biggie.

[Moses2SandyKoufax]

109. LOL

"I ain't no racist, Derrek Lee is my favorite baseball player"

LOL

[nam78_two]

61. Can I be your new brown friend?

:bounce:

[Beausoir]

64. You forgot the "but...". Here's how it always goes....

I'm not a racist...BUT........(insert racist screed here).

[Madspirit]

74. Racism!

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=9620



If you're looking to understand why discussions between blacks and whites about racism are often so difficult in this country, you need only know this: when the subject is race and racism, whites and blacks are often not talking about the same thing. To white folks, racism is seen mostly as individual and interpersonal--as with the uttering of a prejudicial remark or bigoted slur. For blacks, it is that too, but typically more: namely, it is the pattern and practice of policies and social institutions, which have the effect of perpetuating deeply embedded structural inequalities between people on the basis of race. To blacks, and most folks of color, racism is systemic. To whites, it is purely personal.

These differences in perception make sense, of course. After all, whites have not been the targets of systemic racism in this country, so it is much easier for us to view the matter in personal terms. If we have ever been targeted for our race, it has been only on that individual, albeit regrettable, level.

But for people of color, racism has long been experienced as an institutional phenomenon. It is the experience of systematized discrimination in housing, employment, schools or the justice system. It is the knowledge that one's entire group is under suspicion, at risk of being treated negatively because of stereotypes held by persons with the power to act on the basis of those beliefs (and the incentive to do so, as a way to retain their own disproportionate share of that power and authority).

<snip>

Until white folks get as upset about racism actually limiting the life choices and chances of people of color, as we do about black folks hurting our feelings, it's unlikely things will get much better. In the end, it's hard to take seriously those who fume against this so-called reverse racism, so petty is the complaint, and so thin the ivory skin of those who issue it.

[renie408]

76. Good post. n/t

[ThomCat]

77. Nice article.

:applause:
Thank you for posting this.

[philosophie_en_rose]

112. Excellent article. Thank you.

:thumbsup:

[nam78_two]

116. Thanks-good article

You should post that in a separate thread. It will be lost in the clutter in here.

[Catherine Vincent]

82. I think I know what you're getting at.

And it is okay to call Sharpton or a gay person an ahole. There are blacks and gays that are aholes. Alan Keyes comes to mind.

[nini]

84. I agree with you

If you think someone is an asshole because of their attitude/behavour etc.., to not say they are purely because they are black or gay is reverse racism/homophobia.

Obviously, if one thinks EVERY person of another color or sexual orientation is an asshole then there is an issue.


Assholes come in all races, creeds, sexual orientations - no one group has a monopoly on assholes. I'm an equal opportunity asshole-caller outer :D

I don't know the history of the OP so the replies to him may make more sense than me in this case.

[BlooInBloo]

107. Awwww... I bet some of your best friends are black, huh?

Then again, you wouldn't know, would you? Since you "see no color".

:rofl:

Quick quiz: What's the quickest way to tell someone sees little *but* color?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

The only downside I've ever felt to being white is that people can confuse me with you - now THAT'S hell, lemme tell you.

[Bluzmann57]

108. Ok I see color

But I don't fucking care about a person's skin color, only about their character. And I wonder if you have any. I'm REALLY tired of all you motherfuckers saying I am what I ain't simply because of a statement I made. I am not a racist, but I am becoming an angry man. And there is no man so dangerous as one who is backed into a corner. And yeah, it is hell when people confuse me with you, but not like you think. So laugh away people. I always have the last laugh though.
By the way, I make no apologies for my language. I simply don't care anymore.

[Madspirit]

110. This sounds threatening.

Alerting on this...

[BlooInBloo]

114. noooooooo! dammit - people need to see these things. sigh.

[BlooInBloo]

120. Maybe I should call the wahmbulance? lol!

[Withywindle]

111. "I'm not a racist or homophobe, BUT...."

What comes after that is never, ever good.

[philosophie_en_rose]

113. "I'm a lifelong democrat, BUT...."

These types of phrases are familiar and suspicious. :bounce:

[Reterr]

117. Whatever dude

Who says you are any of those things for disliking specific people of any race/sexual orientation :shrug:....
This is a senseless thread...
I am a straight, white female and I dislike Condi Rice, Clarence Thomas and Andrew Sullivan the same way I dislike Michelle Malkin, Cheney and Tucker Carlson. I don't feel the need to make posts about this...

Whats the big breakthrough here :shrug:?

[terrya]

118. That's fine. Just don't lump ALL people of color or gay people as bad.

There are gay people who are assholes. There are African-American people who are assholes. But that solely relates to what kind of people they are...not because of their color or sexual orientation.

[Bluzmann57]

121. Last post in this subject for me.

But I do not lump all people of color or all gay people into the "good" or "bad" category. I stated that in my post and I stand by it. We have all met good and bad people of all stripes. Now, everyone, let's put this to bed. Let's concentrate on things that matter, like ousting bush and cheney and ending the madness in Iraq.