Jimmy Carter's recent comments.

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
King Author
Posts: 736
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 12:30 pm UTC
Location: Pennsylvania, USA

Jimmy Carter's recent comments.

Postby King Author » Sun Sep 20, 2009 2:57 pm UTC

(How is there not a topic on this already? I searched!)

So recently, in an interview with MSNBC, Jimmy Carter said, quote, "I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity towards President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he's African-American."

Cue the explosion of the worldternet.

A few days later, after the White House officially distanced itself from Carter's comments and Obama himself said he doesn't think racism has anything to do with it, Carter explained his comments and re-iterated his belief. He explained (I don't have an exact quote here) that he thinks the section of Obama protesters who are using comparisons to Hitler and Nazis and who seem to hate Obama the man, not just Obama the president, are fueled in large part by racism.

The rest of my post is my personal opinion; feel free to skip reading the rest and post your thoughts right now.

I, for one, completely agree. The media (especially the right-leaning parts of it, especially on the internet) has blown this out of proportion and are saying that Carter believes everyone who dislikes Obama is a racist. That's hyperbole and nonsense. What Carter said was very specific - that the vehement, screaming-angry, foaming-at-the-mouth types who are railing against Obama day and night are motivated in part by racist sentiment. Who could disagree with that? He never said that everyone who disagrees with or dislikes Obama is racist, he said racism is fueling the hatred of Obama the man.

And I completely agree. Political disagreement is political disagreement, but the right wing has induced mass hysteria through the use of misinformation, which has just escalated to ridiculous proportions. When Obama won, a classmate at the time of mine said her best friend called her up, sobbing hysterically, scared to death that America was literally going to become just like the 1970s Soviet Union in a matter of hours and that angry poor people were going to show up at her door with pitchforks and torches and take all her money and posessions. Literally. Needless to say, both the classmate and her best friend are priviledged white girls from right-wing families.

All the screaming, all the Obama/Hitler effigies, all the "omgzorz Amerika's socialist now, Che is born again!!1one" is more racist-tinged mass hysteria than anything else. Just watch Fox News for twenty minutes; they spend almost all of every program shouting. That's not political discourse, that's hysterical nonsense, and a large portion of it is indeed fueled by racism.

I think this underscores the general racism of the right-wing. I mean, let's drop the bullshit and not pretend that it's not there. Who voted against abolition? Conservatives. Who voted against suffrage? Conservatives. Who voted against civil rights? Conservatives. Who's fighting gay rights this very moment? Conservatives. The right wing is the wing of racism, homophobia, sexism and oppression in general; it's childish to deny it. Again, I'm not saying (as Jimmy Carter didn't say) that everyone who's against Obama is racist. Of course not! This is the year 2009 for Allah's sake! But vestigal, covert (rarely overt) racism is still very prevalent throughout the right-wing, and it's racism more than rational political disagreement that's fueling the rage towards Obama.

There I said it.

So what are your thoughts on Carter's comments?
I have signitures disabled. If you do, too...you can't read this, so nevermind >_>

The Reaper
Posts: 4008
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: San Antonio, Tx
Contact:

Re: Jimmy Carter's recent comments.

Postby The Reaper » Sun Sep 20, 2009 3:44 pm UTC

King Author wrote:The rest of my post is my personal opinion; feel free to skip reading the rest and post your thoughts right now.

I, for one, completely agree. The media (especially the right-leaning parts of it, especially on the internet) has blown this out of proportion and are saying that Carter believes everyone who dislikes Obama is a racist. That's hyperbole and nonsense. What Carter said was very specific - that the vehement, screaming-angry, foaming-at-the-mouth types who are railing against Obama day and night are motivated in part by racist sentiment. Who could disagree with that? He never said that everyone who disagrees with or dislikes Obama is racist, he said racism is fueling the hatred of Obama the man.

And I completely agree. Political disagreement is political disagreement, but the right wing has induced mass hysteria through the use of misinformation, which has just escalated to ridiculous proportions. When Obama won, a classmate at the time of mine said her best friend called her up, sobbing hysterically, scared to death that America was literally going to become just like the 1970s Soviet Union in a matter of hours and that angry poor people were going to show up at her door with pitchforks and torches and take all her money and posessions. Literally. Needless to say, both the classmate and her best friend are priviledged white girls from right-wing families.

All the screaming, all the Obama/Hitler effigies, all the "omgzorz Amerika's socialist now, Che is born again!!1one" is more racist-tinged mass hysteria than anything else. Just watch Fox News for twenty minutes; they spend almost all of every program shouting. That's not political discourse, that's hysterical nonsense, and a large portion of it is indeed fueled by racism.

I think this underscores the general racism of the right-wing. I mean, let's drop the bullshit and not pretend that it's not there. Who voted against abolition? Conservatives. Who voted against suffrage? Conservatives. Who voted against civil rights? Conservatives. Who's fighting gay rights this very moment? Conservatives. The right wing is the wing of racism, homophobia, sexism and oppression in general; it's childish to deny it. Again, I'm not saying (as Jimmy Carter didn't say) that everyone who's against Obama is racist. Of course not! This is the year 2009 for Allah's sake! But vestigal, covert (rarely overt) racism is still very prevalent throughout the right-wing, and it's racism more than rational political disagreement that's fueling the rage towards Obama.
Who votes against drastic change nomatter what it is, for good or evil? Conservatives.

