Getting a closer look at why liberals continue to feel that blacks should be held to a different standard

A few days ago, in the wake of a concerted (and almost certainly fraudulent) attack against the Tea Party by claiming its members are racist, I wrote a post in which I said that, if I’m going to be called a racist, I get to define the term to accord with my understanding of race.

I was wordy (so, sue me; so was Charles Dickens), but it boiled down to my firm belief that, while blacks needed a helping hand in the immediate aftermath of first wave of Civil Rights (the mid-1960s), the system has become perverted, encouraging blacks to become dependent on rich white liberals.  I contrasted the black experience with the Asian immigrant experience (or you could contrast it with the Irish immigration experience, or the Jewish, or the Italian…), all of which show groups that had the same handicaps as post-Jim Crow blacks — illiterate, poverty stricken, and ghettoized — but that nevertheless managed to mainstream within a generation.

The problem, I said, does not lie with blacks; it lies, instead, with liberal policies that persist in treating blacks as if they are helpless, intellectually incapable, non-rational beings.  If I’m racist, it’s because I look at blacks and think that, without the smothering influence of white liberal guilt, they are, as a group, every bit as competent, capable and rational as any other group.

In other words, my racism consists in think that blacks are pretty much like me.  So, again, sue me.

My post got picked up at a liberal site (a very liberal site, which is flattering in a weird kind of way) and I got taken to task for failing to understanding black people’s suffering and, therefore, making the racist and condescending demand that blacks should be treated like . . . well, like people.  Or at least, that’s what I think the site is saying.  The writing is bit convoluted, giving the feeling the author went to a liberal arts college and majored in post-modern thinking.  Take this, for example:

It’s a magnum opus of white resentment at underlying racist attitudes, laid out in a series of patronizing missives to the dark ones among us.

What does that mean — “white resentment at underlying racist attitudes?”  I certainly resent being called a racist.  And I resent attitudes and policies that demean blacks by consistently holding them to a lower standard based on the premise that they’re incapable of achieving a higher standard.  Color me racist, but I hate to see people classified and graded by race.  (Incidentally, Martin Luther King did too:  “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”)  As far as I can tell, that sentence is a classic example of the finest modern education can offer — it’s silly.

Or try this sentence, which the blog author offers immediately after quoting me.  (My quoted material was to the effect that we harm the black community tremendously by allowing blacks to prey on each other, because liberals, with a kind of gushing love, believe that blacks are just locked into that type of behavior):

Essentially, believing that white racism has held black people back is terrible and demeaning to blacks, the response to which is to believe that liberal white racism has held black people back.

Again, what in the world does that mean?  Perhaps there’s a word missing, but the writer seems to be saying that it’s really demeaning to believe that white racism harms blacks, and that the appropriate response to this horrible viewpoint is to argue that liberal white racism harms blacks.  Well, I do argue that liberal white racism does harm blacks.  And what’s even worse is that it’s not even an in-your-face racism that you can stand up and fight.

In the horrible Jim Crow days, racists said bluntly “You’re stupid and you’re evil,” statements that all right thinking people could reasonably challenge.  These were ugly, uncomplicated fighting words, and blacks fought back.

In the horrible liberal PC days, well-meaning whites say “I’m sure you’re really smart, but we hurt you so badly you don’t have to prove that you’re smart, and I’m sure you’re essentially honest, but because of all the bad things we’ve done to you, it’s not surprising that you engage in criminal activity at a rate higher than other races in this country, and I know that you’re a very moral people, only it’s all our fault that the nuclear family in the black family has been pretty much destroyed.”  You can dress it up in as many apologies as you like, but the fact remains that after almost 50 years of liberal love, blacks are hurting, because they and their white co-dependents keep giving them a free pass for self-destructive behavior.  (And if I remember correctly, Bill Cosby made pretty much the same point.)

Here’s the next sentence, a lovely example of post-modern thinking that nicely distills into utter meaninglessness:

Reading through this, it becomes clear that this lovely crystallization of conservative thought on race is fundamentally about an underestimation and denigration of the capacities of black Americans to understand their own history and the causes of their problems.  Post-racial conservatism, at its core, presumes that the great bulk of black America is too stupid and too misled to understand its position in the American diaspora; the only forces arrayed against black people are the ones black people depend on and trust in.

