Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:
Even Black people agree that Blacks are more racist than Whites or Hispanics.
Plainly, the poll itself, is racissssssss.
Joe doakes
Well, clearly. Because if you say you’re not racist, it means you are.
And if you say, do or thing something racist, you’re a racist – unless, apparently, you’re a liberal blogger.
GREETINGS, MN “PROGRESSIVE” PROJECT READERS: Great to have you here. Quick point of order, though; I don’t say racism is “a liberal problem”. Merely that “Dog Gone’s” rationalization of her use of the term “Uncle Tom” is itself self-indulgent, illogical and corrosively specious.
As she says it, racism is when “You do or say something racist when you make an unfounded claim about someone on the basis of a race or an attribute to race”. That’s just wrong. It’s when you attribute any trait, positive or negative, to someone based on their race. And Dog Gone’s judgment of whether something is or is not “unfounded” is the same precise logic redneck peckerwoods use when they say “N***er ain’t racist, cuz there’s black n***ers and there’s white n***ers”; in other words, the idea that using a a racist term to describe someone is ever “founded”.
And is someone going to seriously claim that the term “Uncle Tom” isn’t racist, whether you believe it’s “founded” or not? Say what you will about Justice Thomas’ legal and personal history (liberals seem drawn to the fiction that he’s unqualified to be a SCOTUS justice, but Sonya Sotomayor is), but who out there can build a case that calling him “a slave who brown-noses his masters to curry favor” isn’t racist? Unless your name is Tom and your siblings have kids, “Uncle Tom” has no other meaning.
As to her constant claim that conservatism is racist? Leaving aside the fact that the claim is bigoted in and of itself, it’s also ideologically nonsense. While there are no doubt conservatives who, individually, are racist (just as there are racist liberals as well – indeed, the most gleefully racist person I’ve ever personally met was a mutual acquaintance of Dog Gone’s and mine who happened to be an east-side Saint Paul DFL ward heeler), one of the bedrock tenets real conservatives observe is judging people as individuals, not by their class, gender or, yep, race.
Martin Luther King was no conservative Republican, but he dreamed that his children would be judged by the contents of their hearts, not their color – and that (hold the stereotypes most of you no doubt romp and frolic in) is a conservative ideal.
I’ve known Dog Gone for 20-odd years, more or less, and sincerely hope she’ll pull her mind out of the fever swamp sooner or later. She could be better than that.
Your comments are welcome; I moderate everyone’s first comment (to cut down on spam), but unless something is slander or pointlessly inflammatory, I approve everything, because unlike certain blogs I enjoy a vigorous discussion.
You do or say something racist when you make an unfounded claim about someone on the basis of a race or an attribute to race.
Where is that list of the phenomenal accomplishments of Clarence Thomas, that merits his advancement to the SCOTUS?
Oh, right – you don’t have one, so you have to make a bogus attack on me.
And you have to do that because of the overwhelming evidence that the right is white and racist.
You see, THIS – http://www.politicususa.com/2013/07/17/wing-blogs-spread-false-story-shooting-free-zimmerman-bumper-sticker.html – is a perfect example of right wing racism.
Making factually inaccurate claims that blame people for an incident, representing it as racial in nature, when it is not. Shame on the right for being so consistently bad about fact checking things, and for being so willing to attribute something negative to either groups or individuals because of race.
Your side does it wrong and racist; I did it properly, and NOT racist.
If you say you’re not a racist, you are.
Similarily, if one states they believe in individual rights, free markets and limited government…one is also racist.
“Making factually inaccurate claims that blame people for an incident, representing it as racial in nature, when it is not.”
Much like NBC intentionally editing the Zimmerman 911 call in a deliberate attempt to prtray him as quite likely something he is not, DG??
Don’t look now, but your idiocy is showing.
Of course, the oh-so enlightened and tolerant on the left would NEVER take a hard look at themselves long enough to realize that when they assume, generalize and lump together all conservatives, libertarians, constitutionalist, et al….they are all too often guilty of the same offence of which they condemn each and every individual they assign to those groups.
Essentially they are, themselves, bigots.
It is no longer interesting to see “how the other side thinks” as represented by Dog Gone. Not much critical thinking going on there any more …….
