While the REST of the country debates the involvement and presence of racism in American public discourse on the heels of the NAACP public condemnation of the Tea Party IN JULY…let’s highlight the fact that THE MO’KELLY REPORT was all over it…MONTHS AGO!
IN APRIL!
Huffington Post story HERE.
Mo’Kelly hasn’t been giving himself enough credit lately. Mo’Kelly deserves more credit. Mo’Kelly deserves his own small country to rule as an evil despot. Mo’Kelly deserves extra cheese on his Chipotle chicken bowl without having to pay for it. The rest of the world is just now catching up to Mo’Kelly. What’s next, the mainstream media will start reporting on the issues in Alpha Kappa Alpha?! Oops…too late. Or should Mo’Kelly say…late AGAIN MSM.
RELATED:
Tea Party and Racism…Lovers and Friends PART TWO:
Tea Party and Racism…Lovers and Friends PART ONE:
Tea Party and Stupidity…Lovers and Friends
Teabonics…Why Tea Baggers and Crayons Don’t Mix
The Mo’Kelly Report is an entertainment journal with a political slant; published weekly at The Huffington Post and www.eurweb.com. It is meant to inform, infuse and incite meaningful discourse…as well as entertain. The Mo’Kelly Report is syndicated by Blogburst. For more Mo’Kelly, https://mrmokelly.com. Mo’Kelly can be reached at [email protected] and he welcomes all commentary.
69 responses to “In Other News – The Mo’Kelly Report RIGHT AGAIN: Tea Party and Racism”
Mo'Kelly, I enjoy your website a LOT. But the one area I have always disagreed with you is the Tea Party issue you keep raising.
Here are more than a few Black Americans who disagree also, and they are Tea Party members themselves:
http://biggovernment.com/dmurdock/2010/07/14/i-co…
http://biggovernment.com/mmassie/2010/07/14/i-con…
http://biggovernment.com/rholt/2010/07/14/i-conde…
http://biggovernment.com/lfritsch/2010/07/14/i-co…
http://biggovernment.com/dmartin/2010/07/14/i-con…
http://biggovernment.com/ashabazz/2010/07/14/i-co…
http://biggovernment.com/emcclendon/2010/07/14/i-…
http://bigjournalism.com/fross/2010/07/12/blackou…
http://biggovernment.com/msteele/2010/07/14/the-t…
http://bigjournalism.com/jjmnolte/2010/07/14/msm-…
http://bigjournalism.com/jjmnolte/2010/07/14/the-…
Meanwhile, not a single word from you on the DOJ/Black Panther case., which screams reverse racism to me.
When you give me an extra 14 hours each day, then and only then can you complain about a particular story I haven't gotten to. If you haven't noticed (respectfully)…kind of in the middle of something. I'm aware of the story, but it's not at the top of the priority list. If ever I can quit my day job and do this and do this only…you can light me up about any story I "miss." But right now just remember it takes an inordinate amount of time to do editorials, research and post these issues.
i understand you not getting to the DOJ story but you are burying the lead, namely all the links i provided. That all of these fine and proud Black Americans disagree with the NAACP, and take issue with your hypotheses about the Tea Party is worthy of your response.
I'm not burying the lead. Your comment ran unedited. The "lead"…as in "the story" is the NAACP resolution, not those who disagree with the NAACP. Without the NAACP resolution, there is no story in which to comment. I don't think it's "news" that Black people disagree with the NAACP. Always have, always will. Hell, I just disagreed with them on the issue of marijuana decriminalization in California just last week…but an organization coming out and passing a resolution against another…that's significant, whether we agree in principle or not.
In Other News ? The Mo?Kelly Report RIGHT AGAIN: Tea Party and Racism…
I found your entry interesting do I’ve added a Trackback to it on my weblog :)…
It is not significant when it has no basis. The reason I have always disagreed with you on this issue is that in any given group there will be x number of people in category y or z or q or w. So there are a certain number of racists in the Tea Party. They happen to catch our attention because as African-Americans we are more sensitive to that issue. There are also racists in the NAACP and in the Obama admin and in the Dem party.
There "may"…let me say that again "may" be racists (I won't quibble about the definition of the word, but I agree with Roger) in the Democratic party and the NAACP…but I'm all about evidence. There is historical evidence of the Republican party embracing the fringe/extremist GROUPS (not individuals). You can't look at the Tea Party in a vacuum. You can't talk about the "coincidental" association of the Tea Party and right wing conservatives and ignore the historical connection of the right wing and racism. The fact that the Tea Party supports Sarah Palin and other candidates espousing similar rhetoric is not a "coincidence."
It is an extension of the historical "Southern Strategy" and an evolution of the Dixiecrat movement which is at the root of the Republican Party today. This behavior doesn't "happen to catch our attention"…THAT only happens if someone hasn't historically been paying attention. It's a continuation on a theme as I've pointed out many times.
But to your point, the moment you can show me example after example after example of how the public discourse of Democrats (big D) is consistently tied to issues of "racism," then I'd be more inclined to believe your point. I think of your overall argument as "there are racists everywhere, not just in the Tea Party/Republican party."
You're right, but the overwhelming majority as history has pointed out, lie in the Republican/Tea party. It's an association that historically the Republican Party has done nothing to distance itself from. There's a reason (not a coincidence) that people like David Duke can run as a "Republican" and also espouse White separatism as one of his platforms (and almost win.) There's a reason why I can find so, so, so many examples of Tea party racism but I've yet to see anything in terms of evidence from you as to an EQUAL amount of racism within the Democratic Party.
I've gone to great lengths to link the rampant and repeated acts of Republican operatives and their "racial incidents." After awhile it's not a coincidence, its indicative of an unstated, yet acceptable mode of political behavior. You don't have such evidence of that within the Democratic Party. If you like, I'll post the links…again.
Rachel Elle, I could not disagree with you more.
If you are aware of the history of institutionalized racial oppression and it's conventions, and similarly aware of the history of Blacks' forced migration and tacit inclusion into a society which only granted African Americans civil rights a mere forty some odd years ago, how can you possibly imply that Blacks in this country are "racists"?
As I have stated before, "-ism" as a social convention, and "-ists" who ascribe to, affirm and enforce the terms of that convention is a determination of the controlling power structure within a given society.
No one decides to become oppressed as a option. No one in power voluntarily opts to be the one that another exploits.
As that the victimized minority can not set the terms or conditions of racial policies, if you are the exploited minority within that social structure YOU CAN NOT BE A RACIST! You may be a reactionary TO racism and racist policies, but you can not be a racist if you are not in control of the terms and conditions of the practice of racism within the society within which it exists. Plain and simple.
Only the most extreme stretch of imagination could consider the recent presidency of Obama has brought about a shift in the paradigm significant enough to validate your implied contention that African Americans are in control of racial policy in America.