Before I get to substance, I want to thank the writer of the above for saying I wrote a “lovely crystallization of conservative thought.”  I appreciate that.  But about that substance….

The paragraph jumbles together three thoughts:  (i) I don’t understand black history or root causes, (ii) I think that blacks are stupid, and (iii) I think the blacks are depending on the wrong people.  The first thought is wrong, and irrelevant.  I’m fully cognizant of black history.  I’m saying, though, that history does not have to be determinative of our future beings.  American blacks are not dealing with the problems of 1770, or 1830, or 1860, or 1877 or 1955.   Instead, they live in 2010.  All humans must adapt.  This writer essentially contends that, because blacks had a bad historic deal, they don’t have to adapt, but may wallow in it forever.  I think that’s an outrageous argument.  Others have had bad deals and have moved forward:

Jews:  2,000 years of persecution at the hands of . . . everyone.  Large scale immigration to America following the Russian and Polish pogroms and the Holocaust.  They adapted.

Irish:  500 years of persecution at British hands.  Large scale immigration to America following the devastating Irish potato famine.  They adapted.

Vietnamese and Cambodians:  Decades of persecution at Communist hands, devastating wars and, in the case of the Cambodians, the Killing Fields, which saw 30% of the population executed.  They adapted.

Chinese:  A feudal society, which was followed by a Revolution, which was followed by the Great Leap Forward (with estimates of 70,000,000 – 100,000,000 killed).  They adapted.

Blacks:  A feudal society (because slavery is feudalism), which was followed by almost a century of gross discrimination, which was followed by 50 years of affirmative action.  They still haven’t adapted.

Why are blacks different?  Well, contrary to the liberal blogger, I don’t think its because they’re stupid or they don’t understand their history.  I do think it’s because they’re depending on the wrong friends.  Tough love doesn’t just work for teenagers.  Humans need to deal with reality, rather than being protected so much that they’re rendered angry at their lack of free will, and dysfunctional because they cannot exercise their core human right to self-determination.

In other words, people, when given freedom of opportunity (even when that freedom is hedged with thorns and obstacles) adapt.  It’s the smothering, guilt-laden love of American liberals that keeps blacks cocooned in a perpetual and dysfunctional state of victimhood.

And here’s that liberal blogger’s last word on the subject, which is a complete inversion of what I said:

The best reading of this list of resentment is that the author views black people as noble savages, people so backwards that the only way we can move forward is to be left alone to figure out things for ourselves.  My reading, however, goes a little bit deeper than that.  The easiest way to excuse racism is to rewrite and reinterpret history so that its effects are divorced from the cause.  If racism causes suffering, you get around it by blaming the suffering on the victims.  Of course, this is in and of itself racist – the reason a persecuted minority was persecuted is because they’re so weak and dumb and persecutable.  But it allows the racist to distance themselves from their own beliefs by saying that they aren’t being racist, they’re just reflecting a reality without racism.  A reality which happens to be racist as fuck.

No, I don’t consider blacks noble savages — you, the liberal, do. I consider them my peers in the human race, and think they ought to be treated as such, and not as a bizarre combination of fragile flower and uncontrolled id.

And no, I haven’t rewritten history. I didn’t actually touch upon history, except the history of liberalism and its deleterious effect on blacks.

And most importantly, I’m not arguing for persecution, which is what that liberal implies I’m saying. Instead, I’m saying in as many ways as I possibly can that we as a nation err (both practically and morally) by treating blacks as a separate species.  Blacks deserve to be treated like everyone else. Funnily enough, the only way to get from what I said to the liberal’s claim that I demand black persecution is for the liberal writer to concede that white Americans are being persecuted.

Is that what you’re saying, oh liberal one?

Be Sociable, Share!
  • Charles Martel

    Yikes, Book, I had no idea it was Amanda Marcotte’s website you were referring to until I went there! It’s a backhanded compliment, but still a compliment, to have the doyenne of misfiring synapses herself try to deconstruct you.

