OT: Obama vs. Black People

[Anonymous]

Allan: You are an arrogant fool if you assume that anything said here so far qualifies beyond opinion. I’m so tired of that stance. No one has a monopoly on being unbiased, i.e., no one is unbiased. You throw around “facts” without extremely strong studies, evidence, and logic, you are wading way out into the sea of the unknown.

Claiming that what someone says is “biased” and “knee jerk” is exactly what I would call “stifling”. It’s an empty observation.

In my OPINION I do see a few people scratching around in the dirt over a debate of questionable merit. It seems to me like so far everyone has been really terrible at describing their real premises and conclusions. If I was more cynical I’d say marion was baited by nostradamus. And that possibly nostradamus said nothing truly untoward. But please don’t pretend that a discussion of politics can be free of bias and emotion. Don’t claim that you, yourself, are free of bias. It’s absurd. There’s no high ground here. We’re all a bunch of fools.

While you’re at it, you also might be smart not to assume that punctuation marks are an honest indicator of emotion and bias. And could you please explain, for the group, what you mean by “subscribing to identity and gender politics”? It might be enlightening.

Is that a ruthless attack? How you like them apples?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

So you start off with calling me an arrogant fool, and questioning my intelligence, but then ask me to respond, apparently without bias and emotion, to your post?

How do I like what apples? And, no, I wouldn’t characterize your attack as ruthless. Pompous and high handed perhaps, but not ruthless.

Yes, everyone is biased. However, that completely obscures the nuance that there are degrees to bias, ranging from slight to extreme. Reacting strongly to anything regarding your color or ethnicity solely on that basis alone is a strong bias and wrongheaded. When I refer to gender and identity politics, that is exactly what I mean. A knee jerk response to something solely because it offends a PC notion of what it means to be a woman or black in modern American society. Jackson, Sharpton and the afrocentric movement have made a fine living off that fat hog and woe betide any white person for pointing out the truly vile nature of preying on one’s own people.

As with using the phrase “questionable merit”. According to whom? You? Who gets to be the arbiter of that? If you don’t agree with the topic or the merits of the topic, don’t participate. Simple as that. However, referring to people as stupid doesn’t have a place here.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

So you start off with calling me an arrogant fool, and questioning my intelligence, but then ask me to respond, apparently without bias and emotion, to your post?

How do I like what apples? And, no, I wouldn’t characterize your attack as ruthless. Pompous and high handed perhaps, but not ruthless.

Yes, everyone is biased. However, that completely obscures the nuance that there are degrees to bias, ranging from slight to extreme. Reacting strongly to anything regarding your color or ethnicity solely on that basis alone is a strong bias and wrongheaded. When I refer to gender and identity politics, that is exactly what I mean. A knee jerk response to something solely because it offends a PC notion of what it means to be a woman or black in modern American society. Jackson, Sharpton and the afrocentric movement have made a fine living off that fat hog and woe betide any white person for pointing out the truly vile nature of preying on one’s own people.

As with using the phrase “questionable merit”. According to whom? You? Who gets to be the arbiter of that? If you don’t agree with the topic or the merits of the topic, don’t participate. Simple as that. However, referring to people as stupid doesn’t have a place here.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

So you start off with calling me an arrogant fool, and questioning my intelligence, but then ask me to respond, apparently without bias and emotion, to your post?

How do I like what apples? And, no, I wouldn’t characterize your attack as ruthless. Pompous and high handed perhaps, but not ruthless.

Yes, everyone is biased. However, that completely obscures the nuance that there are degrees to bias, ranging from slight to extreme. Reacting strongly to anything regarding your color or ethnicity solely on that basis alone is a strong bias and wrongheaded. When I refer to gender and identity politics, that is exactly what I mean. A knee jerk response to something solely because it offends a PC notion of what it means to be a woman or black in modern American society. Jackson, Sharpton and the afrocentric movement have made a fine living off that fat hog and woe betide any white person for pointing out the truly vile nature of preying on one’s own people.