Would you next like to attempt to vindicate the New Orleans Police officers on trial for opening fire on unarmed citizens?
@ Rachel Elle ~ it was under former President Bush and his administration that the decision was made NOT to pursue criminal charges against the New Black Panther Party.
http://blogs.ajc.com/cynthia-tucker/2010/07/12/bu…
http://thebulletin.us/articles/2009/05/29/top_sto…
Well at least the Republicans are consistent. Blame the Democrats for stuff that happened BEFORE they even got in office. Incredible.
May I enter the conversation? As a scientist working for over 30 years, I always shake my head at assertions that anybody makes when it is based on unrepresentative samples (as we call it in the field).
Mr. Mo'Kelly, with respect, you are drawing broad conclusions from anecdotal evidence. In other words, you are cherry-picking.
I just came across this short article today which rather elegantly explains:
http://biggovernment.com/lmeyers/2010/07/15/simpl…
You find examples of "racism" in the Tea Party because you are hunting for them on the internet. Therefore, you are doing what we in the sciences call "trying to find evidence to fit the hypothesis".
Your sample is unrepresentative, unscientific, and without scientific merit.
So you've done a great disservice to your readers, and to your own intellect. Tea Party = Conservative is somewhat true (70% acc. to Gallup), but either something is true or false. We amend this statement to read: Some but not all Tea Party Members are Conservatives,.
Not all Conservatives are Tea Party Members.
Therefore, not all Conservatives are racists.
However your hypotheses that racists = Tea Party and therefore racists = Conservatives are fallacious or false.
The best we can do is to say that some but not all Tea Party Members are racists, but not all racists are Tea Party Members.
Some but not all Conservatives are racists, but not all racists are Conservatives.
To go one step further, the Gallup poll indicates 7% of Tea Party supporters are liberals and 22% are moderates. That's 3 out of every 10. How do you know, Mr. Mo'Kelly, that the people you determine to be racist are not members of those ideological affiliations?
If you say, "Because history shows Conservatives are racist", then again, you offer a fallacious generalization.
Let us remember that racism is a subset of prejudice i.e. to "pre-judge" and discrimination i.e. "to treat differently". As an African-American, I would think you would be particularly cognizant of prejudice and not engage in it yourself…and yet you do so with the Tea Party.
May I suggest, prior to engaging in the same unfair generalizations that have been used against members of all races and creeds throughout history, that you test yourself with some simple logical constructions prior to stating an opinion? Why state an opinion that is demonstrably false? What credibility does it give you?
@ Harold…as promised, here is your response.
“You find examples of “racism” in the Tea Party because you are hunting for them on the internet. Therefore, you are doing what we in the sciences call “trying to find evidence to fit the hypothesis”.
But in such a statement is the ignorance of the ease. There is something to be said about the ease in finding sand at the beach. If the query was whether one could “find” instances of racism connected to the Tea Party, it's not a fallacy of my logic that I found sand at the beach. It's not a scientific certainty of its PREVALENCE, but it is indicative of its existence. Democrats and Republicans differ on what is an acceptable percentage per Tea Party capita. Now show me an equal amount of behavior (photos) from the Democratic counterparts and we can further that discussion. Some beaches have more sand than others…
“Your sample is unrepresentative, unscientific, and without scientific merit.”
You're entitled to your opinion. But when I look up and see the sky is blue…it's not scientific…but surely it is true. The grass is green though I haven't offered any scientific proof. Some things are just "true" it's called "a priori."
But to your point, this was not ever postulated or offered to be a sampling or a scientific poll…that was YOUR assumption. I merely provided examples and evidence. Sometimes groups are known by their fringe elements. Islam understands this all too well. I judge the KKK by the Black men they lynch and the churches they've bombed, irrespective of whether that "sampling" is indicative of the majority of its members. Nobody ever alleged that the MAJORITY of Tea Baggers were racist. But for some reason, some folks (like yourself) seem to deny its existence and foothold within the party altogether. You deny the historical authenticity of the Southern Strategy and how that still impacts politics today.
I call that being intellectually dishonest. You don't concede the obvious. I don't care if you can prove that 20% of the pics I've posted are leftist "plants"…that still leaves 80 percent of undeniable authenticity. Acknowledge the obvious or you are being intellectually dishonest. And we all know that there aren't leftist plants to the tune of 20%. Not only that, you have no evidence to support such a claim that it even approaches that percentage. So until you have the evidence to debunk mine…mine wins.
My posting spoke to evidence of existence, and existence of evidence… in the same way the evidence of the behavior of Mel Gibson speaks to a larger issue…not necessarily a sampling of how “often” it occurs or a Poisson distribution of frequency. You're attributing attributes not up for discussion. The Watergate burglary wasn't a poll indicating frequency…it was evidence of laws being broken. Two different proofs. The photos speak to a reality within the Tea Party. You wish to deny its existence and debate the frequency of its appearance. You'd do better to concede the former and only debate the latter.
“Some but not all Tea Party Members are Conservatives,.
Not all Conservatives are Tea Party Members.”
This isn't geometry. No thesis statement by me alleged that all Tea Party members are conservatives or that all conservatives are Tea Party Members and you will not find that I've written that anywhere. I'm here all day, you won't find it. I'm not debating whether all rhombi are squares. I'm saying that the existence of rhombi in the square party isn't a coincidence. And I am saying that some square parties have more rhombi than others. In lay terms, you're making ish up. No rebuttal needed. I don't need to rebut that which I've never alleged.
“However your hypotheses that racists = Tea Party and therefore racists = Conservatives are fallacious or false. “
Nope…I don't use syllogistic logic, which is by definition flawed.
Example…
“God is love.
Love is blind
Ergo…Stevie Wonder is God.”
You're making up arguments and attributing them to me that I've never made. I'd rather you QUOTE me. Because your extrapolation is way off the mark.
It's rather odd to use generalizations (not one quote) and then argue I "generalize" about the Tea Party. It's a rather circuitous argument to make because it debunks each of your premises at every turn. Quote me next time. Otherwise you're grasping at straws and generalizing. Using specifics and quotes is A-OK with me.
If I wrote this before, I apologize. But in April, I attended a Tea Party rally in Chicago. I wanted to see firsthand what the fuss was all about. And I was embarrassed…at how I judged them based on how liberal news outlets portrayed them.
I normally don't publicize my political views but I am a liberal leaning independent. What I mean by that is that I might vote Democratic over 80% of the time, but I look at the candidate's record and not the party. So, that's why I'm critiquing liberal media trying to get revenge on conservative media by portraying Tea Party folks as nut jobs.
Yes, I saw some bogus signs at the rally, Mo'Kelly. Some signs had me cussin' on the inside as a black man. But for the most part, the people were really nice to me and good natured. I felt horrible for judging them. I'm a journalist. I had no business doing that.