    It would be fun to get a group of conservatives in various locations who would form three- or four-person debate teams and challenge “progressives” to public debates (free admission!) using standard college rules of engagement. Calling out Marcotte would be a hoot (although she’d decline, given her inability to reason well even when she has a lot of time and White Out).

    Book, I’d put you up against any leftist in the Bay Area in an open debate. I’d be happy to join you and maybe we could get Ed McGill and Sally Zelikovsky to join in. In doing so, we would be honoring an old American war doctrine: take the fight as deep as you can into the enemy’s homeland, create maximum confusion and destruction, and dare him to stop you.

  • Bookworm

    Yeah, I didn’t realize ’til I Binged it that I was looking at Amanda Marcotte’s site either (although it was a contributor other than Marcotte herself who tackled my racism post).

    What surprised me about the attack was how mild it was.  First off, which I appreciated very much, was that, aside from calling me a racist, which is par for the course, the writer did not hurl insults at me, or threaten me, or use an excess of foul language.  That was nice.

    Second, the challenge to my thinking was kind of, oh, I don’t know . . . for want of a better word, lame.  I said liberals are racists because they have policies that treat blacks like infants.  The liberal said I’m racist because I treat blacks like infants by objecting to policies that infantilize them.  If I really understood blacks, said the liberal, I’d know that they need to be infantilized to make up for years of mistreatment.

    And there, of course, is exactly what I said is wrong with liberal thinking.  Blacks shouldn’t be infantilized.  No adults, no matter their race, should be.

    Fundamentally, saying “I know you are but what am I?” is not an argument.

  • JKB

    Hey, can we get a headache warning on these posts where you quote post-modern progressives?  As best I can tell, you were accused of being all the things that they do but in language the went right past circular to spiraling to oblivion.  In any case, I now have to have several drinks to cauterize the pain.


    Good thing, I had my much anticipated grilled cheese sandwich……
    Book and Charles are obviously, full blown racists.  How dare you – simply outrageous. The left must have a victim and a perpretrator. How evil, how cruel to alter the narrative and  see ourselves as equals.  We can’t have equality – the  left said so.
    …..and a nice glass of wine to wash it down.


    Ahhh…the audacity of not sticking to the script. No improvising, choice  or free will. Gee, that would actually say FREE to Choose.

    They’ve been called Oreos, traitors and Uncle Toms, and are used to having to defend their values. Now black conservatives are really taking heat for their involvement in the mostly white tea party movement—and for having the audacity to oppose the policies of the nation’s first black president.

  • Ymarsakar

    I went to David Brin and John Scalzie’s websites. Both were full of anti-Bush, anti-environmental, anti-deficit, Pro-Obama positions on the part of the author. Brin had a cult following, so to speak, while Scalzi had some unique dissension commenters, but the authors were generally very alike in their ass backwards thinking.
    The ironic thing is that both authors purport to write science fiction, forward thinking stuff. But, of course, all progressives are like that.
    The place you went to was just another fake liberal cesspit, Book. There are plenty more where they came from.
    <B>(My quoted material was to the effect that we harm the black community tremendously by allowing blacks to prey on each other, because liberals, with a kind of gushing love, believe that blacks are just locked into that type of behavior):</b>
    It’s basically the Left’s zoo. They want to see blood sports and such, but feel good at the same time, so they make it their hobby to get blacks to fight amongst themselves. In this way, they entertain themselves.
    In Bella Dodd’s School of Darkness, she spoke of her experiences organizing the Teacher’s Union in New York, and then to a full pledged CPUSA leader. One notable incident she wrote about was how there were many substitute teachers that came to teach in New York, who provided free education, including books, from kindergarten to college. Socially, there was a divide between the second generation immigrants from Europe, as well as well-educated blacks, and the status quo Protestant, whites, who held the positions of power.