As with using the phrase “questionable merit”. According to whom? You? Who gets to be the arbiter of that? If you don’t agree with the topic or the merits of the topic, don’t participate. Simple as that. However, referring to people as stupid doesn’t have a place here.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

So you start off with calling me an arrogant fool, and questioning my intelligence, but then ask me to respond, apparently without bias and emotion, to your post?

How do I like what apples? And, no, I wouldn’t characterize your attack as ruthless. Pompous and high handed perhaps, but not ruthless.

Yes, everyone is biased. However, that completely obscures the nuance that there are degrees to bias, ranging from slight to extreme. Reacting strongly to anything regarding your color or ethnicity solely on that basis alone is a strong bias and wrongheaded. When I refer to gender and identity politics, that is exactly what I mean. A knee jerk response to something solely because it offends a PC notion of what it means to be a woman or black in modern American society. Jackson, Sharpton and the afrocentric movement have made a fine living off that fat hog and woe betide any white person for pointing out the truly vile nature of preying on one’s own people.

As with using the phrase “questionable merit”. According to whom? You? Who gets to be the arbiter of that? If you don’t agree with the topic or the merits of the topic, don’t participate. Simple as that. However, referring to people as stupid doesn’t have a place here.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

So you start off with calling me an arrogant fool, and questioning my intelligence, but then ask me to respond, apparently without bias and emotion, to your post?

How do I like what apples? And, no, I wouldn’t characterize your attack as ruthless. Pompous and high handed perhaps, but not ruthless.

Yes, everyone is biased. However, that completely obscures the nuance that there are degrees to bias, ranging from slight to extreme. Reacting strongly to anything regarding your color or ethnicity solely on that basis alone is a strong bias and wrongheaded. When I refer to gender and identity politics, that is exactly what I mean. A knee jerk response to something solely because it offends a PC notion of what it means to be a woman or black in modern American society. Jackson, Sharpton and the afrocentric movement have made a fine living off that fat hog and woe betide any white person for pointing out the truly vile nature of preying on one’s own people.

As with using the phrase “questionable merit”. According to whom? You? Who gets to be the arbiter of that? If you don’t agree with the topic or the merits of the topic, don’t participate. Simple as that. However, referring to people as stupid doesn’t have a place here.

[cooperthedog]

My two cents:

Nothing in the original post was overtly “racist”, though it deals with race directly, so I can see how it could be intepreted as such. It really is an observation on true Machiavellian tactics, which seem to be required to get elected in this country.

[quote] Don’t you know black people come in all colors?? [/quote]

Really? I would assume that black people would have to be black. It kind of seems like the defining characteristic. Now someone of African-American descent may have varying skin tones…

Marion – You DO tend to overreact and in all honesty, you appear to have Narcissitic Personality Disorder, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder
which would better explain your diatribe and feeling that this post (as well as countless other comments on this blog) were a personal attack. You also tend to use emotionally charged words and ad hominem attacks.

As for bias, everyone has theirs. The key is to recognize this and evaluate topics as objectively as possible.

As for Allan, I have generally enjoyed his posts and found them enlightening, even though I know his conservative viewpoint differs from mine.

[cooperthedog]

My two cents:

Nothing in the original post was overtly “racist”, though it deals with race directly, so I can see how it could be intepreted as such. It really is an observation on true Machiavellian tactics, which seem to be required to get elected in this country.

[quote] Don’t you know black people come in all colors?? [/quote]

Really? I would assume that black people would have to be black. It kind of seems like the defining characteristic. Now someone of African-American descent may have varying skin tones…

Marion – You DO tend to overreact and in all honesty, you appear to have Narcissitic Personality Disorder, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder
which would better explain your diatribe and feeling that this post (as well as countless other comments on this blog) were a personal attack. You also tend to use emotionally charged words and ad hominem attacks.

As for bias, everyone has theirs. The key is to recognize this and evaluate topics as objectively as possible.

As for Allan, I have generally enjoyed his posts and found them enlightening, even though I know his conservative viewpoint differs from mine.