That being said, I think your anti-conservative speech has nothing to do with racism.

In fact, I don't see much in your post evidencing racism. I know its there, but hey, it works both ways, hence how they got a large black voter turnout to vote for Obama in the first place. ZOMGLEFTWINGHASRACISTS.

I find it disturbing that when you think of right wing or conservative you automatically think racist. That would be like if I thought "goddamn hippy" everytime I thought of the left wing or liberals. Notice the 'or's in that statement. THEY ARE DIFFERENT THINGS. There's a whole lot of left wing conservatives. There's a whole lot of right wing liberals. There's a whole lot of centrists in all regards.

and just because you know idiots with money doesn't mean all the right wing has a) idiots, and b) money. It also does not mean that all of the left wing has a) nonidiots, and b) non-money.

------------------------

But on topic, I think jimmy is projecting, at least, I think that's the term for it in psychology. He's taking how he feels on the matter, and placing it on all the people that look like him, and then using it as a political move, because alot of people that don't look like him think that all right wing people are racist.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney reflects conservatives' growing confidence when he taunts Democrats, saying "I'll bet you never dreamed you'd look back at Jimmy Carter as the good old days."

User avatar
mercurythief
Posts: 112
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2007 2:21 am UTC

Re: Jimmy Carter's recent comments.

Postby mercurythief » Sun Sep 20, 2009 4:09 pm UTC

A quick Google search of 'Bush is Hitler' gives 9.25M hits, and 'Obama is Hitler' gives 11.4M. The comparison isn't anything new. . .

King Author wrote:Jimmy Carter said, quote, "I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity towards President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he's African-American."

. . .

He never said that everyone who disagrees with or dislikes Obama is racist, he said racism is fueling the hatred of Obama the man.


Also, the words 'overwhelming portion' are pretty close to 'everyone'.

Nordic Einar
Posts: 783
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 7:21 am UTC

Re: Jimmy Carter's recent comments.

Postby Nordic Einar » Sun Sep 20, 2009 6:01 pm UTC

mercurythief wrote:A quick Google search of 'Bush is Hitler' gives 9.25M hits, and 'Obama is Hitler' gives 11.4M. The comparison isn't anything new. . .

King Author wrote:Jimmy Carter said, quote, "I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity towards President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he's African-American."

. . .

He never said that everyone who disagrees with or dislikes Obama is racist, he said racism is fueling the hatred of Obama the man.


Also, the words 'overwhelming portion' are pretty close to 'everyone'.


I'm pretty sure the "intensely demonstrated animosity" indicates a specific subset of those demonstrating against Obama's policies. Ergo, "overwhelming portion" of "THIS PARTICULAR DEMOGRAPHIC" - IE the hyperbolic over the top doomsayers. Not, y'know, fiscal conservatives.

User avatar
SummerGlauFan
Posts: 1746
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:27 pm UTC
Location: KS

Re: Jimmy Carter's recent comments.

Postby SummerGlauFan » Sun Sep 20, 2009 6:02 pm UTC

Accusing all or most people who disagree with Obama as being racist is wrong on many levels. In addition to demeaning the legitimate problem of racism in the real world by throwing it about in nothing more than an attempt to hurt your rivals, it also demeans those who disagree by removing the fact that many of them really only truly disagree with the policies, regardless of who is making them.
glasnt wrote:"As she raised her rifle against the creature, her hair fluttered beneath the red florescent lighting of the locked down building.

I knew from that moment that she was something special"


Outbreak, a tale of love and zombies.

In stores now.

Bright Shadows
Posts: 645
Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2008 2:56 pm UTC

Re: Jimmy Carter's recent comments.

Postby Bright Shadows » Sun Sep 20, 2009 6:18 pm UTC

mercurythief wrote:A quick Google search of 'Bush is Hitler' gives 9.25M hits, and 'Obama is Hitler' gives 11.4M. The comparison isn't anything new. . .

King Author wrote:Jimmy Carter said, quote, "I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity towards President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he's African-American."

. . .

He never said that everyone who disagrees with or dislikes Obama is racist, he said racism is fueling the hatred of Obama the man.


Also, the words 'overwhelming portion' are pretty close to 'everyone'.

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa generates 130 million results. Don't use google result counts as evidence of discussion, it's a horrible method. That is all.
Image

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Re: Jimmy Carter's recent comments.

Postby Vaniver » Sun Sep 20, 2009 6:46 pm UTC

Yeah, claims of racism like this don't really do anything positive. First off, there's rarely, if ever, evidence that it's racially motivated, and second, it generally compares the present to the ideal, instead of the present to a similar present. If Hillary Clinton was the President, do you really think we wouldn't be seeing posters claiming she's Hitler? Or, if you think that would that just be evidence of sexism in America, then imagine John Edwards in the White House. We'd still be seeing the posters.