And guess what? All journalists should feel the same. But in the world of corporate owned media, you have to choose a side.
Zack, with all due respect-you were in CHICAGO! I challenge you to go to one of these TEA parties in the south-Texas maybe and tell me what you will find. I don't believe that ALL the TEA party is racist, but I believe that they look over racist things within their organization. There should be someone inspecting the crowd and if they see a bogus sign the person should be told to destroy it or go home. Don't they (TEA) see that they are hurting their OWN cause by allowing this mess to happen?
@ Brenda Kay:
The section of the Voting Rights Act on intimidation, threats or coercion (42 USC § 1973i(b)) provides for civil relief (42 USC § 1973j(d)). The Bush DOJ got the ball rolling on such civil sanctions. The Obama DOJ spiked the effort even after the defendant's were in default and the court had invited a default judgment!
A default judgment!
Do you really want to find yourself in a position where you are defending the Obama Administration for pulling the plug on a civil action against the baton-wielding, epithet-hurling, fatigue-wearing Black Panthers caught on camera because what was really warranted was, instead, a criminal prosecution?
And why is it that Mr. MoKelly is so quick to hurl racism charges against the Tea Party, but when confronted with an explosive issue like this — one that is far more egregious IMHO — he claims "I don't have the time"?
Hypocrisy. That's why.
@ Indignant – Hypocrisy? Uh, no…it's called I'm the only person writing for this blog. And when you chip in on the writing, editing and research, then you can claim to know how I spend my time writing MY blog. It is not my JOB to cover every story to your satisfaction. That is why it is called THE MO'KELLY REPORT and not the INDIGNANT REPORT. This is a one-person operation. The reason why it is so respected (humbly) is because of the effort and research put into it.
You know, the same effort and research that led you to this blog, 3 MONTHS after the original discussion of the Tea Party and racism had ended. Meaning, you're on the late freight. So be careful alleging I'm not doing my due diligence when your first introduction to me puts you already three months behind.
Hypocrisy? Hardly. It's called STANDARDS.
The other problem with Mo'Kelly's self-congratulatory post is that "some but not all" (to paraphrase another poster) of the signs he is using may not be Tea Party members at all. There was an active effort by Liberal haters to portray the Tea Party in a way that Mo'Kelly has completely bought into!
This link and the links embedded within are well worth your time.
http://biggovernment.com/bowens/2010/07/15/think-…
@ Patrick…Yeah, yeah…the "liberals plants" are at fault. Heard it all before. The tea party racists are and will continue to be figments of our collective imagination. Don't believe the photoshopped pictures. Yada, yada, yada. Nevertheless…I still was 3 months ahead of the national discussion…which can't be argued.
Mr. Mo'Kelly you are good at what the scientist pointed out namely drawing fallacious conclusions. I do not recall writing that these signs or people are not real. What I said is that some but not all of those people are Liberals or plants. Some but not all are racist.
But I do not understand why you take pride in being 3 months ahead of a discussion that has no merit as the scientist pointed out. I would like to see your reply to his post. As for standards I see you ignoring a story of equal importance because you do not have time and because what you say goes. You have time to reply to these comments. What is your position on the Black Panther case, may I ask??
Don't compare replying to comments with 3 and 4 paragraphs to researching, writing and editing an editorial. Surely you jest. There's no comparison. This is drive-by commentary, not what I do as part of my trade.
And yes, being 3 months ahead of the news cycle absolutely has merit. It was a predictor of the importance of the issue. I suspect you wouldn't dare say that if someone mentioned the Black Panther case three months ago and just now it picked up steam, that's not worthy of acknowledging?
Of course you wouldn't say that. Part of research is knowing a news story and making it a news story, even before the rest of media realize there is a news story to be had…which is the definition of "breaking" a story.
And to specifically answer your question, I believe the Black Panther case is much ado about nothing. It was downgraded to civil charges by the BUSH administration prior to Barack Obama assuming office…meaning it's a bit of a stretch to attribute it to the lack of prosecution by the Obama administration or "racial prefence" in litigation or anything OTHER than following suit, the lead of the previous administration. It's amazing how some folks wish to offer revisionist history and call it fact. There is no history of Eric Holder unfairly ascribing race to how or when he uses the Department of Justice so any assumption of that on your part here contradicts your criticism of me and the Tea Party.
Think that out before you respond hastily.
http://blogs.ajc.com/cynthia-tucker/2010/07/12/bu…
So really…if it's a "big deal"…there's a reasonable question to be asked as to why it's "an issue" now…and not when it was originally downgraded. I have a problem with post-political "outrage."
This post took all of 2 minutes…average editorial…4 hours. Spend some time with my editorials and you will realize this to be true.
I await your kind reply to my post.
@ Harold…I will respond late tonight…
@onemom,
I've lived in CHICAGO all 26 years of my life. We have racism too. In fact, our racism is in a glass closet- you can see it but no one acknowledges it. Sure, the signs in Chicago weren't as offensive as the ones down South but they were still inappropriate at times.
But I didn't see any signs that were of a violent nature. That's all I was saying.
First, Morris was not the leader of the charge with regard to this issue. The fact is that he was 3 months ahead of NAACP, not of all media. All through the fall, winter and spring, mainstream media was in a state of constant analysis regarding the true leanings of the Tea Party.
Second, we did have this discussion 3 months ago, and some of you should go back and read the lengthy commentary which followed those posts, because you will see that we analyzed this issue in every way possible.
When you've done at least that minimal background work, this discussion might have a chance of moving forward.
I can assure you of one thing: Any chance this has to be a robust discussion will be determined in large part by the civility of the participants.
Reaping and sowing and all that.
@ Walt…correct. You can't come late to the party and then complain why there's no food left.
@Indignant ~ Thank you for sharing that segment on the voting rights act. I'm sure since you are a lawyer…wait, you are a bona fide lawyer right and not just some schmuck who listens to a bunch of talk radio and assumes that he/she knows the law? And if you ARE a lawyer then perhaps you could explain to us, why the DOJ UNDER THE DIRECTION of the Bush administration down-graded the charges originally?
Now, I'm hoping Indignant, that you will address the question I've posed here, instead of trying to pull a fast one by attempting to dress up a question to me as your answer. 🙂
And nothing the Obama administration has even been hinted at doing at DOJ can compare to GWB firing U.S. Attorney's for failing to hew to his political agenda.
There was zero historical precedent for that act, and it cost GWB's hand-picked Attorney General to have to resign under pressure and in complete disgrace.
Oh, how soon we forget…
Another great point Walt. Alberto Gonzales is now living in relative obscurity, teaching at Texas Tech. But yes, how quickly people forget such unprecedented behavior from the DOJ. No outcry about that. Hmm… another example of post-political outrage.
simple syllogistic reasoning. A refresher course would be in order, as you are a wonderfully articulate and intelligent gentleman whose reply to me is
unnecessarily riddled with poor reasoning.
