Community organiser in chief finding it hard to get by without dog in his life

[Aeson]

No, I'm having trouble accepting that its ok to just make words mean whatever you happen to want them to at any particular time.

Then you should stop doing so.

The simple fact is the question was whether or not it is racist for black voters to vote for a black candidate based on the race of the candidates. It is. Rail against it all you want, but it's racist. As it's racist if white voters vote for a white candidate based on the race of the candidates.

You find one form of racism more palatable than the other and so try to pretend it's not racism while the other is. They are analogs though, word for word, with only the races changed.

It is racist for a voter to vote for a white candidate over a black candidate based on the race of the candidates.
It is racist for a voter to vote for a black candidate over a white candidate based on the race of the candidates.

Only if you make the assumption that the voter believes the black candidate is inherently superior to a white candidate based not on policy or expectations of their governing, but simply on their race being better.

a) it was the "given" of the hypothetical we are discussing
b) responding with "only if ..." to say the exact same thing you just quoted is rather absurd

Aww bless, when you don't have reality on your side, resort to calling the other guy names. Please go away and learn the English language better, and then we'll talk again.

I didn't just call you names. I gave explicit reasoning to support the derogatory statements. To wit, you continue to confuse "expectation" with "what should be". Now you are running away from addressing that point and hiding behind insults while doing so, which of course makes you a hypocrite since that is what you've chosen to claim my transgression is. (It's obviously not how I have acted. I continue to address the subject matter.)

I will also note that it's hilarious that you try to lecture me on the meaning of words when you have now twice made the mistake of equating "expectation" with "what should be".

[kentonio]

Please be better at this. I know it's easier to rely on 'Wall of Words(tm)' but if you try replacing your endless rambling with a little factual accuracy you'll probably do a better job of making your case.

TLDR; The word 'racism' has a very clear and distinct meaning. Wanting it to mean something else, does not make it so.

[Aeson]

Please be better at this. I know it's easier to rely on 'Wall of Words(tm)' but if you try replacing your endless rambling with a little factual accuracy you'll probably do a better job of making your case.

You realize you've lost on every point ... now comes the running

TLDR; The word 'racism' has a very clear and distinct meaning. Wanting it to mean something else, does not make it so.

Since your reading skills are insufficient, I will condense it for you. See if you can spot the difference in the two statements: (HINT: "racist" is not the difference!)

It is racist for a voter to vote for a white candidate over a black candidate based on the race of the candidates.
It is racist for a voter to vote for a black candidate over a white candidate based on the race of the candidates.

"expectation" != "what should be"

[Elok]

EDIT: Shame on me for a gratuitously pissy post out of left field. Is there a male-equivalent excuse for "that time of the month"? Don't think so, but thought I'd check...

[kentonio]

As he's just repeated the same dull point, I'm going to just give up now. I have better things to do than argue with someone who just keeps repeating 'It's true because I've said it 6 times now!'..

[Aeson]

As he's just repeated the same dull point, I'm going to just give up now. I have better things to do than argue with someone who just keeps repeating 'It's true because I've said it 6 times now!'..

You won't address the point because you know you can't. I keep repeating it because it's hilarious to watch you fall all over yourself trying to distract from that simple fact.

[Aeson]

I'd help you here, but I've fallen afoul of his dreaded quicksand of idiosyncrasy before. You start arguing with him and next thing you know eight hours have passed, you're having two entirely different arguments and you're no longer entirely sure that up is not down.

At least we can all agree that kentonio doesn't know up from down.

Since you are insinuating that you agree with kentonio ... I would be interested to hear why you think one of these statements is true, and the other false though:

It is racist for a voter to vote for a white candidate over a black candidate based on the race of the candidates.
It is racist for a voter to vote for a black candidate over a white candidate based on the race of the candidates.

[kentonio]

DP

[kentonio]

You won't address the point because you know you can't. I keep repeating it because it's hilarious to watch you fall all over yourself trying to distract from that simple fact.

Since you are insinuating that you agree with kentonio ... I would be interested to hear why you think one of these statements is true, and the other false though:

It is racist for a voter to vote for a white candidate over a black candidate based on the race of the candidates.
It is racist for a voter to vote for a black candidate over a white candidate based on the race of the candidates.

I'll try and explain this one more time. There is no necessity for a voter voting for a black or white candidate based on their race to be making a racist choice. It's certainly possible, but it is not automatically a vote cast because of racism. That is not what racism means. The reason it is generally less likely to be racist when it is a black vote is simply a result of previous oppression of American blacks and a continuing inequality in American society. If American racial history was inverted, then it would be the exact opposite here too.

