![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=92.1){kind=small}
chessdev at Racism vs The Race Cardhttp://www.theatlantic.com/national/arch
The conservative viewpoint in the debate starts at 9:30 into the clip...
From comments:
EDIT: A bit more:
[chessdev] I think this article, short as it is, is right on the money. Over and over again, we see arguments from posters here who claim to acknowledge the existence of racism -- and yet, no situation ever seems to qualify as racist.
Yes, there are people who see racism in every sentence and every gesture -- but that is extremist and rare. The problem is when even people who dont think that way and live otherwise completely integrated lives are still disbelieved... then we cross over into Denialism, and I think that viewpoint goes (and has gone) a long way into keeping the divide in this country nice and strong.
The conservative viewpoint in the debate starts at 9:30 into the clip...
From comments:
We conservatives will have a purge of the folks you liberals especially hate if you liberals have a purge of the folks we especially hate.
I think this sort of thinking is endemic to how the conservative movement thinks about racism. For them it isn't an actual force, but a rhetorical device for disarming your opponents. So one does not call Robert Weissberg racist and question his ties to National Review because one seeks to stamp out racism, but because one hopes to secure the White House for Democrats. Or some such. Even if you have a record of calling out bigotry voiced by people deemed to be "on your team," it doesn't much matter because there's no real belief in it existing to begin with.
The conservative movement doesn't understand anti-racism as a value, only as a rhetorical pose. This is how you end up tarring the oldest integrationist group in the country (the NAACP) as racist. The slur has no real moral content to them. It's all a game of who can embarrass who.
If you don't think racism is an actual force in the country, then you can only understand it's invocation as a tactic.
This is a very old way of you thinking. It's what you get out of watching Buckley's bumbling response to Baldwin--he neither regards Baldwin with any seriousness, nor the issue with any real concern. It's a game to him. He is effectively a homer for team red. Nothing else matters.
That tradition of viewing racism, not as an actual thing of import, but merely as rhetoric continues today. To abandon that tradition, I suspect, would be cause for an existential crisis.
EDIT: A bit more:
so, in your view, this justifies black panthers' death threats or the racism of al sharpton and the likes (White folks was [sic] in caves while we was building empires), or the racist attack mobs of black youths against white people, the fact george zimmerman is hispanic but the "post-racial" leftwing media shoved down everyone's throat that he in fact is a "white hispanic" ensuing a nationwide anti-white wave amongst black thugs, black teenagers murdering 90 year old white women, etc, etc.
Notice the same formula. The argument isn't really important. What's been written in this space isn't really important. It's a game.
[chessdev] I think this article, short as it is, is right on the money. Over and over again, we see arguments from posters here who claim to acknowledge the existence of racism -- and yet, no situation ever seems to qualify as racist.
Yes, there are people who see racism in every sentence and every gesture -- but that is extremist and rare. The problem is when even people who dont think that way and live otherwise completely integrated lives are still disbelieved... then we cross over into Denialism, and I think that viewpoint goes (and has gone) a long way into keeping the divide in this country nice and strong.
if i did not love gwen ,i will not complain about how she is writen,i wiull not care if all she does is arange flowers and tell arthur what a good heart he as,but i do love her and i do love4 morgana,and given that they are the only female characters in this male dominated show,forgive me for wanting more for them than this white and black charactors they have been reduced to.
You're Leon!
Take What character from "Merlin" are you? today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.</p>
You are a loyal and generous friend.
Sometimes you think of yourself as boring and you don't realise how much your friends value your quiet kindness.
Your modest exterior conceals an inner core of pure steel and you can get through events that would leave other people on their knees.
Your sense of duty tends to blind you to possibilities, sometimes you need to let other people stand on their own feet and do what's best for you.
Sometimes you think of yourself as boring and you don't realise how much your friends value your quiet kindness.
Your modest exterior conceals an inner core of pure steel and you can get through events that would leave other people on their knees.
Your sense of duty tends to blind you to possibilities, sometimes you need to let other people stand on their own feet and do what's best for you.
1.the wire
2.qaf us
3.merlin
4.OZ
5.dexter
Who’s your favorite character in 2?
brian kinney
Who’s your least favorite character in 1?
dont remember her name but diagello's mom,there are really lots of dispicable characters in this show,after all its a show about drug trade and the effect on society but any mother who can convice his son to go to jail for life to protect her nephews drug empire is too dispicable even for me.