The ease with which racist signs are found mean nothing when they are provided in a vacuum. That is:
1) What % of total signs did they represent? 0.1%? 1% 5% 20% 60%? Is it statistically significant, or the same level of racism that would appear in a control sample? You offer no such data and no such control. Therefore, no VALID conclusion can be drawn.
2) What % of rallies did these signs appear at? Same questions.
3) How many rallies have you not been witness to in which racists and their signs were chased off? You have no data, no control, and therefore cannot draw any valid conclusions on either side of the debate.
So, yes, there is sand at the beach. But there is sand at every beach. So you commit the Fallacy of a False Analogy. The correct analogy might perhaps be the number of hermit crabs you dig up in a given area at a given time COMPARED to other beaches.
So, we return to my conclusion. Some but not all Tea Partiers are racists. So are so Democrats and Republicans and Moderates and janitors and teachers and clowns and firemen and you get the idea.
You also said, "Folks like you seem to deny its existence and foothold within the party altogether".
I do not deny its existence. I agree there is evidence of existence and existence of evidence. But to use my correct analogy, you have found hermit crabs on Zuma Beach at 4 PM on a Sunday. That does not, however, mean there are hermit crabs on every beach at the same time and same day. "Some but not all Tea Partiers are racists". See above. As for the KKK, I think we agree that you would find that a representative sampling did reveal rampant racism. Such is not the case with the Tea Party.
"Foothold in the party"? Again, you offer no evidence nor reasoning behind this statement. A bunch of signs dose not a foothold make.
So, while you can announce that "you win", the truth of the matter is that its neither about winning nor losing. It is about using one's mind to objectively determine Truth. It is thus you who are being intellectually dishonest, because you pollute your reasoning with a bias.
The Truth is as stated above, "Some but not all Tea Partiers are racists. So are so Democrats and Republicans and Moderates and janitors and teachers and clowns and firemen and you get the idea."
I am generally loathe to link to articles as it should be unnecessary if one approaches an issue with simple reasoning. However, I did find this particular article approaches the issue with correct reasoning and is worth a read, regardless of one's position.
http://biggovernment.com/lmeyers/2010/07/15/simpl…
Harold,
The only point I have seen Mo consistently make is that the Tea Party gatherings are where racists feel "safe" expressing their most hateful views.
In other words, the Tea Party lets these people "out of the closet".
Now, for proof of that, all Mo really needs are (a) signs, for example, expressing racist sentiments toward President Obama at tea Party gatherings; (b) lack of expressed outrage at these people from others in the Tea Party, either at the time or afterward; (c) lack of any such displays at any other political gatherings.
It seems to me that Morris, as well as many others, has managed to prove at least that much.
In other words, "lovers and friends" may be a little overly illustrative, but "pals and chums" would seem to fit.
And I have to say, you could say what you're trying to say with a lot fewer words.
Harold, let me first say I appreciate your contributions…hopefully you'll hang around longer than just this particular discussion.
Walt hit it on the head. To me this discussion has less to do with percentage of people and more to do with the environment which allows it to exist…and exist beyond more than just the level of "anomaly." We should agree it's not a singular incident. We should agree it's not an exception. Or at least I hope we can agree on that.
I'm going on record so it's clear…I don't think the majority of Tea Party subscribes to racist views. I don't think the majority of conservatives are racists.
I would be willing to wager that of the bonafide racists we could mutual agree upon and identify…I'd suspect the majority votes Republican. Is that scientific…no. Is that a reasonable and logical assumption…absolutely. There are all types of historical election results in which support such a contention. Too many to list here.
As for "foothold in the party"…I think it's a stretch to deny the existence of a racist segment of this society. That segment more times than not also votes. It's also been known to express itself publicly all sorts of ways. Unfortunately (or fortunately) the only times we seem to see such behavior is in the form of Republican elected officials, or at townhalls/Tea Parties espousing Republican/conservative ideologies. I say Republican because these same Tea Baggers had NOTHING to say about the fiscal irresponsibility of the previous administration. So clearly this is along party lines, not principles.
At the risk of being flippant, we should also be able to agree that historically, (since 1950s and the Democrat exodus due to the Civil Rights movement) Republicans have had a corner on the market in terms of racism. There is a historical timeline leading up to the Tea Party which should also be discussed.
I am a scientist, Walt. I have no talent for speaking concisely. 🙂
I guess I don't understand why Mo'Kelly need make the point at all. At any gathering of people, fringe elements will be present. At Democratic rallies, Communist elements feel safe. At Republican rallies, we find religious zealots.
Again, however, the samples Mo'Kelly presents do not have a control group. Nor has he visited rallies where such behavior went untolerated. So to draw the broad generalization of pals and chums is also an invalid conclusion.
I would say more, but I will keep the word count low. 🙂
Thanks, Harold! 🙂
Your confusion lies here: Mo isn't trying to make a scientific point. He's making a social point.
Certainly the most extreme wing of the Republican Party is where you would expect to find the most virulent racists and isolationists.
Just as in the most extreme wing of the Democrat Party is where you would expect to find Greenpeace and socialists and so forth.
I believe that most Tea Partiers are scared, and fear is not racism. But there is no denying that one of the things they fear is a black planet.
Scares them like crazy. Keeps them up nights.
So when a racist shows up at a rally, the others might not protest him or her because, underneath it all, a lot of their perceived problems would go away if there weren't any black people.
And while that's not conscious hatred, it is in fact racism. "We were here first, it's our country, Don't Tread On Me" and so forth.
The further back in history somebody wants the country to go, the closer we get to a time when blacks "knew their place" and it was socially acceptable to treat blacks as less than human.
A lot of Tea Party rhetoric comes mighty close to "those were the days."
As I said, perhaps not friends and lovers but seemingly pals and chums.
Thank you for the clarification. I also could not disagree more.
The core of the Tea Party is the anger centered around the attack on personal liberty, increased power handed to the federal government without proper checks and balances, and Nanny Statism. "Don't Tread on Me" was never racist rhetoric. It was anti-British, trampling on the rights of the colonists.
The mental gymnastics, as I like to call it, that your explanation requires is itself suggestive of an invalid conclusion in search of a hypothesis. Listen to yourself. Fear of a black planet (unproven) leads to not dispelling a racist from a rally (unproven) because the subtext is that black people are causing all the problems (unproven), which is racism.
Really?
The line of reasoning is so enormously complicated that I have trouble buying it. It makes so many assumptions that simply are not true, haven't been polled to be true, and is simply an interpretation you make based on people you simply do not know.
I think you are vastly overstating the perceived fear that exists within the Tea Party of a "Black planet", vastly overstating the influence the fearful have, and underestimate the motivations of those running it.
