Skip to main content

And after actually reading this 5 page article by Steven Thrasher which accurately lists numerous incidents of lunacy by White (Tea Party) Americans from Birtherism to the Grand ACORN Hoax, from the Great White Stampede to protect the Honor and Wisdom of Dr. "N-gger N-gger N-gger" Laura to Fox Disinformation Channel's New Black Panther Freak-out, from Andrew Breitbart's Slander of Shirley Sherrod to Mark William's Demented Letters to Lincoln  - I too now believe that (Some) White Americans seem to be losing their minds.

A bit from the article itself.


As with other forms of dementia, the signs weren't obvious at first. After the 2008 election, when former House majority leader Tom DeLay suggested that instead of a formal inauguration, Barack Obama should "have a nice little chicken dinner, and we'll save the $125 million," black folks didn't miss the implication. References to chicken, particularly of the fried variety, have long served as a kind of code when white folks referred to black people and their gustatory preferences—and weren't many of us already accustomed to older white politicians making such gaffes? But who among us sensed that it was a harbinger that an entire nation was plunging into madness?

Admittedly I hadn't heard about that one, but after a two years campaigning in the wake of Reverend Wrong and Barack supposedly "Palling Around with a Domestic Terrorist(s)" (who by the way had never been charged or prosecuted for anything) it shouldn't be a surprise.

Seemed like that, didn't it? After all, what was the beef? Obama's father was Kenyan, and the kid was born in Hawaii—which is barely a part of the United States to begin with (only a state in 1959!). His mother was white, and after the Kenyan guy left, she married an Indonesian guy, so little Barack lived in Jakarta  for a while before coming back to Hawaii to be brought up largely by his white grandparents. . . . And that's it? Come on, this was after-school-special material, the kind of thing that brings a tear to your eye because little half-Kenyan/half-white Barry made good, not the stuff of conspiracy novels.

And then came the Birthers.

But the more you shook your head at it, the more it seemed to have taken root deep in the lizard part of the white nervous system. Obama is not an American. He says he's Christian, but he has a Muslim-sounding name. He's not black, he's not white. . . . Is . . . is he even human?

Today, Newsweek  has found, nearly a quarter of Americans believe that Obama is a Muslim, with barely 42 percent of the nation accepting his claim that he's a Christian. CNN finds that a quarter of Americans also believe that Obama was "probably or definitely" born in another country.

Harris found in an online poll that 14 percent of Americans believe in their hearts that President Barack Obama is the antichrist, with nearly a quarter of Republicans saying so.

At least in this form, however, Satan (sometimes) wears a flag pin.

Now the article itself is great and full of snark and self-depreciation as it goes from one categorical example of abject insanity to another - however it hasn't really been taken in the same spirit by those it attempts to lampoon.  From Steven's own twitter.

@Steven_Thrasher Crazy white people are emailing me crazy shit to prove they're not crazy. Not working. Lots of nice emails, too.

@Steven_Trasher White folks used to shy away from candidates who e-mailed pictures of a woman being fucked by a horse, didn't they? http://tiny.cc/...

@Steven_Thrasher Love that people scream with authority thatt I'm obviously white or obviously black. We bi's keep them on their toes!

@Steven_Thrasher People have been calling our receptionist to ask if I'm black.

@Steven_Thrasher Want to read my hate mail? http://bit.ly/... My colleague analyzes it at the Voice Institute of Crazy White American Folk

And those letters are something...

​Hear now, boy: This week's Village Voice's cover story by staff writer Steven Thrasher, an essay entitled White America Has Lost Its Mind, sure has attracted some interesting attention! Whether or not readers agree with what we have to say, we often get letters from them regarding our stories, many of which are exciting, substantial, or, at the very least, rational, nuanced, and psychologically stable. These letters are none of those things.

Patient #1: Tim Timmermans of Manassas, VA.

   From: Tim Timmermans [mailto:timt@paramount-mech.com]
   Sent: Wed 9/29/2010 5:25 PM
   To: Thrasher, Steven
   Subject: your article

   Is a temper tantrum. You and your party are about a month away from getting the ass kicking your father should have given you had he been interested enough in his kids to have been around. [...] Here's a suggestion. Get out of NYC for a week or two, and see the real America. We don't hate you because you're black or gay. We hate you because you are a racist, self loathing pile of crap who believes everyone is against them when in reality we just don't care about you. BTW, your father is a great man as much as Obama is a great president. Just because you think it doesn't mean it's true.

   Timothy J. Timmermans
   Chief Estimator
   Paramount Mechanical
   Ph. (703) 369-xxxx
   Fx. (703) 369-xxxx

Diagnosis: Patient exhibits classic signs of rotting mid-cortex and inability to process concepts of irony, intentional hyperbole. Patient is also exhibiting widely documented delusion phenomenon of doctor/patient transference and confusion of roles, prescribing attending clinician trip to imaginary land where New York City and the rest of America are sovereign nation-states at war.

Recommended treatment: 1,000 milligrams of Popeye's Spicy Chicken, three times a day, with biscuits, and week of in-patient treatment spent caddying for Fuzzy Zoeller.

Patient #2: "jay5775@ionet.net."

   From: jay5775@ionet.net [mailto:jay5775@ionet.net]
   Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 7:08 PM
   To: Thrasher, Steven
   Subject: Howdy

   You racist fuck. Like to use the term white boy a lot huh? Well how about this black boy.... go fuck yourself. Regarding your recent article... sounds like you're the one all gunched up with fear. I could smell it right from the page. Did I tell you to go fuck yourself? Oh yeah I guess I did. Have a great day now you silly little racist black boy.

Diagnosis: Patient has deluded self into thinking olfactory senses are superhuman, has strong desire to watch African-American men masturbate without discretion.

Recommended treatment: "Black Dick."

Crazy people talking Crazy to prove their not crazy - YOU'Re the one that's crazy.  And all Steven really wanted was a Pepsi?

Can it get any sweeter than that?

Need more examples of the nutty, how about the latest tweets from the Queen of Crazy herself?

@SarahPalinUSA Grayson's twisted campaign ad adds to "media distrust" problem;he blatantly lies in vile rant,but greedy media run it anyway w/no fact check

Florida deserves the best! No need 2 settle 4 such an odd,troubled character 2 represent your beautiful state. Take pride in Daniel Webster

The Ad Palin is talking about is this one, where Grayson calls his opponent "Taliban Dan" for his views that women should be subservient to men - and yet someone how Palin has no problem "Palling Around with" this Domestic Talibani...

Speaking of "No Fact Check", Mrs Fact Bouncy Bouncy doesn't seem to know that Dan Webster refuses to object to the content of this ad. Oops.

Grayson's response?  Also tweeted.

@AlanGrayson: What is it about Palin and Twitter? Is it that 140 characters represents the maximum length of Palin's attention span?

Yeah, that seems about right.

Vyan

Originally posted to Vyan on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 07:12 AM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (335+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JekyllnHyde, Alumbrados, Ed in Montana, Terri, keirdubois, taylormattd, grollen, MrHinkyDink, TrueBlueMajority, BigOkie, mattman, TechBob, Emerson, TheGreatLeapForward, Shockwave, Arnie, Jay C, OLinda, LynnS, eeff, expatjourno, Dumbo, rasbobbo, dc 20005, DemInGeorgia, opinionated, joynow, bronte17, missLotus, indybend, Silverleaf, BlackSheep1, understandinglife, DaleA, metal prophet, Glic, paulitics, oceanspray, sngmama, Mber, Glinda, bustacap, sidnora, wader, revsue, jdmorg, hhex65, behan, psnyder, Moody Loner, NYC Sophia, CitizenOfEarth, ccr4nine, potatohead, defluxion10, TX Scotia, Catte Nappe, bmor, sancerre2001, alizard, Oaktown Girl, JayBat, econlibVA, Curt Matlock, tomjones, murrayewv, schroeder, Gowrie Gal, nailbender, vcmvo2, Bluesee, radarlady, Tinfoil Hat, drumwolf, CTPatriot, subtropolis, SherwoodB, Chinton, irate, Alice Venturi, elkhunter, basquebob, TN yellow dog, MT Spaces, dewtx, ChemBob, drewfromct, EJP in Maine, majcmb1, Pam from Calif, pasadena beggar, jimreyn, where4art, Fury, lotlizard, Ice Blue, peteri2, Sandino, serrano, sodalis, Ekaterin, kathny, begone, reddbierd, third Party please, elliott, Shirl In Idaho, Jennifer Clare, Kingsmeg, tobendaro, Themistoclea, seefleur, Dvalkure, koNko, buhdydharma, dougymi, deha, Son of a Cat, luckydog, jwhitmill, blueoasis, NBBooks, MJ via Chicago, thegood thebad thedumb, JVolvo, Preston S, Demena, Nedsdag, Turbonerd, 5x5, JugOPunch, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, fiddlingnero, means are the ends, zedaker, blueness, punditician, CharlieHipHop, janetsal, Thinking Fella, tegrat, bluicebank, dotsright, jessical, C Barr, uncomfortably numb, lordcopper, jds1978, FishOutofWater, Matt Z, flumptytail, DWG, sfbob, joedemocrat, kingyouth, Orange County Liberal, NoMoJoe, artisan, getlost, jayden, crose, theChild, gchaucer2, skod, M Sullivan, i like bbq, trueblueliberal, gizmo59, adrianrf, sk4p, Devsd, davidseth, wyvern, wayoutinthestix, spacejam, Mr Stagger Lee, bythesea, Unique Material, elwior, ajr111240, beltane, Happy Days, pamelabrown, Haplogroup V, MrJayTee, pickandshovel, Jeff Y, Ladyhawk, Tam in CA, Seamus D, temptxan, Gemina13, glendaw271, Bag of Bones, Blogvirgin, nokkonwud, James Kresnik, BYw, allie123, rodentrancher, HoosierDeb, sydneyluv, GrannyOPhilly, LaFeminista, maggiejean, rubyclaire, cybrestrike, weaponsofmassdeception, Neon Vincent, MTmarilyn, Unseen majority, greengemini, BigAlinWashSt, bsmechanic, Notus, velvet blasphemy, krllos, DefendOurConstitution, Daily Activist, lookit, Bonsai66, beijingbetty, MKSinSA, oxfdblue, Hot2na, allep10, Deoliver47, kevinpdx, IreGyre, seeta08, vadasz, sherijr, nancat357, Vita Brevis, Larsstephens, dhajra, Railfan, ETF, commonmass, parse this, smileycreek, jsfox, coppercelt, foufou, KroneckerD, Pebbles, Vacationland, LaughingPlanet, breathe67, Observerinvancouver, amk for obama, voracious, princss6, jethrock, MarkMarvin, Rustbelt Dem, candysroom, taiping1, trixied13, ATFILLINOIS, Garfnobl, Eddie L, hepshiba, ribletsonthepan, pixxer, paradise50, juturna, NYWheeler, wandering star, Oh Mary Oh, nosleep4u, renbear, gobears2000, Colorado is the Shiznit, annominous, I love OCD, ozsea1, sabo33, implicate order, croyal, Dixiedemocrat, wahine, AuroraDawn, BlackQueen40, Mistral Wind, soothsayer99, Coilette, jmrichardson, mujr, SoCaliana, lawyernerd, marleycat, majii, Cinnamon Rollover, dle2GA, BarackStarObama, RfrancisR, teloPariah, merrily1000, LSmith, MarketFarces, whoknu, jrexpat, Empty Vessel, corvaire, MadamE, Keori, Safina, MinistryOfTruth, VTCC73, Andrew F Cockburn, BitchesAtWork, Larin, bluck, zenox, stunvegas, moonpal, lol chikinburd, jaebone, ParkRanger, tennegirl, AnnetteK, sankofa, mod2lib, QES, yawnimawke, buzzybodhi, OHknighty, oblios arrow, ahumbleopinion, oldcrow, AnnieR, FloridaSNMOM, supercereal, cryptodira
    •  A local councilman here (52+ / 0-)

      showed me the emails he got for supporting immigrant communities. Same crazy shit. What is going to become of us if we elect a bunch of these fool next month? Is there any sanity anywhere?

      De-orangify Congress: Justin Coussoule for Oh-08 http://www.coussouleforcongress.com/

      by anastasia p on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 07:41:53 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Hey, not all of us. (18+ / 0-)

      The media coverage would make it seem so, but really, there are plenty of white men who are still rational.

      Corporations are people; money is speech.
      1984 - George Orwell

      by Frank Palmer on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 09:39:04 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Exactly so... (15+ / 0-)

        ...white men are, needless to say, well represented here on Daily Kos.  And I'd like to believe that we're about as rational as our female and minority counterparts.

        As a white man, I have to say that I'm a bit uncomfortable with the Village Voice headline:  it's the sort of over generalization that would be considered inappropriate with any minority group, and it really shouldn't be considered acceptable to over generalize and stereotype whites based on the opinions of a very loud subset.  While stereotyping the majority is less harmful than stereotyping minority groups, it's still not something that should be encouraged, because it is still predicated on the idea that we can lump people into generic groups that will act and think a certain way based simply on race.

        If anything, this kind of over generalization runs the real risk of backfiring:  the majority of white voters don't buy into the crazy stuff, and lumping those voters with the (large) minority that do is not really an effective way to encourage them to turn out and vote for progressives and Democrats.  So not only is the over generalization wrong, but it's also potentially counterproductive.

        Political Compass: -6.75, -3.08

        by TexasTom on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 09:49:28 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  This bears repeating (12+ / 0-)

          If anything, this kind of over generalization runs the real risk of backfiring:  the majority of white voters don't buy into the crazy stuff, and lumping those voters with the (large) minority that do is not really an effective way to encourage them to turn out and vote for progressives and Democrats.  So not only is the over generalization wrong, but it's also potentially counterproductive.

          Thanks for stating this so eloquently.

          This is about as helpful as calling your base retarded or in need of drug testing. And we'll probably be seeing a whole lot more of it.

          This is what chump Change looks like.

          by Wamsutta on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 10:04:30 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Taking this way too seriously (24+ / 0-)

          to reach that point.  All of the satire would be completely ruined if you had to do this kind of verbal tap dance to avoid stomping on the wrong toes.  The targets of the article are quite clear and listed one by one.

          If you're not a Birther, not one who think the President is a Marxist, Kenyan, Anti-Colonial, Muslim, Black Liberation Theologist Sleeper Agent out to Destroy the Fabric of our Nation, not one who thinks Dr Laura actually does have a first amendment "right" to shout "Nigger Nigger Nigger" to a black woman complaining about racial insensitivity, not one who is terrified of "Obamacare Death Panels", not one who believes the NAACP is "racist" but Mark Williams and his "Letter to Lincoln" isn't, not one who thinks it's bad for Rahm Emmanuel to talk about someone acting "retarded", but just dandy for Rush Limbaugh call people "Retarded", not one who thinks being a lying ex-Witch is fine but being Hari Chrisna is crossing a bridge too far, not one who thinks Medicare and Social Security are "Unconstitutional" even though they repeatedly withstood Constitutional challenges even in the Supreme Court, not one who thinks ACORN stole the 2008 Election, not one who thinks a serial fact-mangling self-aggrandizing Snow-Billy is qualified to be the Next President of the United State then This Article Isn't About YOU!

          Vyan

          •  Bigotry is an equal opportunity offender (7+ / 0-)

            Not something restricted to "White Americans".

            This title commits not one, but two logical fallacies:

            1. Just because some Americans who are genetically predisposed to a lower density of melanin in their skin are prejudiced bigots, does not mean that the shade of an individual's skin is a good indicator of prejudicial tendencies;
            1. Bigotry and prejudice are not genetic, they are learned, and they can and are learned by people of all skin shades (as well as eye color, hair color, etc).

            The problem is the attitude itself; the problem is the ideas themselves; the problem is prejudice itself - not whatever particular skin shade one is.

            Until we address prejudice, and as long as we define it by skin color, we are just perpetuating and enabling prejudice.

            Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

            by RandomActsOfReason on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 11:34:13 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Not, it's really not "equal" (14+ / 0-)

              not even close, because all persons don't have an equal opportunity to help or harm each other based on their prejudices and biases. Simple demographics makes this clear, especially when you look at which persons are in position of power and hold the keys to the gates.  Bigotry by those in power (in law enforcement, in our courts, in lending, in housing and hiring) is far more damaging to the function of our society than those without power.

              This title commits not one, but two logical fallacies:

                1. Just because some Americans who are genetically predisposed to a lower density of melanin in their skin are prejudiced bigots, does not mean that the shade of an individual's skin is a good indicator of prejudicial tendencies;

                2. Bigotry and prejudice are not genetic, they are learned, and they can and are learned by people of all skin shades (as well as eye color, hair color, etc).

              No, that is your logical fallacy because the title doesn't make any such presumption.  Nowhere does Steven say "only white people are bigots", nor do I.  Nowhere is it posited or argued that "bigotry is genetic"  - that is a straw-man position.

              Additional it is wrong because bigotry isn't "learned" - it's a by product of how we learn.  As short term memories and thoughts are transferred from the short term memory storage to long term retention in the hippocampus we go from learning to assuming based on past experiences.  The person or facts of the situation in front of us can become presumed rather than experienced in what is often called the Paradigm Effect and Paradigm Paralysis.

              The only solution to defeating Prejudice, is to have the courage and perseverance to test to see if what you think you know is actually TRUE or not.  You have to be willing to learn that what you already believe might be wrong.

              That requires surrendering our hubris and ego to facts and evidence.  Then doing it again... and again.. continue to learn and improve person by person, case by case.

              It's not about skintone, it's about courage as not long ago Attorney General Holder said.

              Unfortunately most of us haven't come close to figuring any of this out, yet.

              Vyan

              •  respectfully, you seem to be confusing (0+ / 0-)

                beliefs with policies, opinions with circumstances, and people with ideas.

                A racist attitude, a racist comment, a racist belief, is wrong no matter who holds it, no matter what color their skin is.

                Do you not agree?

                I have made exactly zero comments arguing that the power of white bigots in America to impose their bigotry on blacks is equal to the power of black bigots in America to impose their bigotry on whites - or, that I approve in any way, shape or form of racist policies.

                To suggest otherwise is to erect a deliberate straw man - a particularly ugly and dishonest one.

                However, to suggest that there is something inherently 'white' about bigotry - that, if the situation were reversed, if history had run in the opposite direction, that people with darker skin would be inherently, somehow genetically predisposed not to abuse their power over whites, is a racist statement in itself - and unsupported by empirical experience of the world.

                Do you not agree?

                That is the problem I have with counterfactual, nonsensical statements that "it is impossible for a black person to be racist". It is possible for any human being to hold racist views, to express those views, and to behave based on those views.

                Racism is an attitude. Racist policies are a manifestation of that attitude. It is quite possible for anyone to hold racist attitudes without having any power to implement policies.

                Disempowered citizens in an authoritarian regime, where they have no vote or political voice, can hold racist attitudes and be racist people.

                Do you not agree?

                The belief that human beings are separate into distinct races - a totally false belief, as definitively debunked by science as Creationism - being an idea, an opinion. is something that can be held in any human mind.

                Do you not agree?

                The belief that there are just two skin colors "Black" and "White" - a totally false belief, as humans exist along a continuum of skin shades based on the density of melanin in their skin, which is purely the product of the latitude that they and their ancestors predominantly lived at - being an idea, an opinion, is clearly something that can be held in any human mind.

                Do you not agree?

                The belief that human beings of a certain skin tone are inherently predisposed to certain beliefs about race - not because of circumstances, not because of socialization, but inherently, because of the color of their skin - is, besides being utterly unsupported by any scientific evidence, a racist belief.

                Do you not agree?

                If you disagree with any of these statements, please provide evidence refuting them.

                And please respect the substantive nature of my argument by responding in kind.

                Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

                by RandomActsOfReason on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 05:18:05 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I'm not confused (6+ / 0-)

                  but I think you are...

                  A racist attitude, a racist comment, a racist belief, is wrong no matter who holds it, no matter what color their skin is.

                  Do you not agree?

                  First off skin-color is irrelevant.  Completely irrelevant.  Race is not defined by skin-color and never has been, it's not even defined by genetics - it's largely a matter of culture as was documented by the Human Genome Project over a dozen years ago, there are more genetic differences between tall people and short people than Black people and White people - so when I say "Black" or "White" I'm talking primarily about culture.  Culture is a matter of choice, culture is a matter of personal freedom - and I protect and respect the freedom all persons to openly express themselves as they see fit without being expect to conform or submit to some "standardized norm" that denies them their freedom within the overriding parameters of the Constitution and the Law.

                  Does it matter who holds a racist view? No, that doesn't matter at all - but dumb or bigoted opinions and views are not a crime.  What really matters is what people do on the basis of a opinion (bigoted or not) and how much power, influence and damage they can do because of it.

                  Lastly on this point, it also matters what the belief is and whether it's true or not.  A generalized view of any particular demographic group that is mostly accurate is not a problem - but a grossly inaccurate view, or attempting to ignore an individuals specific circumstances in favor of gross inaccurate generalities that don't apply can be a very, very big problem.

                  The general description used in the article is accurate, the only dispute is about how wide and broad that demographic is (all vs some) people who happen to be white, although in truth we all agree that it's only some particularly wacky wingnuts that were being ridiculed, and deservedly so.

                  I have made exactly zero comments arguing that the power of white bigots in America to impose their bigotry on blacks is equal to the power of black bigots in America to impose their bigotry on whites - or, that I approve in any way, shape or form of racist policies.

                  Yippie for you.  I've made exactly zero comments that I think "All White people are crazy" - because, well, that's just plain crazy.

                  To suggest otherwise is to erect a deliberate straw man - a particularly ugly and dishonest one.

                  No kidding? Not like there hasn't been a flurry of scarecrows around here lately.

                  Speaking of which...

                  However, to suggest that there is something inherently 'white' about bigotry - that, if the situation were reversed, if history had run in the opposite direction, that people with darker skin would be inherently, somehow genetically predisposed not to abuse their power over whites, is a racist statement in itself - and unsupported by empirical experience of the world.

                  I've never made any such suggestion, and I never would because yet again - that's simply crazy - and full of straw.

                  Do you not agree?

                  Of course. Dumb question, but sure.

                  That is the problem I have with counterfactual, nonsensical statements that "it is impossible for a black person to be racist". It is possible for any human being to hold racist views, to express those views, and to behave based on those views.

                  Well, duh.

                  I haven't made any such counter-factual statement and have never agreed with them - but as I mentioned above - even if racism is a state of mind, and I believe it is, how someone thinks is something they have a right to, even when their demonstrably wrong.  How they treat and react to other people around them is where racism has it's bite. Now historically people have used the "black people can't be racist" argument because after a Century of Jim Crow they lacked the power to do anything but have a bad attitude about it.  That has changed, even before Obama became President.

                  Racism is an attitude. Racist policies are a manifestation of that attitude. It is quite possible for anyone to hold racist attitudes without having any power to implement policies.

                  Ok. We're on the same page here. I agree, but I would add that policies can be racist in effect and result even when the people implementing those polices aren't.

                  The belief that human beings are separate into distinct races - a totally false belief, as definitively debunked by science as Creationism - being an idea, an opinion. is something that can be held in any human mind.

                  Do you not agree?

                  I'm not sure that's even a sentence but yeah ok, I think I covered that.  Genetically speaking there is only one Race, the Human Race, but within that Race are many different cultural strains, many of them in competition with each other.  It's all about the Free Market Darwinist Culturalism Baby.

                  The belief that there are just two skin colors "Black" and "White" - a totally false belief, as humans exist along a continuum of skin shades based on the density of melanin in their skin, which is purely the product of the latitude that they and their ancestors predominantly lived at - being an idea, an opinion, is clearly something that can be held in any human mind.

                  Do you not agree?

                  No, the genetics of race is much more complex than just a matter of melanin, it's differences in hair color, texture, muscular definition. bone definition,  blood chemistry and much more - but it those differences did occur based on the "base" climate of various peoples and their ancestors.  Even then we have far far more genetic elements in common than we have in contrast.

                  The belief that human beings of a certain skin tone are inherently predisposed to certain beliefs about race - not because of circumstances, not because of socialization, but inherently, because of the color of their skin - is, besides being utterly unsupported by any scientific evidence, a racist belief.

                  Do you not agree?

                  Of course. Did anyone bring that up, I didn't?  More straw, is there a lose brain laying around here too - I think that Scarecrow is in desperate need of a transplant.