    There became an issue of how the New York government was going to hire or pay for these substitute teachers. The Teacher’s Union went out and recruited these substitute teachers using their grievances as a leverage. For those that could see racial motivation as part of their problems, the Communist members provoked and claimed racial motivations as being why they were in the dire straits they were. For people with social-economic differences, like Polish immigrants, they talked about how the rich WASPS were using that to discriminate against them. Coincidentally, if a 2nd generation European immigrant could get into a teaching spot and be paid by the state, then the educated black negro could be told that even though he had the correct credentials and qualifications for the job, he was rejected based upon racist motivations. Even though it was the Communist members who pressured the status quo to hire one person rather than another.
    In the substitute teachers’ campaign I attracted thousands of nonunion teachers. I felt I had to find a way to help them. And in a quiet way they began to be grateful to the Communists.
    There were dark by-products of the struggle. The younger teachers who had been forced into the WPA and substitute-teacher categories were the children of the most recent immigrants, the Italians, the Greeks, the Jews from Russia, and the Slavs. Merging with this group were the children of the expanding Negro population of the city who were qualified educationally for professional jobs. The positions of power and of educational supervision, however, were held mostly by persons of English, Scotch, and Irish origin.
    The Communists, who are unerring in attaching themselves to an explosive situation, had their answers for these troubled young teachers. Their chief answer was that we had reached the “breakdown of the capitalist system.” To those who were self-conscious on race or religion they said that “religious or racial discrimination” was the cause. When individual instances of bigotry and discrimination arose, the Communists were quick to note them and to exaggerate them. So a cleavage was established between the older teachers, who were largely Protestants, Catholics, and conservative Jews, and the new teachers who were increasingly freethinkers, atheists, or agnostics, and sometimes called themselves “humanists.”
    The Teachers Union was in a dilemma on the substitute teacher question. On the one hand, it wanted to cater to the older and more established teachers who were saying that the Union was championing only the rag, tag, and bobtail of the profession. On the other hand, it knew that the substitutes of today would be the regulars of the future, and besides more Communists could be recruited from those pinched economically.
    The fraction leaders of the Union were divided on the issue. Some were willing to drop it because they wanted to hold a position of authority among the regular teachers, so that they could influence educational policy and curriculum change. I sometimes came back from Albany to find the old guard with set, grim faces, and I knew they had been discussing the disavowal of the campaign for the substitute teachers.
    To me it was a cause, and I appealed to the Party for a decision. I received a favorable one.
    I now began consciously to build new Party leadership in the Union. I surrounded myself with younger Party members who were more alert to new situations and did not think in rigid Marxist patterns.
    We did not succeed in passing the substitute-teacher legislation for which we fought at Albany. But we made it the most controversial legislation of the 1938 sessions. Later, when it was passed by the legislature, Governor Lehman vetoed it reluctantly after the entire Board of Education had used its power against it. However, in vetoing it he urged New York City to do something about the situation. He added that if the city failed to do so he would act favorably on such legislation in the future.
    The Union and the communist group grew immeasurably in stature and prestige among the new crop of teachers and among other civil-service employees. Even politicians and public officials respected us for our relentless campaign.-Bella Dodd, School of Darkness (ch9)
    The fake liberals of today don’t want you to know about all the dirty dealings their predecessors did to get them to where they are. That’s why it will become your weapon, to be forearmed, against these duplicitous enemies of humanity.

  • Ymarsakar

    Ironically, Communism may have came from Europe, but it was Americans that refined it into a full fledged political machine that actually worked. Worked even to undermine the greatest political structure in history, the United States Constitutional framework for government.

  • spiff580

    That was a perfect example that just because one is educated (and can use big words), does not guarantee that one is smart.  The fact that it is difficult to figure out what the author is trying to say is evidence enough that he/she should be ignored (or go back to school). The KISS principle comes to mind.  But then again, that is the sort of crowd that loves a president who talks for 17-minutes to answer a simple question.  It’s nuanced don’t you know.

    On a side note: God I am so sick and tired of race in this country.  The obsession our culture has over race is becoming tedious now.

  • Ymarsakar

    The destruction of enemy morale helps the Left win wars, Spiff. They would like doing it, even if it didn’t.