What’s your favorite episode of 4?
the series finale when chris keller died,this was the only time in history in which i liked the death of my favourite character ,i just felt it was the perfect way for him to go,it kind of redeamed him in my eyes.
What’s your favorite season of 5?
season 2 the ice truck killer,it made me aprechiate dexter dad for giving him the moral code.
How long have you watched 1?
i watched it for five years the duration of its run.
How did you become interested in 3?
lj is to blame for that but am forever greatfull.
Who’s your favorite actor in 4?
christopher maloni, the guy who gave me one of the best characters to ever apear on tv.
Which show do you prefer? 1, 2, or 5?
2 might have my fav character of all time but as a show 1 wins hands down,there is just nothing like the wire.
Which show have you seen more episodes of; 1 or 3?
well since the wire is over and there were more ep than we have had so far i n merlin i ques the answer is the wire.
If you could be anyone from 4, who would you be?
i would like to say miguel because of how hard he tried to hold on to his humanity against incredable odds ,but since this is prison the person with the highest survival credential will have to do, and no one does it better than Ryan o'reily.
How would you kill off your favourite character in 1?
he was killed but i never liked the way he died just because i felt stringer bell was to smart to walk into a trap like that,if were to kill him i would have baxter kill him,yeah in away he did by betraying him but i would have used a direct aproach just have him pull the tringer.
Give a random quote from 3.
“half cannot trully hate that which makes it whole.”
Would a 3/4 crossover work?
no way not possible oz is the face of evil ,merlin is the persuit of good.
Pair two characters in 2 that would make an unlikely, but strangely okay couple!
justin and micheal,they want the same things in relationship.
Has 5 inspired you in any way?
not really but it makes me believe there is humanity in all of us.
Overall, which show has a better cast? 3 or 5?
oh my god 3 not even close.
Which has better theme music, 2 or 4?
oh wow 2
pastorlenny at Seeking clarityQuestion 1:
Just watched Romney's speech at CPAC while I was having lunch. Apparently, it is a core conservative belief that the genius of the Constitution is to be found in its vision of a citizenry that achieves prosperity by freely pursuing individual happiness without government intervention. Yet it is apparently also a core conservative belief that same-sex couples be prohibited from marrying.
Can someone help me understand why the Constitution apparently protects the unfettered acquisition of personal wealth regardless of its impact on others -- but it does not protect the rights of human beings to simply live their lives in a manner of their own choosing?
Question 2:
In his tirade against American queers, Romney boasted that he had kept Massachusetts from becoming "the Las Vegas of gay marriage."
What exactly is wrong with Las Vegas, anyway? Is it a conservative belief that it is good to make money by gutting corporate assets and re-allocating capital -- but that it is bad to make money by putting up nice hotels and cute wedding chapels? Is there something in the Constitution that explicitly or implicitly supports this distinction?
Question 3:
Romney claimed that he sees the awesomeness of the Constitution as resulting from both the hand of providence and the wisdom of fine men.
Does this mean that God is not a big fan of universal suffrage? Would it help the economy if, rather than reform immigration, we simply restore slavery? Given its obvious profitability, should the government really have the power to ban the plantation system?
Just watched Romney's speech at CPAC while I was having lunch. Apparently, it is a core conservative belief that the genius of the Constitution is to be found in its vision of a citizenry that achieves prosperity by freely pursuing individual happiness without government intervention. Yet it is apparently also a core conservative belief that same-sex couples be prohibited from marrying.
Can someone help me understand why the Constitution apparently protects the unfettered acquisition of personal wealth regardless of its impact on others -- but it does not protect the rights of human beings to simply live their lives in a manner of their own choosing?
Question 2:
In his tirade against American queers, Romney boasted that he had kept Massachusetts from becoming "the Las Vegas of gay marriage."
What exactly is wrong with Las Vegas, anyway? Is it a conservative belief that it is good to make money by gutting corporate assets and re-allocating capital -- but that it is bad to make money by putting up nice hotels and cute wedding chapels? Is there something in the Constitution that explicitly or implicitly supports this distinction?
Question 3:
Romney claimed that he sees the awesomeness of the Constitution as resulting from both the hand of providence and the wisdom of fine men.
Does this mean that God is not a big fan of universal suffrage? Would it help the economy if, rather than reform immigration, we simply restore slavery? Given its obvious profitability, should the government really have the power to ban the plantation system?
Profile
- anyusa0030
- anyusa0030
Syndicate