You do or say something racist when you make an unfounded claim about someone on the basis of a race or an attribute to race.
Right. Calling someone “Uncle Tom” – as Winkler did, and as you doubled down on – is an unfounded claim. It portrays Thomas as a slave who hopes being ingratiating and obsequious to his masters will keep him in their good graces, which is an unfounded racist claim on its face.
And your crack that Thomas works against “his experience” is worse than that, DG. It’d mean that you believe you, or society, or some political movement has a claim on Thomas’ experience that overrides his own.
And that’s not only racist, it’s utterly dehumanizing.
And the fact that you don’t see it, frankly, is disturbing.
Rep. Winkler said he didn’t know Uncle Tom was a racist slur. He apologized for it.
But Dog Gone says Uncle Tom is not a racist slur when applied to Clarence Thomas, because he deserves it!
They’re dumb and dumber and still, the polling shows Black people are more racist than either of them. Frightening.
“a perfect example of right wing racism.”
Because, apparently, left wing racism and bigotry is perfectly acceptable.
Where is that list of the phenomenal accomplishments of Clarence Thomas, that merits his advancement to the SCOTUS?
That’s a logical fallacy we call a red herring
Oh, right – you don’t have one, so you have to make a bogus attack on me.
If you called a 19 year old high school dropout who’d never held a job an “Uncle Tom”, it’d still be racist.
(And Sonya Sotomayor has accomplished much less than Thomas. Does that justify calling her racist names, then? Especially if she contradicts “her experience” in my judgment?”)
And you have to do that because of the overwhelming evidence that the right is white and racist.
“Youuuuu were raaacist fiiiiirst!”
No, I do it because what you did was wrong.
(What is this overwhelming desire you seem to have to tell people what their motives really are? Stop it).
As Joe and Adrian have pointed out, DG, you’re being not only racist but hypocritical.
You have two choices, really: a little self-examination, or carrying on to the whooping and hollering of your little fever swamp echo chamber.
I’d hope you try the former, but am not especially optimistic lately.
One more thing, DG.
I used to be a liberal. I have a lot of conservative friends who used to be, as well. And we, as well as a few fairly prominent conservative former-libs, have observed that “conservatives believe liberals are wrong; liberals believe conservatives are evil”.
And everything you write lately seems to be rooted in that belief.
It’s wrong.
That’s really all there is to say.
DG, the Good racist said:
Where is that list of the phenomenal accomplishments of Clarence Thomas, that merits his advancement to the SCOTUS?”
Here’s the list you asked for (My Grandfather’s Son: A Memoir) see: http://www.amazon.com/My-Grandfathers-Son-A-Memoir/dp/B003H4RB8K/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1374155592&sr=8-1&keywords=My+Grandfather%27s+Son.
DG, you should read the book so that you will know what a good and decent person is.
DG in addition to the explaining why the Cornish Bill was “crap” could you specify which of the conservative groups targeted by the IRS were, as you vehemently asserted, convicted or even charged with “breaking the law” or, were you just lying about that? And btw how is ABM different than ALEC?
I didn’t even see the second comment:
Making factually inaccurate claims that blame people for an incident, representing it as racial in nature, when it is not. Shame on the right for being so consistently bad about fact checking things, and for being so willing to attribute something negative to either groups or individuals because of race.
For starters, DG, chanting “factual, factual, factual” loses its meaning when the “Facts” you present are so consistently wrong.
And saying “some “conservatives” are racist, so you can’t criticize us!” is another logical fallacy, the “tu quoque ad hominem”.
Your side does it wrong and racist; I did it properly, and NOT racist.
DG, I’ll say this with all due respect – not that you’ll ever read it.
You’ve become the great blogging cliche; someone who believes “the conventional wisdom within my particular echo chamber is truth, or “fact”, or whatever it is you claim to uphold”.
But having an echo chamber cheerleading you means never having to examine oneself.
Kel,
I can explain your last question.