Third, and most importantly, it's an ad hominem. "My opponents are racist, don't listen to them." Being racist doesn't make them wrong or their political views unimportant- in a democracy, it doesn't matter if you dislike legislation because of its content or the race of its proponent or the current state of the weather. It just shifts the debate from the issues to the people, and in a way that leading to shouting.

King Author wrote:All the screaming, all the Obama/Hitler effigies, all the "omgzorz Amerika's socialist now, Che is born again!!1one" is more racist-tinged mass hysteria than anything else. Just watch Fox News for twenty minutes; they spend almost all of every program shouting. That's not political discourse, that's hysterical nonsense, and a large portion of it is indeed fueled by racism.
You realize that Fox News has been shouting for a long time? It's not a reaction to Obama's skin color, it's who they are.
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Jimmy Carter's recent comments.

Postby Diadem » Sun Sep 20, 2009 6:47 pm UTC

Bright Shadows wrote:aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa generates 130 million results. Don't use google result counts as evidence of discussion, it's a horrible method. That is all.

That's funny:

a = 14 billion
aa = 229 million
aaa = 75 million
aaaa = 16 million
aaaaa = 6 million
aaaaaa = 4 million
aaaaaaa = 2.1 million
aaaaaaaa = 1.8 million
aaaaaaaaa = 1.43 million
aaaaaaaaaa = 1.45 million
aaaaaaaaaaa = 980 thousand
aaaaaaaaaaaa = 975 thousand
aaaaaaaaaaaaa = 739 thousand
aaaaaaaaaaaaaa = 599 thousand
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa = 523 thousand
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa = 496 thousand
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa = 387 thousand
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa = 757 thousand
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa = 287 thousand
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa = 611 thousand
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa = 284 thousand
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa = 420 thousand
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa = 134 million

Why the sudden jump? Very strange.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

Bright Shadows
Posts: 645
Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2008 2:56 pm UTC

Re: Jimmy Carter's recent comments.

Postby Bright Shadows » Sun Sep 20, 2009 8:48 pm UTC

Diadem wrote:
Bright Shadows wrote:aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa generates 130 million results. Don't use google result counts as evidence of discussion, it's a horrible method. That is all.

That's funny:

a = 14 billion
aa = 229 million
aaa = 75 million
aaaa = 16 million
aaaaa = 6 million
aaaaaa = 4 million
aaaaaaa = 2.1 million
aaaaaaaa = 1.8 million
aaaaaaaaa = 1.43 million
aaaaaaaaaa = 1.45 million
aaaaaaaaaaa = 980 thousand
aaaaaaaaaaaa = 975 thousand
aaaaaaaaaaaaa = 739 thousand
aaaaaaaaaaaaaa = 599 thousand
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa = 523 thousand
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa = 496 thousand
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa = 387 thousand
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa = 757 thousand
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa = 287 thousand
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa = 611 thousand
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa = 284 thousand
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa = 420 thousand
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa = 134 million

Why the sudden jump? Very strange.

I thought about it for a while when I discovered that, and I think it's because people use that number of a's for spacing. It's my only guess, and not such a good one at that.
Image

The Reaper
Posts: 4008
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: San Antonio, Tx
Contact:

Re: Jimmy Carter's recent comments.

Postby The Reaper » Sun Sep 20, 2009 8:53 pm UTC

Bright Shadows wrote:
Diadem wrote:
Bright Shadows wrote:aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa generates 130 million results. Don't use google result counts as evidence of discussion, it's a horrible method. That is all.

That's funny:

a = 14 billion
aa = 229 million
aaa = 75 million
aaaa = 16 million
aaaaa = 6 million
aaaaaa = 4 million
aaaaaaa = 2.1 million
aaaaaaaa = 1.8 million
aaaaaaaaa = 1.43 million
aaaaaaaaaa = 1.45 million
aaaaaaaaaaa = 980 thousand
aaaaaaaaaaaa = 975 thousand
aaaaaaaaaaaaa = 739 thousand
aaaaaaaaaaaaaa = 599 thousand
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa = 523 thousand
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa = 496 thousand
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa = 387 thousand
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa = 757 thousand
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa = 287 thousand
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa = 611 thousand
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa = 284 thousand
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa = 420 thousand
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa = 134 million

Why the sudden jump? Very strange.

I thought about it for a while when I discovered that, and I think it's because people use that number of a's for spacing. It's my only guess, and not such a good one at that.
I do believe someone should mention it to the fine folks over at Google, so they can do some research on the subject.

General_Norris
Posts: 1399
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:10 pm UTC

Re: Jimmy Carter's recent comments.

Postby General_Norris » Sun Sep 20, 2009 8:56 pm UTC

^We need an xkcd comic about it ASAP.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Jimmy Carter's recent comments.