                  If you disagree with any of these statements, please provide evidence refuting them.

                  I don't, except partially for one issue and I did provide evidence, the fact that you think I would tells a lot more about you - than me.

                  And please respect the substantive nature of my argument by responding in kind.

                  "Substantive" - yeah, sure if you say so sparky.  

                  Let me add something, you've gone out of your way to prove I'm some kind of "White-Hating Black Racist" IMO. That charge is patently false - and you don't have to read what I'm writing here to see that's true, I've done thousands of diaries on Kos and at least hundreds on the subject of Race in America.  Search my name and Racism, I got nothing to hide and stand on my record.  

                  What I object to in what you have attempt to do is PLAY THE WHITE VICTIM RACE CARD on me. I think jumping too quickly to the conclusion that someone is a bigot is very very dangerous and counter-productive. It can be difficult to find real out-and-out racists because, as I've said several times, many of them attempt to deny it to avoid culpability and responsibility for their statements and actions with lies and bullshit - but it also behooves those who oppose them to be careful that they have accurate information before they make an unfounded accusation or else they undermine their credibility and they undermine the overall effort to halt and impede REAL raciam.  

                  We've seen this damaging rush to judgment with Shirley Sherrod, with Reverend Wright (Who is still a wackadoodle, but not a Racist Wackadoodle), with the Duke Lacroose team and with Tawana Brawley.

                  It's counterproductive.  It's damaging to the good guys. Give it a rest.

                  Also, Lighten the FUCK up dude.

                  Vyan

                  •  Just one comment: (0+ / 0-)

                    you've gone out of your way to prove I'm some kind of "White-Hating Black Racist" IMO.

                    Straw man. I have done nothing of the sort. I don't even know, nor care to know, what shade of human your skin is.

                    I'm glad to know that you unambiguously separate yourself from the small gang of ivory tower bullies here who have made statements such as "it is impossible for a black person to be racist" and have talked about "white people" as a singular group with singular attitudes.

                    As for the "race is a culture" thing, that's more irrational nonsense - and, it still plays into the false belief that skin tone differentiates us. What is "White" culture? What is "Black" culture? And where exactly is the Pantone shade that defines the division between the two?

                    And why the obsessive attention to divisions based on a mythical boundary between "White" and "Black", rather than focusing on our common goals, common needs, common political imperatives, common humanity?

                    And where does that leave all the other shades of skin color in our increasingly diverse society? What are Brazilians, Indians, Pakistanis, Chinese, Mexicans, Columbians, Australians, Thai, Turks, Egyptians, Spaniards, Portuguese, Maltese, Russians, Cubans, Japanese, Moroccans, South Africans, Chileans, Vietnamese, Afghans, Iraqis, Iranians, Israelis, Palestinians, etc etc who are Americans?

                    Are they "White Culture" or "Black Culture"?

                    Finding new rationales for dividing us by race is still racist thinking.

                    If someone has paler skin - what does that tell you about their "culture" - their taste in music, food, art, political parties, jokes, fiction, nonfiction, pottery, dance, theater, movies, anything that you'd consider part of "culture"?

                    If someone has darker skin - what does that tell you about all the above and anything else related to "culture"?

                    What do you mean by "White Culture" being defined by skin color, and how is that not a race-based generalization?

                    Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

                    by RandomActsOfReason on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 09:09:14 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  What is... (4+ / 0-)

                      What is "White" culture? What is "Black" culture? And where exactly is the Pantone shade that defines the division between the two?

                      White culture is assimilated immigrant culture. It's jews and germans and russians and dutch and polish who immigrated to this country over the last 250-300 years and immediately did everything they could to "fit in" including changing their surnames and first names to seem "less ethnic". Amelia became Amy.  Goldstein became Gold. Their mutts and refugees. They survived, they adapted.

                      Black culture comes not from Africa, but from those who were forcibly brought to America against their will - originally promised a homestead of their own, but instead turned into generational slaves.  They spoke many varied languages, but were not only denied to speak their native tongues - it was illegal to teach them to read and write english. They adapted and created Juba as a way to speak among their oversees without being truly understood - secrets in plain sight and earshot, this then evolved into Jive, then Ebonics.  They were denied their native religion, then adapted Christianity.  They were denied the best parts of the farm animals for food and hence they created soul food for pig intestines and feet.  They were denied their native music, and so adapted new forms of music into Gospel, Jazz, Blues, the original Rock N' Roll, Rhythm & Blues, Funk and eventually Hip Hop. They became the Tuskegee Airmen, they became the widowed survivors of those lynched during Jim Crow, they were the little girls blown up in Montgomery, they were the men who self destructed in gangs, they marched attacked by dogs in Selma - they continue to live with the aftermath of all this trauma, and like any family or group that has been struck with such horror - a sudden death, a horrible secret of alcoholism or drug addiction - those trauma's continue to affect them, shape them, push them both to greatness and to further tragedy to this very day.

                      There is a a legitimate cultural gulf here.  There is a difference in experience, a difference in persepective, a difference in expectation.

                      It's only a problem if you insist on seeing it as one.

                      Just as there is a also gulf with the cultural experience of the Latinos and Mestizos, conquered by the Spanish - a mix of native and the Europeon - their original native American culture gone and displaced, replaced with the language and religion of those who overthrew them. A history that stretches back in the western states to before the Declaration of Independence - they too have their own unique and independent American Culture. The Zoot Suiters. La Raza. Cesar Chavez.  They have their own American History as do the surviving Native Americans.  As do those who continue to come to those shores for Asia, from Indonesia, from Africa. from Australia.

                      All are unique, yet all are American.

                      Like I said before, it's not about skin-tone, it's about history and experience.

                      And why the obsessive attention to divisions based on a mythical boundary between "White" and "Black", rather than focusing on our common goals, common needs, common political imperatives, common humanity?

                      Not mythical.  Factual, historical, but not insurmountable.  Being different and unique isn't a bad thing, unless you fear it and make it bad thing.  People are different.  Groups of people are different.  Nothing wrong with that, and nothing should be wrong with that.  I will continue to call it Freedom, as opposed either to conformity or what you seem to advocate, which is deliberate (color/cultural) blindness - also known as ignorance.

                      And where does that leave all the other shades of skin color in our increasingly diverse society? What are Brazilians, Indians, Pakistanis, Chinese, Mexicans, Columbians, Australians, Thai, Turks, Egyptians, Spaniards, Portuguese, Maltese, Russians, Cubans, Japanese, Moroccans, South Africans, Chileans, Vietnamese, Afghans, Iraqis, Iranians, Israelis, Palestinians, etc etc who are Americans?

                      Are they "White Culture" or "Black Culture"?

                      Neither, each is unique - and at the same time also American.  E Pluribus Enum applies, From many into One.

                      If someone has paler skin - what does that tell you about their "culture" - their taste in music, food, art, political parties, jokes, fiction, nonfiction, pottery, dance, theater, movies, anything that you'd consider part of "culture"?

                      What does it tell you? Nothing. Maybe everything.  Maybe all the above, maybe not. Yet again, generalities don't always translate into specifics.  Skin tone doesn't tell you much, culture can tell you a great deal.

                      What do you mean by "White Culture" being defined by skin color, and how is that not a race-based generalization?

                      Once again, I didn't say that. You did.  I said it wasn't about skin-tone, it's about culture and ultimately freedom.

                      Vyan

                      •  If "White Culture" is not defined by skin color, (0+ / 0-)

                        what makes it "White"?

                        What makes you assume I have more in common with Rush Limbaugh than with Hermant Mehta?

                        What makes you assume Alan Keyes has more in common with Jesse Jackson than Jesse Helms?

                        The presumption that anyone born with white skin today in America shares a common "White Culture" is absurd. We may benefit from certain social advantages that are the result of long-standing racist prejudice in America, but that does not give us a common "Culture", or negate often much more powerful things that divide us - economic class, religious upbringing, education, family politics, and more.

                        To blur all white people into an "assimilated culture" is ignorant - as is to blur distinctions among people of color into a single "Black Culture".

                        That is why racism of any kind is harmful, as is prejudice of any kind - because it blurs the uniqueness and distinction of us as individuals, and denies us the freedom to affiliate with, identify with, and associate with the cultural values we choose, smearing us into these broad generalizations.

                        I honestly do not understand how my argument is racist, when it seeks to acknowledge the uniqueness of every individual, and honor every individual's freedom to define themselves and their cultural affiliations as they see fit.

                        There is no question that white racists deny people with darker skin that opportunity - but, I simply do not understand the logic that claims to oppose that racist discrimination, and yet simultaneously seems to embrace its racist premise.

                        To me, this is just like the members of my parents generation, traumatize by the Holocaust, who deny their descendants the right to define themselves as they see fit, insisting instead that we are "Jews", no matter what we believe - their argument being, essentially, that Hitler defined Jews by their mother, and so must we.

                        I reject that argument, because I believe in the progressive principle of self-determination.

                        That does not make me a denier of the Holocaust (my mother is a Holocaust survivor, along with her sister), any more than rejecting racism of any kind by any person makes me a denier of the long history of racist injustice towards people with dark skin.

                        I wish you, or someone, would explain how rejecting racism makes one a racist.

                        Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

                        by RandomActsOfReason on Sun Oct 03, 2010 at 02:27:50 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Yes (0+ / 0-)

                          The presumption that anyone born with white skin today in America shares a common "White Culture" is absurd. We may benefit from certain social advantages that are the result of long-standing racist prejudice in America, but that does not give us a common "Culture", or negate often much more powerful things that divide us - economic class, religious upbringing, education, family politics, and more.

                          To blur all white people into an "assimilated culture" is ignorant - as is to blur distinctions among people of color into a single "Black Culture".

                          Thank You.

                          This is what chump Change looks like.

                          by Wamsutta on Sun Oct 03, 2010 at 08:40:01 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  No... (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          blindyone

                          This is the point where I can see you're deliberately NOT reading what I actually said.

                          If "White Culture" is not defined by skin color, (0+ / 0-)

                          what makes it "White"?

                          Cuz it ain't Black, that's why.

                          Alright, fine - that was a joke.  What I really said is that it's about being a willing immigrant, and sharing a broad culture that links multi-generational assimilation.  I think that crosses color lines, and clearly much of what I'm talking about applies to Asian immigrants, many Latino immigrants and even recent African immigrants.  None of whom truly share in the unique perspective, and experience of Black Americans regardless of their skin-tone.  It's probably a technical misnomer to call it "White" Culture as opposed to "Assimilated Immigrant" Culture, but by the fact that White/European immigrants were the first to set the terms as to what would and would not be considered "acceptable" within that broad cultural swath they still have the majority of influence upon it, but that is changing.  

                          Decades ago an actor with a name like Shia Labouf couldn't have become a major star without first de-ethnifying himself.  You think Steve McQueen's real name was Steve McQueen? (His real first name was Terrence)  John Wayne's name was really Marion Morrison. "Rock Hudson" was really Roy Harold Scherer, Jr. They all Assimilated. They Americanized themselves.

                          Here's more from the Washington post on this phenomenon, and how's it's changing as the concept of retaining your own ethnic identity while ALSO being an American gains more steam.

                          American culture remains a powerful force – for better or worse – that influences people both here and around the world in countless ways. But several factors have combined in recent years to allow immigrants to resist, if they choose, the Americanization that had once been considered irresistible.

                          In fact, the very concept of assimilation is being called into question as never before. Some sociologists argue that the melting pot often means little more than "Anglo conformity" and that assimilation is not always a positive experience – for either society or the immigrants themselves.

                          Back to you.

                          What makes you assume I have more in common with Rush Limbaugh than with Hermant Mehta?

                          What makes you assume Alan Keyes has more in common with Jesse Jackson than Jesse Helms?

                          I don't think any of that, because I never said any of that.  What I said is they Might share a cultural
                          perspective, but it doesn't mean that they will.

                          In fact I said this...

                          What does it tell you? Nothing. Maybe everything.  Maybe all the above, maybe not. Yet again, generalities don't always translate into specifics.  Skin tone doesn't tell you much, culture can tell you a great deal.

                          You can't fairly or logically get from "generalities don't always translate into specifics" - to any suggestion that Jesse Jackson is the same as Alan Keyes.  That's patently ridiculous.

                          The presumption that anyone born with white skin today in America shares a common "White Culture" is absurd.

                          It is absurd, and it's not anything like what I said.  I broadly outlined some general cultural parameters and differences, and from that you get "anyone born with white skin" must share in "White Culture"?   That like going from saying "hey, Boston has it's own unique brand of beans" - and assuming Everyone from Boston must like and eat them everyday.

                          All I can do in response to that is Face Palm!

                          To blur all white people into an "assimilated culture" is ignorant - as is to blur distinctions among people of color into a single "Black Culture".

                          Yes, it is ignorant.  THAT would be prejudice and bigotry.  Also to deny that these individual cultural strains even exist is ignorant too.

                          I'm not the one that jumps from any mention of "White" in general context to a blanket indictment/assertion about EACH AND EVERY WHITE PERSON - you guys are.

                          I honestly do not understand how my argument is racist,

                          Since you seemed to have forgotten in the wake of one post - I didn't say your argument was "racist" - I said this.

                          I will continue to call it Freedom, as opposed either to conformity or what you seem to advocate, which is deliberate (color/cultural) blindness - also known as ignorance.

                          Let me repeat, cultural blindness is cultural ignorance. Color-blindness is Color-ignorance.

                          when it seeks to acknowledge the uniqueness of every individual, and honor every individual's freedom to define themselves and their cultural affiliations as they see fit.

                          No you don't acknowlege the uniqueness of every individual, and their freedom to have their cultural affiliations as they see fit. You argue that any reference to either "White" or "Black" culture is divisive.  You are trying to shout that very suggestion down, and at the same time ignoring repeated arguments that anyone ancestral culture DOES NOT automatically define them individually.

                          No one but you suggested that Jesse Jackson was the same as Alan Keyes - based purely on skin-tone.

                          We may benefit from certain social advantages that are the result of long-standing racist prejudice in America, but that does not give us a common "Culture", or negate often much more powerful things that divide us - economic class, religious upbringing, education, family politics, and more.

                          So, you're saying there is no American Immigrant/Assimilated Culture?  No "Mom and Apple Pie"?  No "Donny and Marie"?  No "Dancing with the Stars"?  Nobody would ever do anything for Klondike Bar?  Nobody likes Celine Dion, Kenny G or Yanni? Mash Potatos and Meat Loaf?

                          Also which way are you really going with this, you've been arguing that people have lots of things in common and should focus on that, now you say you have more things in contrast?  So which is it? Common or Different?

                          Not that I expect you'll actually answer that question, you can't even quote me accurately.

                          There is no question that white racists deny people with darker skin that opportunity - but, I simply do not understand the logic that claims to oppose that racist discrimination, and yet simultaneously seems to embrace its racist premise.

                          Yeah, you definitely don't understand because that isn't what's happening here, except in your mind.

                          To me, this is just like the members of my parents generation, traumatize by the Holocaust, who deny their descendants the right to define themselves as they see fit, insisting instead that we are "Jews", no matter what we believe - their argument being, essentially, that Hitler defined Jews by their mother, and so must we.

                          You might think it's like that, but it's not.  People are free to define themselves as they see fit.  Your fear of being externally described is clear, but that's doesn't mean others don't have the right to their own ethnicity and culture which you seem to be fighting hard to deny them.

                          I wish you, or someone, would explain how rejecting racism makes one a racist.

                          There is no explaining that because it DIDN'T Happen.  More specifically A) You are not rejecting racism, you are rejecting fact and reality B) No one said you were a "racist" - (but then again, I may have missed the thread in all these posts, so I may have to clarify and say I didn't call you a racists) I said your position is contra-factual, rigid and not helpful. You see racists everywhere and in everything.  Hiding sinisterly under every statement, I think that hurts the cause of fighting real legitimate racism and bigotry because it turns mole hills into mountains.  It's distracts us with obsession into trivia.

                          How much energy has been devoted to one word "White" in the article title, but not to discussing bigger and more damaging issues like the Gena 6 or the Shooting of Oscar Grant?  I've been here for years and had many rec'd diaries but I don't think I've ever had one with this many comments.  But when I wrote about the trial of a brutal Chicago police detective who had tortured and falsely imprisoned dozens of black men for decades, I got FIVE comments including my own tip jar.

                          When he about his conviction I got about 100.  Better, but nothing like this.

                          Certainly these are not perfect examples.  Not every worthwhile issue gets popularized the way it should or else diaries wouldn't need to be "Rescued", and some things get far more hype than they should, but it is quite a contrast.

                          Vyan

              •  Absolutely wonderful comment! (0+ / 0-)

                This is so helpful!

                Let us dedicate ourselves to what the Greeks wrote so many years ago: to tame the savageness of man and make gentle the life of this world. RFK

                by vcmvo2 on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 08:53:12 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  Funny, but... (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Philoguy, mightymouse, Matt Z, SoCalSal

            ...all too often, this is the defense of white racists that have said something nasty about a racial or ethnic minority:

            All of the satire would be completely ruined if you had to do this kind of verbal tap dance to avoid stomping on the wrong toes.

            My point isn't that we should never satire potentially sensitive topics -- but, perhaps, that we should remember that the line between appropriate and inappopriate is often times a bit on the fuzzy side.  

            No, it's not all the same.  I'm a member of a majority group (white man), but I'm also a member of a minority group (gay man).  And I can tell you that I'm far more concerned about offensive stereotyping of gay people than of whites, because the potential harm from the former is much greater.  But that doesn't make the latter a good idea, either.

            Political Compass: -6.75, -3.08

            by TexasTom on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 11:54:14 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  I didn't get that this was offered in jest (0+ / 0-)

            "White America" is quite heterogeneous. To use that phrase in as in the title, and as here:

            I too now believe that White Americans seem to be losing their minds.

            is unsound, not to mention divisive, unless it is in jest.

            Plus the real problem is that racism being inflamed more by the powers that be in order to dupe working people into acting against their interests.

            An ambulance can only go so fast - Neil Young

            by mightymouse on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 02:47:56 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  True that. (11+ / 0-)

        And it's tough on us white men, when entire states full of honkies like Arizona straight-up lose their minds. Getting fed full of that ego-soothing bias-confirming conserva-crack straight outta Fox, with the syndicate partners of Limbaugh and the gated-community back-alley distributors like Scaife and the Koch brothers.

        Whats a wigga to do? Just gotta keep getting it out there that we don't agree with our poor lost brethren.

        "Think. It ain't illegal yet." - George Clinton | http://ideaddicted.blogspot.com

        by jbeach on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 10:03:36 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Vyan, "lost its mind" assumes these "people" (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      taylormattd, vcmvo2, Matt Z, princss6

      ever had a mind to lose.

      I find no evidence that Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity, Palin, O'Donnell, or Michael Savage Weiner ever had functioning mentalities to involuntarily mislay.

      These "people" were born broken, and they are being paid well to get worse.

      LBJ & Lady Bird, Sully Sullenberger, Molly Ivins, Barbara Jordan, Ann Richards, Drew Brees: Texas is No Bush League! -7.50,-5.59

      by BlackSheep1 on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 12:26:56 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  liking this (idea for) an article... (0+ / 0-)

      and its execution. it's a bit like "hunter s. 2.0."

      as long as they have money, they have power. bankrupt them. --- the oil industry is a cancer that must be destroyed.

      by theChild on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 07:06:13 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  damn, i've been in here all day (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      blueness

      without a tip and a rec.

      sorry, dude...way overdue (=

    •  Why can't I rec this diary? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      foufou, princss6

      I can see the 333 recs, but there are no buttons in spite of the fact that I see rec and hide options for the comments of the thread.

      As a side note, I really don't understand why people are jumping on the diarist here. It's not like the diarist came up with the title. That was courtesy of the Village Voice. The diarist is just presenting the article and linking, quite correctly, the craziness in question with the truly crazy i.e the nuts on the lunatic Right.

      "Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society" -Oliver Wendell Holmes

      by APA Guy on Sun Oct 03, 2010 at 07:17:07 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Mmmm,,,, Popeye's chicken. (25+ / 0-)

    with a nice side of red beans and rice.

    "Education is dangerous - Every educated person is a future enemy" Hermann Goering (NRSC?)

    by irate on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 07:17:13 AM PDT

  •  Oooh Thank You (16+ / 0-)

    I saw a link to this article yesterday at work but since I work in a WingNut Compound® I couldn't click, then I forgot.  But I really, really wanted to read it.  Thanks for the diary, tipped & rec'd.

    Loyalty to petrified opinion never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul in this world--and never will. Mark Twain

    by whoknu on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 07:26:00 AM PDT

  •  This is too funny. (57+ / 0-)

    But unfortunately, I really do think it is racism that is behind all this "white panic". They've become so unhinged that they are barely concealing the racism any more.

    I remember that DeLay comment. It actually made me want to vomit. For real.

    In memory of Tyler Clementi.

    by commonmass on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 07:28:20 AM PDT

  •  am I reading this right? (4+ / 0-)

    in the same issue there is an article entitled "why I oppose the downtown mosque?"

  •  America: Proudly Unhinged Since Reagan (33+ / 0-)

    the intelligence community is no longer geared towards telling the president what they think the president wants to hear

    by Salo on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 07:31:06 AM PDT

  •  Inflammatory rhetoric is fun now, I guess. (19+ / 0-)

    Well, good. Race relations are that much more degraded and Steven Thrasher gets some page-views for the Village Voice. Everyone gets what they wanted. Hooray.

    it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses

    by Addison on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 07:33:48 AM PDT

    •  Nah. The article's good. (33+ / 0-)

      I don't think you can improve race relations by being silent about them.

      Thrasher's thesis is that white baby boomers are losing their minds because they're getting beat up by economics.  History shows us that when that happens, the dominant group scapegoats minorities.  

      •  Pouring Gas on The Flames (22+ / 0-)

        Thrasher's thesis is that white baby boomers are losing their minds because they're getting beat up by economics.

        Which is a complete crock of shit.

        White CONSERVATIVE baby boomers may be losing their minds. Failing to make that distinction transforms what could have been a great article into just another piece of racially divisive trash.

        This is what chump Change looks like.

        by Wamsutta on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 08:02:51 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I think the distinction is made clear (14+ / 0-)

          by the examples that he uses throughout the article.

          We've been pointing out teh increasing crazy around here for months, but it seems to have become "the new Normal"..  All the links in my first paragraph are to other diaries I'd already written on all the subjects that Steven discusses. None of this is news, but sometimes stating it with a bit of hyperbole and snark does fan the flames just enough for someone to finally GET SOME WATER.

          •  That may be partially true (4+ / 0-)

            But the headline is needlessly inflammatory.

            This is what chump Change looks like.

            by Wamsutta on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 09:20:19 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Then why not just (11+ / 0-)

            write "Conservative America Has Lost Its Collective Mind".  It's curious that you're defending the title.  Calling it snark doesn't cut it.

            •  That would have been a better choice [EOM} (3+ / 0-)

              Political Compass: -6.75, -3.08

              by TexasTom on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 09:51:44 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Because (5+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              taylormattd, vcmvo2, foufou, princss6, CKendall

              a) that's just stating the obvious and wouldn't even get noticed - I know, because I've already written that diary at least a dozen times - and b) and it's not my title it's Steven's, I'm just quoting it.

              •  Wait.. Elsewhere (4+ / 0-)

                In comments you defended such racist generalizations on the grounds that racist whites generalize about blacks.  It seems that it is precisely the generalization that you're defending here.

                •  My point is that (16+ / 0-)

                  the article is being generalized by those complaining about the title.  The article itself is exhaustively specific, and I've yet - now at 300 comments and counter - to see anyone dispute a single specific example of lunacy in the article.  All they've said is they don't like he idea of "All White People" being characterized as crazy, when frankly, they happen to be the only ones talking about "All" White people, not me, and not the article.

                  I already made a specific notation in my intro paragraph to make it clear this is about "Tea Partiers" which SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUFFICIENT to make the point - and no one can dispute that they are Overwhelmingly White.

                  Why people feel compelled to excuse, defend and feel insulted about the Tea Party being criticized is a mystery to me.

                  My other point in the other portion of the thread was that I see other minority groups characterized in the same blanket manner these commenters are complaining about all the time, but I rarely see anyone kick up this much fuss about it.  