  • suek

    >>The fake liberals of today don’t want you to know about all the dirty dealings their predecessors did to get them to where they are.>>
    I think you give them too much credit, Y.  Part of the program is to bury the history – so the liberals of today aren’t even aware of the communist influence.  I think that’s why the communist label is so completely rejected – the USSR was just another country, the cold war was over decades ago, and all this McCarthy stuff is just silly – because they’re ignorant of history, and those who teach them want to keep it that way.  Unless it serves their purpose – like slavery…

  • suek

    Ymar…do you own this book??  if so, by all means check out Amazon’s prices…! School of Darkness: The Record of a Life and of a Conflict Between Two Faiths: Bella V. Dodd: Books
    After checking that out, I picked myself up off the floor and looked for other sources.  These looked like good possibilities:
    In case anybody is interested…!

  • spiff580


    I hear what you are saying.  Whether or not it is working as a strategy I cannot say.  But I know that when I hear accusations of racism I immediately roll my eyes, sigh and ignore them.  It’s so overused now it has become irrelevant to me.   For me, as soon as someone throws the race card into the mix they have lost the debate.

    If we react to racism as a strategy aren’t we allowing the other side dictate the battleground?

  • Ymarsakar

    <B>If we react to racism as a strategy aren’t we allowing the other side dictate the battleground?</b>
    There’s a difference between reacting and being proactive. I would say that one cannot help but react against an attack, because we tend to do something about external stimuli. Even if that reaction is to react by ignoring it, it is still a reaction. Is is predicated upon the initiative of the enemy’s attack. Depending on what the attack is, the reaction follows by course. This tends to create a situation where the enemy has an uninterrupted OODA cycle and our Observe, Orient, Decide, Act cycle depends upon what we Observe about what the Left is doing to us. Which means the Left controls our perceptions and actions by controlling what we experience and observe.
    A proactive action doesn’t wait for the Left’s actions to register at all.
    This is not to say the Left’s barbs are not losing potency. They are losing potency, but that’s never a good barometer to measure enemy effectiveness in war. So long as their attacks are still potent enough, in comparison to ours at least, we’ll still be on the defense reacting to their attacks. Until we can pro actively launch a counter-offense, the Left can keep on throwing racist barbs, and they’ll still be in control of things.
    I recommended on a few sites before 2008 November, that we should target people like Ayers and George Soros and suppress their activities, due to how strong of a support they give to forming the grassroots organizations of the Left. Many, including one drive by commenter here, brushed off the bits about Soros as just a private citizen’s going ons or downplayed Ayers’ influence by saying he hadn’t raised a successful revolutionary yet.
    I thought that missed the point. And it does. The Tea Party movement is the counter-attack, however, because they can symmetrically attack the Left in a fashion that asymmetric attacks would not be able to equal. The Left has grassroots organizations that can do large amounts of damage to the US and it makes logical sense to field equal armies of organizations to fight them. But in 08, the chances of fielding organizations of that caliber and size were miniscule. It was far more likely, to me, that we could target individuals like Soros or Ayers than we could convince a large majority of Americans to start revolting against Leftist slavery and serfdom.
    <B>Ymar…do you own this book??  if so, by all means check out Amazon’s prices…!</b>
    I read it online.
    She was the most significant source for my claim that the Communists infiltrated more than a thousand Leftist sympathizers into the Catholic Church in the 1930s. Those agents have achieved the highest ranks in the Catholic Church, here in the US, and have predictably changed Church policy from within. The intent was not to destroy the Catholic Church as an institution but to destroy the belief and faith in the institution. It’s classic Alinsky. Make them follow their own rules and break them on it. In this case, the Left had agents inside the Church preventing the Church from fixing issues like homosexual priests on a rampage. Whenever you see organized attempts to suppress or protect those homosexual priests, you must ask if it came about due to Leftist agents inside the church planted long ago.