ALEC is, more or less, a special interest group. They have discussions, clinics, workshops, they put out a newsletter and website. Legislators pay to join. Oh, and like the other two major (and left-leaning) legislative organizations, as well as many/most other lobbying organizations, unions and other special interest groups, they write “model legislation”. (For example, several of the gun-grabbing bills this past MN Legislative session were “model” bills provided by various anti-gun groups. The Hausman magazine limit bill was copied from New York’s bill (now law). The original Paymar “registration” bill was basically a copy/past of California’s original bill).
ABM is an attack-PR firm, more or less like Media Matters with a state scope.
Pingback: Right Wing Racism, Right Wing Propaganda, Right Here in Minnesota
DG’s racism runs very deep:
You do or say something racist when you make an unfounded claim about someone on the basis of a race or an attribute to race.
Normal people would say ‘You do or say something racist when you make a claim about someone on the basis of a race or an attribute to race.‘. The idea that you can apply a racial characteristic to an individual is the basis of racism. ‘he’s a great athlete because he’s black’ is just as racist as ‘he’s lazy because he’s black’.
Dog Gone, of course, reserves the right to decide what attributes are ‘unfounded’ to herself.
Along the lines of Terry’s last, I need to add; DG says:
You do or say something racist when you make an unfounded claim about someone on the basis of a race or an attribute to race
So DG’ s constant claims that all conservatives are racist (a claim not merely unfounded but utterly untestable unto absurdity) based on the fact that they are white and conservative (and, apparently middle-aged and male) is, by her own logic, bigotry?
All I can say is that it’s impressive how the left ignores facts not to their liking. For example, if I may pile on Dog Gone, it’s impressive–or depressive–how she fails to grasp that the “10 program” is itself going to discriminate because the top ten percent of all high schools–good, bad, and urban–get in.
And how that is, in turn, an implicit racial preference. Of course, if someone doesn’t clue in that calling a black man an “Uncle Tom” is a sign of bigotry, one can’t have much hope for the rest of their thinking, or the thinking of the pages for which they write.
The reason why saying positive things about a person based on race is wicked is because you are saying bad things about other races by omission. The flip side of ‘he’s a great athlete because of race’ is ‘he’s a great athlete despite his race’. It’s applying normative behavior based on an arbitrary racial characteristic.
Dog Gone often fails to follow her ideas about humanity to their inevitable ends. If you say that some aspect of the human psyche is formed at birth and is immutable (‘gay’s are born gay’) you must believe that other aspects of the human psyche may be formed at birth and are immutable (‘thieves are born thieves’).
Oh, DG. You never know when to stop, do you.
I’d no sooner leave a comment at MPP than I would on a Klan website.
But you’re
lyingmistaken. I never, ever say racism is “a liberal problem”.I say that many liberals excuse their racism on spurious, self-indulgent grounds (as do most racists, whatever their politics), and that that is your problem.
If you aren’t capable of telling the story straight, then…:
this is my favorite from the MPP posting”
“has a nasty past of being racist and a bigot, Zimmerman has to do the same thing as SITD.”
Good lord.
Mitch, you totally baited MPP, and they took the bait like slavering dung monkeys. I tip my hat to you sir, even though I have no idea why you’d want to bait anyone at MPP.
On a similar note, I’m going to title my next Kindle book “Slavering Dung Monkeys.”
I have no idea why you’d want to bait anyone at MPP.
I don’t. Too many of them are self-baiting.
Yossarian, I shouldn’t give it away, but its really good entertainment – better than arguing with the Jehovah Witness guys when they pull into the yard.
Dog Gone seems to rely on ‘facts’ from some web publication called politicususa that says the following are representative ‘right wing blogs’:
InfoWars, Top Conservative News, beforeitsnews, American Crisis, and the Daily Paul.
I’ve never heard of any of them, except infowars, which is some crazed, libertarian, ‘OMG there’s a bilderberger!’ conspiracy site.
Stormfront is mentioned as well. I was once kicked off of Stormfront for daring to support capitalism and the free market.
Dog Gone seems to rely on ‘facts’ from some web publication called politicususa that says the following are representative ‘right wing blogs’:
InfoWars, Top Conservative News, beforeitsnews, American Crisis, and the Daily Paul.
That’d be like thinking all liberals are like, well, MPP.
I have a shortlist of conservative opinion writers whom I read: Jonah Goldberg, Kevin D. Williamson, Andrew Klavan, and (of course) George Will.