                  People characterize Black people as being "more criminal" all the time even though the even most egregious statistic on it (from the Bureau of Justice Statistics) shows that the vast majority (over 70%) of black males will Never be arrested or see the inside of a jail.  Does anyone squak about this unfair "generalization" and see it's bad for race relations when it gets, wrongly, repeated over and over again?

                  No, they don't.  Even when Bill Bennett said "Crime would go down if you aborted all black babies" - people went after him over the genocidal abortion portion of his statement, not his presumption that black kids are born criminals.

                  How many times have we heard the argument that "Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims"?   This we hear without dispute or argument despite the fact that most of the terrorist arrested in England over the last decade have been Irish-Catholic IRA members, and most of those arrested in the U.S. have been Christian Anti-Gay Anti-Abortionists (like Shelley Shannon, Paul Hill, Scott Reoder and Eric Rudolph) or wacked out Anti-Government Militia Morons like Tim McVeigh, Terry Nichols, Michael Fortier, the Hutaree Militia, the guy who wanted to shoot up the ACLU and Tides Foundation in Berkeley, the guy in Maine who tried to create a radiological dirty bomb, the Holocaust Museum Shooter, and the guy who shot up the Unitarian Church in Knoxville.

                  Coincidentally all those people are White.

                  Oh, but let's not have anyone suggest (Some Right-Wing Specifically Listed) White people might be crazy or violent, or their insulting ALL White people.  Just like pointing out some Tea Partiers are clearly bigoted and racist is an indictment of ALL Tea Partiers as Racist.  No, all of them aren't - but they don't seem to mind Palling around with Racists, do they?

                  The depth of the double-standard is astounding.

                  •  And my point is that you (5+ / 0-)

                    shouldn't be posting an article that makes blatantly racist generalizations.  If such generalizations were made about Jews, women, gays, blacks, etc, there'd be he'll to pay.  You should at least express disapproval of these generalizations in the title, but based on your comments here it's prettyclear you don't disapprove

                  •  I think youve been exceedingly clear (8+ / 0-)

                    if someone can't or won't understand what is clearly written in front of them, then they just won't.

                    Some wars are just unwinnable.

                    Prohibition makes crimes out of things that are not crimes - Abraham Lincoln

                    by Unseen majority on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 11:39:24 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  It's not most of (4+ / 0-)

                    the content of the article that's objectionable, but the title and indication that all white people advocate this.  This comes as a bit of a slap to the fifty percent of Americans that vote democratic.  I suppose that they are supposed to wear a hair shirt or something for the actions of these assholes.  Suppose you were to come across an article entitled "Blacks Support Proposition 8" or "Blacks are Homophobic", would you find that objectionable even if the content of the article specified that only a subset of blacks was being discussed?  In FORM such an article is identical to the title here.  You should come out strongly condemning this title in the diary, yet you've defended it throughout the comments revealing your Sanchez like racism.

                  •  Very basic logical fallacy (3+ / 3-)

                    is threaded through your comment.

                    I already made a specific notation in my intro paragraph to make it clear this is about "Tea Partiers" which SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUFFICIENT to make the point - and no one can dispute that they are Overwhelmingly White.

                    Just because most Tea Party folks have paler skin, does not mean that all people with paler skin are Tea Party supporters. Logic 101.

                    Why people feel compelled to excuse, defend and feel insulted about the Tea Party being criticized is a mystery to me.

                    As you well know, people are not. People are insulted by the racial reference - the assumption that all "White" people have lost their mind - and, by the nationalist, racially divisive reference - the assumption that the people who have lost their mind are "White America".

                    I see other minority groups characterized in the same blanket manner these commenters are complaining about all the time, but I rarely see anyone kick up this much fuss about it.  

                    Ah, so now, you are yourself making a blanket racial accusation. "You can't complain about this racial comment, because (I allege), none of "you people" complain about other racial references" (which is, by the way, bullshit).

                    It is the same (fallacious" logic that underlies the classic defense of anti-humanistic actions of the Israeli government ("Don't criticize Israel for killing innocent people - look at what Palestinian terrorists do, I don't see you criticizing them!"), and the Bush administration defense of torture ("you are complaining about a little waterboarding, while they behead prisoners?")

                    It is not only logically fallacious, it is morally deficient reasoning.

                    People characterize Black people as being "more criminal" all the time

                    "People"? By which you mean "White People on Daily Kos"? Talk about generalizations.

                    Does anyone squak about this unfair "generalization" and see it's bad for race relations when it gets, wrongly, repeated over and over again?

                    Yes, all the time here on Daily Kos. Do Tea Partiers "squak" [sic] about it? Probably not. Yet again, you seem to be lumping all "White People" into a racial "enemy camp".

                    Even when Bill Bennett said "Crime would go down if you aborted all black babies" - people went after him over the genocidal abortion portion of his statement, not his presumption that black kids are born criminals.

                    "People" did. Not conservative people. Not racist people. "People" - by which, in context, you clearly mean, "White People". Including your fellow progressives. Who is promoting racial hatred now?

                    How many times have we heard the argument that "Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims"?  

                    How ironic, given the tenor of your comments and your defend of the racist headline of this article.

                    This we hear without dispute or argument

                    Really? Are you new to Daily Kos? You've never heard or seen pushback here, or anywhere else in the progressive blogosphere, against this point?

                    I have commented extensively about global terrorism, talking about the Tamil Tigers pioneering of the suicide bomb tactic, and pointing out Hindu terrorists blowing up trains filled with Muslims and Buddhists in India, Serbian terrorism and many other examples, in response to comments here suggesting terrorism is an exclusively Muslim phenomenon. And I have talked about that issue much less than other progressives who continuously push back against anti-Muslim prejudice.

                    You are, rather hysterically, attempting to justify your defense for racism, by throwing up every accusation you can think of against the wall, hoping some will stick, and we'll forget that the real issue here is a cover article with the headline, "White America Has Lost Its Mind" - which even you admit was intended sensationally, to sell magazines and gain attention (you even admit to it headlining this diary as a deliberate provocation to draw readers. Yet, you continue to defend its merits).

                    Coincidentally all those people are White.

                    Oh, but let's not have anyone suggest (Some Right-Wing Specifically Listed) White people might be crazy or violent, or their insulting ALL White people.

                    First of all, you suggest that individual's ideological and moral attitudes stem from their skin color - not "coincidentally", but causally (how is implying that "White People" are predisposed to be conservative racists any less reprehensible than implying that all "Black People" are criminally predisposed?).

                    Then, you compound by, again, deliberately misrepresenting the criticism of the broad, racist generalization in the title. "White America", with "Some Right-Wing Specifically Listed White People".

                    It is your double-standards that are breathtaking.

                    Prejudice and bigotry are wrong, no matter what the skin tone is of the person practicing them.

                    Unity is not gained by countering hateful division with more hateful division, by countering prejudice with prejudice, by countering bigotry with bigotry, by countering double- standards with your own double-standards - or, by standing up for things that are wrong by pointing elsewhere and saying, "but, but, but, they are wronger!"

                    Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

                    by RandomActsOfReason on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 11:58:25 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  HRed (5+ / 0-)

                      for false claim that Vyan is—and "hysterically," mind you—"defen[ding] racism." You remain willfully clueless on matters of race.

                    •  All straw-man arguments (8+ / 0-)

                      every bit it.

                      "People"? By which you mean "White People on Daily Kos"? Talk about generalizations.

                      No, I used a specific example such as Bill Bennet and frankly don't really remember anyone pointing out that his presumption that "black people are criminals" was ever really challenged.  Maybe I missed it, but I doubt i since I was paying attention.  If you have an example of someone, anyone - beside me or Tim Wise that is - calling him out on this I'd be happy to see it.  I suspect (and actually just now found one blog post but that's it - no Op Ed's, no Special Comments - nothing that would have received anywhere near as much coverage as the original comment did)

                      Really? Are you new to Daily Kos? You've never heard or seen pushback here, or anywhere else in the progressive blogosphere, against this point?

                      Ok, I can think of some of that here - but I wasn't really thinking about just within the scope of Kos, I was thinking more about the entire Park 51 debate as it played out on TV, across the Op Ed pages and various high-profile blogs.  Rarely did I see anyone, even progressives, really push back on that "all Muslims are somehow responsible for terrorism" meme, particular when both Howard Dean and Harry Reid tried to push for a "compromise" just to get the issue off the table. It was pretty well accepted that the location of Park 51 was in "poor taste", the only issue was whether their 1st Amendment Right to build was greater than the rights of 9-11 to keeping the area "Sacred".

                      On the issue of "squawking" about generalizations.

                      Yes, all the time here on Daily Kos.

                      Not nearly often enough. Tim Wise has done it, I know I've done it repeatedly.  But again, I wasn't thinking as narrowly as just what people say here on Kos. I don't people pushing back on that meme in the general population.

                      And no, I'm not lumping "All White" people together for the 15th time.   You're doing that with this argument and continually misrepresenting what the article is actually about - which IS NOT "All White" people.  More Straw-man arguments.

                      That failure is either a cognitive dysfunction or deliberate distortion of the facts to fit an agenda.

                      Vyan

                      •  Do you have any actual evidence (0+ / 0-)

                        to back up your implicit assumption that the opposition to Park 51 was an exclusively "White people" phenomenon, that there weren't "Black people" objecting in relatively similar percentages?

                        Or, do you simply assume that anti-Muslim sentiment is a "White people" phenomenon?

                        I challenge your assumption. Just as homophobia is not an exclusively white phenomenon, neither is xenophobia nor opposition to a particular religion.

                        Antisemitism is not a predominantly white phenomenon, and neither is anti-Muslim. It is a shamefully American phenomenon, and one that progressives universally condemn, no matter what color we are.

                        BTW, the assumption that Muslims are necessarily "black people" is not only incorrect, it is implicitly racist itself.

                        Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

                        by RandomActsOfReason on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 04:58:46 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                    •  qwerty (0+ / 0-)
                      'Hindu terrorists blowing up trains filled with Muslims and Buddhists in India'

                      Dude, it was a cabal of 5 Muslim terrorists that burned 59 Hindu pilgrims on a train, with support from a local Muslim mob of 1500 people, making for the deadly and unfortunate riots in 2002, not the other way around:

                      http://www.scribd.com/...
                      http://www.scribd.com/...

                      And it is Naxal/Maoist rebels/terrorists (who are generally non-religious, but some of them have some known ties with the proselytizing missionaries operating in India, Nepal and elsewhere) who keep blowing up trains full of Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, Atheists, and everyone else.

                      You shouldn't try to falsely frame Hindus in order to show "balance." That's like the media giving, back in 2004, the SBVT liars "equal time" for "balance." What we need are accurate descriptions of the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

                      India and America share a mutually beneficial trade and economic relationship.

                      by iceweasel on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 04:08:16 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  dvorak (0+ / 0-)

                        Dude, your one-note obsession with denying the religious basis of the conflict in Sri Lanka (which is what this is all about, your obsessive defense of the Tamil Tigers and their suicide bombs in hundreds of comments on Daily Kos) is getting tiresome.

                        You seek any opportunity to jump in with your absurd religious apologetics and justifications for terrorist violence and anti-communist obsessions.

                        Your propaganda battle has no relevance to this discussion. Take it somewhere else.

                        Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

                        by RandomActsOfReason on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 04:28:03 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Chump, the LTTE was secular, (0+ / 1-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Hidden by:
                          APA Guy
                          and its membership's beliefs (remember that they were only a small fraction of the totality of SL Tamils) were possibly more Atheist than Hindu, Christian, or anything else, and their stated ideology was secular separatism. Rajiv's suicide bomber, in particular, killer was a convert to Christianity.

                          In my original read of your comment, I thought you shifted from SL to India in a new sentence, hence my response about India. See my followup comment below.

                          "anti-communist obsessions."

                          Yup. I am a progressive who doesn't support communist, or any other kind of authoritarianism or totalitarianism. Got a problem with that?

                          "your obsessive defense of the Tamil Tigers and their suicide bombs in hundreds of comments"

                          Here, you are lying out of your ass. I support Sri Lankan Tamil peoples' human rights (they deserve to have rights in SL that are exactly on par with those of the Sinhalese majority), and so should you (unless you think that Tamils are some kind of inferior beings to the Sinhalese or to you. Do you?), but they need to achieve that not by violent separatism, but instead by non-violent means (such means are more available now than some 30-40 years ago). I have always opposed the LTTE and its terrorism, as well as the Tamil separatist ideology itself (provided that equal rights could be achieved and assured to the SL Tamils). I therefore take severe exception to your lying to opposite effect.

                          You tried to pull the same stunt in our last exchange. It only proved to me (took me by surprise, actually) that you are an unscrupulous liar and a type of an extremist who must have his way, or he'll stop short of nothing.

                          India and America share a mutually beneficial trade and economic relationship.

                          by iceweasel on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 05:24:28 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  I have already factually refuted your claims (0+ / 0-)

                            with sourced statistical data in previous exchanges.

                            Since you have never produced a single point of contrary data, I feel no more need to debate you than I do to debate the kind of Creationist who doesn't even bother to present false evidence, they simply repeat over and over: "it is true because I believe it is true".

                            Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

                            by RandomActsOfReason on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 05:42:39 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You didn't prove anything. (0+ / 0-)
                            Your survey was about the religiosity of the entire Sri Lankan and of the Tamil population of SL, and not directly of the membership or the leadership of the LTTE (which had members of all religious and non-theisting backgrounds.) To see what that's flawed and unscientific, you can't take a survey of all Americans or Christian Americans, and directly extend the findings over to be representative of the Hutaree militia.

                            Further, religiosity isn't tantamount to fundamentalism (over 70%-80% of Americans are religious, but less than half of those have fundie leanings), and there clearly are atheist extremists as well (I have nothing against atheists or atheism, I strongly support their right to reject religion altogether, and I am an agnostic myself).

                            My primary counter evidence is that the top cadre leadership of the LTTE had a mixed Atheist/Christian/Hindu (and one or two Muslims also existed in the LTTE's leadership cadre) religious affiliations. LTTE's supremo Prabhakaran himself was born a Hindu, but became a Methodist Christian in between, and seems to have left that to become an atheist eventually. Secondarily, the LTTE movement has affinity and overlap with the "Dravidian" movement, which has many anti-Hindu and anti-Brahmin components in its ideology (this movement was created in the late 1800s as a divide and conquer strategy by the British and the missionaries they supported.)

                            India and America share a mutually beneficial trade and economic relationship.

                            by iceweasel on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 06:28:13 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Your argument are akin to the "Christian America" (0+ / 0-)

                            arguments of those on the Right who pretend that the Framers intended for this to be a "Christian nation".

                            Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

                            by RandomActsOfReason on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 06:38:14 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You are again talking out of your ass (0+ / 0-)
                            to cover up the paucity of logic in your claims and arguments.

                            India and America share a mutually beneficial trade and economic relationship.

                            by iceweasel on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 06:49:37 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  HR'd for the name-calling... (0+ / 0-)

                            It's a shame, too, because I'm very fascinated by the debate going on here. But the policy regarding name-calling and personal attacks is very clear.

                            "Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society" -Oliver Wendell Holmes

                            by APA Guy on Sun Oct 03, 2010 at 06:25:32 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Poor judgement on your part (0+ / 0-)
                            He called me dvorak, I called him chump. Harmless stuff.

                            He lied through his ass with the false allegation that I supported LTTE's terrorism. You should have HRed him for his lie instead of HRing me. Poor judgement on your part, and so I think you should remove it.

                            India and America share a mutually beneficial trade and economic relationship.

                            by iceweasel on Sun Oct 03, 2010 at 07:52:53 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Did you or did you not call him a chump? (0+ / 0-)

                            I don't even know what to make of the "dvorak" stuff. Is he referencing the keyboard patent? The Czech composer?

                            Who knows?

                            But calling someone a "chump", however "harmless" you may think it is, is clearly against the rules here. Until a moderator explicitly says name-calling is no longer HR-worthy, my donut stands.

                            Oh, and it's really not your place to tell me what to or to not HR. I will deduce that on my own within the guidelines of the site, thank you very much.

                            "Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society" -Oliver Wendell Holmes

                            by APA Guy on Sun Oct 03, 2010 at 08:11:22 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  qwerty (0+ / 0-)
                            Your self-appointed policing is uncalled for. I don't think the guy himself cared about a little name-calling (after all, he was hurling specious charges, pulling out of thin air, at me). Why don't you make better use of your time elsewhere?

                            India and America share a mutually beneficial trade and economic relationship.

                            by iceweasel on Sun Oct 03, 2010 at 12:00:41 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Once again, I'll read and comment where I like... (0+ / 0-)

                            You don't get to be the teacher with the ruler here. This is a self-moderating community.

                            If you can't handle that, you are welcome to blog elsewhere. Name-calling is subject to HR...period...not as per MY rules, but the guidelines of the site.

                            "Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society" -Oliver Wendell Holmes

                            by APA Guy on Sun Oct 03, 2010 at 06:13:16 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  it was just a response to the silly "qwerty" (0+ / 0-)

                            in the title of all his or her comments. That's all.

                            Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

                            by RandomActsOfReason on Sun Oct 03, 2010 at 04:35:12 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You type "qwerty", instead of a proper (0+ / 0-)

                            subject, apparently intended to force people to click and read your comments.

                            I responded to your absurdity with "dvorak". If you don't understand the reference, welcome to the age of the keyboard.

                            Sigh. Where is an "eye-roll" emoticon when one needs one?

                            Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

                            by RandomActsOfReason on Sun Oct 03, 2010 at 04:34:30 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                    •  Do I need to report more HR abuse by soothsayer? (0+ / 0-)

                      Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

                      by RandomActsOfReason on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 04:30:35 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  Also, (0+ / 0-)
                      the LTTE ("Tamil Tigers") were a secular separatist/terrorist group, not a Hindu group, comprised of Sri Lankan Tamils of all demographics (Atheists, Hindus, Christians, Muslims, and others). In particular, the girl who killed India's Rajiv Gandhi (in LTTE's retribution against him for trying to broker peace between the two warring sides in SL) was a convert to Christianity, known as Thenmozhi Rajaratnam.

                      The broader SL Tamil movement (which has existed since the 1950s) had its roots in genuinely adverse human rights plight that SL Tamils were facing at the hands of the Sinhalese majority (those human rights issues as they exist today need to be revisited by those concerned in an objective, honest and fair-minded manner, now that the LTTE has been consummately defeated and crushed), but the LTTE version of it later degenerated into becoming a very powerful separatist group employing terrorism as a means towards achieving its goal of creating a separate Tamil nation.

                      India and America share a mutually beneficial trade and economic relationship.

                      by iceweasel on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 04:45:49 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  give it up, vyan (10+ / 0-)

                    You are drowning in a sea-of-white website of white-privileged dilettantes, catching ludicrous flak from people who are nowhere to be found when somebody uses a quote from George Wallace to condemn Barack Obama as a dumb, lazy, cowardly black man, but who sure come a-runnin' when you present a factual article that they ridiculously perceive as somehow threatening their Sacred Whiteness.

                    •  And you are fanning the flames (3+ / 0-)

                      with great gusto.  Spreading hate and divisiveness with every keystroke.  What is your deal?  I can't quite figure it out.

                      •  there (9+ / 1-)

                        is no "hate and divisiveness" from me. It is a fact that this site is hugely, predominately, embarrassingly white, so much so that too many people on it haven't the slightest conception of race and racism. And, for the most part, they resolutely refuse to learn. They don't and won't understand even such basic concepts as the fact that Vyan, who is black, cannot possibly be racist, and that neither is it possible that the title or the content of the Voice piece can be racist. These things are explained here over and over and over and over again, but, as I said, people refuse to learn. As a result, they persist in transforming threads like this one into towering trash-heaps of ignorance. Also as I said, the people screeching and rending their garments in this diary about non-existent "racism" seem to go curiously missing when real racism raises its ugly head on this board.

                        •  To be fair... (8+ / 0-)

                          anyone could be racist, I'm just not because that would be a real shock to my wife (who is White).  

                          I do know black people who I would certainly consider bigots, particularly when it comes to Gays, Latinos and, rather ironically, Africans - but that's a subject for another time.

                          Also the point you make about all the Sturm and Drang in this thread which is often missing in other diaries like these.

                          The Myth of Reverse Racism in Affirmative Action

                          Tea Party comix Creator - I'm a Hater, not a Racist

                          White NYPD Cops shoots Black NYPD Cop - Again

                          NAACP Condemns Racism, Tea (Victim) Party Cries like Baby

                          Breaking the Racial (American) Stalemate

                          Tea Party Bigotry, Not just for Sign Carriers Anymore

                          The Democratic Nominee is a Ni...!

                        •  "embarrassingly white"? (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          DocbytheBay, RandomActsOfReason

                          Really?

                          •  yes, (13+ / 1-)

                            "embarrassingly," really. A website dedicated to the election of more and better Democrats should be able to do better than 95%-white. Triply embarrassing when so many here bellow so often that they constitute "the base" of the party, when they so manifestly do not.

                          •  And who exactly do you hold responsible (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            vigilant meerkat

                            for the alleged racial make up of Daily Kos (I wonder how you know that - where is the "skin tone" indicator in a member's profile?)

                            Is Markos an anti-black racist who somehow is able to divine a new member's skin color and prevent them from joining?

                            Or, is Meteor Blades an anti-black racist who secretly investigated the shade of hundreds of thousands of member's skin, and selectively bans those with a shade below some hypothetical Pantone boundary?

                            Who exactly is responsible for this conspiracy to make Daily Kos "95% white"?

                            Who exactly is responsible for "doing better"?

                            Who is the Gatekeeper in your conspiracy theory?

                            Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

                            by RandomActsOfReason on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 06:21:02 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  racists, (10+ / 0-)

                            enablers of racism, deniers of racism, silent fence-sitters, and just plain ignorant white people drive and keep people of color away from this website.

                            That is a demonstrable fact.

                            When the since-banned racist HM posted his Obama blackface diary, one of the then-most prominent black people on this site, fabooj, walked away from this place, when he was not immediately banned for that diary. And she has not been back.

                            Other people of color left this site in disgust during the primaries.

                            A number of the people of color who remain here fight every day with the decision of whether it's worth it to remain. And they find it very difficult to convince other people of color that it is worthwhile to post here.

                            Half the time I want to walk away from this place, because of its shiveringly embarrassing white-privileged ethos and the daily displays of racism—and I'm white.

                            The response to this very diary is a hideous embarrassment, the quintessence of why this place is so alienating to people of color, for none of this nonsense would ever have occurred on a truly multi-racial Democratic website. That legions of white people felt compelled to come in here to weep and moan and rend their garments by identifying with the whiteness in the Voice piece, and even to preposterously claim that the title or the piece itself is "racist," speaks volumes on the mind-numbing ignorance that mars this site. On a real, true, live, multi-racial, "reality-based" Democratic website, it would have been recognized that the piece factually described the reaction of "white America" to the Obama presidency, while in no way tarring all white people. People on the site who happened to be white would have easily been able to separate their own whiteness from the factual assertions set forth in the Voice piece. And there would have been none of these endless, ridiculous subthreads in which denialist threadjackers like yourself dump buckets of phantasmagorical red herrings and bellow ceaselessly about such impossible beings as "black racists."

                          •  Interesting that the two most vocal (2+ / 2-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Wamsutta, Aves
                            Hidden by:
                            princss6, soothsayer99

                            folks accusing "white people" of racism, using HRs abusively to hide opinions they disagree with, and the two people who seem most preoccupied with the skin color of all other commenters, you and soothsayer, are both privileged white people.

                            In fact, at least half of your gang are privileged white academics. Rather than spend your time putting your own house in order, and looking at your own behavior, you spend all your time as self-appointed arbiters of political correctness on Daily Kos - yet you consistently break the rules. You abuse HRs with impunity here, time after time, diary after diary. You call people "white racists" simply because they disagree with you on anything regarding race.

                            Perhaps you are projecting of overcompensating for some history of heinous racist behavior, I don't know.

                            But I have never engaged in behavior judging people by the color of their skin; I didn't grow up in this country and don't have your hang-ups and obsessions on this issue; and, in all the years I have been online, one of the things I have loved the most about online discussion forums is that they strip away all those superficial judgments we make about one another.

                            No one here need know if you are a man or a woman, straight or gay, tall or short, attractive or ugly, able bodied or disabled, pleasingly symmetrical or horribly disfigured, nor what color your skin, hair, eyes or nails are. Everyone's thoughts here can be evaluated purely on their merit, unless one chooses to insert those external labels upon oneself.