  • Ymarsakar

    The next obvious question is, why would idealistic Leftists, progressives, Communist sympathizers, and what not, support homosexual rape of underage children? Well, the answer is, how come Leftists supported Obama’s deficits but cried hate about Bush’s more modest deficits? Why did the Left become anti-war when Germany was allied to the Soviets, then became fervently anti-Nazi, pro-war, after Germany attacked the USSR? There’s your answer for why ‘idealists’ would support rape of underage children.
    Then we get to the question of why would well intentioned people be able to stomach that kind of political expediency?
    Well, ask Polansky’s defenders. They know because they did something very similar. It’s easy to stomach evil doings, when you can justify your support for evil done by others as something in the past. It’s a convenient prop to excuse your own actions now, of course.
    You see, when it comes to the things the Left doesn’t want you to know, you have to ask a couple of questions to verify if a hidden operation happened.
    1. You have to check your sources to ensure that they exist and isn’t fabricated like fake US soldiers that didn’t ever fight in Iraq but claimed they did.
    2. You have to check that they are consistent.
    3. You have to check that the resources exist to perform this operation. No resources=no operation, regardless of who says otherwise.
    4. Then you have to check to see if the people in these organizations had the motivation and enough vindictiveness character wise to perform such mass atrocities.
    Who here doubts the Left will refuse to engage in such atrocity prone behavior? They tried to do to Iraqis what they already did to the Vietnamese, remember that one.

  • Ymarsakar

    Book, you can tell a person’s character by their friends but much more by their enemies.


    Why are blacks different?
    Book outlined several ethnic groups. The link to all is that they survived.  Survived in spite of persecution, pogroms, Communism and Feudalism and most importantly, stopped  identifying themselves as victims. There can be no equality if  the Left continues to victimize the black community by labeling them as such – it erases the most powerful feeling of any community regardless of color or religion. Overcoming religious, political and yes, even  catastrophic events – earthquakes, floods or hurricanes makes you a survivor.

  • spiff580


    I probably could have asked the question better:  by reacting to the race card strategy we are letting the left chose the location of the battle.  Which if understand, is a big no no as these things go.   But I think you answered it to my satisfaction.  If I understand you, we need to find the appropriate response to these sorts of strategies that also does not allow these strategies to gain in potency.  That to me is a very tough thing to guage.  I think the strategy that Andrew Breitbart is using (calling them out and demanding they prove their allegations) may be a good way to, as you would say, get inside the left’s OODA loop.

  • Pingback: » Links To Visit – 04/07/10 There are two ways to conquer and enslave a nation. One is by the sword, the other is by debt. John Adams()

  • Ymarsakar

    If you go back to Republican apologies, you will almost always see that the Republicans were the ones reacting to ‘charges’, mostly false, from the Left. Duke University false rape charge is just one notable example. It ain’t the only one, nor is it even the most egregious.

  • Ymarsakar

    Another example, Bush told the nitwits in the media and on the Left to “bring it on” when it comes to terrorism. That’s the right attitude to win Iraq. But everybody complained and somehow Bush got the idea that he should apologize. Like 4 months afterwards, but still, it worked.
    That increases the potency of the Left’s attacks, by making them effective.

  • Ymarsakar

    <B>Why are blacks different?</b>
    Blacks are different because they are weak enough for the Left to exploit. If it was whites in a minority position, the Left would exploit whites the same way.

  • Pingback: Cassy Fiano()

  • DickChoke

    I forgot what new cartoon that just came out where I saw this but the hub tells the wife,  “We need someone to do our yard but we can’t hire any minorites since that would be condescending and racist so we better just hire white people”.  If that isn’t the liberal mindset I don’t know what is.

  • Jennybea

    “That to me is a very tough thing to guage.  I think the strategy that Andrew Breitbart is using (calling them out and demanding they prove their allegations) may be a good way to, as you would say, get inside the left’s OODA loop.” If I say you killed my dog, don’t I have to prove it? Don’t I need to show some sort of evidence of your being around my dog long enough to kill it? Of course. So the same tactic should be used. This is complete immature behavior, and if we look at this as if we’re dealing with people possessing a high school mentality, they’re easier to deal with. Think of the girl who slept with one person and became the whore in rumor. Or the girl who slept with no one and called prude or a tease. The guy who never got any had a small package. And if you say anything that isn’t sugar coated and positive, you’re a racist. So stop trying to be realistic, already. I am also fed up with this crap. I wrote this piece a couple days ago, about how liberals use race to peddle their agenda.