I would also call attention to the polling data from the link I provided earlier, and the conclusions drawn by Mr. Meyers in his article, which I reprint here, substituting the word "afraid" for "racist". Now I'll shut up. 🙂
Gallup says that “Tea Partiers are quite representative of the public at large”. Are we to conclude that the public at large is afraid of a Black Planet?
Six percent of those polled by Gallup are African-American and support the Tea Party. Are we to conclude these African-Americans are afraid of a Black Planet?
Rasmussen Reports tells us “63% of Mainstream Americans say their views are closer to the Tea Party”. Are we to conclude that two-thirds of Mainstream Americans are afraid of a Black Planet?
The Winston Group reports that 41% of Tea Partiers are either Independent or Democrats. Are we to conclude that all of these people are afraid ofa Black Planet?
As Charlie Brown once famously said to Lucy, "Tell your statistics to shut up."
🙂
In all seriousness, anybody who denies that the Tea Party movement has brought more abject displays of racism out of the closet, is either selling something or highly confused.
Perhaps overwhelmed by numbers?
In all seriousness, anybody who insists that the Tea Party movement has brought more abject displays of racism out of the closet is highly confused.
Mr. Bennett, respectfully, I can't make it any clearer. Your observations have no control sample, and are therefore witnessed in a vacuum.
Harold, as a scientist you're applying a different method of proof. You demand a "quantitative" analysis for a "qualitative" trait. You can't quantify racism, it's an abstract. And as a student of science the following statement should ring true with you. Not all things that matter can be measured by science…and not all things that science measures…matters.
I wouldn't say that the Tea Party has "brought more abject displays"…that would be an assumption on your part that the Tea Party itself is somehow "encouraging" such behavior. To Walt's point…it would be a safe haven for certain types of expression. There are things you can get away with at a Tea Party you just can't get away with elsewhere. Can I quantify it? No, but common sense as a standard of proof does just fine. I can prove "racism" at Tea Party rallies no more can I prove the existence of the star Proxima Centauri.
Meaning, I can see them both.
And since you're a scientist you also understand that you've not offered anything to disprove my thesis, you've only argued that my reasoning doesn't meet your scientific standard it's somehow untrue. No, it means I've not met your standard of proof, it doesn't a priori mean it's untrue.
You can't substantively qualify or quantify "racism" but we should be able to agree it exists and for the most part we can identify it. It's not possible to quantify the "racism" of the confederate South (relative to the Union states), but the Civil war and subsequent Jim Crow laws do just fine and are solid arguments in the absence of quantifiable evidence. It's called behavioral analysis…active and complicit behavior. And by the way…if it only takes one rape to be called rapist, how many acts does it take to be rightfully termed as a racist?
Just asking…
I can tell you I love the Lord…and there's no control sample in existence that either prove or disprove this truth. Some things are not bound to mathematical equations or statistical distributions. If you are looking for a number of "racist acts" (whatever that means) per Tea Party rally to quantify (relative to non-rallies) whether Tea Party rallies are more "conducive" to racist behavior…you won't find them here or anywhere.
But until you can find ANY evidence of such behavior going on in NON Tea Party rallies as frequently as DURING Tea party rallies, your scientific method actually proves our point.
Some (at a Tea Party rally) is always more than none (elsewhere). Some is always more than one. That is, if you require strict quantification. It doesn't mean the majority of the Tea party is racist, but it sure does mean that outward expressions of racism exist at their rallies and the outward expressions are not singular in nature…meaning, NOT an anomaly. An anomaly is just that…a singular, unexplained aberration. An anomaly is unique as a deviation from the norm. Racist signs/behavior at a Tea Party rally does not meet the definition of an "anomaly" and I have the pictures to prove it. I even have the voicemail to Congressman John Lewis also on my site to prove it. That's evidence. I would try to compare it to Democratic rallies, but you have offered no evidence to contradict that it happens or is as prevalent as during Tea Party rallies. Your quantitative standard of proof works both ways and thus fails both ways.
To which I would reiterate, and which you have essentially agreed, that the gathering of any given organization brings out extremists.
Let's keep things straight.
It is patently obvious that there are abject displays of racism at Tea Party rallies, and there are a large number of thinly veiled swipes at Obama's ancestry to go along with those.
And of course there are many expressions of dislike for his policies, which is fair game and nothing at all unusual. GWB took his share of poundings from protesters.
There are simply more abject displays of racism at Tea Party gatherings. Certainly not at all gatherings. Nobody is asserting that Tea Party gatherings are Klan rallies in disguise.
That was never the point.
Mo and I have gone around and around on this, to where we see some areas of agreement. We agree that the Tea Party is not founded on principles of racism. We also agree that racists find their way to Tea Party gatherings.
Both statements are true.
This has never been a scientific undertaking, and as you well know, Harold, you can get numbers to say anything you want them to say.
Was it Mark Twain who said this? "There are three kinds of lies: Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics."
What numbers can you show us to offset the photos of white people contentedly carrying posters with pictures of Obama The Spearchucker?
And perhaps more importantly, Harold, are you content to let numbers lull you to sleep so as to avoid facing the social reality that racism still pervades politics, police and other authority figures, corporate America and so forth?
Or would you like to show us some numbers to refute those assertions?
Morris, thanks for the invite to stick around.
The problem I was having was that your thesis was not clear until now. Your thesis, however, has no meaning. So there are some racists at Tea Party rallies.
So what?
Not "so what" as in, racism is not a terrible thing. But "So what" from the standpoint that your observation is merely that.
An observation.
There are racists everywhere, are there not? You say they are encouraged to come out at Tea Party rallies? So what? They are also encouraged to come out at KKK rallies.
Again, what is the relative % of racists at Tea Party gatherings COMPARED to ANY OTHER GATHERING?
If the % of racists at any random Tea Party is, say, 3% but it's 3% at the National Booksellers Association, using your logic, the NBA and racists are lovers and friends.
If the % of racists at Tea Party rallies is 3% and it is .01% at any other political gathering of any stripe, then you are onto something.
But you don't have that data set. Neither do I. But just because I don't have that data set does not mean that you can draw a valid conclusion from it. Rather, you can try, but you pollute your intellect and your blog.
Your data set consists of unspecific pictures, taken at unspecified rallies, pulled off an unspecified websites, with no idea of how many of these people there were compared to the total number at that particular rally, much less any other rally.
What if the number of racists at the rallies you have photos of was .001%?
You don't know if it is, do you?
You wrote, "But until you can find ANY evidence of such behavior going on in NON Tea Party rallies as frequently as DURING Tea party rallies, your scientific method actually proves our point."
Actually, it does not, Morris. You cannot draw a valid conclusion when a data set simply has not been presented. Again, you have no control group. You have no other data set to compare it to. Lack of data does not allow one to make a valid conclusion.