                            Yet all you do, you privileged white person, is run around accusing every commenter here who expresses a different opinion of being a white racist - without even knowing the skin color of most of the people you accuse. Until now, I didn't even know you were white.

                            It is you who make race an issue here. It is you who heap character assassination on others instead of engaging in debate about their ideas. It is you who make ridiculous contortions of the English language to make illogical, absurd claims that it is "impossible" for a human being with dark skin to be a racist.

                            You call me a "denialist" - denialist about what? Have I ever denied that white racism exists? Have I in any way, shape or form suggested that any human being is exempt from the possibility of racist beliefs and attitudes? Have I in any way, shape or form denied rampant racism in the Tea Party or on the Right?

                            What exactly have I "denied". I have asserted. You are the one denying all sorts of things.

                            You apparently feel that you are deeply racist, and that, somehow, it is your skin color that is responsible, rather than your character. I guess that allows you not to take responsibility - by claiming that everyone else is a racist, it allows you to avoid responsibility for your own hatreds. I don't know, I'm not a psychologist.

                            All I know is that you are consumed with hate, and you have targeted me and anyone who expresses a different opinion with your hate, and that your hate has a label, "racist", which you stick on anyone you don't like.

                            It is rather sad, and inexplicable. You have never produced any evidence to support your accusation that I am a racist (yet, curiously, Meteor Blades doesn't hold you to that same standard as others). Same with soothsayer - a white academic who accuses people of being racist based on their skin color, and who also claims it is impossible for a black person to hold racists beliefs or attitudes or to utter a racist statement.

                            Someone could write an interesting dissertation about what plagues the both of you, and the others like you who play the same hateful game and make the same irrational arguments and call the same names and use the same labels and obsess about race all the time, even online.

                            I don't understand it, nor pretend to understand it. But, the more you rant, the more I understand that your hate and anger really have nothing to do with me, and the labels you throw around really have no rational basis at all.

                            I don't hate you, I don't even know you. You hate me, because you apparently hate yourself. Sad, really.

                            Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

                            by RandomActsOfReason on Sun Oct 03, 2010 at 12:18:01 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Ratings abuse by soothsayer. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Aves

                            Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

                            by RandomActsOfReason on Sun Oct 03, 2010 at 10:23:24 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Can't Tip anymore - kudos (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            blueness
                        •  You done did it now... (7+ / 0-)

                          They don't and won't understand even such basic concepts as the fact that Vyan, who is black, cannot possibly be racist

                          Heads exploding...the same people as you say, lol.

                        •  The key word being "explain" (0+ / 0-)

                          Whether or not a black man can be a racist is not a fact, but an opinion about which there is wide disagreement. In my opinion he can. I am happy to civilly debate this with anyone interested in an exchange of ideas, but don't come here thinking just because you "explain" something to me that I'm going to defer to what you seem to think is your obviously higher authority.

                          You can explain things to people when you have facts, but expressing your opinions in the form of a lecture and then getting angry when people have different viewpoints is bound to be disappointing for you. You cannot hector people into agreeing with you.

                          The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. --Bertrand Russell

                          by denise b on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 07:11:49 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  Did you really say that? (0+ / 0-)

                          They don't and won't understand even such basic concepts as the fact that Vyan, who is black, cannot possibly be racist

                          What a patently absurd "concept" you have there.
                          Your twisted belief in such goes a long way in explaining your racist comments towards white people.

                          This is what chump Change looks like.

                          by Wamsutta on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 07:15:35 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                    •  HR'd for overt racist comments and, with no sense (0+ / 0-)

                      of irony, simultaneously accusing others of racism.

                      Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

                      by RandomActsOfReason on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 04:30:05 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  I presume you are referring (0+ / 0-)

                      to the comment that had 3 recommends and 23 HRs, which was buried among 1000+ comments and which did not announce itself with a headline, let alone a diary title?

                      Get real.

                      The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. --Bertrand Russell

                      by denise b on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 06:56:38 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

            •  who fucking cares? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              foufou

              Show me on the doll where Rahm touched you.

              by taylormattd on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 06:00:33 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  To me the key dictinction is between (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Matt Z, adrianrf, foufou, cryptodira

            "White America" vs. "Multi-ethnic America."

            I'm part of multi-ethnic America, so Thrasher is not accusing me personally.  I think it would have made a better article if he had made the same distinction, but I never felt he was pointing a finger at all white people.  

            Given the enormity of the subject, it seems perverse to put the focus there.

            The Republican establishment wins the votes of fools by invoking terror; the Democratic establishment wins them by invoking the Republicans.

            by MrJayTee on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 09:51:54 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Nah (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Wamsutta, Philoguy, vigilant meerkat

            the title is intentionally inflamatory.

            And racist.

            It is a gold mine for Limbaugh.

            The bitter truth of deep inequality has been disguised by an era of cheap imported goods and the anyone-can-make-it celebrity myth - Polly Toynbee

            by fladem on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 11:29:18 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Actually, it's CONSERVATIVES, period (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Philoguy, vigilant meerkat, Aves

          If a person holds the kind of attitudes the article rightly condemns, their skin color is really beside the point. They have the same vote as you and I, no matter what Pantone shade we match.

          Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

          by RandomActsOfReason on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 11:37:30 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  And accusing whites (17+ / 0-)

        not just some whites, but all whites, of losing their minds helps exactly how?

        The bitter truth of deep inequality has been disguised by an era of cheap imported goods and the anyone-can-make-it celebrity myth - Polly Toynbee

        by fladem on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 08:03:16 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Except there's a huge flaw in the thesis (13+ / 0-)

        Because a lot of these same people, like Rush, for example, made this same kind of nutbar comments way before this economic crisis happened and way before anyone of them knew who Obama was. Rush, for example, made same really terrible racial comments back in the early 90's. And the scapegoating of minroties, while reprehensible is nothing new (See, the Jews, Irish, Italians, Germans, Chinese etc.)

      •  The article is amusing, but (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jbeach

        not very enlightening.

        •  Agreed. I'd like to see an actual clinical study. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          AaronInSanDiego, vcmvo2

          I really think we are seeing several different kinds of literal insanity at play here. It would make for a fascinating study of the behavior of crowds, and how that feeds back to their instigators.

          "Think. It ain't illegal yet." - George Clinton | http://ideaddicted.blogspot.com

          by jbeach on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 10:11:50 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Try these (5+ / 0-)

            23% of us are Fucked - on John Dean's "Conservatives without Conscience"

            More John Dean, Proto-Facism and the Third Wave which discusses the Milgram Experiments.

            Another The Sociophatic Disease of Conservatism

            •  If you really believed it was a disease (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              AaronInSanDiego

              you would, as a good progressive, express compassion for these people and seek their rehabilitation. You would agitate for funding for mental health services geared towards "de-programming" conservatives.

              I think we all know that is bullshit. Political conservatism and racism are not physical diseases, they are learned social behaviors - just like religion.

              Most people start out at least with the politics, racial attitudes and religion of their parents and the community they grow up in.

              People change their politics, racial attitudes and religious beliefs all the time, in response to new understanding and exposure to diverse experiences, opinions and people.

              The real problem is ignorance. Ignorance which arises, most of all, from homogeneity of experience - lack of exposure to diversity of all kinds, most importantly diversity of opinions and beliefs.

              Ignorance is an equal opportunity offender, it does not only strike "White" males.

              Ignorance breeds fear - and fear of the unknown breeds hate.

              The answer to ignorance is not mental health treatments, it is education, and not just, or even primarily formal education. It is education through popular culture, through community, through learning how to think critically and question assumptions - not only those of other authorities, but one's own.

              Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

              by RandomActsOfReason on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 12:13:04 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I would suggest treatment if I thought (6+ / 0-)

                there was a cure.  But this is more like a pathological addiction to bullshit.  Like addicts you can't force someone to exact their problem if they a) don't admit they have a problem and b) won't do anything about it.

                You can't deprogram someone who doesn't want to be deprogrammed.

                I think we all know that is bullshit. Political conservatism and racism are not physical diseases, they are learned social behaviors - just like religion.

                I didn't say it was physical, I said it's pathological and social. (hence Sociopathological)  More like an indoctrinated Cult than a religion.

                The real problem is ignorance. Ignorance which arises, most of all, from homogeneity of experience - lack of exposure to diversity of all kinds, most importantly diversity of opinions and beliefs.

                Ignorance is an equal opportunity offender, it does not only strike "White" males.

                Ignorance breeds fear - and fear of the unknown breeds hate.

                I think that's commonly accepted, but wrong. It's not ignorance per se.. it's the willful rejection of contrary facts.  These people have lots of information, it's just all wrong information and now that they believe it - they refuse to believe the truth.  It's not just that their dumb.  We're talking about a lot of smart people deliberately misleading and misguiding a lot of not quite as smart people for their own financial purposes.  These people are being deliberately Disinformed by Fox News and Right-Wing Radio.  Like a cult, they been taught and told to mistrust outsiders, to mistrust other News sources, to fear anyone and anything different - then that fear is exploited.

                There's much more on this in the diary I put up yesterday featuring the BBC Documentary The Power of Nightmares which documents of the doctrines of Leo Strauss into Neo-Conservatism parallels and feeds the rise of al Qeada.

                •  I think they can't actually accept the truth (0+ / 0-)

                  and am commenting on the excellent book review diary linked above, referencing what I have called "the 23 percenters" for a long time now.

                  It goes like this, IMHO:

                  When we accept lies as truth, or accept what should be conviction as fact, we compartmentalize our minds, which impacts reason.

                  Say there is a person, who has not done either of those things.  Their mind is whole, able to reason on anything.

                  Now, let's say they lie, or accept conviction as fact, or simply truth.

                  Now their mind is compartmentalized, with one part being the unhindered, unbroken mind, and the other part consisting of everything having to do with the lie, or false acceptance as truth.

                  In this state, their reason is broken, because they have to manage that damn lie, or error, and it doesn't matter whether or not another person is involved either.  It only matters that they have invested in the lie, or untruth.

                  Repeat this, and suddenly, we have a person who can appear quite rational on many topics, then exhibit totally bizarre reasoning on ones that happen to invoke these things.

                  That can all be corrected with both a genuine desire to understand the true nature of things, and conversation.  We all do this regularly, every single day, and that is part of why our civics involve protected expression.

                  It's a form of civic error correction which is necessary for a robust, properly functioning democracy.

                  ...but there is more!

                  Now, let's say that this person goes ahead and accepts either a lie, or confuses conviction with truth, and adds it to their self-definition!  And let's say they've done it on a fairly regular basis, and potentially don't even know they've done it.  Perhaps they were exposed to a lot of intense dogma as a kid, or some similar event.

                  In this scenario, the truth is literally a threat!!  Not only do they experience perfectly healthy tension over having to sort some things out, but they experience genuine pain as their very being is threatened by rational facts.

                  That is how those people get fucked in the head, and there isn't any fixing them, short of a full on intervention / deprogramming effort, like those efforts required to undo the damage cultists do to their followers.

                  IF THEY ARE GOING TO SCREW THE PEOPLE, MAKE THEM OWN IT.

                  by potatohead on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 04:25:50 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  I'm discussing patterns of resisting reason (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Sagittarius, Matt Z

                In theory, liberals shouldn't be any more or less susceptible to this than conservatives.

                But in practice, the average conservatives are exhibiting a clear tendency to completely ignore contrary facts and logic which contradicts their worldview. And this tendency is not present to anywhere near the same degree in the average liberals.

                1. Let's look at the most appealing Vice Presidential candidate for conservatives - Sarah Palin. By ANY objective measurement, completely and totally unqualified. This isn't just a cheap shot. She was objectively unqualified, couldn't even answer questions by Katie Couric, ignorant, and even LIED in her first speech about the "Bridge to Nowhere".

                Did conservatives care? No. More conservatives voted for McCain because of Palin, not less.

                1. Now take the most liberal candidate running for office right now. Who would that be - Feingold, or Barbara Boxer, or Alan Grayson let's say?

                Now compare their views to the most conservative candidates running for office. Take your pick. You already know the deal - Angle, Paladino or Christine O'Donnell.

                Now seriously think about that for a second. It goes beyond not liking their ideology - it's that their ideology doesn't fit reality according to known facts.

                1. Now consider conservative views on:
                - evolution - global warming - stimulus spending vs. supply-side economics, and the related question of FDR getting us out of the Great Depression - anti-Muslim hysteria

                And really realize that what is wrong with these parts of conservative ideology is that they are held onto in spite of objective facts and the vast majority of actual subject-matter experts thinking they are wrong.

                I can't think of any such level of resistance to facts present in mainstream liberalism. The closest to that would have been the anti-nuke movement in the 1970's - but compared to the current anti-Muslim hysteria, that was like a disagreement over peppermint tea vs. camomile.

                Do you see what I'm saying?

                It really seems like there is a pathology driving this. And I am interested in what that is. I have my own thoughts, but that's probably more worthy of a diary entry than anything else.

                "Think. It ain't illegal yet." - George Clinton | http://ideaddicted.blogspot.com

                by jbeach on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 03:45:35 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  Look at Gallup. It's 50-50 for baby boomers (0+ / 0-)

        The hard anti-Obama group is 65+.

        look for my DK Greenroots diary series Thursday evening. "It's the planet, stupid."

        by FishOutofWater on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 02:45:24 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Thank you (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      serrano, Dixiedemocrat, peregrinus

      for the sanity.

      The bitter truth of deep inequality has been disguised by an era of cheap imported goods and the anyone-can-make-it celebrity myth - Polly Toynbee

      by fladem on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 07:59:54 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Since there've been no consequences for them... (11+ / 0-)

      ...when they spew their racist rants, they've been emboldened to ramp up the vile rhetoric.  

      The "leaders" in the Party of Bigots, who should be the ones to try to keep some degree of sanity, have instead constantly heated and stirred the pot of unrest and fear that they use to scare their clueless followers into voting for them.

      The danger of their continuing this--the danger they refuse to understand or acknowledge--is that eventually the people they hate will get fed up enough to begin pushing back, harder and harder.

      That really isn't a good thing for the country or its citizens.  We've seen the ultimate results of using hatred and divisiveness to try to gain political power, in places like Bosnia and other places torn apart by civil wars. I've been hoping to see some sanity in the GOP'er movement--some recognition that they are playing with fire, and that everyone could get burned if they keep it up--but so far, they are living in a fantasy world, far, far from reality.

    •  So we are to put up with (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      vcmvo2

      the hate stirred to boiling by fox and racist radio jocks?  It need to be spelled out, mocked and this country needs to know the line is drawn, pick a side.  

  •  The right wing is out of control (6+ / 0-)

    We need to arm ourselves for self-defense.

    •  I think that's their point of view as well (4+ / 0-)

      but substitute "right" with "left".

      •  The difference being, "the left" isn't about (0+ / 0-)

        validating core character issues of racism, theocracy, bigotry.

        We may suffer from those things, but the general idea is to work toward a better state where those things are not in play.

        Many of "the right" are not interested in that at all.  They want those things to be ok, because it's easier than doing the work to properly socialize and deal with their character issues.

        IF THEY ARE GOING TO SCREW THE PEOPLE, MAKE THEM OWN IT.

        by potatohead on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 04:28:05 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Of course, but I don't think (0+ / 0-)

          mirroring the paranoia of some on the right is helpful.

          •  There is a clear difference between paranoia (0+ / 0-)

            and "arming for defense".

            Personally, I believe the 23 percenters, generally being discussed here, have made their issues part of their self-definition.

            What that means is they feel a genuine threat when confronted with things that contradict them and those they have chosen as worthy leaders.

            That's different from simple disagreement, and it warrants a significantly more solid response and level of organization, IMHO.

            IF THEY ARE GOING TO SCREW THE PEOPLE, MAKE THEM OWN IT.

            by potatohead on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 05:01:10 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  It's not as clear to me as it (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              potatohead

              is to you.

              •  Well, a clarification on my part would involve (0+ / 0-)

                "the left" generally not taking shit from "the right", and that means pushing back in substantial ways.

                Sometimes ugly ways.

                The justification for that is based upon the difference I noted at the start of our conversation, and the realization that they are in the "cornered animal" position.

                With us, often it's just a escalation of rhetoric at best.  With them, it's real, material things, sometimes violent things, often very mean things.

                They don't respect rationality, largely because many of them are simply not rational.  See my comment up thread for why I see it that way.

                They do however respect material threats and power.  

                To highlight their behavior, citing "out of control" isn't paranoia, unless it's coupled with equally irrational behavior.

                IF THEY ARE GOING TO SCREW THE PEOPLE, MAKE THEM OWN IT.

                by potatohead on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 06:16:12 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  It's not paranoid.... (0+ / 0-)

                ....when you have a very violent, very right-wing faction in this country that isn't afraid of using force to get what they want.

                •  Maybe not, but I'm not convinced that (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  metal prophet

                  the majority of the right in this country is violent, and I don't believe the danger is to the level that we need to arm ourselves in order to protect against it. I apologize for implying that your view is paranoid.

                  •  Violent rhetoric is certainly part... (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    AaronInSanDiego

                    ....of mainstream Republican rhetoric. "Don't retreat, reload" as Palin famously said. And Sharron Angle going on about "Second Amendment solutions." These are sick people who rely on violence as a main reference point and it's only a matter of time before someone takes them literally. In fact, it's already happened. And Grover Norquist has been talking like that for a couple of decades now.

                    •  I see your point, but (0+ / 0-)

                      I think those who go over the edge into actual violence have so far been mainly individuals, not organized groups, and I still believe that our government is capable of dealing with the latter type of threat. I can see that the possibility of a more serious threat exists.

  •  Yep, that article is pretty spot on. (39+ / 0-)

    The funny thing is about an hour after I read it the other day, one of my co-workers began telling me about how he had heard that the HCR bill was actually all about reparations for "those lazy blacks".  I said nothing and just looked at him, and he followed up with "Well, what did you think would happen with that black guy in the white house?".  

    The worst thing is I asked him if he actually believed that, and he looked uncomfortable.  The asshole doesn't fucking believe a word of it, but that didn't stop him from repeating it to every white person he knows.

    Sometimes I think that the only sane white people in America post on this site.

    The play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king.

    by KroneckerD on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 07:36:30 AM PDT

  •  Thanks for the diary, Vyan (22+ / 0-)

    A couple days ago I read Thrasher's article and unfortunately clicked on the comments.  WOW! Was I ever unprepared for the level of vile I encountered. It's just not to be believed.

  •  Face it: (16+ / 0-)

    DSM IV needs to be updated to include Rightwing Thought Disorder TM.  When you have people who make up "facts" (that used to be caused "having hallucinations" or "having delusions"), and then insist that they're real, you know there's something wrong, wrong, wrong.  And that something is: RTD.  The cure for this, if there is one, isn't Popeye's Chicken or Black Dick, it's meds and the "talking cure."

  •  Lumping all "White People" (20+ / 0-)

    together with batshit crazy Republicans is pretty disgusting, but it probably sells magazines.

    This is what chump Change looks like.

    by Wamsutta on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 07:43:35 AM PDT

    •  and its the crazies who buy the magazines with (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TofG

      such dubious reporting in place

      "Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect." ~ Mark Twain

      by VoiceFromIowa on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 07:58:41 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I'm white (15+ / 0-)

      Beck is nuts. Limbaugh is nutz and Palin is just nuttziest.

      I don't like being lumped in with that mixed bag.

      the intelligence community is no longer geared towards telling the president what they think the president wants to hear

      by Salo on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 08:03:53 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Most whites don't even listen (11+ / 0-)

        To Rush or Beck or Hannity. I am white, and while I know that they all have large audiences, I personally don't know anyone who likes them. I even know conservative whites who don't like them. Would it be ok to lump all Muslims in with Bin Ladin? This site would be rightly apopletic about it? Lump all Mexicans in with the drug gangs operating near the boarder? Why is it ok to slander this one entire race for the actions of the minority?

        •  Right America goes mad! (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Pozzo, RandomActsOfReason

          Indeed.

          the intelligence community is no longer geared towards telling the president what they think the president wants to hear

          by Salo on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 08:10:15 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Ask me that (14+ / 0-)

          when it stops happening to the rest of us minorities.  Seems like every black man in the world is responsible for the one guy who did the mugging, and the idea that every Muslim in the world is responsible for 9-11 is not a big stretch for lots of people.

          •  When the Chinese take over everything... (0+ / 0-)

            ... the Chinese will be the new OUT group and everyone else will be in. Even the Muslims.

            Read Emmanual Todds analysis in  "Apres L'Empire" of Anglo-Saxon cultural norms pervade the way a group is in one day out the next. The Welsh, Scots and Irish have suffered this reality for centuries.

            the intelligence community is no longer geared towards telling the president what they think the president wants to hear

            by Salo on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 09:37:17 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Payback, huh? (3+ / 0-)

            Nice to know that you're only spreading the feeling of being judged solely by skin color to people who deserve it.

          •  One prejudice doesn't justify another (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Sam I Am, Philoguy, vigilant meerkat

            And your presumption that those protesting the racist generalization about "White People" here are the same people who hold every "black man" responsible for "one guy who did the mugging", and that "every Muslim in the world is responsible for 9-11" is, frankly, reprehensible - and more evidence of racist thinking, since it is clear from the context of your comments in general than you attribute such attitudes not to "people" but to "white people" - as if no "Blacks" in America hold any prejudice against Muslims, or against "Whites" or against anyone else.

            Prejudice is the enemy, not "White People".

            You are, essentially, preaching an ends justify the means mentality - justifying your own prejudice by saying that you should not be expected not to express prejudice because other people express prejudice, too.

            Racism is wrong no matter who applies it to whom. Prejudice is wrong, period. Bigotry is wrong, period.

            No matter who expressed it.

            Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

            by RandomActsOfReason on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 12:24:45 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  No actually I just find all the whining (10+ / 0-)

              and indignation of the word "White" in the title, regardless of what the actual diary and article says to be out of proportion and silly.  

              Can Black people be bigoted? Hell yes. So?

              Racism is wrong no matter who applies it to whom. Prejudice is wrong, period. Bigotry is wrong, period.

              Prejudice is to draw a conclusion based on minimal facts and then ignore further information and evidence that contradicts that erroneous conclusion.  Kinda like the way you keep claiming that the title refers to "All White People" when it doesn't say that and the article instead lists some very specific persons and sub-groups - like say "Tea Partiers".

              Is that the kind of prejudice you feel is wrong?

              Vyan

              •  You are distorting the meaning of "prejudice" (4+ / 1-)
                Recommended by:
                Wamsutta, Philoguy, vigilant meerkat, Brix
                Hidden by:
                blueness

                Prejudice refers to the conclusion, not the process. It comes from "pre-judge". In the context of human affairs, it refers to ascribing a wide array of value characteristics to an entire group of people, and to any individual assumed to belong to that group of people, based on superficial characteristics such as skin color, or sexual preference or gender.

                You are saying that it is ok to employ a racial stereotype in a cover article of a major magazine, as long as and only in the case where the racial stereotype is applied to "White" people.

                That is a racist attitude.

                Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

                by RandomActsOfReason on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 02:37:42 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I've distorted nothing (6+ / 0-)

                  you are prejudging the article based on the title and ignoring the content - the suggestion you find so objectionable is in your mind, it's your inference not a direct implication made in the article, and you know it.

                  I don't agree that cover article perpetuates any a stereotype of white people "as crazy" because that's not a current existing stereotype that most reasonable people would take seriously. In order to be cutting and hurtful, there has to be a kernel of truth to a stereotype that is being blown completely out of proportion - and frankly I think Steven actually understated things.  The Tea Party is SO FAR OVER THE TOP it's almost impossible to lampoon and exaggerate their nuttiness, because the reality is far far worse.

                  On the other I do agree that the cover image probably unfairly characterizes the insane, but that's another story - I included the actual cover image to show which White people they were talking about and it's CLEARLY a specific subset, not all of them no matter how people keep trying to make it seem like this was a 100% blanket attack on every White American. If you're not a raging Tea Partier, it's not about you.

                  I feel this argument is like saying that comparing Bush to Chimp is "Racial" when it's not - it's based on his actually individual mannerism, meanwhile comparing Barack to a monkey or Urkel or Tuvok (which is a new one I saw recently) is clearly based on a long standing history of insults used that have been used to demean black people. (As being Simian and/or Nerdy.