  • spiff580

    @Jennybea:  How is demanding that the people making accusations provide proof of such “immature”?  If anything placing the burden of proof on the accuser is a mature response to immature behavior.   It’s not the “same tactic”; it’s a wholly different, logical and natural tactical response of someone accused of something they are not guilty of.   In fact what it does, if executed properly, is reveal the accuser as a fool and a tool.
    What do you propose is the appropriate response to baseless accusations?

  • spiff580

    @Jennybea: One more thing:  so if I need to “stop trying to be realistic”, what exactly am I supposed to do?  Be unrealistic?  What does that mean exactly?  Seems to me that may be an immature reaction?  Remember, aren’t the conservatives and libertarians the ones that deal in reality. J

  • Jennybea

    @spiff- perhaps you should reread… I was agreeing with you. Demanding the accuser provide proof is not immature. What is immature is to attempt to deal logically with those people- liberals- who operate in a way where the burden of proof is on the accused. We do, after all, live in a society where we’re innocent until proved guilty. Therefore, to call me racist, you must prove it…

    What I meant by the “same tactic” being used, it’s in reference to your mention of what Breitbart is doing- calling accusers out and demanding proof, rendering the accusation useless and void. What other way would there be? Again, if I accused you of killing my dog, why would the burden of proof be on you? Again, liberals act like high schoolers, accusing the girl of being easy, and it’s hers to defend- not the accuser’s to prove.

    When I told you to stop being realistic, I was being facetious. I know it’s difficult to read sarcasm in text sometimes, but calm down, dear. We’re on the same team. I’m right of 3 o’clock. I’m on Napolitano’s watch list, since 4/15/09.

    I think part of the problem is that when I initially typed the post, my paragraphs were spaced properly, but it posted together, looking like one long statement. Reading it as one paragraph, I can see how you may have misunderstood what I meant. Maybe this one will post correctly.

    In a nutshell, I agreed with what you posted, when I quoted you… however, your reminder of who are the logical thinkers around here leaves me with the impression you did not follow my link- otherwise you’d have already known that I’m conservative.

  • suek

    Unfortunately, the “racist” accusation falls into the “when did you stop beating your wife” category.  No matter what your answer, it leads to another accusation equally unprovable.  You cannot _prove_ a negative.
    The left uses racism for two reasons: it strikes a chord with the black population which has been successfully indoctrinated into the victim mentality, and since those of us who have been equally indoctrinated to feel guilt if we have even a shred of racial awareness are likely to feel as if we might have committed a social sin, we’re vulnerable to the “make them live up to their own rules” Alinsky tactic.
    So…what we have to do is simply ignore the racism charges.   “Get over it” needs to be our attitude.  If the law has been broken, let them go to court.  It is not illegal to be “racist”.  It is illegal for a _business_ to follow racist practices in hiring, firing and discriminatory practices towards customers.  It is not illegal to be racially biased.  Undesirable, maybe, but not illegal.

  • spiff580

    @Jennybea:  I had a sense somewhere you were agreeing with me. But as you said it was a little unclear, so I called you on it.
    Logic does not dictate that I will follow your link simply because you say I should; but I did, and it only made your post that more confusing.  And being a conservative does not necessarily mean we will automatically agree nor did I accuse you of being a liberal.  So I asked you to clarify.
    No harm no foul; we do agree. :)
    @Suek:  You are right for the most part.  In my opinion, on an individual personal level the appropriate response to these sorts of thing is to ignore them.  But I think our leadership needs to respond on some level and show some leadership (and backbone).  And immediately apologizing is not the appropriate response.  As I said, Breibart’s tactic may be a good way to respond… I don’t know.  That is why I asked.

  • Pingback: Watcher of Weasels » Watcher Council Nominations April 14, 2010()

  • Pingback: The Colossus of Rhodey()

  • Pingback: Watcher of Weasels » The Council has Spoken 041610()

  • Pingback: Rhymes With Right()

  • Pingback: Wednesday afternoon round-up and Open Thread()

  • Pingback: Benghazi leading to death of US Seal Team in Afghanistan | Sake White()