Let's try this from the drug industry perspective. I have a new drug. I think it reduces cholesterol. I get 1000 people for a trial and 60 end up with reduced cholesterol. My drug reduces cholesterol!!
Or does it?
I didn't have a group take a placebo. What if 300 of them end up with reduced cholesterol?
I didn't have a control group in which people may have taken the drug or they may have taken a placebo (I'm not allowed to know). What if 60 of them have reduced cholesterol? Was it the placebo that helped? The drug? Or some other factor?
The data on my drug is inconclusive on its own. The results have been observed in a vacuum, just as your results are observed in a vacuum.
Mr. Bennett — you can SOMETIMES get numbers to say anything you want. Drug trials, for example, are not subject to such whimsy. There are well defined end points for drugs, highly structured environments under which experiments are conducted, and definitions of what is statistically significant.
I also take umbrage at your second attempt to label me as myopic. I never, ever stated that racism does not exist. Of course it does.
The question is: does it exist to the extent that you and Morris would like to believe?
Harold,
Racism is a pervasive problem in America, which was my point. Do you deny it, and do you use "statistics" to hide behind that denial?
Don't rule out the possibility that you may in fact be myopic.
Mr. Bennett, racism is a problem in America.
There are also many many other problems in America, including people seeing racism where there isn't any.
Harold,
We certainly agree on that.
Morris has pictures.
I see racism in some of those pictures.
That's always been his only point: Show him similar pictures from other political gatherings and you have yourself a rebuttal.
I hardly need to. You yourself have stated that racism is a pervasive problem in America. The definition of pervasive is "everywhere" or "broadly distributed". Since we know it is not solely existent at Tea Party rallies, you have made my rebuttal for me.
In addition, the lack of any pictures does not allow you to draw a valid conclusion. Just because I can't find hermit crabs at Zuma doesn't discount the possibility that they are there.
If Morris was intellectually honest, he himself would seek out signs himself and report back to us on the ease or lack thereof of finding them. He would then elevate himself from blogger to real journalist. Right now he is a gifted writer with a message that gets lost in hyperbole and inflammatory headlines.
Harold, I'll give you a month, and I'm willing to bet you will not be able to find comparable signs in Democratic party gatherings. If it is your assessment (and it seems to be) that there's no reference point for whether these signs only exist within Tea Party gatherings, then offer evidence that refutes it. I've maintained that it doesn't exist.
You instead argue that I haven't look hard enough. Meaning, if I (or you) looked harder, it would be found.
Whenever you'd like to offer some pictures to support your argument, I'm here.
Harold, you drew an illogical inference.
O' the shame 🙂
You seem to agree that racism is a pervasive problem in America. You then draw the conclusion that it is therefore 'everywhere'.
(a) That cannot be proved from the statement upon which it is based.
(b) That still does not address the fact that racism can flourish, grow, find comfort and become stronger in certain situations better than in others.
Morris makes the point that racism is condoned and can therefore become comfortable and stronger, within the confines of the Tea Party.
His evidence: Clearly racist posters, and a lack of intent by the Tea Party to reject the people who hold them.
That's more than enough evidence to prove his point.
Yours has yet to be proved.
It can't be this hard to understand, can it? The lack of any pictures does not mean it doesn't exist.
Must one carry a placard that says, "I'm a racist" to be considered one by you? Frankly, I am comforted that these people make themselves known rather than hide in the shadows.
But all you need do is find a group photo of the NAACP, the Congressional Black Caucus, and any photo with Jesse Jackson surrounded by African-Americans. The racism bleeds from these entities, in their support for policies designed to encourage African-Americans to remain steadfast in "victim status". What's worse is this is institutionalized racism that nobody pays any attention to, instead pointing the finger elsewhere.
Do I REALLY need to mention King Shabazz and his desire to kill white babies? Rev. Jeremiah Wright?
Shall I point out the Liberals that run Hollywood and the huge number of African-Americans that populate the airwaves? Go find a group photo of a bunch of Hollywood folks. There's your racists.
"Shall I point out the Liberals that run Hollywood and the huge number of African-Americans that populate the airwaves? Go find a group photo of a bunch of Hollywood folks. There’s your racists."
"It can’t be this hard to understand, can it? The lack of any pictures does not mean it doesn’t exist."
Is that your way of saying you have no evidence to support your thesis?
As a scientist you must acknowledge that if you have no evidence to support your thesis, your thesis lacks merit. At present, you have no evidence to debunk the authenticity of mine and have no evidence in which to support anything you've contended. As a scientist you must acknowledge the shallow grave you're digging for yourself here.
"The liberals that run Hollywood"…is the best you can do? They are de facto racist because they AREN'T neocons? Wow, such a sweeping, unfounded generalization. That's syllogistic logic at its worst.
"Huge number of African-Americans that populate the airwaves"
WHERE?! BET?! Don't ask for the metrics on that. I've got them and they don't in ANY way support your point.
You just walked into your own trap. You're arguing against yourself. Are you now alleging that "Liberals" and "African-Americans in Hollywood" are racist?
Your statement was "There's your racists." And you have NOT ONE picture, NOT ONE piece of evidence in which to support such an (erroneous) thesis statement. Tisk Tisk, that's far, far from any type of proof.
For every Jesse Jackson you "allege" to be a racist, I have 10 Rush Limbaughs. And speaking of Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity et al. They each have an audience of support (i.e. followers) which are easily 100 times that of Jesse.
Would you like those numbers?
Don't try to change the subject. For every Jeremiah Wright you wish to mention I have a John Hagee, Ted Haggard and others. You're working in the wrong direction here.
Don't make me start pulling out the links again.
I can only imagine what you would say if I said…Look at all the Republicans in Washington and all the White people on TV…THERE'S your racists. You would've lost your mind, especially without any evidence in which to back it up.
Of course the absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence…which is why I'm giving you all the time you need. I found those pics in all of 3 minutes. I'll give you 3 months. If I can find in 3 minutes which you can't find in 3 months…it likely speaks to PREVALENCE.
And by the way, who exactly are "the liberals who run Hollywood" racist against? Please elaborate, but you didn't bring any facts, so I don't want to assume. Most of "the liberals who run Hollywood" are Jews. Are you insinuating that Jews are racist? That's a pretty sweeping ethnic generalization. Hmm…
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism
racism
Main Entry: rac·ism
Pronunciation: ˈrā-ˌsi-zəm also -ˌshi-
Function: noun
Date: 1933
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination
We've gone over this before.
Harold, you're at a huge disadvantage here. One reason for that is that you're in such a hurry. You've wandered into a blog where there are routine deep discussion about this very issue, and you are not familiar with those discussions and the area that's been covered.
Which is why you don't know that the path you're treading down has left many before you pulverized into, quite literally, oblivion. They are simply never heard from again.