[cooperthedog]

My two cents:

Nothing in the original post was overtly “racist”, though it deals with race directly, so I can see how it could be intepreted as such. It really is an observation on true Machiavellian tactics, which seem to be required to get elected in this country.

[quote] Don’t you know black people come in all colors?? [/quote]

Really? I would assume that black people would have to be black. It kind of seems like the defining characteristic. Now someone of African-American descent may have varying skin tones…

Marion – You DO tend to overreact and in all honesty, you appear to have Narcissitic Personality Disorder, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder
which would better explain your diatribe and feeling that this post (as well as countless other comments on this blog) were a personal attack. You also tend to use emotionally charged words and ad hominem attacks.

As for bias, everyone has theirs. The key is to recognize this and evaluate topics as objectively as possible.

As for Allan, I have generally enjoyed his posts and found them enlightening, even though I know his conservative viewpoint differs from mine.

[cooperthedog]

My two cents:

Nothing in the original post was overtly “racist”, though it deals with race directly, so I can see how it could be intepreted as such. It really is an observation on true Machiavellian tactics, which seem to be required to get elected in this country.

[quote] Don’t you know black people come in all colors?? [/quote]

Really? I would assume that black people would have to be black. It kind of seems like the defining characteristic. Now someone of African-American descent may have varying skin tones…

Marion – You DO tend to overreact and in all honesty, you appear to have Narcissitic Personality Disorder, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder
which would better explain your diatribe and feeling that this post (as well as countless other comments on this blog) were a personal attack. You also tend to use emotionally charged words and ad hominem attacks.

As for bias, everyone has theirs. The key is to recognize this and evaluate topics as objectively as possible.

As for Allan, I have generally enjoyed his posts and found them enlightening, even though I know his conservative viewpoint differs from mine.

[cooperthedog]

My two cents:

Nothing in the original post was overtly “racist”, though it deals with race directly, so I can see how it could be intepreted as such. It really is an observation on true Machiavellian tactics, which seem to be required to get elected in this country.

[quote] Don’t you know black people come in all colors?? [/quote]

Really? I would assume that black people would have to be black. It kind of seems like the defining characteristic. Now someone of African-American descent may have varying skin tones…

Marion – You DO tend to overreact and in all honesty, you appear to have Narcissitic Personality Disorder, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder
which would better explain your diatribe and feeling that this post (as well as countless other comments on this blog) were a personal attack. You also tend to use emotionally charged words and ad hominem attacks.

As for bias, everyone has theirs. The key is to recognize this and evaluate topics as objectively as possible.

As for Allan, I have generally enjoyed his posts and found them enlightening, even though I know his conservative viewpoint differs from mine.

[zk]

Maybe you can help me with this, Marion. Here’s what I don’t understand.

So many people in this country act like they have a right not to be offended. They act like they are a victim if they are offended. They act like, if they call another person out for offending them, that they (the offended) are righteous and the offender is guilty of some crime. I don’t understand that.

In my opinion, the only thing people who are offended are a victim of is their own weak minds. If someone spouts something ignorant (in your opinion), and you don’t have a weak mind, your response (in my opinion) would be to say, “I think you’re ignorant, and here’s why I think that.” Or to ignore them. Why does it hurt you that someone else is ignorant? Ignorance is ubiquitous world-wide. People are saying ignorant things on a constant basis. What difference does it make that what they’re saying is said in your vicinity and on a subject you care about?

You say, “In case you missed it I’m BLACK and your thread is highly offensive to me and most other African-Americans.” What is your point? Are you saying that therefore he shouldn’t have posted his post?

If someone says something ignorant or untrue, and you let it offend you or hurt you, that’s your fault. If what a person says really does show ignorance or bias or hate or whatever, that says something about that person. Not about you. So why does it offend you? It’s really got nothing to do with you. Unless you let it bother you. But why would you let it bother you? And (and this is the part that really confuses me) why would you get all righteous about it?

Disclaimer: I’m not calling anyone ignorant or biased or hateful. I’m saying that Marion appears to see them that way.

[zk]

Maybe you can help me with this, Marion. Here’s what I don’t understand.