None of the liberal columnists are any good. It’s hard to get past the hate. Even the best (or most notable, anyhow) can’t seem to write a column without making baseless accusations of racism and bad faith. I’m talking about Krugman, E.J. Dionne, Dana Milbank . . . They are all horrid. Their is nothing new in their columns, not fresh perspective on policy. It’s all hate, all the time.
WaPo’s E.J. Dionne’s latest column is titled “Confronting the GOPs Bullying” (battle over filibustering).
Milbank’s WaPo column is ‘Testing the meaning of Insanity’ (insane GOP trying to repeal the Obamacare that none of them voted for).
Krugman’s colmn is titled ‘Hunger Games, USA’ (GOP is trying to starve people to death because they are mean).
On the right we have Krauthammer’s ‘Touch of Sanity’ (praise for Obama’s words post Zimmerman trial),
Klavan’s ‘Save our Celebrities’ is about obnoxious paparazzi.
Goldberg’s ‘Rand Paul’s Paleo Pal’ is about Paul keeping a possible neo-confederate on his payroll.
And George Will’s column is about how the decadal census and how awesome it is! (really).
I find it hilarious, after the racist things I’ve read here over the years, that you venture to call someone else a racist on so little basis.
But given the right wing egregious pattern of hypocrisy, I’m not surprised. A lone Rassmussen poll – an organization noted for being both chronically inaccurate and right leaning – is not a valid basis to call any group racist.
On the other hand, peer reviewed academic research pretty well establishes white racism here, and in particular, conservative white racism as a resurgent pattern, as distinct from separate individual actions or attitudes:
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=8793328&fulltextType=RA&fileId=S0022381612000904
There are plenty of others; this is not cherrypicking of the kind Doakes does routinely.
Clarence Thomas is unlikely to have gotten into Yale on his own merits without affirmative action – even he admits it. Yale law is one of the top law schools in the nation, so Thomas’s disparagement of it does not appear to have any merit. That other affirmative action students received prestigious job offers disproves Thomas’s own claims that his education was disparaged because of affirmative action.
Thomas’s entire career is based on his being willing to be a right wing token, a creature entirely of political patronage. It is unlikely without the Yale degree giving him a recognizable credential that he would have become a SCOTUS Justice; he was ranked among the lowest, if not THE lowest, of any SCOTUS in the last century by the ABA — an estimation that has been born out by his performance on the bench. He got the job because he was black, and he would vote the same way as white conservatives, not because of merit, not because he has a brilliant legal mind.
That alone would be justification for calling Thomas an uncle tom, a person who was subservient to white people or who did their bidding, but I did not do that. I limited that term specifically to his shameful affirmative action decision, where in a case that made a false claim of reverse discrimination, Thomas voted for white advantage, and against equality of opportunity on the basis of merit.
Abigail Fisher did NOT meet the academic requirements to be admitted, of being in the top 10% of her graduating class. She also did not meet the alternative criteria for admission, but lost to better qualfiied students. She and her attorneys NEVER proved or demonstrated that of the 41 white students and 5 black students who were admitted ahead of her, that the black students were less qualified than she was or less qualified than the 41 white students.
Thomas is NOT, as a commenter referred to him, a phenomenally accomplished man. He is nothing more than a political hack, who happens to be black, and who happens as we so often see on the right, to be an enormous hypocrite.
The ONLY reason any of you are objecting to the use of the term Uncle Tom is that you have been caught so many many times being racist yourselves, and this time you object because it disparages a conservative. It does not disparage or criticize a conservative inappropriately or inaccurately; Uncle Tomism is a verb, not only a noun, and it describes an action. The rendering of this particular decision was Uncle Tomism personified.
Nothing any of you have written here disproves that Clarence Thomas is a political right wing hack, a token black political appointee, or that he is not a particularly well qualified candidate for the Supreme Court. And nothing here any of you wrote disproves that his decision was classic Uncle Tomism , and epic hypocrisy and dishonesty.
As we see so often, the facts are not your friends. As we see so often, you have nothing of substance to support your statements either.
DG,
I find it hilarious, after the racist things I’ve read here over the years, that you venture to call someone else a racist on so little basis.