                  I think it would have been rude and mean to make fun of Bush's stuttering - because it would insult people who have that affliction and he did - yet hardly anyone ever did that, however Barack takes tons of insults because of his tendency to say "umm" a lot when speaking extemporaneously.  I don't think that's racial - it's just mean.

                  Making a joke about Asian people liking fried chicken may or may not be funny depending on how it's told, but it's far less racially rude than talking about their ability to drive, or their skills at dry cleaning.

                  Just because you talk about Race doesn't mean everything out of your mouth on the subject is driven by bigotry, it's could be driven by fact and some - admittedly general - truths.  I don't subscribe to the politically correct doctrine that people can't even be allowed to communicate - except under the common denominator of least possible umbrage for those who are just raring to be pissed off.

                  Vyan

                •  blueness reported for HR abuse. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  vigilant meerkat

                  Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

                  by RandomActsOfReason on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 07:21:35 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  I don't find the (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Wamsutta, vigilant meerkat

                Majority of the content in the article objectionable.  Many conservatives and tea party folk are racist assholes.  No objections here.  What I do find objectionable is the suggestion that whites in general are equivalent to these folks.  This is not a hard point to get, nor should it be difficult for you or anyone else to concede that it's a very ugly, misleading title.  Finally, it's just stupid politics.  It makes no sense to alienate those white voters that support Obama and the democrats.

                •  If you're alienated (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  sneakers563, foufou, wwjjd, soothsayer99

                  it's because you insist on it, the article is intended to be funny, period.

                  •  Blacks are homophobic. (0+ / 0-)

                    Hey, if you find this characterization objectionable, that's your problem, I'm just trying to be funny!  See the problem here.  Lay off defending the title and we have no disagreement.

                    •  Completely missing the funny... (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      vcmvo2, foufou, princss6

                      besides some of them really are. I mean they really truly deeply are - but certainly not all. Analogy fail.

                    •  the problem with your statement (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      foufou

                      is that it is just that. a statement. a generality.

                      i thought that we progressives understood that context is everything.

                      if you take the title on its own, i agree: "white people have lost their minds" is an inappropriate generalization. however, if you read the article in its entirety, it cannot possibly be lost on you that the article is referring to a very specific group of white people.

                      i wish i was a good enough writer to tell a funny and ironic story about the not insignificant number of homophobic black folks. it would be funny as hell, as a black person who isn't homophobic, i'd know i wasn't referring to myself or any of the millions of black folks who aren't homophobic. i hope other enlightened and rational black people would get that, too.

                  •  And yes, I definitely (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Wamsutta

                    Have a problem being grouped with a bunch of assholes like racist tea par tiers.  Your point about humor is really disgusting. Suppose you encountered a group of white people laughing hysterically at jokes at how black people are lazy, walk slow, and live on CPT.  Would you be rightfully offended?  You betcha.  Would these stereotypes be funny?  Perhaps to racists who believe you can infer qualities based on skin color.  Same difference here.  It's not funny and your suggestion that it's the problem of those who take offense that's the problem is very ugly.  Well have to remember this double standard the next time the racial outrage of the day occurs.  Somehow I don't suspect you were laughing when Don Imus made his nappy headed hoes joke.  Hey sourpuss (your remark elsewhere in comments).where's your sense of humor?  Don't you know he was just joking?  No you rightfully recognized ravish language for what it was here.  You should exercise the same response to hateful titles such as this.

                    •  Wrong comparison. Being lazy, walking slow (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      foufou

                      and being on welfare is no more black than it is white, even if a certain group of people might think so.

                      Being a tea party member is a white phenomenon, even though it doesn't involve all whites.
                      So...they'd have to be saying something essentially true to compare it, something that is truer about blacks than whites.

                      Blacks are great at basketball.
                      Something like that. Now it is silly because many black people are not great at basketball but it is true that for whatever reason a higher percentage of blacks than whites make it to the pros.

                      "White people have lost their minds"
                      My first thought as white person is "No shit" because I don't think any of us in our right minds could believe he means every white person or most or all.
                      But this lost mind thing going on is pretty much a white person phenomenon.

                      Guess it is all in how we look at it.

                  •  And I dare say (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Wamsutta

                    I've done a lot more for racial equality than many of the people here.  I've written countless letters of recommendation for people of color, helping them to get into first rate colleges and graduate institutions, I give large portions of my income to the NAACP and the SPLC and have marched and fought on behalf of these struggles.  So yeah, I take great offense at being grouped with this racist scum.  Moreover, I think it's idiotic political strategy to suggest that a large block of the democratic base is racist.

                    •  Good for you... (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      blueness, foufou

                      uptight about it much?

                      •  What a childish response (0+ / 0-)

                        This is what chump Change looks like.

                        by Wamsutta on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 09:32:31 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  He earned it, because if he thinks he special for (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          blueness

                          that, he's not.

                          I've done a lot more for racial equality than many of the people here.

                          Sounded like he wanted a gold star.  What he's said he's doing is what ANY good Democrat should be doing if they're able.  As I said "Good for him" and that I meant.

                          But this...

                          Moreover, I think it's idiotic political strategy to suggest that a large block of the democratic base is racist.

                          Completely ruined it for me, because this suggestion is frankly clueless.  NO ONE has said a large part of the Democratic Base is racist.  That's just fracking dumb. We've been talking about Republicans who been frankly acting crazy - AS CRAZY.  This is not a "political strategy" it's saying the people acting crazy just might actually be crazy people.  Especially Republican/Tea Bagger Crazy people.

                          Vyan

                          •  Several commenters here - not you (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Wamsutta

                            have most explicitly expanded the accusation to apply to all "White people". It is always the same small but extremely vocal ideologically extreme group, in any discussion about race on Daily Kos.

                            Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

                            by RandomActsOfReason on Sun Oct 03, 2010 at 02:58:26 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

      •  Doesn't matter. People of color (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        erush1345

        will look at you, see your white and think racist.  

        I don't belong to an organized party, I'm a democrat.

        by thestructureguy on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 08:39:31 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  you need to reread the diary (13+ / 0-)

      no one lumped all white people together, check out the first paragraph where it spells out the "tea party". You and they are the ones who misunderstand the satire and leap to wild and crazy conclusions.

    •  Objectively, it is not all, but is it a majority (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ETF, teachme2night

      of white people over a certain age.  

      "When fascism comes to America, it'll be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross." Sinclair Lewis

      by lakehillsliberal on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 08:24:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Oh good! (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        DocbytheBay

        Let's bring ageism into the mix.  Jesus.

      •  What certain age is that? (0+ / 0-)

        and what is the evidence for this claim?

          •  So are you saying that most (0+ / 0-)

            white adults and teenagers fit the description described in the article?

            •  No. I was just picking an age... and it (0+ / 0-)

              didn't have much meaning. The direction this diary has taken has thrown me a little so I left an answer I wouldn't usually do.

              What my thought actually was is that us considering this group as the oldest folks would be a false consolation. Goes way back to the study on Generation Jones (the youngest of the baby boomers). In the 2004 swing states they went bush/cheney in such high numbers that they overcame the votes of the other generations... all who had given the edge to Kerry
              And in many states Obama did not win even the youth vote against McCain...

              And no, I do not think most white people are described in the article, I doubt anyone does, including the author. What I do think is that the phenomenon described is a largely white phenomenon and I have wondered for some time "What is it with white people?" (and I am white)

              I understand that others are offended by the title. I wasn't.

    •  and hits the rec list here (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Wamsutta

      eom

      I wish more people were thoughtful and honest but being outraged is too much fun I suppose

      by Guinho on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 09:29:22 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Wish I could rec this a million times! (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      vcmvo2, vigilant meerkat

      Nancy Pelosi hasn't lost her mind, or Joe Biden his, or Russ Feingold, Jimmy Carter, Bernie Sanders, or Barbara Boxer theirs.

      "Virg Bernero is exactly the kind of candidate Democrats need to get in 2010." - Ed Schultz

      by ScottyUrb on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 10:25:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  spelling police (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    vcmvo2, Matt Z, foufou

    White America Has Lost Its Mind.    Oh yes, it has.  Thanks for pointing out this article.

  •  I'm not sure (7+ / 0-)

    Thrasher's article will convince any one who's eyes are closed. But it sure was good to read some humorous sanity after all the nonsense we hear these days.

    And I think what he had to say goes hand in glove with the article by Paul Starobin that was quoted in the pundit roundup on the front page today. If you haven't read it yet, I highly recommend it.

  •  that's funny (15+ / 0-)

    but I do hope this is snark. I don't see that tagged?

    White America isn't our problem. Our problem is the concentration of wealth and power.

    Frames like this feed directly into the narrative that we should break into teams along racial lines rather than work together to solve our problems. The people on that magazine cover aren't dangerous because they're white. They're dangerous because they speak on behalf of a philosophy of political economy that wants to replace the American experiment of capitalism and democracy with a 21st century hybrid of theocracy and plutocracy.

    Ask your Member of Congress what they're doing to put Americans back to work.

    by washunate on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 07:49:58 AM PDT

    •  Yeah, I missed the humor tag as well (8+ / 0-)

      Perhaps the next installment is about how all black people think like Jesse Jackson or Alan Keyes.

      You know, as part of the new post-racial healing thingie.

      This is what chump Change looks like.

      by Wamsutta on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 07:54:40 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I was just thinking (3+ / 0-)

        At least the magazine-sellers have made some progress at inclusion.

        They don't say white men are going crazy. Two people on the cover are women!

        Ask your Member of Congress what they're doing to put Americans back to work.

        by washunate on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 07:58:20 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  that racist stuff is done all the time (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Aquarius40, Sagittarius, blueness, foufou

        people lump all black humans together all the time, have you never heard of racial stereotypes? I isn't new nor would it be news if it was done again. The piece was satire and the diary plainly said it meant "tea party types"in the first paragraph. Your sensitivity is just like theirs, they think they're being attacked and losing their country to the dark boogyman. You seem to believe the same thing.

        •  eh? (3+ / 0-)

          Your sensitivity is just like theirs, they think they're being attacked and losing their country to the dark boogyman.

          What part of your ass did you pull that from?

          Racism isn't new, no, but it's wrong, and I am certainly not the only one calling this piece out for it's divisive and broad-brushed bullshit.

          This is what chump Change looks like.

          by Wamsutta on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 08:32:13 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Does that make it ok? (5+ / 0-)

          Racial stereotypes are ok if they target "White People", but not ok if they target "Black People"?

          Can you explain the (il)logic?

          Your sensitivity is just like theirs, they think they're being attacked and losing their country to the dark boogyman. You seem to believe the same thing.

          If the article and diary had said, "Black America Has Lost Its Mind", would you be making the same argument to people who complained about the racism inherent in the title?

          How is it ok for you to accuse another commenter here of racism, of thinking they are "losing their country to the dark boogyman".

          Why should such an overt accusation by you of racism not be HRd on its face?

          Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

          by RandomActsOfReason on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 12:35:07 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  you need to crawl nack in your rightwing hole (0+ / 1-)
            Recommended by:
            Hidden by:
            Wamsutta

            all day every day you post wingnut shit

            •  Please provide evidence for "rightwing shit" (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Aves

              in any position I have taken on any issue in my entire comment history on Daily Kos - or, withdraw the false accusation.

              Produce, or retract.

              Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

              by RandomActsOfReason on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 11:40:46 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  your entire history is proof (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                soothsayer99

                now crawl away

                •  You can't find a single quote, a single link (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Aves

                  to substantiate your ugly, hurtful, personal insults, can you?

                  Not one. I've posted thousands of comments on Daily Kos, and you cannot find a single, solitary piece of evidence that I have supported "rightwing shit".

                  Not one.

                  Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

                  by RandomActsOfReason on Sun Oct 03, 2010 at 10:40:06 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Produce or retract. (0+ / 0-)

                  Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

                  by RandomActsOfReason on Sun Oct 03, 2010 at 10:40:23 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Could you produce or retract something? (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    blueness, soothsayer99

                    Here you claim members of the so called "group" have called the web site owner a racist..

                    MB has decided to support this group - even though they have called Markos a racist, and essentially concluded that MB is a lackey of racists

                    Do you have a link because I don't recall any such comments ever being made??

                    "Comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable" - Dorothy Day

                    by joedemocrat on Sun Oct 03, 2010 at 11:30:48 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Here you go: (0+ / 0-)

                      This is just one exchange on the topic:

                      http://www.dailykos.com/...

                      They had me on "vacation"
                      Since the 2nd of August. One of the things I learned is that you can't call a white man a racist unless you have two forms of I.D.
                      (that one, referring to MB temporarily suspending him from the site for a while, got 23 recs)

                      To my knowledge the front pgers/contributors at DKos are 99% white...

                      [MB responded] We're actually not 99% white...
                      ...Markos is Latino, I am Seminole, Arjun (on hiatus) is South Asian, and the most recent addition, BrooklynBadBoy, African-American.

                      With your background in civil rights I'm sure you now find yourself in the most segregated work environment of your career.It sets a bad tone for a site dedicated to the election of better Democratic candidates to have no AA representation.
                      In 2010 that's inexcusable & as I have found in the workplace by design.

                      It is rather disappointing to see a democratic site with less representation while 95% of the AA community goes out and vote unconditionally for a democrat...
                      May be the problem is the hiring standard applied by those doing the selection. Personally, I don't have much faith on Markos to speak on AA behave after his "classless" rant on Michelle Obama and truly don't believe he understands AAs concerns.

                      Lack of diversity is a problem on the fp.
                      It seems to me that people who get promoted to the front page have to have the same mindset as kos/MB. ..
                      . Here it is the same crap regardless of the FPer - Dems suck, Obama sucks most, I'm smarter than Obama/Reid, etc. It gets old.

                      [MB responded]It would be a very interesting exercise...
                      ...for you, askew, since you're making this accusation, to show one single time - just one - when I said, or implied, that Obama sucks.

                      (there was no response to this)

                      Now, would you or anyone else here provide a link to me promoting "rightwing shit"?

                      Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

                      by RandomActsOfReason on Sun Oct 03, 2010 at 12:38:44 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  your interpretation of the comments is very wrong (4+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        vcmvo2, blueness, princss6, soothsayer99

                        somebody saying they don't think he understands the concerns of the AA community is not the same thing as calling him a racist..

                        somebody saying they don't feel the FP writers are  diverse enough is not the same thing either..

                        somebody saying they believe FPers are chosen based on if they have a mindset similar is not the same..

                        the link at the top of your comment is not to the comments (in blockquote)..

                        "Comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable" - Dorothy Day

                        by joedemocrat on Sun Oct 03, 2010 at 02:25:36 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

    •  25% or so of people are birthers (6+ / 0-)

      That level of unhingedness is a serious problem.  Sputtering about class and false consciousness doesn't change the general fact that large number of old white people have gone totally nuts.

  •  I'm rec'ing this (13+ / 0-)

    for the Village Voice cover alone.  Priceless.

    •  I'm not (18+ / 0-)

      The article has some worthwhile things, but lumping an entire race as being mentally ill on the basis of a handful of people who don't represent the majority view is pretty disgusting.

      •  There are two kinds of racism here.. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Pozzo

        unacceptable and acceptable. That's just the way it is, and I've decided to just accept that fact. But that's just me.

        Moderation in most things. Except Reactors. IFR forever!

        by billmosby on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 08:07:07 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Absolutely - it's satire! (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        madmsf, TiaRachel, foufou, Coilette

        It makes fun of what THEY do by doing the same thing, only more. Very funny, in a sick kind of way.

        "The eyes of the future are looking back at us and they are praying for us to see beyond our own time." - Terry Tempest Williams

        by your neighbor on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 08:07:52 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Well that's your opinion. (7+ / 0-)

        I'm white and I'm fine with it.

      •  It's clearly not talking (17+ / 0-)

        about ALL white America, but largely about the Tea Party.  The funny thing is I don't think the backlash against it would be any different if the title was "The Tea Party has last it's mind" - because some of us have been saying that for months and we've been accused of being racists already, starting with Janeane Garafalo.

        •  Why? Because you think all white people are (0+ / 0-)

          racists? That seems to be what you are getting at in all of your comments.

          Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

          by RandomActsOfReason on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 12:40:10 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  No, it's clearly not (6+ / 0-)

            what I'm getting at, are you really this obtuse?

            •  If you imply that the backlash would be different (0+ / 0-)

              here on Daily Kos - in fact, everywhere in the progressive sphere - you broadly generalize that white people here are racist.

              How else can one interpret that comment?

              Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

              by RandomActsOfReason on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 02:54:02 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Hm, aparently you are. too bad. n.t (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                blueness, soothsayer99
                •  Apparently I am what? (0+ / 0-)

                  are you unable to substantively respond to my question, except with some vague insinuation of ill intent?

                  Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

                  by RandomActsOfReason on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 04:50:29 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Terminally Obtuse! (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    blueness
                    •  Can't just come out and take a position on the (0+ / 0-)

                      actual issue, can you?

                      You are so obsessed with justifying your every comment, no matter how absurd your justifications become - your latest argument is that "White America" is just "shorthand" - as if using "Black America" would be an acceptable shorthand.

                      What is it about people on the Internet, that they abandon principle, common sense, propriety and integrity, just to avoid admitting they made a mistake or were ever wrong?

                      Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

                      by RandomActsOfReason on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 07:17:34 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I don't know, what's your excuse? n/t (0+ / 0-)
                        •  What justifies that gratuitous insult? (0+ / 0-)

                          My principles are intact. My political and policy positions are consistent, and based upon those principles. I apply common sense pragmatically to achieving progress, rather than adhering to an ideological, political or religious dogma. I often admit mistakes, and usually thank people for pointing them out to me, as they are the way one grows and one's opinions evolve. As for my integrity, I am comfortable with it. I act exactly according to the beliefs I espouse. I reject and oppose prejudice of all kinds, and do my utmost not to practice it, and to evaluate every human being I meet based on their character. I have never asked a person on the Internet what their skin color or gender or sexual preference is; I don't care, it makes no difference to me, and I enjoy the fact that, on the internet, we can each be judged by the substance of the words we type to express our opinions, rather than pre-judged based on superficial characteristics.

                          I am comfortable in my own skin. Taken me a long time to get there, but, frankly, as frustrating it is to have people like MB hit and run with ugly insinuations about "progenitors of Jim Crow", and as dispiriting it is for a small group of people consumed with self-hate and rage towards the world to paint me as some kind of right-wing demonic troll here, ultimately Daily Kos doesn't really matter in the scheme of things, and people who think their opinion here really matters don't have much of a life offline. I've survived much worse. It still hurts when people say ugly things about me, just as it hurts any other human being. Particularly when someone I respected like MB resorts to such behavior.

                          But, what can you do. No matter what I say here - whether I am polite or rude, whether I brush it off or respond in kind - it will not make a difference to people who pre-judge - people who are prejudiced themselves.

                          I don't think you are that kind of person, which is why I have continued to engage in substantive discussion with you. I do think some of your comments are wrong, just as you think some of my comments are wrong.

                          But, I would never extrapolate from that some presumption of ill-will or terrible hidden agenda. I judge you on what you type here, that is the only thing we have to go on and the only thing we should go on. Presuming is prejudging. I try not to, as best as I can.

                          Peace.

                          Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

                          by RandomActsOfReason on Sun Oct 03, 2010 at 02:52:36 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Oh my god - switch to decaf seriously! (4+ / 0-)

                            Good night gracie!

                          •  Love you too. (0+ / 0-)

                            I stayed up late tonight so I could pick my daughter up after the buses started. Of course, the notion I should defend myself against spurious assertions that I am a racist troll is unacceptable, even during my down time.

                            I picking my daughter up at 2:00am in the morning and driving her home makes me not only overly caffeinated, but "akin to the progenitors of Jim Crow", as MB states I am.

                            But, of course, it is much more comfortable to pretend the person whose character is being assassinated is not human.

                            Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

                            by RandomActsOfReason on Sun Oct 03, 2010 at 03:12:16 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  after the buses stopped, not started (0+ / 0-)

                            Good night george!

                            Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

                            by RandomActsOfReason on Sun Oct 03, 2010 at 03:13:00 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  i (5+ / 0-)

                            do not believe that you are "not human." I believe that you are making a series of mistakes, and that you will not reflect that this might be so. And that is very human.

                            Get some rest. Be well.

                          •  I believe you are making a series of mistakes (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Aves

                            And, to be helpful, will actually share those with you, so that you can benefit from constructive feedback (a courtesy you aren't inclined to extend)

                            1. You attempt to prevent others from expressing opinions to which you object, abusing the tools provided by this site to hide them;
                            1. you assume ill-will and impute dire motives to people who have been long-standing members of this community and have consistently supported its mission of electing more, better Democrats - again, primarily because they disagree with you - not on principle, not on the values or mission of this community, but simply on a matter of the best way to achieve them;
                            1. you are hasty to call people the most hurtful and ugly names you can think of - first and foremost, "racist" - even when there is not only absolutely no evidence to support it, but on the contrary - a long, consistent record of comments championing equality, rejecting racism, racist ideas, racist policies and racist objective - indeed, the very premise of dividing human beings by the color of their skin;
                            1. you dish out recs purely on the basis of how much the comments agree with your ideology and specific beliefs on every topic, not on the basis of the quality of a comment or the degree to which it may contribute to a constructive dialog here;
                            1. you mostly rec your friends, just because they are friends - no matter how reprehensible, over-the-top or offensive their comments may be.
                            1. Disclaimers to the contrary, you demonize me and others who disagree with you. You launch vindictive crusades, hold grudges and judge comments by the username underneath them, rather than by their objective merit;
                            1. you are utterly unable to admit error, and you never, ever thank anyone for pointing error out to you, for helping you gain new understanding and grow. In fact, you seem to view the possibility of error as the worst sin imaginable, and use it to accuse others, rather than engaging in constructive dialog with people of differing opinions, with a view to both helping them change, and an openness to changing yourself;
                            1. your inability to find common ground and bridge the relatively small gap between you and progressives who share the same goals, and differ really on tactics more than anything else, makes any hope of you helping to unify this country, sway the opinions of voters who are not going to vote like you and I will, and of actually producing political change, virtually nil. You seem motivated primarily by hate, not by love.
                            1. your behavior suggests an ends justifies the means mentality. That is probably the biggest problem with your participation here on Daily Kos - you believe that, to achieve what you believe is a just end, unjust means are necessary, and that the path to mutual understanding, inclusion and tolerance, is via anger, alienation, and finding the deepest, most profound way you can hurt those you consider your "opponents";
                            1. you forget that there is a human being behind each username, and get so caught up in your obsessive need to "beat" the "enemy", that you say things that no decent human being would say to another, if they were before them in person and could see the harm their words cause.

                            Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

                            by RandomActsOfReason on Sun Oct 03, 2010 at 09:18:10 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

            •  To answer your question... (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              blueness, foufou, soothsayer99

              yes...purposefully, tenanciously obtuse.

  •  That's the first time I've seen that DeLay quote (10+ / 0-)

    No surprise seeing that it's coming from a psychotic criminal who belongs in prison, but I mean he doesn't even attempt to hide the racism.

    In a way this is good. It allows us to see and identify the problem areas and problem groups in our society, that still have not caught up with the rest of the country, and now we can work to neutralize them and totally make them irrelevant. Although they're doing a pretty good job themselves of that, but now we can finish them off. Give them that extra little push over the side of the cliff. Metaphorically of course.

    "They proved that if you quit smoking, it will prolong your life. What they haven't proved is that a prolonged life is a good thing." - Bill Hicks

    by Moon Mop on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 07:50:40 AM PDT

  •  Thanks tipped and rec'ed nt (5+ / 0-)
  •  T&R'd for the cover picture alone! n/t (7+ / 0-)
  •  Is the psychic tide turning? (7+ / 0-)

    I know it is for me.  A few months ago I was moaning about the "fact" these tea-party crazies were going to take the House and Senate.

    Then, largely due to what I read on KOS, I started to think -- maybe not.  So I've donated more than I should through ActBlue, and just shared this diary on my face book page.

    Polls suggest the enthusiasm gap is shrinking, the President is getting young folks railed up, and it feels like maybe we really can.

    by the way, the link in my signature has nothing to do with this diary, but is worth checking out if you know anybody who rides a motorcycle without a helmet.