So many people in this country act like they have a right not to be offended. They act like they are a victim if they are offended. They act like, if they call another person out for offending them, that they (the offended) are righteous and the offender is guilty of some crime. I don’t understand that.

In my opinion, the only thing people who are offended are a victim of is their own weak minds. If someone spouts something ignorant (in your opinion), and you don’t have a weak mind, your response (in my opinion) would be to say, “I think you’re ignorant, and here’s why I think that.” Or to ignore them. Why does it hurt you that someone else is ignorant? Ignorance is ubiquitous world-wide. People are saying ignorant things on a constant basis. What difference does it make that what they’re saying is said in your vicinity and on a subject you care about?

You say, “In case you missed it I’m BLACK and your thread is highly offensive to me and most other African-Americans.” What is your point? Are you saying that therefore he shouldn’t have posted his post?

If someone says something ignorant or untrue, and you let it offend you or hurt you, that’s your fault. If what a person says really does show ignorance or bias or hate or whatever, that says something about that person. Not about you. So why does it offend you? It’s really got nothing to do with you. Unless you let it bother you. But why would you let it bother you? And (and this is the part that really confuses me) why would you get all righteous about it?

Disclaimer: I’m not calling anyone ignorant or biased or hateful. I’m saying that Marion appears to see them that way.

[zk]

Maybe you can help me with this, Marion. Here’s what I don’t understand.

So many people in this country act like they have a right not to be offended. They act like they are a victim if they are offended. They act like, if they call another person out for offending them, that they (the offended) are righteous and the offender is guilty of some crime. I don’t understand that.

In my opinion, the only thing people who are offended are a victim of is their own weak minds. If someone spouts something ignorant (in your opinion), and you don’t have a weak mind, your response (in my opinion) would be to say, “I think you’re ignorant, and here’s why I think that.” Or to ignore them. Why does it hurt you that someone else is ignorant? Ignorance is ubiquitous world-wide. People are saying ignorant things on a constant basis. What difference does it make that what they’re saying is said in your vicinity and on a subject you care about?

You say, “In case you missed it I’m BLACK and your thread is highly offensive to me and most other African-Americans.” What is your point? Are you saying that therefore he shouldn’t have posted his post?

If someone says something ignorant or untrue, and you let it offend you or hurt you, that’s your fault. If what a person says really does show ignorance or bias or hate or whatever, that says something about that person. Not about you. So why does it offend you? It’s really got nothing to do with you. Unless you let it bother you. But why would you let it bother you? And (and this is the part that really confuses me) why would you get all righteous about it?

Disclaimer: I’m not calling anyone ignorant or biased or hateful. I’m saying that Marion appears to see them that way.

[zk]

Maybe you can help me with this, Marion. Here’s what I don’t understand.

So many people in this country act like they have a right not to be offended. They act like they are a victim if they are offended. They act like, if they call another person out for offending them, that they (the offended) are righteous and the offender is guilty of some crime. I don’t understand that.

In my opinion, the only thing people who are offended are a victim of is their own weak minds. If someone spouts something ignorant (in your opinion), and you don’t have a weak mind, your response (in my opinion) would be to say, “I think you’re ignorant, and here’s why I think that.” Or to ignore them. Why does it hurt you that someone else is ignorant? Ignorance is ubiquitous world-wide. People are saying ignorant things on a constant basis. What difference does it make that what they’re saying is said in your vicinity and on a subject you care about?

You say, “In case you missed it I’m BLACK and your thread is highly offensive to me and most other African-Americans.” What is your point? Are you saying that therefore he shouldn’t have posted his post?

If someone says something ignorant or untrue, and you let it offend you or hurt you, that’s your fault. If what a person says really does show ignorance or bias or hate or whatever, that says something about that person. Not about you. So why does it offend you? It’s really got nothing to do with you. Unless you let it bother you. But why would you let it bother you? And (and this is the part that really confuses me) why would you get all righteous about it?

Disclaimer: I’m not calling anyone ignorant or biased or hateful. I’m saying that Marion appears to see them that way.

[Author]

Posts