I can also tell you that contrarianism is welcome here. I would know because I am the resident contration. I also took opposition to Morris' view of the Tea Party, in those older posts to which he provided links from this post, and which I advised you to make yourself familiar with.
I suspect that you did not.
I suspect this because you would know, if you had, that Morris easily bats down such broad accusations as you're making here, and you would also know that you aren't going to beat Morris to the punch on Black History.
(And one of these days, maybe on my birthday (1/15!), Morris will admit that I was right and he was wrong about Glenn Beck's version of black history. Another story for another time.)
Harold, the reason Morris welcomed you to keep coming back is because you seemed to be able to put your thoughts together in a way that might elevate discussion in this space.
I can also tell you he's having second thoughts.
(And by the way, it's not because he and I have discussed this; we haven't. It's because I know him pretty well as regards this space.)
You went from statistical analysis to prejudicial value judgments in about 6 nanoseconds. In other words, statistical analysis wasn't going so well, so you switched up.
Except you had nothing to switch to, except your naked belief that blacks make too much out of racism and deny that their beliefs can be equally as evil as white supremacy.
Care to calculate the odds of how much longer you'll be permitted to travel down that path?
I predict that you're almost done here and that we'll never see you again.
First to the main issue.
I have ten sacks of marbles. [Presumably yours, if you still have a sense of humor. They can mine if your prefer].
Morris opens one sack and finds 13 green marbles and 87 red marbles.
"Ah!" Morris says. "I have two grand conclusions to draw!!! First, there are more likely to be green marbles in this bag than in any other bag. Second, NONE of the other bags will have any green marbles".
Really? This is what you are hanging your entire racist accusation on? Do I really need to point out that 1) Morris has no idea what bag, if any, is more or less likely to have green marbles, and 2) How could he have ANY idea if the other bags have green marbles or not?
So he says, "Unless you open up those other bags and show me green marbles, I am RIGHT!!!!"
So we sit and stare at each other for a very long time. One day, Morris realizes, "Wait a second. Why don't I seek out the Truth myself and open those bags?"
No, his pride won't let him. So he stares some more at me.
Then Morris decides, "Wait. How do I know for certain there are no green marbles in those bags? I don't really know, do I? I have seen bags like that before, and in recent times they have had green marbles. Then again, before recent times, they didn't have green marbles" [That's a reference to the history of DEMOCRATIC racism http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1523692/…
"Hmm….you know, maybe there just might be some green marbles in there. If only I actually looked myself, because I want to seek the Truth myself, and want to know the Truth, then…."
So there we have it. Now here's a real world example. This is from a wonderful book called "Mavericks at Work". It tells the story of a gold miner who found gold on his Canadian property after searching for a fairly short period. Now, on an adjacent piece of property, it was widely held belief that there was no gold. The terrain wasn't right. This kind of geological area historically did not have gold. So the property owner, who was offered the property for a song declined to purchase it. He didn't need to look. He knew no gold was there.
Along came an entrepreneur. He'd heard all the tales and purchased the land. Everyone laughed at him. He searched for many years to no avail. Then he offered a piece of any strike if the collective intelligence of the rest of the world could devise a technology to find gold he really believed was there. People entered ideas from all over the world, a new mining technique came about and bingo. The biggest strike in Canadian history.
You can imagine how the first miner felt.
And now perhaps you see the flaw in your reasoning.
Rather than the petty bickering we are engaging in, a seeker of Truth does not seek to reduce the discussion to who is right, who has rebuttals, and who has the superior intellect.
A seeker of the Truth recognizes that his closely held belief is just that — a belief.
What I'm learning, to my dismay, is that you somehow feel that you construct the rules of what is a rebuttal when those are only left to God (And, as it happens, I am also a man of Faith).
What we learn from this exercise, Gentlemen, is a rather difficult thing that many people fail to grasp: there are very few verifiable Truths in this world. It is difficult to construct real-world, rock-solid logical syllogisms.
An honest seeker of the Truth elevates himself, and others in his purview, and also honors God, by shaking free from the hand of the Great Deceiver.
So, forget about me. I mean nothing. Literally. The only thing that matters is the Truth.
Will you exert the free will granted to you by God to answer your own question and seek an objective Truth, or reply with a petty meaningless answer?
After all that Harold…you offer no proof or evidence to support anything you've alleged. Not too much to say. The Jedi Mindtrick doesn't work here. You're welcome to your opinion(s). But the standard you set in the very beginning you yourself do not even measure up to…
There's no "sample" there's no statistical analysis in support of your statements…nothing. I'm underwhelmed. You went from statistical to philosophical…purely to suit the moment. I've been consistent. Where is your evidence. This isn't a philosophical discussion (yet). I want to see your evidence. We're not talking pure truth, we're talking evidence.
You must have none it seems.
To conclude:
I really could not care less what Morris, or you, think about me. Because I only serve the Truth.
To set the record straight, therefore, I said quite clearly that "people see racism where there isn't any". I do not know if you are Black, White, or Green, but what I do see is that YOU leapt to the prejudicial judgment that I wrote "Black". I did no such thing. Furthermore, I do not believe anyone is in a position to proclaim that racism demonstrated by Blacks is less than, equal to, or greater than the evil of white supremacy. Racism is evil. Period.
Yes, you've certainly been consistent. From the moment you claimed not to use syllogistic logic because it is "flawed", followed by an example showing your improper use of it, and then the use of sand at the beach as a False Analogy, this demonstrated how your mind works. That is to say, it works like most people's — polluted reasoning to support unsupportable hypotheses, all in service of the ego insistent on seeing the world not how it is, but how we want to see it.
Not that it's your fault, of course. Our schools have failed us in that regard.
At any rate, I leave you with your bag of marbles. Do let me know if you decide to open up any of the other bags.
Hmmm, I guess Indignant has been so busy arguing legal cases in court that he hasn't had the time to revisit the blog and answer my question.
Oh, well… 🙂
Harold,
Assuming you're still here.
You are a very difficult person to pin down. On the one hand, you seem to have some education, the ability to put ideas together, an attraction to the analytical.
On the other hand, you play by two sets of rules, one for your logic and another for your opponent.
There is only one reason I can think of that you would do this: You've got your mind made up, and so the reasoning must fit the conclusion.
You've got your mind made up about the exact two things I said you did: (1) Black folk make entirely too much out of all this racism biz; (2) Blacks can be racist too, and are intentionally blind to the evil contained in their own world view.
Harold, I really did try to warn you that this is well-trodden ground here. You are a breathless newcomer, thinking you're slamming through the door with all sorts of fresh thinking, and nothing could be less true.
All of which leads to this: I doubt that we're going to repeat those lengthy past discussions now, simply to catch you up.
But the great thing about blogs is that they are archived and searchable. Try looking for "racism" in past discussions here.