No, DG. You’ve read not one racist thing on this blog over the years. Not a single one.
I’ll add a perfunctory “feel free to elaborate, or show me wrong”, but we both know all you do is hit-and-run. But again – feel free to show me wrong.
Did I call you a racist? Not sure I did. But what you wrote WAS racist. You can rationalize it all you want, but it was racist.
But given the right wing egregious pattern of hypocrisy, I’m not surprised. A lone Rassmussen poll – an organization noted for being both chronically inaccurate and right leaning – is not a valid basis to call any group racist.
Rasmussen is right-leaning, but generally known to be accurate. The fever swamp chants otherwise, but over the past decade Rasmussen’s been more accurate than most.
On the other hand, peer reviewed academic research pretty well establishes white racism here, and in particular, conservative white racism as a resurgent pattern, as distinct from separate individual actions or attitudes:
There are plenty of others; this is not cherrypicking of the kind Doakes does routinely.
Well, no, DG – it IS cherrypicking. You linked to a single article that reached a very disputable conclusion. You seem to be under the impression that “peer review” means “the revealed truth”. It’s not the case.
It’s not “proof”.
Michael Bellesisles and Ward Churchill were “peer reviewed”.
I’m not sure where you learned how to debate, but a single appeal to authority, and very dubious authority at that, is hardly an argument-ender.
Clarence Thomas is unlikely to have gotten into Yale on his own merits…
Who the hell cares?
Thomas’s entire career is based on his being willing to be a right wing token, a creature entirely of political patronage…
That’s the left’s chanting point. It’s mob group-think. Not fact.
That alone would be justification for calling Thomas an uncle tom, a person who was subservient to white people or who did their bidding, but I did not do that. I limited that term specifically to his shameful affirmative action decision, where in a case that made a false claim of reverse discrimination, Thomas voted for white advantage, and against equality of opportunity on the basis of merit.
Which might be a valid explanation, sort of, if the affirmative action decision were in any way analogous to slavery, or any other kind of evil.
But it’s not.
Abigail Fisher did NOT meet the academic requirements to be admitted…
…and neither that nor any other factor in that case justifies your language.
I mean, you fancy yourself a writer. You couldn’t find a term that didn’t have the sort of racist baggage, the guaranteed offense, and the baggage of “this is a white liberal trying to expiate white liberal guilt” that the term has?
Thomas is NOT, as a commenter referred to him, a phenomenally accomplished man. He is nothing more than a political hack, who happens to be black, and who happens as we so often see on the right, to be an enormous hypocrite.
And now you’re reciting the left’s groupthink. I call it Berg’s Eighth Law. But whatever – it’s in the left’s interest to degrade and dehumanize any minority or woman that breaks from the left. And that’s what you’re doing.
The ONLY reason any of you are objecting to the use of the term Uncle Tom is that you have been caught so many many times being racist yourselves,
Really?
Name one.
Now.
As in “before you comment on any other matter” on my blog.
DG, you are willfully ignorant, defensive, and just plain stupid. Although, I will admit you’re prolifically stupid, which takes some doing.
You’ve dug your racist grave, so stop digging. Just lie down in it, put a flower on your racist chest, fold your racist hands together, and wait for the dirt to be pushed over your racist little face.
Just stop already.
It’s worth noting, again, that it’s telling that DG doesn’t clue in that the 10% rule is, given the distribution of minorities in Texas high schools, effectively a race and ethnicity based set-aside for minorities. Now she can argue until she’s blue in the face that “Miss Fisher wasn’t qualified because she wasn’t in the top 10%”, but that doesn’t change the fact that her entrance exam scores place her at about the 30th percentile of those admitted.
In other words, yes, there were a lot of people getting in who were less qualified than Miss Fisher, and yes, it was racially decided.
The ONLY reason any of you are objecting to the use of the term Uncle Tom is that you have been caught so many many times being racist yourselves
You are a crazy person, Dog Gone.
And, really, DG, I actually recognize what you did, having read, edited and written and “fact-checked” countless articles. You read a term somewhere, in this case the term was “Uncle Tom.” You were completely ignorant of the term, but since you read it on one of your usual fever swamp haunts, you thought it carried some argumentative weight. Not being a particularly curious or creative thinker, you snagged the term without researching it in the least, and used it in a piece I will guffawingly call “writing.”