    "Suviving a Traumatic Brain Injury: A Family Guide" is now available online: http://www.braininjurysuccess.org/

    by Msanger on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 07:53:36 AM PDT

  •  Awesome. (5+ / 0-)

    Let's not forget the silent ones who have lost their minds to the jesus.  That is scary stuff.

    "Hey, with religion you can't get just a little pregnant"

    by EarTo44 on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 07:53:56 AM PDT

  •  Good Times (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dhajra

    Rhite America lives in denial and DENIAL IS INSANITY!

    It's only entertainment!

  •  I was about to say... (17+ / 0-)

    well, we haven't all gone round the bend.  Then I saw the hate-mail.  I do have to admit that a substantial number of my fellow Caucasians are behaving is a very strange manner.  But please don't blame me.  I'm doing what I can.

    -5.13,-5.64; EVERYTHING is an approximation! -Hans A. Bethe

    by gizmo59 on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 07:56:23 AM PDT

  •  I didn't like the generalizations (13+ / 0-)

    Documenting the lunacy is a worthwhile effort. But all the "all white people" categorizations became a turn-off.

    The right-wing capitalizes on inciting racial division. That's something that we should work against, not add to.

  •  Well one thing is for sure, we are confirming (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    erush1345

    to the world that we have our share of the crazy, as if there was ever any doubt.

    Never kick a fresh turd on a hot day. Harry Truman

    by temptxan on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 08:00:00 AM PDT

  •  bewildered white people (19+ / 0-)

    too many white people can't grok the fact that they're losing absolute power over the USA. Since the demographics first became news I and many other minority people have predicted his reaction.

    The bad thing is this is only the beginning, I predict they'll get more and more violent as the USA gets more diverse and more minorities are in positions of power.

  •  The Piece Made Lots Of White Folks Antsy (30+ / 0-)

    I posted this piece on my FaceBook page and another friend reposted on his and some of his (white) friends (allegedly enlightened)shat all over us. What did we get?

    "We are not racists and we're sick of being called racists and black people are just as bad and you're a racist for lumping us all together", et al.

    Best of all were the punk rockers that claimed how badly the LAPD abused them in the day.

    I couldn't let this sit--pointed out none of them had ever been DWB'ed, redlined, triple carded, security dogged on Rodeo (Vyan known what that means)and they exploded--told me they indeed had and to go fuck myself, I had liberal guilt, hated myself.

    I told them they could change their clothes and get a haircut and their issues would disappear, try changing your skin color. And for all of black and Latino racism, those groups (even at 63% of LA County) didn't have the institutional power to enforce same

    No reply.

  •  What if Pres. Obama looked like Sen. Scott Brown? (15+ / 0-)

    Close your eyes and imagine the moving speeches, the oratory, the brilliance, the leadership, the vision, the passion, coming from a white man.  Would things be any different now?  

    The fact that President Obama's mother was a white woman is beside the point.  When the teabaggers say they want their country back, it makes me think they want to go back to the days of Jim Crow and slavery.  It makes me sick to may stomach every time I hear that phrase.

    We are prepared for battle. We'll grind it out, district by district, race by race. We have a story to tell. David Axelrod

    by Ladyhawk on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 08:08:39 AM PDT

  •  Here is my... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ribletsonthepan
    ..favorite example of White America losing its mind...

    http://politicalcorrection.org/...

    The article fails to address the nexus of white insanity resides in our very congress.

     

    I don't always drink beer, but when I do, I become a messageboard genius. Stay thirsty, my friends. -(Message from The World's Most Interesting Kossack)

    by wyvern on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 08:10:54 AM PDT

  •  [I'm cringing, as I do this -] (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pasadena beggar, tommymet, Matt Z
    But - would you mind taking the apostrophe out of the title? Many thanks!
  •  I'm not crazy, Vyan. (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pozzo, Matt Z, ETF, Coilette, BlueDragon

    I've just been in a bad mood for about 10 years.

    Three be the things I shall never attain: Envy, Content, and sufficient champagne. --Dorothy Parker

    by M Sullivan on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 08:12:42 AM PDT

  •  When does the American National Party start? (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tommymet, jessical, Matt Z, James Kresnik, ETF

    Can't be far off.

    the intelligence community is no longer geared towards telling the president what they think the president wants to hear

    by Salo on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 08:13:02 AM PDT

  •  It goes back along way. (5+ / 0-)

    Like about 400 years.  So I'm not sure white America was ever in its right mind.

    The Global War on Terror is a fabrication to justify imperialism.

    by BigAlinWashSt on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 08:15:52 AM PDT

  •  My black neighbor a block away... (4+ / 0-)

    ...loves to open his garage door and blast Rush as  I walk my dog. Has he lost his mind? Yes. So why isn't he included in the headline.

    I really think it is counter-productive to frame this a racial issue and to slur and entire "color" . True, there is a certain demographic and my neighbor is an exception to that demographic but it very divisive to turn this into an issue of color and does more harm in the long run than good. Are we at war with white people? Well, that's what the comments to any online article about Obama might suggest. Don't reinforce that, please.

    British Petroleum: I think that means it's foreign oil.

    by Bensdad on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 08:16:16 AM PDT

  •  I read this a few days ago, thank the gods for (10+ / 0-)

    the village voice. For all the good things about NYC the big corporate newspapers are all still rubbish. That's why VV and The Onion are my staples for a subway ride.

    And YES, racism plays a HUGE roll on the right. White privilege ain't what it used to be and the country is getting browner, and old folks (especially from the south and west) can NOT deal with it.

    The battle lines are clear. It is old and white vs younger and browner, and the old white crowd is getting out numbered fast. Despite whatever happens in this election, in the long term the Right is SCREWED and they know it. The 50 St southern strategy will no longer work VERY soon, and that I rejoice

    A worker who votes Republican is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders. ~ Kossack TomP

    by MinistryOfTruth on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 08:22:00 AM PDT

    •  How is that not a racist statement? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sam I Am

      It is old and white vs younger and browner, and the old white crowd is getting out numbered fast.

      Every single person who participating in the civil rights struggle supporting equal rights in the 50's and 60's is old, and, numerically, they are mostly white.

      "The battle lines" are between "old white people" vs "young browner people"? Really?

      Ideology, opinions, beliefs, attitudes, don't matter?

      Should we stone every old white person?

      Should be forgive every young browner person any prejudice, regressive attitudes or any political conservatism they might express, and not oppose those ideas?

      You really propose that the primary criteria for this "war" you are waging is the color of someone's skin?

      And that is not racist, how, exactly?

      Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

      by RandomActsOfReason on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 12:46:48 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Not every mention of race (10+ / 0-)

        is by definition "racist", that's how.

        •  That does not address this specific instance (0+ / 0-)

          I ask, how is proposing a "war" between old white people and younger browner people not inherently racist, when the person proposing it is younger and browner, but racist, when the person proposing it is older and whiter?

          How can using skin color as the criteria for determining the "enemy" against which one should wage war not racist, no matter who uses that criteria?

          Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

          by RandomActsOfReason on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 02:52:49 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  i think the demographic difference (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            magurakurin, blueness

            they describe is simply factually accurate, they is a "contest" if you will, between these faction across both the issues of age and race.  I don't think that's automatically racist any more than it's age-ist to point out there are conflicts across those boundaries, there are.

            •  So, all the white civil rights activists from the (0+ / 0-)

              60's are the enemy, because they are old and white?

              And younger, paler folks are not welcome in this battle between "old and white" and "younger and browner"?

              Do you have any statistics to back your assumption that old white people are overwhelmingly racist, so overwhelmingly that it is acceptable to generalize and say that the "war" is between old and white, and younger and browner?

              By the way, the comment I objected to talked explicitly about a war. Not a "contest", not a "debate". a "WAR".

              Why don't you have the courage to either reject something or embrace it, rather than employing consistent weasel words to try and have it both ways?

              Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

              by RandomActsOfReason on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 04:53:19 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I didh't say of suggest any of that (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                magurakurin, blueness, foufou

                only that demographically - and generally speaking those groups are in conflict, but that's not absolute.  Those groups could also be used to generally describe the difference between the Average Democrat (who tend to be younger and browner), and the average Republican (who tend to be older and whiter).

                It's a generality - it's shorthand. People have to understand this as a given, that there are always exceptions to every general rule (old white Democrats certainly exist, just as younger brown Republicans do) or else the process of being able to communicate efficiently begins to break down. If you demand that people specifically carve out and describe each and every exception - you'll never be able to get the point of what you're trying to say.

                So yeah, some Right-Wing Hyper-Disinformed Fear-riddled Largely Conservative, somewhat Libertarian Angry and Deluded Tea Bagging people - who coincidentally happen to be mostly, but not entirely White - and mostly, but not entirely Male and Christian and over the age of 50, and often on Social Security and Medicare while complaining about Government Handouts and Take-Overs of Health Care - HAVE BEEN ACTING CRAZY LATELY - but all the other White people are cool. Mostly.

                Would that be a good enough title for you?

                •  The commenter DID suggest exactly that (0+ / 0-)

                  The battle lines are clear. It is old and white vs younger and browner, and the old white crowd is getting out numbered fast.

                  Nor is this the only comment in this diary that uses war terms - including explicitly "war" - in conjunction with racial categorizations.

                  Either you support such comments, or you don't.

                  My objection was to the comment I quoted.

                  Stop evading and dodging and weaving and using weasel words.

                  Many of your comments seem to explicitly reject racist divisions - and yet, in others you seem to want to support those who champion them.

                  Make up your mind.

                  You objected to my objection to the quoted comment. Here it is again, in case you forgot:

                  The battle lines are clear.  It is old and white vs younger and browner, and the old white crowd is getting out numbered fast.

                  Do you agree or disagree with this statement.

                  I disagree with it. What is your position - unambiguously - is it right or wrong?

                  Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

                  by RandomActsOfReason on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 07:14:28 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I don't have problem with that comment (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    magurakurin, princss6

                    because it's factually true.  "Battle Lines" vs "Competition" is semantics.  It's matters of degree.

                    You seem to want to color any admission that race - either as culture or color - even exists as racism itself. It is not, it's acceptance of the demographic reality.  I find yours to be an unsustainable, ridiculously, inflexible contra-factual position.  People are different.  People compete singularly, culturally and in groups - just like in elections - that's all he was trying to say.  Accept it.

                    These issues can be addressed in such a simply and single-minded way.  All those roads lead to FAIL!

                    Vyan

                    •  Sorry can NOT be addressed .. n/t (0+ / 0-)
                    •  See, we disagree (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Aves

                      and we can do so without imputing evil motives to the other.

                      I am now being compared to Joe McCarthy here. How arguing that prejudice is the underlying harmful phenomenon we must all combat together, and that racism is wrong, no matter where it comes from, makes me "Joe McCarthy" - let alone "akin" to the "progenitors of Jim Crow" - I simply don't understand.

                      I don't think my approach is either simple or single-minded, I think it is a strategy that reflects principled pragmatism.

                      I don't see how you end racism if you champion racial divisions - and, no matter how you try to reword it, dividing people in any way - cultural or otherwise - based on the color of their skin - is using artificial racial distinctions.

                      I support the right of any and every individual to self-determination - and, if you or anyone else chooses to define yourself as part of "Black Culture", who am I to tell you otherwise?

                      But I reject your right, or anyone else's right, to define others - whole groups of people - as belonging to "Black Culture" or "White Culture" based purely on the color of my or their skin.

                      If that makes me Joe McCarthy, and a "progenitor of Jim Crow", then we might as well be speaking completely different languages from opposite ends of the globe. Which saddens me, because my objective is to find common ground and focus on what we have in common, not what divides us.

                      I simply disagree with the philosophy that the way to justice is by dividing us. That seems to me more like the conservative view that "competing interests" will somehow, magically, produce average justice in the free marketplace.

                      I consider myself an American, not a hyphenated American. Do I not have that right? Do my aunts and uncles have the right to insist I am  Jew first, because they are traumatized by the Holocaust? Do you have the right to define me as a "White American", part of "White Culture", because of the legacy of racism and discrimination and apartheid in this country - which I didn't even grow up in?

                      I don't think so.

                      I think that the right to self-determination, and the objective to evaluate and accept each person as an individual, fundamentally equal as a fellow human being, is the most important of progressive values.

                      How does that make me all the terrible things I am being called here?

                      Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

                      by RandomActsOfReason on Sun Oct 03, 2010 at 09:50:18 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  You won't get an answer... (0+ / 0-)

                        ...because:

                        A.)  They don't have one.  They couldn't make a real argument if you gave them 10 years to come up with it.  Just ridiculous, obviously false ad hominem posts.

                        B.)  Safety in numbers.  They'll keep spouting this embarrassing bullshit and uprate each other, abuse the HR system, and just generally make themselves look like morons.

                        •  I'd rec your comment, but had my ratings privileg (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Aves

                          taken away. A curious practice, preventing folks from positive recs, who have never abused recs, rather than just making them non-TUs to remove their HR ability.

                          Another way that folks in charge here really don't understand the dynamics of healthy online communities.

                          Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

                          by RandomActsOfReason on Sun Oct 03, 2010 at 01:00:24 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Like so much else, It's not about you (0+ / 0-)

                            it's just that this diary is now old, no one can rec anymore.

                          •  No, MB took away my ratings privileges (0+ / 0-)

                            yesterday, permanently. Amidst a sea of HR abuse by blueness, soothsayer, princs6 and others, I alone have had my privileges revoked.

                            Curiously, the sanction here for alleged HR abuse is not simply removing the ability to HR, but also the ability to rec, even though I've never rec'd an HRable comment. It is a counterproductive sanction, as it prevents people from being constructive in the community.

                            It is people who abuse HR who should have their HR privileges revoked, not people who are themselves the targets of HRs - that gives gangs the power to negatively impact people whose opinions they do not like. And, people who abuse recs by uprating trolls or hateful comments, they are the ones who should have their rec privileges revoked - as a last resort.

                            Instead of rewarding constructive contributions, and encouraging positive feedback - classic progressive values - this site operates according to the conservative values of punishing and restriction.

                            Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

                            by RandomActsOfReason on Mon Oct 04, 2010 at 05:17:29 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Hmph...I stand corrected. (0+ / 0-)

                            Sucks to be you then.

                          •  Not really (0+ / 0-)

                            One shouldn't confuse the idiosyncratic rules of a privately-owned, for-profit online blog with anything that constitutes a real measure of a human being's value.

                            To think it "sucks to be me", just because I can't rec up a constructive comment, is rather sad and lacking perspective.

                            This is just a place to exchange ideas - at least it should be. Sadly, besides you and I and a few others, most people on most topics here only want to spew, not listen.

                            Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

                            by RandomActsOfReason on Tue Oct 05, 2010 at 11:19:25 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                      •  An Answer (3+ / 0-)

                        I am now being compared to Joe McCarthy here. How arguing that prejudice is the underlying harmful phenomenon we must all combat together, and that racism is wrong, no matter where it comes from, makes me "Joe McCarthy" - let alone "akin" to the "progenitors of Jim Crow" - I simply don't understand.

                        That's not all you don't understand, because that's not what you're truly arguing - more on this later.

                        I don't think my approach is either simple or single-minded, I think it is a strategy that reflects principled pragmatism.

                        That's what you think - at least that's true.

                        I don't see how you end racism if you champion racial divisions - and, no matter how you try to reword it, dividing people in any way - cultural or otherwise - based on the color of their skin - is using artificial racial distinctions.

                        It's not artificial, it's factual and as I've said before cultural. People are different. Pretending that everyone is the same is not "principled or pragmatic" it flies in the face of fact.  All people aren't the same height, all people aren't the same eye color, hair color, or bone structure, they don't have the same noses, they don't have the same lips, they don't have the same lung capacity.  Most of this has occurred because climate, but this has also had a social and cultural impact, leading to different forms of cuisine, different types of art, different types of music, different forms of expression, different languages and dialects within languages.

                        And you think all this is "artificial" and want me to take you seriously?  What you are advocating is in denial of reality.

                        I support the right of any and every individual to self-determination - and, if you or anyone else chooses to define yourself as part of "Black Culture", who am I to tell you otherwise?

                        Yeah, but I'm pretty sure you're about to tell me otherwise aren'tcha?

                        But I reject your right, or anyone else's right, to define others - whole groups of people - as belonging to "Black Culture" or "White Culture" based purely on the color of my or their skin.

                        First, I'm not "defining" them, people define themselves.

                        Second, I never said it was "purely based on color of skin" that's your cognitive dysfunctional fetish, I repeatedly - REPEATEDLY - have said that it's not.  White people can and do participate in Black Culture, in fact they have for decades.  Elvis didn't write "Hound Dog", Blues Singer Big Mama Thornton did.  When he first came out people called what he was doing "Nigger Music" or "Race Music" because it had been largely invented by people like Chuck Berry, Chubby Checker, Little Richard, Fats Domino and Bo Diddley.  Eventually they just called it "Rock 'n Roll", a term that itself came from Black Slang for Sex.  These days all the biggest Rock Musicians are White, even though the music itself was originally culturally Black.  Same thing with Jazz (with Kenny G supplanting Miles), same thing with Blues (with Stevie Ray Vaughn and Eric Clapton replacing BB King, Hendrix and Albert King) Rhythm and Blues (Average White Band, Madonna, Pink) and now even Hip Hop (Eminem).

                        I don't think this is wrong, it's mostly a natural progression, except for when the original artists get completely pushed out of their own music as ultimately happened in Rock.

                        So clearly the division I'm talking about isn't based on skin tone, people cross these lines all the time - but just because someone joins a cultural strain doesn't mean that it didn't come from where it came from.  All Black Music, particularly early Rock N Roll and Blues were a direct response to the circumstances that were unique to Black people at the time, ie living with Jim Crow.

                        It was a desperate cry and expression of freedom, which is why it echoed around the world like an ICBM.  Once you divorce the music or art from it's cultural moorings, it's likely to lose it's relevance, meaning and power.  That's why modern Rock is pretty much a meaningless mess.

                        If that makes me Joe McCarthy, and a "progenitor of Jim Crow", then we might as well be speaking completely different languages from opposite ends of the globe. Which saddens me, because my objective is to find common ground and focus on what we have in common, not what divides us.

                        I didn't say you were Joe McCarthy of a "progenitor of Jim Crows" - you aren't quoting me there, your frankly making shit up. Quit it. IMO that's merely a cheap attempt perpetuate your perceived victim hood as being allegedly associated with "Crazy White People".  And no, you're not looking for "common ground" either, you've avoiding any areas where we might agree and instead have nitpicked and bickered incessantly just for the sake of bickering.

                        Bottom line, you're trying to make me think like you and accept your terms - because despite your supposed "respect" for my rights, you don't really believe in them.

                        I simply disagree with the philosophy that the way to justice is by dividing us. That seems to me more like the conservative view that "competing interests" will somehow, magically, produce average justice in the free marketplace.

                        I think that Justice is (or should be) blind, but culture isn't and shouldn't be or else it ceases to exist. Cultures do compete in the marketplace of ideas.  That isn't a problem, or a solution - it's just a reality.

                        I consider myself an American, not a hyphenated American. Do I not have that right?

                        Sure, you can call yourself Polka-Dot if you want, I don't care.  That's how you express your freedom.  It's not very descriptive or accurate, but whatever.

                        Do my aunts and uncles have the right to insist I am  Jew first, because they are traumatized by the Holocaust?

                        That's up to them to defines themselves, and you to define you. If they want to refer to you that way, and it's at least ethnically accurate and descriptive, they can do that.  You don't have a right to tell them what they should say, or vice versa. If you want to, pardon the phrase, White-wash away your ethnicity by assimilation and become culturally and ethically sterile, that's fine too.  That's your choice. Go to town with it.

                        What I reject too, it any requirement that everyone do the same, that they render themselves culturally inert and "non-threatening" as a prerequisite to being treated fairly or justly.  That's cultural fascism.

                        Have you advocated that? No, but you're leaning that way and it's a bad deal.

                        Do you have the right to define me as a "White American", part of "White Culture", because of the legacy of racism and discrimination and apartheid in this country - which I didn't even grow up in?

                        I don't think so.

                        Go back to what I actually said about "White Culture" - I didn't say it was defined by "Jim Crow", I said it was a history of immigrants who chose to come to America and assimilate, to de-ethnicize themselves in order to "Fit it". Sounds like you're already doing that just fine.

                        It exists with or without anything Black people have done, or not done in America.

                        I'm only saying that this isn't the experience of Black People in the nation because it's Not.  They didn't choose to come here, they were brought here, by force.  They weren't given the option to "Fit It" they were kept forcibly separate - and not even close to equal - and while that happened over the course of about 400 years since the this separation begin in the Virginia Colonies, they built their own independent culture. A uniquely American culture, one that isn't just a distillation of the least objectionable cultural elements of their "Old country".  Most Black Americans don't really know jack squat about their "Old Country", they don't even know which country it might be. Black Culture isn't simply a transplant from overseas, it comes from the experience of Blacks in America and remains vibrant, changing, growing and modifying itself even as I type this. It's a living culture, not simply a matter of memories or history. Do you really, seriously, think they should be required to give all of that up, to give up who they are in all aspects except the most generic, milk-toast, bland, dull, unhyphenated American-Only so that it doesn't offend Non-Blacks?  

                        And if they do, where does that Culture go? It doesn't exist anywhere but America.  If Black Americans essentially give up their culture, if they give up "Being Black" - that culture dies, because it didn't come from Africa. It disappears. Poof. Dead. Like Latin as a language.

                        That's a completely different issue for Non-Black Americans who are essentially immigrants or the descendant of immigrants. (Not counting Latinos and Native Americans because there yet another story) If you choose to not be referred to as a "Jewish-American" fine.  If you don't remain Kosher, ok.  People in your family might want you to for any number of reasons, but you don't have to in order to preserve the culture.  That choice and redefinition on your own isn't going to change Israel, or other Jews around the world.  Same thing with Italian-Americans, or Irish-Americans.  They have the luxury that every crucial element of their ancestral culture did not originate here, it came from and continues on in Italy or Ireland, or Russia or China or Korea, etc.  Whatever.  It could be argued, that the hybrid culture of Irish-Americans or Italian-American, is a bit more than a simple transplantation and assimilation, American-Italian food is not the same as Italian Food for example, and that's fine too.  The cultural market continues to shift.

                        Trying to pretend that none of this is true, isn't a solution to bigotry. It's a delusion.

                        Also what makes you think racism is over?  Passing a few laws doesn't change what's in people hearts, or how they treat each other when they're not in mixed company and might be outed.

                        I think that the right to self-determination, and the objective to evaluate and accept each person as an individual, fundamentally equal as a fellow human being, is the most important of progressive values.

                        I think that's true.

                        Everyone is an individual.  But they don't exist as an individual in a vacuum, we all exist within a cultural context which has informed who we have become and who we are, either because we have accepted or rejected our ancestral culture, or we may have adopted the culture of others into part of who we are individually.  Like Irish people who enjoy Italian food, Asians who like eat Mexican or White people who play traditional Black music or vice versa! All of that informs the individual.  It's not like realizing we have - generally speaking - different cultures, requires that you presume that any individual person MUST be a pure expression of that likely culture.  Chances are, they probably aren't.  Many people are hybrids, even Black people.

                        The problem of prejudice and bigotry is to presume that each and every Black person MUST fit within the paradigm of Black Culture, when instead each individual may or may not fit within a broad cultural spectrum.  Or again, vice versa with Whites.  Trying to pretend that Black people don't have their own unique cultural elements, and that White people don't either, doesn't address the issue of prejudice at all, it's an attempt to side-step it.  I think you're responding to this problem as if it were a car that's low on oil, but rather than replacing the oil (or address the process of prejudice) you claiming there is no car.  I say fix the car, it's right over there - don't make everyone take the bus - cuz it's a non-hyphenated bus.  Why you put us in all these cars anyway huh, why you want to divide us?

                        Because the bus doesn't have the kind of air-conditioning I like, and all my Motown CD's are IN MY CAR.

                        If we're all truly going the same place, it shouldn't matter how we get there.

                        How does that make me all the terrible things I am being called here?

                        Seeing as nobody called you "Joe McCarthy" the question is moot. What I said was this...

                        I find yours to be an unsustainable, ridiculously, inflexible contra-factual  position.  People are different.  People compete singularly, culturally and in groups - just like in elections - that's all he was trying to say.  Accept it.

                        These issues can (not) be addressed in such a simply and single-minded way.  All those roads lead to FAIL!