Postby The Great Hippo » Sun Sep 20, 2009 9:30 pm UTC

I don't know where I stand on the whole 'this is an example of racism!' thing, so I'll refrain from commenting on that--beyond saying that so long as the criticisms themselves do not carry racist values (Obama as a monkey, etc), I have a hard time caring (not that me caring makes an ounce of difference, of course!). The intent behind a criticism is not as important to me as the nature of the criticism itself. When Wilson shouts "You lie!" in the middle of a speech, I'm fine with just describing that as a breech of decorum. Maybe his motivation was racist as fuck; I'm not sure how much that should matter. That being said...
King Author wrote:I think this underscores the general racism of the right-wing. I mean, let's drop the bullshit and not pretend that it's not there. Who voted against abolition? Conservatives. Who voted against suffrage? Conservatives. Who voted against civil rights? Conservatives. Who's fighting gay rights this very moment? Conservatives. The right wing is the wing of racism, homophobia, sexism and oppression in general; it's childish to deny it. Again, I'm not saying (as Jimmy Carter didn't say) that everyone who's against Obama is racist. Of course not! This is the year 2009 for Allah's sake! But vestigal, covert (rarely overt) racism is still very prevalent throughout the right-wing, and it's racism more than rational political disagreement that's fueling the rage towards Obama.
Let's be fair here. 'Conservative', while perhaps accurate for describing certain political trends, means something entirely different today than what it did a hundred years ago. Liberal intellectuals like Woodrow Wilson were huge fans of the eugenics program. Conservative Republicans fought against the slave-owning Democrats (to grossly oversimplify, but still) during the Civil War. The tall guy with the funny hat and the hole in the back of his head who signed the Emancipation Proclamation ran on the Republican ticket, not the Democratic one.1

What I'm trying to get across here is that arguing that racism and the right wing are historically intertwined is... hard. Racism and politics are historically intertwined. Civil Rights really only became a strong 'Democrat' thing during the Civil Rights movement; before that, only the extreme, extreme left (communists, socialists, anarchists) could be fairly described as 'anti-racist', and even then, only in certain cases.

I'm fine with the accusation that racism and the right-wing are intertwined now, mind you. For various reasons, I am prone to agree. But I think it's unfair to claim that this has been going on throughout history. Mostly because left and right political spectrums have shifted so drastically in the past that trying to pin negative qualities on them is basically just hijacking history for the purpose of painting one side of a discussion as regressive. Better instead to talk about what conservatives are doing today rather than what they were doing a hundred years ago.

1 To be also fair, I'm probably pushing it by implying that Lincoln was a conservative.


Edit: Actually, thinking on this a little more, I might be making the mistake of confusing 'Republican' with 'conservative' and 'Democrat' with 'liberal'. I should probably give it a little more thought before commenting like this - I... yeah. It gets more confusing when you throw in the contradicting notions of fiscal conservatism versus social conservatism and fiscal liberalism versus social liberalism. Needless to say, political history is a clusterfuck of ideology. I still don't think it's safe to boil this down to 'conservatives were against abolition', or 'conservatives were against suffragism'. Which conservatives? When? And what kind?

AtlasDrugged
Posts: 121
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2008 3:11 pm UTC

Re: Jimmy Carter's recent comments.

Postby AtlasDrugged » Sun Sep 20, 2009 11:45 pm UTC

Also, a distinction has to be drawn between ideologies themselves and those who claim to represent those ideologies. Whenever the OP or fjafjan or whoever it happens to be squeals that conservatives are racists, all they're effectively doing is saying that some particular individuals are racist; their accusations cannot draw a causal link between holding conservative views and being racist (unless they're trying to argue that conservative views themselves are racist, but if so they need to grow up and realise that not wanting a government program to be implemented to tackle a given problem is not the same as dismissing the problem altogether). Thus I'm perfectly fine with the notion that *some* conservatives are racist (the Glenn Beck contingent) but I'd argue that the same would apply to an equal number of 'liberals' and that in each case the people, rather than the principles, are to blame.

User avatar
netcrusher88
Posts: 2166
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:35 pm UTC
Location: Seattle

Re: Jimmy Carter's recent comments.

Postby netcrusher88 » Mon Sep 21, 2009 12:24 am UTC

I'm not sure I agree with Carter that the overwhelming portion of the rabid opposition to Obama is racially motivated, but there is an undeniable significant portion of it that is, from McCain assuring a supporter during the campaign that Obama is not an arab (Even if he was, who cares? He's American born) to the wingnut birther movement that despite its insanity still has supporters in Congress. Add to this the constant (since last summer) rhetoric of "Obama's a racist" or "Obama hates white people" or my personal, recent favorite "now the black kids beat up the white kid on the bus, this is what happens in Obama's America" spouted by the de facto leadership of the right wing (Limbaugh, Beck, etc) and yeah, even if the primary opposition is not in fact racism, it's racism that's driven the right wing mad.
Sexothermic
I have only ever made one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it. -Voltaire
They said we would never have a black president until Swine Flu. -Gears

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: Jimmy Carter's recent comments.

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Mon Sep 21, 2009 12:40 am UTC

This post was a bad idea. Sorry, Atlas.
Last edited by TheGrammarBolshevik on Mon Sep 21, 2009 2:26 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

Aetius
Posts: 1099
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2008 7:23 am UTC

Re: Jimmy Carter's recent comments.