Take that time that Morris has offered you. Take a week, a month, whatever you need. Go back and research past discussions in this space which cover this issue over and over.
Then come back, a little more mature, a little less cocksure, a little more aware that others, too, have thought a lot about this issue.
And try again.
Harold,
I think it's also important that you at least consider the possibility that you are not the smartest guy in the room.
Most verbose, perhaps, and I'm probably the most verbose guy here, but you do have some impressive stamina.
Your analogy about the sacks of marbles was, unfortunately, fatally flawed. You spent a lot of time on an analogy which was not, in fact, an analogue.
What a shame.
There aren't 13 sacks of marbles, there are 3. There are Republicans, Democrats, Tea Partiers. At certain points in time there might be a Green Party or a Perot Party as well.
We have no pictures of any posters from any rallies by any of those parties which declare a racist sentiment.
Except for one: The Tea Party.
Your assertion that Morris refuses to look into the other bags is laughable. We see those other bags every day. They're on the news every day. If a Republican or a Democrat uses the wrong word, it's news for a week.
Laughable.
And your attempt to expand the discussion to include, for example, Hollywood, is disingenuous and is clear evidence that your initial point is unraveling.
It's a desperate lunge.
Whether or not Jews or blacks express hatred in one form or another is not the same thing as a political movement, while seeking legitimacy, and with a demonstrated capacity to alter elections and rally large groups of people, comfortably permitting abject displays of racism.
I'm shocked that you would not recognize the importance of that difference.
Harold, let me observe that you seemed to completely ignore my comment above which started with a definition of racism.
I wish you would go back and read it.
Oh, I assure you, Mr. Bennett, that I am still here.
And laughing.
Harold, you're still here and I'm still waiting on some evidence from you. I've got rhetoric, but no real substance.
Let's see….another example of your outstanding logical constructions.
If one can't find something on the internet, it doesn't exist!
If one doesn't bother searching for something on the internet, it doesn't exist!
Please, the repeated pollution of critical thinking is making things stink.
Harold, it is not my job to find YOUR evidence. So until you can present evidence to support YOUR thesis, your argument doesn't hold water. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, I'm saying you have none. We can quantitatively measure the amount you have…and it is zero.
No, silly, you haven't proven your thesis. Part of proving the supposition is eliminating the possibilities of the second half of the statement. But as I said, you've already demonstrated that you lack critical thinking ability, which is rather standard, so don't feel badly about it.
OK, I've held back up until now, but since you went there…how foolish is it to argue that you are on solid footing with the person who has abundant evidence while you have zero evidence? Simply foolish. Your refusal to acknowledge the obvious (such as having no evidence) only heightens this fact.
Nobody said that the evidence didn't exist. I've only said that your postulation lacks any merit until you have evidence in which to support it. You can say that the moon is made of green cheese. But you CAN'T argue that it's a worthwhile
theorem in the absence of evidence. Not my job to go find YOUR evidence. It's my job to find evidence to support MY theory. I've done my job. Either debunk my evidence or find your own to support your theory. Otherwise you're wasting everyone's time…still.
Hate to devolve the conversation but you haven't left much choice. Without your statistical analysis (and certainly no evidence) there isn't much for you to work with. Insults don't serve as a substitute for evidence.
Morris,
The guy was an agendized grandstander from the beginning. You were nice enough to provide him the rope with which he hanged himself.
He went from meaningless statistics to flawed analysis to superficial observations to naked insult.
It's been fascinating to watch a human unravel so rapidly, actually.
And without, I assure you, having even bothered to read previous posts on this specific topic, let alone previous posts regarding racism from this blog, he dares to accuse you of lacking critical thinking skills.
Other than to get his craziness on the record, I am at a loss to explain why you encourage further comment from him at all.
Walt,
I like to see him further undress himself. And then I go back and use his own words and argument against him. You summed it up very well in terms of his unraveling. The less we agree with him and push him to prove his point the more incivility in his demeanor. Meaning…he's cracking under the pressure, irrespective of what he'll "say" next. He's abandoned all material analysis to instead change the subject accusing me of a "lazy" scientific method. He now demands that I prove my point while also doing HIS research for to help prove his.
It's a circular argument. If I don't come up with any evidence to support his claim, it doesn't mean there isn't any…it just means I Morris am a "lazy researcher."
And to your point, he wasn't even willing to RESEARCH the previous posts on the subject at this very blogsite. It was the least he could have done and he didn't even do that. He wasn't interested in looking because it required effort and increased the likelihood of exposure. But I am the lazy researcher lacking critical thinking?
Interesting.
He requires no effort on his own part to either refute, debunk or deny the existing evidence. Worse than that, he accepts no responsibility for the failure of his argument or for the lack of evidence to support it. Convenient and effortless.
And Morris, he is one of those guys who is so clueless that he swears that others just don't "get" him, that others can't possibly keep up with his brilliance.
So I do see the entertainment value, when you get down to it…
Harold:
Morris does not have a thesis. Morris has a point: The Tea Party seems rather comfortable allowing purely racist protesters to come to their gatherings.
That's always been his only point. That's not a "thesis", it's an observation.
Humans make them all the time.
Now, of course we must always follow up an observation with rational analysis. Morris has been more than generous in playing along with you, willing to believe that you were honestly interested in actual analysis.
He even encouraged you to be a regular contributor.
Then you couldn't win your point with statistics (they don't play as well as posters). Then you couldn't win your point by trying to include other things (they have nothing to do with political parties). Then you tried to win your point by accusing Morris of failing to adequately fall at your feet.
Then you just decided "the hell with it" and began insulting him.
I would say that you have revealed yourself to be a sufferer of at least a bit of social disorder.
I don't dispute that you're bright. And yet, you can still be ignorant, by failing to apply your abilities constructively.
One thing that will always prevent you from reaching a clear-minded conclusion: Predudice.
You had your mind made up when you came in here, and the shame is on you for taking the hand Morris extended to you in the name of amicable discussion, and biting it in the name of satisfying the agenda you came here with in the first place.
Shame on you, but more to the point, pity on you.
As funny a word as "Predudice" sounds like it could be, that was meant to be "Prejudice."
Of course.
Sorry, boys, but I'm quite comfortable living in a world of objective truth, and not playing in the sandbox of subjective observation, which only provides self-delusion. I know it's hard to accept that you aren't up to snuff with critical thought but as I said, so few are. At any rate, I did try and introduce you to living a life free of burden of ignorance. Where you go from here is simply a matter of letting go. I don't have much hope for that, as you desperately grasp to the idea that this is somehow about winning and losing, but hope does spring eternal.
Harold,
You're not half as good as you think you are. I don't get distracted. Where is your evidence Harold? Either provide evidence to support your contentions on racism or move on. I'm not in any way interested in esoteric conversations about critical thinking or your thinly-veiled insults. Last chance.