Then, when people actually deigned to read your missive (pity be upon them), and noticed you used the term “Uncle Tom” and called you on it, you actually went to Google and realized “HOLY CRAP, THAT’S A RACIST TERM!” But, rather than cop to your initial ignorance, you doubled down here and opted for rationalization, dodging, and intellectual dishonesty, all in an attempt to preserve what you pityingly refer to as your self esteem. And, in so doing, you pretty much proved to the world that you’re a small-minded racist.
CONGRATULATIONS!
This is what affirmative action looks like:
Another way of saying that is Trayvon Martin could have been me, 35 years ago
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2370572/Obama-says-history-racism-America-George-Zimmermans-acquittal-especially-painful-blacks.html#ixzz2ZXCQv9Dc
Our Harvard Law grad president said this earlier today, effectively polluting the jury pool for any civil action or federal case against Zimmerman. Should result in acquital, or bar any Obama voter from the jury. He did the same thing a few days ago regarding courts martial for soldiers accused of sexual assault.
Obama’s letter to Harvard Law Record contains this:
http://hlrecord.org/?p=11263
Read the whole thing, note the poor grammar, and that Obama was 3L when he wrote it. OMFG!
Dog Gone, your base argument is that Ms. Fischer lied to the court about the facts, so the Supreme Court’s ruling is invalid and should be ignored. Clarence Thomas going along with the majority was just icing on your cake.
Setting aside how you know the facts better than the myriad of lawyers who scrutinized them during the years it was being litigated, I’ll take you up on your theory BUT ONLY if you’re willing to apply it across the board.
We can start the discussion with Roe v. Wade and the lead Plaintiff’s testimony to the Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution on January 21, 1998, that she lied.
Since Norma McCorvey lied, Roe v. Wade is out. Agreed?
.
Yossarian
Sadly her reply to mitch above was cut-and-pasted from several other posting she’s made in the fever swamp this past week. She often intimates that she is on the right side of history so good pure little collectivist that she is she finds it utterly unthinkable that “the good and pure” like herself cannot be absolute nasty bigots when dealing with apostates like Thomas or Bachman.
You’re correct though all she’s done is “pretty much proved to the world that you’re a small-minded racist.”
The ONLY reason any of you are objecting to the use of the term Uncle Tom is that you have been caught so many many times being racist yourselves
At first I thought you were only willing to tell Clarence Thomas what his personal experiences meant. Now I realize I was mistaken. Apparently you can interpret for anyone what their personal experiences mean, better than they can. You must be Jesus Christ.
So you have a mixed-race, public minded young man, assaulted and beaten bloody while trying to protect his neighborhood from a teen wannabe hoodlum, and Obama empathizes with . . . who?
Holy hell, leave for a week again and all bloody hell breaks loose. And DG as someone who has extensive files on everyone in this country (the DDE has an agreement with the NSA and CIA, lets just leave it at that) you don’t want to go down that road, really you don’t. Those who live in dog houses shouldn’t throw bones.
Terry – ‘Mixed Race’? Mixed HOW? Zimmerman identifies as being white, and his mother is identified as WHITE Hispanic – a census term for people of European – ie WHITE ethnicity – descent.
Then we have all of the obvious instances of Zimmerman being a bigot, like his myspace page, which his attorneys have confirmed IS HIS, where he refers to Mexicans as “every one has a knife to his throat”, and other highly prejudicial statements towards Latinos and Hispanics who are generally described as brown, not white.
This notion that Zimmerman is just some nice guy oriented to community service is baloney. He was a cop wannabe, he wanted the authority of a badge to throw his weight around abusing people. He had a history of violent behavior AS AN ADULT. Martin had a history of being an honor student, with a good family, active in his church and school, who behaved like a lot of kids, not a particularly bad kid.
His family says THEY are not racists either, but his father wrote an e-book calling the NAACP and the Black Caucus racists, you know, for supporting all that legislation for civil rights voting legislation, ending segregation, etc. that mandates people being treated equally and inclusively.