Postby Aetius » Mon Sep 21, 2009 12:50 am UTC

TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:
AtlasDrugged wrote:HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS

It's so much easier to criticize people's viewpoints (not to mention the people themselves) when you invent their opinions out of thin air.


Leaving aside your, once more, overly-hostile debating tactics, what opinions has he invented out of thin air?

User avatar
Jahoclave
sourmilk's moderator
Posts: 4790
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 8:34 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Jimmy Carter's recent comments.

Postby Jahoclave » Mon Sep 21, 2009 12:58 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:Edit: Actually, thinking on this a little more, I might be making the mistake of confusing 'Republican' with 'conservative' and 'Democrat' with 'liberal'. I should probably give it a little more thought before commenting like this - I... yeah. It gets more confusing when you throw in the contradicting notions of fiscal conservatism versus social conservatism and fiscal liberalism versus social liberalism. Needless to say, political history is a clusterfuck of ideology. I still don't think it's safe to boil this down to 'conservatives were against abolition', or 'conservatives were against suffragism'. Which conservatives? When? And what kind?

I would say you probably are mistaking in equating ideology with party identification. They've rather switched on issues through the years and I think that the study of the ideology via time period is a more accurate way to assess any particular individuals political notions.

Even then, most of these notions seem equally barbaric by our own standards of today. Even Lincoln was no fan of the black man. More accurately for a description would be that the conservatives of that time period sought to maintain the status quo; or even more accurate to compare the conservatives of that day to what was conservative in that time period.

For example of eugenics, such a program was a rather liberal notion during the time period. I'd go further to argue that even today it would still be liberal; consider applications of genetic manipulation for example.

In closing my main contention would be to not equate current political ideology to past ideology. Comparing opinions of todays conservatives to the opinions of conservatives in Lincoln's time is irrelevant and is highly cultural bias. Of course most people today would have agreed with freeing the slaves; now can you accurately say that you would have held the same opinion if you'd been brought up in that age? No.

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Re: Jimmy Carter's recent comments.

Postby Vaniver » Mon Sep 21, 2009 1:12 am UTC

Jahoclave wrote:Even then, most of these notions seem equally barbaric by our own standards of today. Even Lincoln was no fan of the black man. More accurately for a description would be that the conservatives of that time period sought to maintain the status quo; or even more accurate to compare the conservatives of that day to what was conservative in that time period.
I'm not even sure that's a good way to put it. Some people probably liked the status quo, but the most of the time the majority of people want to see some change happen, and just disagree on what change. Both Southerners and Northerners didn't like slavery (including many, if not most, of the leaders of the Confederacy!) but had very different ideas of what should be done about it. The abolition of slavery wasn't an easy decision- combating slavery then is much like combating global warming today. While you have some people that disbelieve it's a problem, the majority of the people accept that it's a problem but have wildly different opinions when it comes to what/how large the problem is and what should be done about it. The radicals want to fight it at any cost; the cautious want to proceed carefully and with an eye to results, not idealism.

Today, freeing the slaves is a question of whether or not your morality is obsolete; then, freeing the slaves is a question of how to avoid a race war, and what to do with millions of uneducated, probably resentful people unused to freedom and the responsibilities of being a citizen, who reproduce faster than they can be sent back to Africa.
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: Jimmy Carter's recent comments.

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Mon Sep 21, 2009 2:46 am UTC

Aetius wrote:
TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:
AtlasDrugged wrote:HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS

It's so much easier to criticize people's viewpoints (not to mention the people themselves) when you invent their opinions out of thin air.


Leaving aside your, once more, overly-hostile debating tactics, what opinions has he invented out of thin air?

Leaving aside* your perpetual insistence on analyzing everything as a debate tactic, those would be the claim that "the OP or fjafjan or whoever it happens to be squeals that conservatives are racists" and the implicit claim that the only racism progressives find within conservatism is its stance on government programs.

*See how bringing it up means that I'm not really leaving it aside?
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

Aetius
Posts: 1099
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2008 7:23 am UTC

Re: Jimmy Carter's recent comments.

Postby Aetius » Mon Sep 21, 2009 3:11 am UTC

TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:Leaving aside* your perpetual insistence on analyzing everything as a debate tactic, those would be the claim that "the OP or fjafjan or whoever it happens to be squeals that conservatives are racists" and the implicit claim that the only racism progressives find within conservatism is its stance on government programs.

*See how bringing it up means that I'm not really leaving it aside?


So his claim on the opinions of the OP and fjafjan was that they believe conservatives to be racist, which you then said were completed fabricated opinions assigned to them. The OP makes it pretty clear that he believes in the "general racism of the right wing." As for fjafjan I believe AtlasDrugged was referring to his post in the Obama-cancels-missile-shield thread where he wrote, "racists and libertarians are the people at these events, and those two things are not mutually exclusive. (I'd argue they are often linked)" which AtlasDrugged responded to as stating that racism and libertarianism have a casual link.