I've already given you an example of how a race based vote can go well beyond simple racism. You're taking a term that has a clear definition and trying to expand it in ways it was never intended. It annoys me because it's a stupid word game usually played by right wingers who want to hide their own racism. That isn't you, which is why I find it annoying that you're playing along with that crap.

[Aeson]

A very close friend of mine who was a civil rights photographer and close friend of Jim Mock told me specifically, "Yeah, I'm voting for him because he is black...It's our turn"

I must have missed this in the page turn ... OMG this is good!

Your new argument is:

a) a different argument than what I was responding to
b) an even stupider argument that relies upon a sample size of one
c) even more racist

In fact, the very fact that you don't know that most Blacks will openly admit that their vote for Obama was at least partially racist, says volumes about you and how you actually interact with Blacks.

You have a black friend. I get it. Congrats. The fact that you apply a derogatory stereotype derived from that personal interaction onto an entire race certainly wouldn't suggest that you are racist ... no ... definitely not!

[Elok]

It depends how you define the term, honestly. Ken (IIUC) is using it to refer to a belief in the superiority of one race, and/or policies implemented to ensure such superiority. That's the chief boogeyman of our society. If you use it to mean simply "discriminating on the basis of race in some fashion," Aeson is correct, but that's not the kind of racism most people worry about. Obama may have been elected partly because of his novelty as a viable black candidate, or out of a belief that as a black man he can better understand this or that issue. This happens all the time based on non-racial factors; it's pretty much expected that rural Americans, for example, will judge a candidate based on how he appeals to their personal sensibilities. Hence the asinine "which candidate would you rather sit down and have a beer with" question. At any rate, I don't think anybody voted for Obama in an effort to usher in a new age of militant Black Power--and if they did, they were profoundly deluded.

[kentonio]

Exactly. The whole thing of using it for 'discriminating on the basis of race in some fashion' is a recent mutation of the word, and chiefly serves to dilute its original meaning. Which is why when people on the far right use blatantly racist terminology, their stock response is now 'Well blacks voted for Obama, so they're racist too!'.

[Aeson]

I'll try and explain this one more time.

You're so easy. It makes me feel a bit dirty.

There is no necessity for a voter voting for a black or white candidate based on their race to be making a racist choice.

Yes there is. It is by definition racist to make the decision based on race.

The reason it is generally less likely to be racist when it is a black vote is simply a result of previous oppression of American blacks and a continuing inequality in American society. If American racial history was inverted, then it would be the exact opposite here too.

That is of course a racist argument. You are judging whether people are racist or not by the color of their skin, rather than if they are racist or not.

At least Plato can see that black people voting for a black candidate because he's black is racist. You on the other hand are beyond reason.

I've already given you an example of how a race based vote can go well beyond simple racism.

No you haven't. You've just bungled some definitions that you don't actually understand.

You think that because you have empathy for the plight of blacks over the course of history that it makes racism by blacks not racism. It doesn't work that way.

You're taking a term that has a clear definition and trying to expand it in ways it was never intended. It annoys me because it's a stupid word game usually played by right wingers who want to hide their own racism. That isn't you, which is why I find it annoying that you're playing along with that crap.

I attack right and left wing for their racism. You want to pretend voting for blacks based on race is not racism, while voting for whites based on race is racism. You are wrong. They are both very clear examples of racism.

[Aeson]

It depends how you define the term, honestly. Ken (IIUC) is using it to refer to a belief in the superiority of one race, and/or policies implemented to ensure such superiority. That's the chief boogeyman of our society. If you use it to mean simply "discriminating on the basis of race in some fashion," Aeson is correct, but that's not the kind of racism most people worry about.

The entire basis of the argument is because kentonio was claiming the non-existence of the second use of the term.

I was right to call a black voter voting for a black candidate based on race, racism. kentonio was wrong to claim it's not racism, and that the way I was using the term was not proper English.

(There are of course many other reasons kentonio is wrong, but this is probably more text than he will be able to read through already.)

----------------

For Elok only, since kentonio is already overloaded with words.

The first type of racism springs from the second being unabated. The basic principles are the same ... using race to make evaluations rather than relying on actually applicable factors. There's a reason why King said, "... where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character" rather than "... where they will be chosen over whites because they are black"

[kentonio]

Funny that you should mention King, you remind me of something else he said..

I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season".