                        You're seeing this one-dimensionally. It's all about the individual and people's ethnic cultural background just doesn't exist for you.  Well, I counter that culture does exist - White Culture exists, Black Culture exists - and it does matter. It's not more important than the individual, because any particular individual could fall anywhere within any particular cultural spectrum, but it does inform exactly who and what they have become and why.

                        You want to not be referred to as a "Jewish-American" because you don't want to be tied culturally to the Holocaust?  Fine.  I think that's a tragically narrow view of Jewish culture, but fine.  That's a cultural reaction, just as much as going full-on Hasidic would be.  It's a personal choice, but it's one that exists within a cultural context.

                        I'm a Black America and a musician, one who plays a traditional Black Music that most Black people have abandoned and forgotten they had any cultural link to - Rock.  That's a cultural choice, that describes my own individuality.

                        Is any of this sinking in?

                        Vyan

                        •  Continuing The Dialog (0+ / 0-)

                          Thank you for your thoughtful and detailed answer - and, in particular, for titling it "An Answer", and not "The Answer".

                          Some of your comments relate directly to assertions I have made and arguments I have presented, and I'll get to those in a minute.

                          Much of your "Answer", however, erects straw men that have nothing to do with my beliefs, my positions, my arguments or my assertions, and much of your energy is expended shooting down phantasms that have absolutely nothing to do with me.

                          Most problematic of call is this statement, right at the beginning of your comment:

                          that's not what you're truly arguing.

                          Excuse me, but what I am arguing is what I am arguing. Dismissing my actual argument, replacing it with a straw man, and then attacking me based on implications and extrapolations from that straw man, is precisely what so many people here have been doing, and it is neither intellectually honest nor rational nor consistent with the progressive principle of self-determination, which you say in this comment that you support.

                          So, let's both agree to do two things:

                          1. You will accept my arguments as my arguments, and stop replacing them with arguments you'd prefer to knock down,
                          1. I will do the same.

                          Agreed?

                          Assuming the answer is yes, and wanting to avoid this comment becoming interminably long, I will respond to a whole slew of arguments you made by stating my position on the issues you have raised. This will likely help you realize that you and I hold similar positions on most critical issues you raised, and that you are arguing with caricatures of "enemies" you preoccupy with, rather than with any idea, position or assertion of mine.

                          In the process, perhaps you will come to a better understanding of some of the reasons many progressive, non-racist people of good will here reacting negatively to the title of this diary and to the way it has been defended.

                          1. Individuals have a right to determine their own identities, not to have labels put upon them by others, whether those others are society, family or government.
                          1. One should not be so hasty to judge such individual choices as lacking content, value or meaning, nor to assume that to passively accept the identify of one's parents is an inherently virtuous thing.

                          In general, if one truly accepts the principle of self-determination, then one should not judge the self-determination choices of another individual. One should simply accept them for what they are.

                          1. Culture is not genetic, it is acquired.
                          1. People of similar skin color should not be assumed to have similar culture.
                          1. Defining culture using colors (e.g., "White culture, "Black culture") is overly generalized, stereotyping, and needlessly divisive, serving to accentuate and legitimize racist beliefs.
                          1. None of the above denies the existence of distinct American cultures - plural - that are the product of tradition, ancestry, history and circumstances. But history and culture are not destiny, and culture is not static.
                          1. None of the above denies the existence of pernicious racism, nor its real, ongoing negative effects.
                          1. There is no such thing as "White" culture. Not having been subject to the pressures and isolation that, first, slaves, and, then, the subjects of segregation and apartheid, endured, people with paler skin in America sustained and developed many different, diverse cultures; I cannot think of a single cultural element that I could call "White", that is shared by all people of pale skin in America.

                          For that matter, I don't believe there is a single "Black" culture in America today; if there ever was, because of uniformly repressed, impoverished and desperate conditions, there isn't today. There are many Black cultures, and there are many cultures that are clearly those of people with a wide array of skin tones, that cannot really be called White, Black, Brown or any other color culture.

                          Furthermore, Black South-African, Black American, Black Somalian and Black Chilean cultures are multiple cultures, not a single culture; and, similarly, White American, White European, White Australian, White Chilean and White Chinese cultures are clearly multiple cultures, not a single culture.

                          Skin color is not only a bad way to categorize culture (and, there is no way you can convince me that "White culture" and "Black culture" are not references to "White" skin and "Black" skin), it is also an inaccurate way to categorize culture.

                          Moreover, the whole concept of defined "Cultures" is rather archaic in today's Internet and travel and relocation and intermarried world, particularly in America, where a brown-skinned Chilean Jew, whose parents grew up in Morocco, may marry an Irish Catholic from Australia with Indian parents.

                          Is their food "White" food or "Black" food? Do they listen to "White" music or "Black" music? Do they dance like "White" people or "Black" people?

                          The notion of a "Black" and a "White" culture, even if it were true at some point in our history, is increasingly the wrong way to look at our world.

                          Hell, the notion that my daughter's "culture" is the same as mine, or that my "culture" is the same as my parents, is patently ridiculous.

                          And what, ultimately, is the value of maintaining these distinctions, and insisting on giving them racially-charged labels?

                          Who benefits from such division? Does it seem to you that it has brought harmony here? Does it seem to you it brings harmony anywhere? Has it increased equality, inclusion, political power?

                          How does it help make a better world?

                          1. Refusing to divide us by color does not mean smushing us all up into some indefined gray mess. That is just nonsense, it is an artificial dichotomy.

                          Just because I am not Jewish, does not mean I have no identity, any more than the fact that you are not Jewish means you have no identity. The only reason you judge me and presume negative motivation on my part for my choice of self-identification, and the only reason you assume that my choice means that I favor flavorless homogenization, is because you are still trapped in a traditional assumption that choosing differently than one's parents is a negative thing - even though I am sure you made similar choices not to be trapped by your parents' beliefs and cultural preferences.

                          I happen to be a musician myself. I, too, play a form of music that came out of Black communities that many Black people have abandoned and forgotton they have any cultural link to - Jazz.

                          See, in that instance, we share a common cultural choice, a common touchpoint that each of us chooses to define our own identity.

                          How can we share that, and be the same in that one area, if I am "White" and you are "Black", and there are "White" culture and "Black" culture - unless  culture is far more flexible, mutable, evolving and has fuzzier boundaries than those rigid binary labels suggest?

                          If your first reaction wasn't to label me a "White person", but, instead, to seek the common ground we share in music, perhaps you'd be less hasty to categorize me as part of "the problem".

                          Which brings me, finally, to the title of this diary, and similar labels.

                          There are three things that disturb me about the defense of this kind of language:

                          A) double standards. It seems to me that if it is wrong to generalize about "Black America", it is wrong to generalize about "White America" - and, in both cases, particularly because of the history of racial animosity in this country, we need to be careful to be precise - and, it really doesn't take much effort to do so.

                          B) I believe that prejudice is the underlying problem of all of our divides - that prejudice of people of different skin color is one instance, prejudice of people of different gender is another, prejudice of people of different sexual preference is another, and there are many more examples.

                          I don't think it is helpful to seek to rank them in order of importance, because I don't think it is practical or rational to think that we can eradicate one form of prejudice while accepting another - that it is prejudice itself we must combat, in order to end racism and sexism and homophobia and all the rest. Tackling racism alone is futile, in my opinion, without tackling the fundamental fallacy of prejudice.

                          C) I realize this is the point on which there is the most controversy, but I believe that accentuating divisions based on color perpetuates racism and prejudice, rather than being a first step toward equality. I do not believe that the first step toward a colorblind society is a society defined by color. I realize that others here disagree. What I have noticed, is that the nature of that disagreement takes on the magnitude of a fundamentalist dogma with some, who have unquestioningly adopted a philosophical guru, and attack anyone with a different opinion with the zeal of religious extremists. Anyone who disagrees with this approach to ending racism is a "racist" - rather than simply someone who disagrees with this approach to ending racism.

                          By the way, as far as me "inventing" the character assassination to which I have been subjected here:

                          Meteor Blades commented that my arguments are "akin" to "the progenitors of Jim Crow" and claimed I was denying that racism exists in the Tea Party, or that white racism exists at all.

                          Rustbelt Dem compared me to Joe McCarthy just yesterday.

                          Robinswing, blueness, soothsayer, blindyone, fou, princs6, and many others have called me variations of "racist", a "white privileged male racist", a "racist denier", "racist enabler", "disgusting piece of shit", "hater of Black women", and even worse - all in response to comments presenting one or another of the arguments I presented above. All of the above recced comments accusing me of Jim Crow, McCarthyesque privileged White male racism, and have gang-HRd me.

                          You yourself have rec'd comments directly calling me a racist.

                          I am not your enemy, I am not an enemy of Black people, brown or yellow or pink or purple people, or orange people with pink polka-dots. I am a humanist who believes in the fundamental equal value of all human beings, and who has devoted my life, and my livelihood, to ensuring that all people live in peace and are accorded equal dignity, equal respect and equal rights and opportunity. My parents were civil rights activists in the 60's, who taught me to stand up not for my own interests or those of my "tribe", but to fight hardest for those least empowered, most disadvantaged, and of greatest need. And, they taught me one thing which most folks here desperately need to learn: To fight the hardest to let those least like me, those I am least inclined to like or find common ground with, the right to speak their mind.

                          Yet here I am Joe McCarthy, promoting Jim Crow to defend Tea Party racism as an acolyte of Glenn Beck. It would be hilarious, if it weren't so sad, destructive, and personally hurtful.

                          Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

                          by RandomActsOfReason on Mon Oct 04, 2010 at 05:12:46 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  This the first time (0+ / 0-)

                            you actually quoted something I've said, and you still get it wrong contextually.

                               that's not what you're truly arguing.

                            Excuse me, but what I am arguing is what I am arguing. Dismissing my actual argument, replacing it with a straw man, and then attacking me based on implications and extrapolations from that straw man, is precisely what so many people here have been doing, and it is neither intellectually honest nor rational nor consistent with the progressive principle of self-determination, which you say in this comment that you support.

                            My point, which you've missed again, perpetually, is that the end result of your reasoning doesn't lead where you think it leads. I know full well you believe you're taking some type of principled stand against "all forms of racism", but in actual practice you're leading toward a form of intolerance and cultural fascism.

                            That's why I said this...

                            That's not all you don't understand,

                            And...

                            That's what you think

                            Trying to "unite" us all by rejecting all forms of unqiue ethnicity and culture will fail.  If you're just an "American", why can't we all be just an "American" too?  Wouldn't that solve all our problems?  No, Not once you meet a non-American.  What do you say to a German, or a Russian or Australian - "stop dividing from me?"  Don't you think they're going to think you're being a arrogant prick for assume they have to join you're cultural tribe or else?

                            You're just trading one tribe for a bigger tribe, but that's doesn't fix the tribal issue.

                            Trying to ignore these distinctions, doesn't provide a solution.  Anyone can always say "We're all part of the Human Race" and pretend that's the end of it, but that's doesn't let you know anything specific about anyone, and if you're afraid to get into specifics, you have no where left to go.

                            The specifics are not the problem.

                            Anyway so now you want to play, let's take each other's comment at face value?  Ok, when exactly did I suggest this, where is the source quote for it?

                            I don't see how you end racism if you champion racial divisions - and, no matter how you try to reword it, dividing people in any way - cultural or otherwise - based on the color of their skin - is using artificial racial distinctions.

                            Particularly when I said repeatedly, that...

                            It's about culture, not skin-tone

                            1 + 2 does not equal 12.  You can't get from "it's not about skin-tone, it's about culture" to it's "based on skin-tone", and then start whining that you're the only one that's been misconstrued.

                            Specifics matter.

                              2.  Culture is not genetic, it is acquired.

                            Yes, but who is it generally acquired most often?  Family, that's who.  Also who ever said it was "Genetic" in the first place Mr. "No Straw men"?

                            Where's that quote from, eh?

                              3. People of similar skin color should not be assumed to have similar culture.

                            Quote please?  I distinctly remember saying...

                            White people can and do participate in Black Culture, in fact they have for decades.  

                            So clearly I don't believe that you can tell culture by skin-tone -  so why are you even bringing this up, because I certainly didn't?  And hence we keep circling and circling and never getting anywhere, because even while you claim you don't want to be misquoted, misconstrued or talked past... you misquote, misconstrue and talk past me, respond rhetorically to things I didn't say, specifically ignore the things I did say and then "whine" that people are being so rude and unfair to you.

                            Uh huh. Right.

                              4. Defining culture using colors (e.g., "White culture, "Black culture") is overly generalized, stereotyping, and needlessly divisive, serving to accentuate and legitimize racist beliefs.

                            Generalizing? Yes, because getting into specifics would take a long time as I've demonstrated.  I have no problem going into specifics, it just takes a while. Generalizing is just a way to save time and discuss a common idea. And see here is the core of your real complaint as I understand it, that any actual reference to anyone as "WHITE" is in and of itself "divisive".  That's exactly like saying calling anyone "American" is unnecessarily "divisive" because it's excludes all Non-Americans.  It's like saying "Men" is divisive because it excludes "Women", it's like saying "Child" is divisive because it excludes Adults. I counter that denying the distinctions of all of the above, clearly defies fact and reality.

                            If you believe that trying to redefine everyone into one big mush of indistinct, indistinguishable, generic pile of humanity means that no one can be bigoted to each other because that would make  "everyone the same" - then you're "solution" if that's what it is, is IMO destined to fail, because people won't accept that construction since it defies the evidence of their own eyes and experience. We are all human, but we aren't all the same exact human, like some type of Borg Collective.  Being able to recognize and celebrate our differences, share our differences and rejoice in our individual uniqueness - is a better strategy than fearing our differences or pretending they don't exist.

                              5. None of the above denies the existence of distinct American cultures - plural - that are the product of tradition, ancestry, history and circumstances. But history and culture are not destiny, and culture is not static.

                            If we do have distinct American cultures - then what are they sparky?  

                              6. None of the above denies the existence of pernicious racism, nor its real, ongoing negative effects.

                            Well, duh.

                              7. There is no such thing as "White" culture. Not having been subject to the pressures and isolation that, first, slaves, and, then, the subjects of segregation and apartheid, endured, people with paler skin in America sustained and developed many different, diverse cultures; I cannot think of a single cultural element that I could call "White", that is shared by all people of pale skin in America.

                            Just because you can't think of it, doesn't mean it isn't true. The pervasiveness of "White/Majority/Immigrant/Assimilated" culture is fairly widespread, many would argue that it defines "American Culture" itself, and they think no further than that.  They may call it by different names, but   the thought process is similar. What does Sarah Palin mean when she says "Real America"?  It think she's means Middle-Rural-America, with none of those "Left and Right Coast City Slicker Values", which is coincidently where most of the non-white people are.  You want to know what "White culture" is, try thinking about it by what it's NOT, what it excludes rather than what it includes.  Or ask just about anyone who isn't White, and you'll get an earful, you might even learn something, because it's far easier to see something huge and expansive from a distance than when you're standing in the middle of it.  To those who exist on the edge or outside of it, it's practically suffocating.

                            I know full well that a lot of White people have no idea what I mean, for example I remember Randi Rhodes having a particular problem with Oprah when she code-switched one day and starting talking black all of sudden.  She was like "Where'd this come from"?  It was always there Randi, Black people have learned to shift in and out of Black and White Culture like flipping a switch a long, long time ago.  They do it all the time, because they have to.

                            Who benefits from such division? Does it seem to you that it has brought harmony here? Does it seem to you it brings harmony anywhere? Has it increased equality, inclusion, political power?

                            Who benefits from denying the reality of diversity?  Those who have (nearly) everything arrange to cater to their own taste without contrast or competition.

                            And to answer your question, absolutely yes it has "brought harmony". Recognizing and embracing diversity, celebrating and recognizing the primacy of everyones own unique cultural freedom is far more harmonious, than any cultural dictate of enforced sameness would be.

                            In the process, perhaps you will come to a better understanding of some of the reasons many progressive, non-racist people of good will here reacting negatively to the title of this diary and to the way it has been defended.

                            I know damn well why their reacting negatively to do diary title, they think they have common cause with Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh simply because they too - think of themselves as "White".  "How can you insult all White People?   Easy, only "Crazy White People" were ridiculed, and therefore only "Crazy White People" should be offended - are you Crazy? Yes or no?  End of issue.

                            This is the point we've been circling around for days.

                            It's not really more complex than that.

                            The only reason you judge me and presume negative motivation on my part for my choice of self-identification, and the only reason you assume that my choice means that I favor flavorless homogenization, is because you are still trapped in a traditional assumption that choosing differently than one's parents is a negative thing - even though I am sure you made similar choices not to be trapped by your parents' beliefs and cultural preferences.

                            My only assumption of negative motivation on your part is because of your individual negative actions, period.  The only reason I assume what you suggest leads to "flavorless homogenization" is because that's the only place it can go, and the only place it has gone for centuries.  That's ultimately what all assimilation does, removes the flavors.

                            Also I didn't say this is what motivates you, what I did say was this, miss it did you?

                            Have you advocated that? No, but you're leaning that way and it's a bad deal.

                            More you.

                            How can we share that, and be the same in that one area, if I am "White" and you are "Black", and there are "White" culture and "Black" culture - unless  culture is far more flexible, mutable, evolving and has fuzzier boundaries than those rigid binary labels suggest?

                            Gee, that sounds a lot like...

                            people cross these (cultural) lines all the time

                            Wonder who said that?  Smart person there.

                            Moreover, the whole concept of defined "Cultures" is rather archaic in today's Internet and travel and relocation and intermarried world, particularly in America, where a brown-skinned Chilean Jew, whose parents grew up in Morocco, may marry an Irish Catholic from Australia with Indian parents.

                            Is their food "White" food or "Black" food? Do they listen to "White" music or "Black" music? Do they dance like "White" people or "Black" people?

                            They'd be neither, but could be described a number of was from "Multi-Ethnic" to "Moroccon-Chilian-Jewish",  who ever said there were only two options?

                            A) double standards. It seems to me that if it is wrong to generalize about "Black America", it is wrong to generalize about "White America" - and, in both cases, particularly because of the history of racial animosity in this country, we need to be careful to be precise - and, it really doesn't take much effort to do so.

                            There is no "Double-Standard" on my part. I don't think it's wrong to generalize "Black America", not if you do so accurately and fairly.  CNN has this entire series called "Black in America", ever heard of it?  What I think is wrong is to misapply generalities to specific people when they don't fit.  

                            What people tend to do and always will do, is try and play the odds when dealing with an unfamiliar person.  Sometimes it's better to know nothing, than a little bit of something.  We all tend to be armchair statisticians, trying to evaluate each other based on what we think we can tell about each other using every piece of information available.  Everything is often on the table, age, ethnicity, gender, religion - all of it. There's no way to avoid this because it's part of the chemical process of how our brains work, it's a natural self-defense mechanism, but what we can do is choose to willfully disregard unreliable generic information, until or if, it is specifically confirmed.

                            This is where courage and fear collide, because making a conscious decision to ignore you're own fears - whether they are rational or not - takes guts and commitment to the greater good.

                            "I doesn't take a lot of effort" he says, well past the 1000 comment mark. Yeah, that's a lack of effort.

                            B) I believe that prejudice is the underlying problem of all of our divides - that prejudice of people of different skin color is one instance, prejudice of people of different gender is another, prejudice of people of different sexual preference is another, and there are many more examples.  

                            I don't think it is helpful to seek to rank them in order of importance, because I don't think it is practical or rational to think that we can eradicate one form of prejudice while accepting another - that it is prejudice itself we must combat, in order to end racism and sexism and homophobia and all the rest. Tackling racism alone is futile, in my opinion, without tackling the fundamental fallacy of prejudice.

                            Ok, How do you plan to do that? How do you plan to get people to not think what they already think?  How do you plan to get them to unknow, what they already think they know?

                            What do you think "prejudice" really is?  

                            Vyan

                          •  I've tried to reach out to you, responding (0+ / 0-)

                            respectfully, without ad hominems, being careful to critique only your arguments, not you, and not to impute bad motive of ill intent to you in this final exchange. I tried to find some common ground as musicians, even.

                            Your response to me is as full of ad hominems, insults, insinuations, and general disrespect as ever.

                            It is too bad, because I was really beginning to enjoy this exchange and looked forward to the opportunity to actually make some progress in mutual understanding, on a topic that usually ends up in screaming within a couple of comment exchanges.

                            I'm sorry, though; as long as the bottom line for you is, despite all the rhetoric, demonizing me as a clueless white asshole, makes any further conversation a waste of my time.

                            Peace.

                            Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

                            by RandomActsOfReason on Wed Oct 06, 2010 at 06:44:39 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

  •  You can only explain this state of mind by seeing (7+ / 0-)

    it in its proper context....The election of Barack Hussein Obama was a revolution, in that the old racial order was overturned, the teabaggers are rebelling against the old guardians of the deposed order, they blame them for the Obama revolution.In a precognitive way the teabaggers realize what has happened that is why they yearn to return to the yesteryear's when the old order was established.

    Democrats fault is that they had their revolution and then went home, it's the overthrowing of Saddam and the chaos that followed after it because the US did win the war but failed to keep the peace in Irak..pre-surge....we need a surge of our own this election we need a Liberal-Awakening to beat back the teabaggers who want to reestablish the old order.......

  •  "140 characters represents the maximum length (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bustacap, Matt Z, trueblueliberal

    ... of Palin's attention span ...."

    Have no evidence that it's even capable of that duration ....

  •  Vyan, thanks for bring this (11+ / 0-)

    article to my attention....Thrasher sums up the last 3-4 yrs precisely....I have never in my 34 yrs of being black seen this type of anger displayed by White Americans...Granted, I lived I grew up in a very sheltered life in Iowa and Texas and have lived in vvveeerrryyy progressive places in my short life, but this type of rage just baffles me....White Americans need to get a grip and realize that the natural order of things is being restored....Immigrants came to this land already occupied by brown people, Native Americans, and now it is going back to the natural way of things....Brown people again...It only makes since to me...Most of the world is made of Brown people, so we progress to the natural order of things....

    Oye...Glenn Beck is an idiot and and so is Sister Sarah!!

    by 3O3 on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 08:26:56 AM PDT

  •  They're not crazy (7+ / 0-)

    They're uninformed, ignorant lazy wastes of space because they can't or won't think for themselves.

    And BTW, I'm sure Paramount Mechanical Corp. is just thrilled with idiot Timmermans using the company email address to spew his bigotry.  Jackass.

    Andy Partridge is a genius.

    by paulitics on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 08:31:35 AM PDT

    •  Oh, I tried to make sure of that (6+ / 0-)

      I sent this email to the CEO:

      I just read an email your Chief Estimator wrote to a reporter for "The
      Village Voice":

      http://blogs.villagevoice.com/...

      If Mr. Timmermans is the kind of person you employ, I would certainly never want anything to do with your company.

      My opinion of his rant aside, is this the image you wish to project to the public? The man tied your company, by name, including your phone number, to what is arguably a racist screed.

      An employee under my management who did this would be unemployed before the next sunset. It will be illuminating to see what your company does.

      I also note, and you may correct me if I am wrong, but your company has received $351,000 in federal government contracts between 2001 and 2008. I can't say I approve of my tax dollar being spent to support a company that hires employees this stupid.

      Perhaps you should have a company meeting and explain that in the 21st Century, employees should not tie their companies publicly to their personal bigotries. Mr. Timmerman's views, as a representative of YOUR company, have now been immortalized on the web, for the edification of
      your future potential customers.

    •  um, no. (4+ / 0-)

      25% of Republicans think Obama is the Antichrist.

      How does THAT fit into your theory?  It ain't from ignorance.  It's mass-hysteria.


      Emo's Prayer - "Lord, please break the laws of the universe for my convenience" - Emo Philips

      by AlyoshaKaramazov on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 05:47:10 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  White America means ALL white people. (6+ / 2-)

    Remember this fear of the black man is not political. Every white person is afflicted with racism. From the person that says "My best friend is an African American" to the sign carrying teabagger.

    I don't belong to an organized party, I'm a democrat.

    by thestructureguy on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 08:33:26 AM PDT

    •  I do hope (8+ / 0-)

      This is snark.