It is possible that he is misinterpreting their writing, or that their positions are more nuanced than their writing thus far suggests, but it's not as if AtlasDrugged is inventing their positions "out of thin air." Respond to his charge, don't just claim it's baseless when it's clearly based on things they have written.

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: Jimmy Carter's recent comments.

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Mon Sep 21, 2009 3:28 am UTC

Aetius wrote:It is possible that he is misinterpreting their writing, or that their positions are more nuanced than their writing thus far suggests

I'd say the former. Conservatives, libertarians, and teabaggers are different things, and you can take a lot of nuance out of a statement by conflating them. Besides, fjafjan's comment about racism isn't based on policy, but on actual behavior at the events.

Edit: Hat-tip to Belial for those images.
Last edited by TheGrammarBolshevik on Mon Sep 21, 2009 4:02 am UTC, edited 2 times in total.
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

Aetius
Posts: 1099
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2008 7:23 am UTC

Re: Jimmy Carter's recent comments.

Postby Aetius » Mon Sep 21, 2009 3:30 am UTC

TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:
Aetius wrote:It is possible that he is misinterpreting their writing, or that their positions are more nuanced than their writing thus far suggests

Besides, fjafjan's comment about racism isn't based on policy, but on actual behavior at the events.


If he had stopped at saying that the teabaggers appeared to be made up of racists and libertarians, he's pretty much spot on. But then he went on to imply a causal link between the two, which is what AtlasDrugged took exception to.

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: Jimmy Carter's recent comments.

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Mon Sep 21, 2009 3:36 am UTC

fjafjan wrote:racists and libertarians are the people at these events, and those two things are not mutually exclusive. (I'd argue they are often linked)

This says nothing about causality, so I restate my case for misinterpretation. This is more a claim about common ideologies (for example, racist motivations for a broad libertarian interpretation of states' rights), which is not the same as saying that opposition to anti-racist government policies is racism, or that one causes the other.
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

Aetius
Posts: 1099
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2008 7:23 am UTC

Re: Jimmy Carter's recent comments.

Postby Aetius » Mon Sep 21, 2009 3:43 am UTC

TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:
fjafjan wrote:racists and libertarians are the people at these events, and those two things are not mutually exclusive. (I'd argue they are often linked)

This says nothing about causality, so I restate my case for misinterpretation. This is more a claim about common ideologies (for example, racist motivations for a broad libertarian interpretation of states' rights), which is not the same as saying that opposition to anti-racist government policies is racism, or that one causes the other.


It pretty much hinges on the word "linked," I generally regard it as more implying a casual relationship than simply acknowledging overlap. In any event AtlasDrugged's reading of it is certainly reasonable given what was written, and hardly counts as creating out of thin air.

User avatar
netcrusher88
Posts: 2166
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:35 pm UTC
Location: Seattle

Re: Jimmy Carter's recent comments.

Postby netcrusher88 » Mon Sep 21, 2009 4:02 am UTC

Well, since the majority of the most vocal opposition right now comes from the South, and since minorities are typically lower-income than whites particularly in the South, and since many of the programs currently opposed by libertarians would most benefit the poor - again, numbers say particularly in the South - there is a causal link between them. In the current political climate, libertarianism is the obvious side for a racist to associate with. In the past the same people have associated with Republicans when they've adopted a fuck the poor mentality - as exemplified by Regan - and at the same time they would most likely oppose libertarians if social programs were the political hot topic right now, like abortion, gay marriage, or [non cisgender and straight] rights, all of which libertarians tend to support (or so it seems to me) but the right wing vehemently opposes.
Sexothermic
I have only ever made one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it. -Voltaire
They said we would never have a black president until Swine Flu. -Gears

Aetius
Posts: 1099
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2008 7:23 am UTC

Re: Jimmy Carter's recent comments.

Postby Aetius » Mon Sep 21, 2009 4:14 am UTC

netcrusher88 wrote:Well, since the majority of the most vocal opposition right now comes from the South, and since minorities are typically lower-income than whites particularly in the South, and since many of the programs currently opposed by libertarians would most benefit the poor - again, numbers say particularly in the South - there is a causal link between them. In the current political climate, libertarianism is the obvious side for a racist to associate with. In the past the same people have associated with Republicans when they've adopted a fuck the poor mentality - as exemplified by Regan - and at the same time they would most likely oppose libertarians if social programs were the political hot topic right now, like abortion, gay marriage, or [non cisgender and straight] rights, all of which libertarians tend to support (or so it seems to me) but the right wing vehemently opposes.


You can't use a handful of correlations to imply causation. Just because Obama's policies will likely be of greatest benefit to minorities doesn't mean that people who oppose the policies on ideological grounds are racist.

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: Jimmy Carter's recent comments.

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Mon Sep 21, 2009 4:16 am UTC

Look at it the other way. Jack is a racist fuckwit. Obama's policies will benefit racial minorities. Does Jack support Obama Y/N?
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

Aetius
Posts: 1099
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2008 7:23 am UTC

Re: Jimmy Carter's recent comments.

