It’s like Global Warming. You just close your eyes and pretend the problem doesn’t exist.
I don’t deny the existence of dirty politics. I simply don’t believe that all instances of dirty politics can accurately be described as “racist” 
.
I don’t deny the existence of dirty politics. I simply don’t believe that all instances of dirty politics can accurately be described as “racist” .[/quote]
Excellent retort to a non-existent argument.
I don’t deny the existence of dirty politics. I simply don’t believe that all instances of dirty politics can accurately be described as “racist” .[/quote]
Excellent retort to a non-existent argument.[/quote]
Dr. McCoy is spot on. I’m arguing that dirty politics which target race or gender are bigoted politics.
Like when Democrats call black Republicans “Uncle Toms”?
Or, like when approximately half of the Democratic party used dirty “racist” tactics to try to keep BHO from winning the Democratic Primary?
Any dirty political tactics based on gender or race, regardless of who uses them, are bigoted tactics. IMO.
Feel free to elaborate upon the specifics of how “approximately half of the Democratic party used dirty “racist” tactics to try to keep BHO from winning the Democratic Primary”. Edumacate me. 
Not all black Republicans. Only those who support policies detrimental to the black community. Which is the definition of an “Uncle Tom”.
It was the (right-wing controlled) media that started that crap.
[quote=“Tigerman”]I don’t deny the existence of dirty politics. I simply don’t believe that all instances of dirty politics can accurately be described as “racist” .[/quote] Bingo.
[quote=“Dragonbones”]I’m arguing that dirty politics which target race or gender are bigoted politics.[/quote]I disagree.
Consider this, less inflammatory, less political example, if you will.
In Olympic boxing, competitors may not be bearded (it gets in the way of properly scoring the bout).
There have been complaints that this regulation discriminates against those who may not, for religious reasons, shave their beards.
The regulation does target bearded men; does that make it anti-Orthodox Christian/ Orthodox Jewish/ Muslim?
I don’t be so. There’s an intersection of identities: beard & religious identity, but the regulations are blind to religion.
(For what it’s worth, I would also argue that in other contexts, there’s good reason to make an exception to similarly blind regulations.)
Dirty tactics that target likely voting blocks, which intersect with specific identities, are dirty tactics. The political ideology may be blind to religion; the tactics may exploit racist sentiments; but neither of those facts makes the tactics racist; they’re opportunistic. If the voting blocks shifted such that the target voting block were wealthy, rather than racial, the tactics would shift as well.
Not all black Republicans. Only those who support policies detrimental to the black community. Which is the definition of an “Uncle Tom”.[/quote]
Is it? If a black politician – like Obama – emphasized poverty and disenfranchisement rather than race while retooling affirmative action policies, that wouldn’t benefit the larger black community. Would that make him an Uncle Tom?
Thanks for guiding the discussion back to a reasoned one, btw. 
Used or accepted or otherwise did nothing to oppose the same.
Well, I could reasonably argue that the Democratic Party has pushed policies that have been severely detrimental to the black community for decades. Are black Democrats who support those policies “Uncle Toms”? If no, why not?
Was Frederick Douglass an “Uncle Tom”? How about Bill Cosby?
Geraldine Ferraro and Bill Clinton are members of the “right-wing controlled media”?
Using dirty politics to prevent black people from voting because you don’t want black people to vote because they are black is “racist”.
Using dirty politics to prevent black people from voting because you don’t want black people to vote for your opponent is simply dirty rather than “racist”.
Well, I could reasonably argue that the Democratic Party has pushed policies that have been severely detrimental to the black community for decades.[/quote]
Sounds like “opposite-world” (as Randi Rhodes calls it) type thinking to me.
Black Democrats who support policies detrimental to blacks would be Uncle Toms, too. But I am unaware of any.
Geraldine Ferraro and Bill Clinton are members of the “right-wing controlled media”?[/quote]
Clinton’s “fairy tale” comment was deemed by the media as the first shot in racist tactics, though they deliberately took his quote, which was not racist at all, out of context in order to frame it in a racist light. As for Ferraro, I have lost all respect for her due to her comments. Besides that, all of that “Obama is too black” or “Obama isn’t black enough” stuff was a product of the media.
Doesn’t matter what you think. It only matters what I think.
If you are going to label me a “racist”, then I think that you ought to understand what it is that I think and then try to explain to me how it is that I hold “racist” ideas.
[quote=“Tigerman”]Using dirty politics to prevent black people from voting because you don’t want black people to vote because they are black is “racist”.
Using dirty politics to prevent black people from voting because you don’t want black people to vote for your opponent is simply dirty rather than “racist”.[/quote]
No, both are racist. The aim is to violate the rights of people of a certain race, and that is racist, no matter what the motivation.
Nobody has called Tigerman racist.
(Wouldn’t you know it! F.com freezes when I’m trying to respond to this!)
Tigerman, I have never accused you of being racist. I’m confident that you are not.
I do believe, however, that there’s a significantly higher degree of racism infesting the GOP than infesting the Dems. That’s not to say the Dems have no racists among them…they certainly do.
Black Democrats who support policies detrimental to blacks would be Uncle Toms, too. But I am unaware of any.[/quote][/quote]
In my experience, “Uncle Tom” is usually applied to African Americans who hold conservative views.
I have seen African Americans who oppose giving a weathy/priveleged black candidate preference over a poor/unprivileged Asian or White candidate in college admissions, for instance, described as “Uncle Toms”.
Their view may be that puting people into boxes based on skin color and them treating them differently perpetuates racism. Their view may be that race-based preferences give amunition to bigots to say about every black who excells “Well he only got that position because of his race”, even when this is untrue. Their view may be that skin-pigment-based admissions policies at a prestigious high-school in California (true story) that basically tell an Asian American student applicant “Sorry, there are too many people who look like you here already – so we’re going to give this spot to a white applicant, since our racial checklist says they are under-represented compared to your kind” are inherently racist.
But that’s the conservative view of affirmative action, not the liberal view.
My guess is that the reason that you are unaware of any African American Democrats who support policies “detrimental to blacks”, Chris, is because African Americans who hold different political views from yours are labeled as Uncle Tom, and generally not welcome in the Democratic party, because they disagree with the dominant liberal policy view on “what is best for them.”
H
One difference between the Republican Party and the KKK is that you can be a Republican and not be racist. I don’t think you can do that in the KKK. The KKK hate everyone who is not white, but the Republican Party hates whites, too. With Republicans, it doesn’t matter if you are a Christian or a Muslim, if you are black or white, if your name is Hussein, you have no business being in the political process.
If you are a Republican and you find yourself joining in on some sort of racist activity, you can just say, “I was only following orders.” or “I can’t recall” and then start running down English teachers. That always works.