      This is what chump Change looks like.

      by Wamsutta on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 08:35:39 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You were right Wamsutta. I suppose I should (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Sam I Am, RandomActsOfReason

        have put a snark at the end but I was curious how many people would react to such a broad generalization. Many of the comments in the diary are about how upset they are about being lumped into "White America".  I think the title of the VV article was totally uncalled for and just meant to grab the audience eye.  The editor may have even wrote the title.  I despise generalizations.  But people will use them to rationalize their own beliefs. Racist's do it all the time.  But even progressives will.  All teabagges are not racists.  A number of them are, that is for sure, but not all.  But all teabaggers are thrown into the racists barrel.  Some progressives probably actually believe that all teabaggers are racists.  It's a lazy but very effective way to rationalize a person's position.  They don't have to politically dispute the teabaggers only label them as racists and therefore anything the teabaggers say doesn't have to be argued because it's based on an irrational basis of racism.  Some progressive probably know that not all teabaggers are racists but its an effective way to counter them.  Label someone a racist and they spend all their time defending themselves.  It's like the old story of LBJ wanting to accuse an opponent of having sex with farm animals.  Someone on his staff said he couldn't do that because he knew it wasn't true.  LBJ is to have said he knows that but he just wants to hear his opponent deny it.  I don't know if it's a true story but I love it.  I prefer the latter justification for labeling them racist.  At least I'm not lying to myself.  

        My goal on the comment was for people to face their own generalizations. I failed.

        I don't belong to an organized party, I'm a democrat.

        by thestructureguy on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 10:24:09 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Nope. (7+ / 0-)

      This is a bridge too far.

      You don't go after bigotry by being bigoted.  In that regard, this is a fail:

      Every white person is afflicted with racism. From the person that says "My best friend is an African American" to the sign carrying teabagger.

      I'm tempted to HR.

      •  Not at all. I'm a Librul, even a (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        blueness, soothsayer99

        N*****-lover myself, and I am still working on the residual racism I absorbed in the 1950s, before my family moved to Newark NJ, and I started to meet Black kids on the block and in school.

        We are all infected. Many of us have largely recovered. Some are still at the "I'm not prejudiced, but…" stage. You should be aware, however, that the progress being made is not obvious to Blacks, Hispanics, Muslims, Asians, even Jews. Cf. Cuban-American Rick Sanchez's recent rant on Jon Stewart's hostility to him (claiming that it is racist, not about what Sanchez says) and on Jews in the media.

        When I told a Black bus driver, years ago, that I was looking forward to seeing the movie Malcom, he was quite surprised. Evidently he had never heard anything like that from a White man before. It was certainly a revelation to Malcom X himself that there was anybody in the world not prejudiced against Blacks. (Muslims, when he went on the pilgrimage to Mecca)

        You should read George Orwell's accounts, factual and fictional, of having to overcome British Empire colonialist racism. Burma Days, for example.

        Busting the Dog Whistle code.

        by Mokurai on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 09:10:29 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Your comment to the bus driver was racist (7+ / 0-)

          I hated it when Roots came on television and some whites acted patronizing to me. Did you want him to say thank you?

          Think...It ain't illegal yet ! George Clinton

          by kid funkadelic on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 09:39:58 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Speak for yourself (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Sam I Am, ThAnswr

          don't generalize about others based on their skin color.

          Many Americans have a different experience. Some did not grow up in this country and are immigrants from other places with different cultures. Some grew up in progressive families in multi-racial neighborhoods. More and more of us are multi-racial ourselves (of course, virtually all humans are multi-racial, we all have ancestors of many different skin tones based on what latitude their ancestors grew up in during eras of lesser human mobility and travel.)

          Don't presume that "we are all infected", just because you are.

          There is no genetic marker for "racism". If there were , you still could not make statements suggesting that "all white people are racist, some just aren't ready to admit it", because people of all kinds of skin colors have people of different skin shades in their ancestry.

          Racism is not a genetic disease related to the density of melanin in the skin. It is a learned behavior. There are racists of all skin colors, and not all people are racists.

          Speak for yourself. Don't presume to speak for me.

          Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

          by RandomActsOfReason on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 12:52:42 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  It's fair enough to point out (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      subtropolis, buddabelly

      The historical transgressions of Europeans ( and European settlers in America) in Africa, Asia the Americas etc. However, to lump in petty attitudes About neighbors into that is a bit too much. Many people detest everyone they work with. Even close allies. Teammates often backstabbing each other. That's part of human nature. Ascribing ideological white supremacy that nastiness misses the point.        

      the intelligence community is no longer geared towards telling the president what they think the president wants to hear

      by Salo on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 08:57:16 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  All people are racist if they are aware of race. (0+ / 0-)

      it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses

      by Addison on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 09:44:19 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  De que esta hablando, wey? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      varro

      Los cubanos que vienen aca tienen ciertos privilegios sobre otros inmigrantes.

      Pero hay muchos inmigrantes de de descendencia europea que no tienen los derechos que merecen.

    •  Uprate to counter HRs... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      blueness, thestructureguy

      ...even though a distinction has to be made between people who try to fight their internalized racism and people who embrace it.

      As the musical "Avenue Q" said, "Everyone's a little bit racist."  The key is to try to minimize it and set a good example for other people, which includes debunking the psychiatric wing of the Republican party (many of whom are depicted on the cover), and counter things like water-cooler gossip and spam e-mails with the truth.

      9-11 changed everything? Well, Katrina changed it back.

      by varro on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 09:56:51 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  No, it really doesn't... (7+ / 0-)

      The NAACP was founded with White People and Black People together.  The Freedom Riders who challenged Jim Crow and were ultimately murdered were both Black and White. The Supreme Court who found for the plaintiff in Brown V Boards of Education (a point that Sonia Sotomayor was actually making) were all White. The President, Congressmen and Senators who wrote and passed the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act and the Public Accommodations Acts were White.

      It's not ALL White people, never has been and never will be.

      Vyan

    •  You can carry this further to say that ALL people (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      blueness, princss6

      in general engage in prejudice to some degree with people who are different from them.  Racism, sexism, etc.

      People will attack this comment and say "Not me, I totally treat everyone equally".  You may make a serious attempt to, and that's good.  You're also programmed by your upbringing, by our media, by your environment, by your religion, etc. to see the world in certain ways.  Even the most tolerant, accepting person in the world acts differently around different people on an unconscious level.

      Some people are willing to accept this and try to change their "programming" through confronting their own prejudices.  Other refuse to accept that those prejudices exist.

      What you said:

      Remember this fear of the black man is not political. Every white person is afflicted with racism.

      is true.  We have been conditioned to view black people in a certain way, largely by television.  Black stereotypes abound, and often black characters are depicted as poor, undereducated, "ghetto", or criminals - often all of the above.  Republican politicians have been 'dog-whistling' my entire life.  Ronald Reagan's speeches taught me when I was young that black people lived in the city, didn't work and had as many children as possible so they could steal my parent's tax money for welfare.

      Everyone has prejudices, but they're more pronounced for white men.  We (for the time being) are still largely in control of this country.  Since we have the power, we can abuse that power.  That's why it's hard for me to get mad at a statement like the one you made.  Aggrieved victimhood is very popular among white people these days, but I'll pass.

      The play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king.

      by KroneckerD on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 01:19:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Bit of a shock to read this comment... (0+ / 0-)

      ...and to look at the names of a couple of the 5 people so far who have tipped it. Equally shocking is the fact that so few have HR'd the comment or that MB hasn't stepped in to ask you to prove this blanket charge of racism against 70% of all Americans -- very few of whom you could even possibly know well enough to make that charge.

      Learn more about second-class U.S. citizenship at http://www.equalitymatters.org/

      by Larry Bailey on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 08:04:12 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Read below the comment to see why I didn't (0+ / 0-)

        identify the comment as a snark.  

        I don't belong to an organized party, I'm a democrat.

        by thestructureguy on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 11:37:41 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well, it wouldn't have had the same impact... (0+ / 0-)

          ...with me (or anyone I suppose) had you ID'd it as snark. I think I understand where you're coming from, now.  But, I'll leave the HR there, if you don't mind, just for the record. I hope the tippers are at least a bit embarrassed.

          Learn more about second-class U.S. citizenship at http://www.equalitymatters.org/

          by Larry Bailey on Sun Oct 03, 2010 at 03:54:24 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  The crazies are using work email to spew (5+ / 0-)

    their venom.  Hmmm.  Most workplaces have rules against this, and people can be fired.  Hmmmm.  

  •  i read the article this morning and then scooted (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pasadena beggar, Matt Z, foufou

    right over here to make sure someone had diaried about it.  thanks for bringing this to everyone's attention.  tipped and rec'd.

    A point in every direction is the same as no point at all.

    by oblios arrow on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 08:41:23 AM PDT

  •  White America and Right Wing America are two (11+ / 0-)

    different things. In fact, I am not sure that there is a "White America." There are a lot of "Americas" here in this country, and exactly who lays claim to the "real" one is the only common theme throughout what has been a largely nonsensical political divide in recent years. I believe this struggle is the only fundamental motivator for the right wing, since the masses of them don't seem to be able to understand "their" positions on the "issues."

  •  The purpose of the teabagger crap is to divide (4+ / 0-)

    people. They knew they wouldn’t recruit any sane people with those racist signs etc., it was just to stir up division, a time-tested tactic of greed, so the little people will blame each other for the problems caused by corporate greed. Racial division tactics have always worked on republicans, it’s a shame that it's now working on democrats too.
    Go ahead and lump all white people in with the teabaggers, that’s what they want you to do. It will only serve to divide the Democratic Party (as planned).

  •  Love it! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    princss6

    Thanks Vyan for posting this.  Now I can skip hatemailopalooza today. :)

    "The truth does not change according to our ability to stomach it." - Flannery O'Conner

    by Dixiedemocrat on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 08:51:25 AM PDT

  •  Grossly Offensive Title (13+ / 0-)

    Can you imagine if the title had been "Black America Has Lost Its Mind" or "Christian America Had Lost Its Mind"?  Dear Steven Thrasher and Village Voice: clearly many White people have lost their minds lately, but there is no need to stereotype all white people as Glenn Beck lunatics.  This is almost as offensive as Marty Peretz's "Muslim Life is Cheap".

      •  So did you think it was accurate or... (4+ / 0-)

        appropriate then?  I just don't get it.  I can't see any situation where class characterizations are accurate.  Rick Sanchez was canned (as he should have been) for saying that Jews control CNN and the Media.  We're supposed to cheer for someone saying that all White people are crazy?

        •  He doesn't say "All" (8+ / 0-)

          and I don't say "All", since that premise is ridiculous on it's face.  Steven gives very specific examples and there is NO DOUBT that these can only be some for of dementia and delusion at work.

          On the other hand we've heard for generations that ALL black people are lazy, chip-shouldered, entitled and prone to crime, and that all Latinos are just trying to "take our jobs" and leave behind "anchor babies", yet hardly anyone ever complains. We've heard repeatedly this very month that it's somehow offensive and insensitive for ANY Muslim prayer space to be as close to ground zero as the local strip joint, even though Muslims also died in the WTC and Pentagon, there were two mosques in the Trade center and is Still one in the Pentagon.

          People say this stuff with impunity all the time and practically NO ONE ever demands such a distinction be made, except for when the subject is White people.

          •  How else to interpret it? (5+ / 0-)

            What does "White America" mean if it doesn't mean "all white people"?

            Are you seriously claiming that "NO ONE" ever demands the rejection and renunciation of grossly false universal generalizations about black people, Latinos, or Muslims?  I think even you must realize that is completely untrue.

          •  In logic, (0+ / 0-)

            Nouns standing alone are quantified with the universal.  For example, the proposition "cats are felines".  This is true in ordinary language as well.

          •  That's basically an infiniv statement. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Larry Bailey, Philoguy

            A headline being a headline, it can be overlooked, but it's essentially a universal statement.

            the intelligence community is no longer geared towards telling the president what they think the president wants to hear

            by Salo on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 10:04:00 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Good Lord you are staying so patient answering (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            blueness, foufou

            and re-answering this point. You are not author of the article and did not create the title... you just presented it

            It's a shame we couldn't spend more time talking about the content of the article with all the uproar over the title
            Heck if we want to be outraged let me add to it. This guy is clearly putting down albinos. They may be white, they might have to avoid the sun, but they should not have to put up with accusations of losing their minds. How dare you post this albino bashing article?
            (I don't mean that by the way)

      •  That's your excuse? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ortcutt

        That you have been the victim of racism?

        So the answer is MORE racism?

        Like Free Speech, right?...the more, the better!

        This is what chump Change looks like.

        by Wamsutta on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 09:16:44 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Jeepers, simmer down there, Wamsutta. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          kalmoth

          We're having a (so far) civil discussion.

          The more of your comments I read, the more I'm wanting to dunk you in a bucket of cold water.

          •  Not really getting your comment (0+ / 0-)

            My comment is civil, and I am certainly not angry...The OP seems to be defending the tone of the VV article as tit-for-tat racism, which I think is profoundly stupid in this environment.

            This is what chump Change looks like.

            by Wamsutta on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 10:14:54 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Really? a "civil discussion"? (0+ / 0-)

            cacamp and others here openly accuse "white people" of racism, openly make racist comments themselves, and no one has HR'd them or responded by justifying racism in response to racism, as Vyan seems to be doing here.

            This is not a civil discussion, because one side endorses an "ends justify the means" double standard that views the enemy not as racism, per se, but only white racism against black people.

            Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

            by RandomActsOfReason on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 12:57:13 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  yeah, I was thinking it was mostly civil. (4+ / 0-)

              I didn't expect there to be universal agreement.  Diaries where everyone agrees with each other are not very interesting.  So there are strong opinions here, but is that really surprising?  

              I start from the place of being deeply suspicious when white people get huffy about racism.  I'm STARTING from that place.  We have miles to go down this road before any of us are far enough away racism that we can start to be objective on the subject.

              •  Bullshit (0+ / 0-)

                We have miles to go down this road before any of us are far enough away racism that we can start to be objective on the subject.

                That is just an excuse for moral relativism. I grew up hearing this kind of bullshit, excusing immoral actions by the government of the Jewish State I grew up in, because the suffering in the Holocaust meant "we have miles to go down this road before any of us are far enough away that we can start to be objective on the subject."

                The way to start being objective about the subject is to consider the value and merit of racist statements without regard to the skin color of the person uttering them.

                Prejudice is wrong, no matter who perpetrates it.

                Is it OK for my parent's generation to say, "Christians are anti-semitic" because of the Holocaust? Is it OK for Palestinians to say, "Jews are dirty and smelly" because Israel oppresses them?

                Is it OK for New Yorkers to call Muslims "ragheads" and "terrorists" because of 9/11?

                No more than it is OK for a person with dark skin in America to make generalizations about people with paler skin.

                Prejudice is wrong because it is wrong.

                If you "start from the place of being deeply suspicious when white people get huffy about racism", then you start from a place of racist prejudice yourself. Don't excuse it, don't rationalize it. Racism is ugly no matter who expresses it. It is based on the fallacy of dividing the single human race into separate races by skin color - no matter who says it.

                2 + 2 = 5 is wrong whether it is said by an atheist or a Creationist.

                Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

                by RandomActsOfReason on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 02:50:19 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

    •  You don't get it. You have white priviledge. (6+ / 0-)

      To some in White America minorities lives ARE cheap. Black people never brought Loaded machine guns to Presidential rallies where law enforcement is suppose to shoot them. Black people are not burning Mosques and Korans. I don't think that the President is the anti-Christ, do you?

      Exhibit A

      Think...It ain't illegal yet ! George Clinton

      by kid funkadelic on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 09:08:16 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  When I read "White America"... (5+ / 0-)

      I don't think "the part of America made up of people whose skin has less melanin than (x)". I think of "the part of America which is concerned with whiteness, as opposed to being of other colors".

      As skin colors go, I'm white. As White America goes, I'm not. Even though I look like I'm of Anglo-Irish descent, my religion and the fact that I have Mediterranean and Near-Eastern ancestry as well as Anglo and Irish blood disqualifies me from being considered White.

      I'm using white to denote skin color, White to denote ethnic identity, if that helps.

      "Getting over" death in the family is like learning to use a prosthetic limb: you can still get around, but it just doesn't work the same.

      by Shaviv on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 03:27:51 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Exactly. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        blueness

        I tried to write approximately the same thing. It's a concept pretty broadly understood by anti0racist white people.

        "The truth does not change according to our ability to stomach it." -- Flannery O'Connor

        by teachme2night on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 05:43:52 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Really? (0+ / 0-)

        As for your definition of "White America", I think pretty much all Americans, including Black, Latino, and Asian people are concerned with whiteness, in terms of understanding race.  Does that make them part of "White America"?

        Not only does your definition make no sense, but it doesn't accurately capture how the vast majority of people understand the term "White America".

        If you're trying to formulate a new definition of "White America" I would try again.

        •  Don't feel obligated to understand what (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          blueness

          I'm saying. As I said, "It's a concept pretty broadly understood by anti-racist white people," so I'm not necessarily counting on you.

          "The truth does not change according to our ability to stomach it." -- Flannery O'Connor

          by teachme2night on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 08:11:24 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Completely irresponsible (0+ / 0-)

            Don't you dare call me a racist or even not anti-racist.  Just because you can't formulate a proper definition shouldn't make you lash out at people you've never met.  It's disgusting and you should be ashamed of yourself.

            •  Look freakshow, you're not even responding to a (0+ / 0-)

              post in which I offered a definition so I really have no idea what you're freaking out about. The part of Shaviv's post that I agree with is the distinction between "Whiteness" and "being white." If you find that rather common distinction baffling or threatening or whatever you're carrying on about, go read a book. Or ask Shaviv to elaborate on the definition he presented. OR complain about my definition in a post in which I actually give a definition. But you look pretty crazy screaming at me about a definition I never even presented.

              "The truth does not change according to our ability to stomach it." -- Flannery O'Connor

              by teachme2night on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 09:41:03 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Look (0+ / 0-)

                I showed why your definition was no good and asked that you try again, which you didn't do.  Nobody is screaming at you.  You're the one making assumptions about me being racist or not anti-racist.  Don't act surprised that I take offense at that.  Now, you're calling me a "freakshow".  I would suggest therapy.

                •  Oh, shit. (0+ / 0-)

                  LOL -- okay. Sorry. You were originally responding to Shaviv, not to me. No wonder I couldn't figure out why you were complaining about "my" definition. Seriously -- sorry. I'm dyslexic and tracking the little gray arrows and indentations gets tricky for me.

                  ***PUBLIC APOLOGY***

                  LOL -- I'm so glad you're not a freak show. Aren't you?

                  "The truth does not change according to our ability to stomach it." -- Flannery O'Connor

                  by teachme2night on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 11:19:07 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

  •  hate mail (5+ / 0-)

    Kos and Thrasher should have a Hate Mail Off, like a bake off.

    The Senate: "...trying to squeeze sixty honest votes from a group that has not, at any point in the last half century, held sixty honest senators." -Hunter

    by OLinda on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 08:58:12 AM PDT

  •  Recc'd for Fuzzy Zoeller PWNing alone! (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bustacap, DorothyT, Matt Z

    I'm glad you mentioned it. It immediately came to my mind when I read your first blockquote.

    •  For anyone who doesn't know about Zoeller... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      vcmvo2, Matt Z

      But at the 1997 Masters tournament, Zoeller made an off-hand remark regarding Tiger Woods. After finishing tied for 34th place with a score of 78, Zoeller, referring to the following year's Masters Champions Dinner, for which the defending champion selects the menu, said, "He's doing quite well, pretty impressive. That little boy is driving well and he's putting well. He's doing everything it takes to win. So, you know what you guys do when he gets in here? You pat him on the back and say congratulations and enjoy it and tell him not to serve fried chicken next year. Got it." Zoeller then smiled, snapped his fingers, and walked away before turning and adding, "or collard greens or whatever the hell they serve." K-Mart and Dunlop ceased sponsoring Zoeller after the incident.

      Source

  •  This will end well (6+ / 0-)

    I can see the wisdom of an electoral strategy that portrays all members of a particular racial group as racist.  Moreover, I wonder what Obama would think of this article and many of the posts in this diary, given the speech that brought him to prominence and his speech on race.  Pretty destructive stuff here IMO.  Let's hope it doesn't flash all over the new channels in the coming days.

  •  The VV writer's (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    prfb, sancerre2001, denise b, Philoguy

    categorical assertions make his thinking suspect.

    Boomers set the national agenda in so many ways that we can forget how much the national economy and national media cater to them. Bewildered by the number of Cialis  ads you see on television showing those flabby couples sitting in bathtubs? Or the way that older women are suddenly "cougars" and "MILFs" and . . . oh, yeah, you remember, boomers are getting old, but still want to think they can get the sheets sweaty. See? Boomers and their fixations and fears explain nearly everything.

    . . .

    Aside from this paragraph's gratuitous nastiness, the thesis that Boomers share a POV about anything is distorted. Look at Congress. Boomer Nancy Pelosi and boomer Michele Bachmann have what exactly in common?

    "We have to hold employers accountable for hiring undocumented workers." Meg Whitman

    by Red Bean on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 09:16:13 AM PDT

    •  VV writer is insulting prostate cancer patients (0+ / 0-)

      ...while revealing his/her lack of sophistication in accepting ad copy as reality and overall lack of knowledge on the subject.

      The driver of impotence meds marketing is the increased and growing need for post prostate cancer erectile dysfunction treatment, and the exploding incidence of prostate cancer is due to male Boomers ageing into that risk pool and making it much larger, and the exploding incidence of marketing is to capitalize on the pharma opportunities.

      So, early detection and incredibly great clinical outcomes for prostate cancer which used to kill men  can all be exploited to create divisiveness in Democrats but are also genuinely and innocently misinterpreted as fueled by bigotry.

      "People need dramatic examples to shake them out of apathy," Bruce Wayne in Batman Begins.

      by kck on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 11:17:33 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Follow the Money. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TiaRachel, Dartagnan

    As the gap between the rich and everyone else grows wider and wider, a problem arises for those with money: In a democracy, how can this lop-sided situation be maintained? The have-nots have more people.

    The well-off need a "base" that includes many who aren't rich at all, a vast horde of people who agree to vote against their own best interests, right? So that base can't be encouraged to think much, certainly not deeply or clearly. You need lots of smoke, many mirrors. It's tough work manipulating the stoopid allies.

    In sum, as the gap grows, the arguments needed to keep the scam going have to get more extreme and implausible in order for it to work. It may seem crazy, but it has worked well enough.

    And the gap gets bigger and bigger and bigger . . .

    Greenspan admits his free market faith was "a mistake" - Reliance on self interest creates a flaw "in how the world works."

    by Otherday on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 09:17:33 AM PDT

  •  The White America I know Has NOT Lost Its Mind (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    A Citizen

    But, I am NOT using sensationalism to sell fish wrap. "If it bleeds, it leads" - the media richly  deserves its decline and I am glad to see it.

    I voted with my feet. Good Bye and Good Luck America!!

    by shann on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 09:20:18 AM PDT

  •  but some of your best friends are white, right? (4+ / 0-)

    this is a stunningly racist piece of trash.

    Yes, I expect the usual "but when I talk about White (tea party) America" I'm not talking about all white Americans!"  

    Except that the plain language of your piece says otherwise.

    And we even have commenters going witht he "all white people are racist" meme.  I guess that's the another variant of jews control the media, really.

    And the number of dreadful stereo types about black people as well that this diary taps into, in very dogwhistle like is stunning.

    To find this on the rec list makes me think that dailykos has lost its mind.

    I wish more people were thoughtful and honest but being outraged is too much fun I suppose

    by Guinho on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 09:26:05 AM PDT

  •  I just found out (6+ / 0-)

    last week that my brother-in-law is a birther.  Said Obama was not a citizen, then he goes on to prove to me he is not a citizen.  I trashed all his examples and he said he didn't care he was not qualified to be President.  

    I always suspected, but when he went live I blew him out of the water.  He has gone silent now.  He hates to be proved wrong, I love proving him wrong. Heh!

  •  None of those people on that cover.... (8+ / 0-)

    represent me. Put Joe Biden on the cover, Al Franken, Bill White, Jon Stewart, Hillary Clinton, Rachel Maddow, Austan Goolsbee, Nancy Pelosi, Lawrence O'Donnell, just off the top of my head. Put them on the cover, title it: "White America, still sane."

    "We believe that the people are the source of all governmental power; that the authority of the people is to be extended, not restricted."-Barbara Jordan

    by sancerre2001 on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 09:35:30 AM PDT