Postby Aetius » Mon Sep 21, 2009 4:18 am UTC

TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:Look at it the other way. Jack is a racist fuckwit. Obama's policies will benefit racial minorities. Does Jack support Obama Y/N?


I never disagreed with the notion that there are a great number of racist fuckwits at these teaparty things. But I do disagree with the notion that the subset of the teabaggers who are there on ideological grounds must therefore be racist.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Jimmy Carter's recent comments.

Postby The Great Hippo » Mon Sep 21, 2009 4:28 am UTC

AtlasDrugged wrote:(unless they're trying to argue that conservative views themselves are racist, but if so they need to grow up and realise that not wanting a government program to be implemented to tackle a given problem is not the same as dismissing the problem altogether). Thus I'm perfectly fine with the notion that *some* conservatives are racist (the Glenn Beck contingent) but I'd argue that the same would apply to an equal number of 'liberals' and that in each case the people, rather than the principles, are to blame.
Would it be fair to say that if a certain number of 'communists' support totalitarianism, that an equal number of 'libertarians' probably do so too? If not, I don't see why you think we need to be 'fair' and claim that there's an equal number of liberals engaging in racist behavior of the same sort as conservatives. Conservative thought may not, at its conceptual level, contain inherently racist concepts - but it may be far more attractive to those who engage in craven racism than liberalism is. I mean, what - do you think these people will pick equally between liberal and conservatism, resulting in an equal ratio of racist language and action? Are they really going to be that helpful? Or are they going to pick the philosophy that they were raised with - the philosophy that offers the most to their world view (one that intimately involves race conflict)? When white people shot and killed black people during Katrina for nothing more devilish than escaping the floodwater through their neighborhood, those white people weren't liberals. Are they ever?

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: Jimmy Carter's recent comments.

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Mon Sep 21, 2009 4:37 am UTC

Aetius wrote:
TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:Look at it the other way. Jack is a racist fuckwit. Obama's policies will benefit racial minorities. Does Jack support Obama Y/N?

I never disagreed with the notion that there are a great number of racist fuckwits at these teaparty things. But I do disagree with the notion that the subset of the teabaggers who are there on ideological grounds must therefore be racist.

I don't think that racism is bringing people to the tea parties at an individual level, but I do think that it is responsible for the fear of drastic change that drives these protests — fears that cannot be justified by any significant differences between Obama's economic agenda and Clinton's. To quote Melissa McEwan: "To deny that evident reality is to deny a 200+ year national history of white mob violence against 'uppity' blacks."
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

Philwelch
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:33 am UTC
Location: RIGHT BEHIND YOU

Re: Jimmy Carter's recent comments.

Postby Philwelch » Mon Sep 21, 2009 6:44 am UTC

Is there any evidence that the outrage, hatred towards the President, and sheer mob mentality is any different than that of the equally passionate protests against Bush mere years ago, when earnest young men approached me at ferry docks worrying that Dick Cheney was going to start a nuclear war against Iran and attempted to disseminate LaRouche newsletters? "Aren't you worried that Dick Cheney is going to nuke Iran!?" he asked with all seriousness.

Nutjobs often have apocalyptic beliefs about presidents belonging to the other party. This is true of either party. While some nutjobs are racists, I think it is fair to say that not all nutjobs are racists.

Also, Obama largely brought this upon himself for the way he ran his campaign, making vague promises of largely unspecified "change". That communist-style "HOPE" poster and the cult of personality that's grown up around him don't help either. Clinton campaigned in a largely conventional and sensible way--no one made propaganda posters of her, she was old news, just another boring presidential candidate. When someone campaigns the way Obama did, they polarize the electorate and get the nutjobs started.

And it's more than a little convenient that you have a built in excuse to dismiss all of your critics as being racist. Even if you're a good enough politician not to be seen doing it directly.
Fascism: If you're not with us you're against us.
Leftism: If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem.

Perfection is an unattainable goal.

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: Jimmy Carter's recent comments.

Postby Heisenberg » Mon Sep 21, 2009 3:42 pm UTC

Even if we accept the false premise that all racists are libertarian, Carter's comments are still ridiculous. Ridicule:

All racists are libertarian. All libertarians are pissed at Obama. So your Venn Diagram is three nested circles, the outer-most is "Pissed," the middle is "Libertarian," and the inner-most is "Racist." Now think about that and argue to me "Anyone who is pissed is racist."

Ridiculous. I'll refrain from dismantling the classic "your group is full of crazies" argument because it's no longer necessary.

User avatar
Malice
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: Jimmy Carter's recent comments.

Postby Malice » Mon Sep 21, 2009 6:15 pm UTC

Heisenberg wrote:Even if we accept the false premise that all racists are libertarian, Carter's comments are still ridiculous. Ridicule:

All racists are libertarian. All libertarians are pissed at Obama. So your Venn Diagram is three nested circles, the outer-most is "Pissed," the middle is "Libertarian," and the inner-most is "Racist." Now think about that and argue to me "Anyone who is pissed is racist."

Ridiculous. I'll refrain from dismantling the classic "your group is full of crazies" argument because it's no longer necessary.


That is a clever, clever refutation of something CARTER DIDN'T SAY. Congratulations, you've successfully proven that unicorns don't like monopoly.
Image

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: Jimmy Carter's recent comments.

Postby Heisenberg » Mon Sep 21, 2009 6:33 pm UTC

Carter wrote:I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity towards President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man.

Sorry. "Almost every pissed person is racist."

User avatar
Malice
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: Jimmy Carter's recent comments.

Postby Malice » Mon Sep 21, 2009 6:39 pm UTC

Heisenberg wrote:
Carter wrote:I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity towards President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man.

Sorry. "Almost every pissed person is racist."


In my opinion, Carter was referring to a vocal subset of pissed people--ie., the ones screaming on the television at town hall meetings and such--but that doesn't really matter.
Nor does the idea that everybody is racist, and we're talking about racist motivations, not people.

Really, do you have a logical refutation to "The anger of almost every person pissed at Obama is racially motivated"?
Image

User avatar
Spacemilk
Posts: 936
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 9:03 pm UTC
Location: Hugh ston
Contact:

Re: Jimmy Carter's recent comments.

Postby Spacemilk » Mon Sep 21, 2009 6:45 pm UTC

Malice wrote:Really, do you have a logical refutation to "The anger of almost every person pissed at Obama is racially motivated"?

Aren't you playing games with the burden of proof here? Not nice at all! Carter made his remarks based on his impression of a very small vocal minority who occasionally spew out racist bullshit and then the other 99% of the population who is logically dissatisfied gets lumped together with the asinine racists. I agree that racism plays a part in the thinking of some, but personally I don't think the majority of protestors are racially motivated. Anyway, Carter made the claims, but he has no data other than his personal impressions to back up those claims.

Instead of turning this into an argument about racism, why can't we just agree that most of the people who are unreasonably pissed at Obama (who compare him to Hitler, etc.) are motivated by stupidity? That's much easier to prove!
milk from space is good for you!



The Reaper
Posts: 4008
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: San Antonio, Tx
Contact:

Re: Jimmy Carter's recent comments.

Postby The Reaper » Mon Sep 21, 2009 6:46 pm UTC

Malice wrote:
Heisenberg wrote:
Carter wrote:I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity towards President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man.

Sorry. "Almost every pissed person is racist."


In my opinion, Carter was referring to a vocal subset of pissed people--ie., the ones screaming on the television at town hall meetings and such--but that doesn't really matter.
Nor does the idea that everybody is racist, and we're talking about racist motivations, not people.

Really, do you have a logical refutation to "The anger of almost every person pissed at Obama is racially motivated"?

this came out as a comparison of 2 graphs in my head, and they looked like opposites of each other.
the more people you have, the less likely it is that everyone is thinking the exact same reason for being pissed at obama.

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: Jimmy Carter's recent comments.

Postby Heisenberg » Mon Sep 21, 2009 6:50 pm UTC

Malice wrote:Really, do you have a logical refutation to "The anger of almost every person pissed at Obama is racially motivated"?

I know many of them, and none of the people I know are racially motivated. I'd estimate that no more than 1 in 50 people at these events are racially motivated. So no, I do not have a logical refutation to an unprovable claim, but I have sufficient reason to be skeptical of an ad-hominem attack.

Do you have a logical argument to support your statement? Or do you have a logical refutation to "Despite outward appearances, Malice secretly hates puppies?"

User avatar
Spacemilk
Posts: 936
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 9:03 pm UTC
Location: Hugh ston
Contact:

Re: Jimmy Carter's recent comments.

Postby Spacemilk » Mon Sep 21, 2009 6:50 pm UTC

Follow-up: I think if the pissed-off people were to use one word to describe him, and that one word described why they didn't like him, that word would not be "Black" or "African-American." It would be "Socialist." I do not think racism is a concious* reason or justification for disliking him for most people.


*There is still a possibility that some people (still not a majority) harbor subconcious stereotypes or ideas, and pre-judge his views based on that. Maybe if Carter had said something like that, I would agree with him a little more.
milk from space is good for you!



User avatar
netcrusher88
Posts: 2166
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:35 pm UTC
Location: Seattle

Re: Jimmy Carter's recent comments.

Postby netcrusher88 » Tue Sep 22, 2009 12:13 am UTC

Spacemilk wrote:Follow-up: I think if the pissed-off people were to use one word to describe him, and that one word described why they didn't like him, that word would not be "Black" or "African-American." It would be "Socialist." I do not think racism is a concious* reason or justification for disliking him for most people.


*There is still a possibility that some people (still not a majority) harbor subconcious stereotypes or ideas, and pre-judge his views based on that. Maybe if Carter had said something like that, I would agree with him a little more.

He did, basically. Racism (or any other motivation) doesn't have to be conscious to be a motivation, and in fact when it's subconscious and you make up another reason for it, it makes it that much harder to fight.
Sexothermic
I have only ever made one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it. -Voltaire
They said we would never have a black president until Swine Flu. -Gears


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests