"In an office for John McCain's campaign", please. You make it sound like he endorsed the thing personally and knew it was there; the article doesn't cite anyone above a very local level.
I explained how I'd have written it; that's the bit in quotes.
"In John McCain's campaign office" implies a personal connection between McCain and that office, when in fact I doubt he's ever visited it. However much I disagree with McCain on just about every aspect of the man's personality and politics, I don't think he'd ever go so far as to endorse a sign like this, even in his own mind; I think he's irrational, but not quite that far gone.
To put it differently: theweaselking's post implies that this is McCain's personal policy and that of his campaign as a whole, when in fact it's (like the previous post about the idiot who lynched a ghost with Obama's name on it on his front lawn) - another case of a lone idiot making the entire group look worse than they are.
What it implies is that some of McCain's fanboys and fangirls in Florida are not thinking straight at all. But then, there are a few on the Obama side that are not quite right either. I'm voting for Obama incidentally, and I'm by no means a youth.
Really, all I have to say is "so?". I don't think there is anything left to surprise me in this muddy excuse for a campaign. It's like pointing out that Obama has Che Guevara’s flag in the Houston office. And I have to again say...so? The candidates don't have that much control about what happens in their campaign offices anyhow, so I really don't see how it matters. Plus, really? It's a stupid poster, put up by a stupid person.
I hate this election cycle. Thank God it is over in less than 2 weeks.
I love how every time you post these things, demonstrating the continual contempt of the McBush campaign and the GOP for folk of colour and Obama in particular, people come crawling out of everywhere to defend the Republicons.
I'm just waiting to see someone say "but Obama's racist against white people!!!!"
Yeah, you know, I haven't seen or heard a single Obama supporter say "man, fuck white people" (or words to that effect), but I have seen McCain supporters spout racist bullshit.
Of course, I live in the Deep South, so it's unfortunately not like racist bullshit isn't common around here.
What I'm really fairly curious about is why there's no room for middle ground here? Since when is coming out and saying 'There are a relatively equal number of egregiously stupid people on both sides of this issue' a *defense* of the republicans.
I think the point harald387 is making is that if you take a sampling out of a fairly large group of people you will find morons.
In the last election there were 120ish Million voters. Let's say that there are 55 Million registered republicans (a totally unofficial number that was the first one I saw on the internet, so I know it's not a 100 % reliable one). Now, let's say there are 100,000 certified would kill a minority when they saw them rabid racists, and another 500,000 who wouldn't do it, but wouldn't cry if it happened.
That would account for 1.01% of the party.
We're not saying that it's okay that some republicans are like that, we're just saying there is no way you can infer from even the actions of 600,000 people that everyone in the group they're in feels that way.
Sometime in the last year I saw a stat that officially 1% of the population of the US has been or was in the US penal system.
I understand the perception that they're all racist, misogynist homophobes... and part of that is that we don't hear about the moderates on either side... but you just can't say they're all like that.
Since when is coming out and saying 'There are a relatively equal number of egregiously stupid people on both sides of this issue' a *defense* of the republicans.
There is not an equal amount of egregiously stupid crap coming from Democrats. Certainly not from party officials and campaign offices and the like, at any rate.
I understand that you disagree.... but that still doesn't mean that someone raising that point is *defending* anyone.
It's as if someone is on the corner yelling 'Christians suck!', another person comes up and says 'All religious people suck, equally!' and the first one looks to the second one and says 'WHY ARE YOU DEFINDING CHRISTIANS!'
The Democratic party does not suck to nearly the same extent as the Republicans, and bleating that they do is only concealing the latter by attempting to muddy the former.
Your example is the same. Not all religious people suck equally. Trying to conflate Christians -who have a lot of suckage- with Buddhists (for example) -who don't- is deflecting the issue.
Here's an example: you have two people. One is covered in blood, the other only has a few spots. A third person points out that one is soaked in gore, and a fourth says 'but they both have blood on, right!"
Except that in this case, the blood isn't on the hands of the chap with less- it's mostly been flicked at him by the soaked guy.
The Democratic party does not suck to nearly the same extent as the Republicans, and bleating that they do is only concealing the latter by attempting to muddy the former.
First of all, I'd like to keep the conversation civil, so let's avoid: 1) The implication that I'm a republican, republican apologist or trying to excuse racist asshats. I'm not, I'm not and I'm not, and I'm getting tired of saying that. It's really, really tiring to keep being told I'm excusing or defending people I have no respect for.. particularly with a total lack of reference to where I've done so. 2) Let's avoid terms like 'bleating' shall we with the fun implication that someone is just a sheep parroting pre-fed notes. It's a fun little side-swipe insult but that's all it is.
But as far as your comment.... it really depends, for the most part on your viewpoint, and maybe I'm just a lot more cynical than you are. But I'm not the only one that's that cynical. In the religion example for instance if you're an atheist and don't believe in god, than every religion is merely an attempt by one group of people to make others live by their standards, most often in exchange for some form of power/influence. They all use different methods but it's having the same effect.
To use your violence example it's like two people standing side by side, one person beat someone to death with a pipe, the other used a ancient eastern nerve pinch to kill them. One of them is certainly messier, but dead is dead.
And no, I'm *not* saying that the people incited by the democrats are as *physically dangerous* as the people incited by the republicans. I'm not saying that democratic propaganda leads to anything like the displays the republican propaganda inspires. I'm just saying that the effect it has below the surface is as dangerous.
My personal viewpoint is that in general at the highest levels of debate it's a really really really bad thing to instill the attitude that it's *us* versus *them*. Because regardless of who wins, the person who gets elected is going to be the President of the United States of America and of all the people who live there, not just the people that agree with them.
When I sit back and read the flyers that I get every day at this point, and see the ads on TV, I see alot of items that are intended to make sure people are thinking along those lines. And it's dangerous. As I've said before along the various comments the 'us vs them' hate/fear mongering is different because it's tailored to different audiences... schoolbooks for kindergardeners are different than those for highschoolers, so a campaign to reach an unemployed steel-mill worker is likely to be different than a campaign targetting a tenured sociology professor.
But the campaigns are both there. The effect of it is most obvious on those with the least impulse control and those who are the most afraid, and that's always going to be the racists, sexists etc, everyone who's afraid that they're going to lose what they have to the new and different. But it's there even when it doesn't boil to the top.
I have both democratic and republican friends. The republicans, if they speak frankly think that anyone who supports Obama doesn't understand economics, doesn't understand current events and are just 'liberals with a cause'. The Democrats think the Republicans are just racist assholes, trying to protect their retirement funds and not caring who gets dragged down by that.
It's not that they think the other side has a viewpoint and they disagree, it's not that they think they want a different direction. It's that they think the other side is silly, stupid, evil and bad for the country. That's *both* sides that think that.
It's a dangerous divide and it just gets wider and wider and wider, and it's something that is put into effect by the RNC and DNC. It's in how they campaign, how they advertise, how they motivate and who they target. At the highest level of both parties it's a game, a game where things as important as the *right* to vote become game pieces ('Let's make sure these folk are registered', 'Let's make sure these folk aren't', 'Let's make sure these votes are counted', 'Let's make sure these votes are excluded'). At the highest levels, it's a game.
But at the lowest levels, it's something completely different. If you're the person who lost their house and the Republicans succeed in getting you purged from the voter rolls? That's very, very real. Top level elected officials work together, and understand it's a game.... but their policies inspire bad bad blood at workers at the lower levels and broad haps between the people who believe what they're selling.
It's why there's been more violence in recent years between campaign workers, etc. And despite all of that, despite people fairly high up in both parties *knowing* that things are getting more polarized.. they keep using the same tools... because those tools work.
So yes, one side is 'cleaner' than the other, and yes one sides followers are more prone to stupid acts of reckless violence. But the core issue that drives that whole thing, the core issue that makes it possible to consider everyone on the other side evil, or subhuman or what have you.. is the result of what both sides have been doing for years.
One with a wrench, the other with a nerve pinch... but both victims are just as dead.
Is racism worse than elitism? In a sense that the first has a far higher percentage chance to result in physical violence? Sure. But if you're judging it based on the increasing diminishing median and the fact that both sides are leaving less room for a middle ground and redefining that middle ground as enemy territory then they're both just as bad.
I'm not excusing *any* of it, and given that I personally spent my high school years dealing with a combination of racism/classism (because one of the most racist parts of New York is Westchester County, I would seriously appreciate it if people would stop telling me what it is I think/feel and how much I like the republicans.
-Both sides might think that, but notice how the Democrats think -with evidence- that the R campaign is hateful to women, people of colour and civil rights, while the Republitrons think the D campaign is 'economically naive.' Which has no basis in fact, what with it being a Republican government that got your economy into this mess.
Once again: Republicans exhibit a great degree of racism at all levels, Democrats do not. Denying that is a defence of the R.
-Campaigns are forced to appeal to the 'extremes' because of your voluntary voting system. I forget where I read that analysis.
-Anyway, this is what is being stated by me and so far as I can tell our host: [O]ne side is 'cleaner' than the other, and yes one sides followers are more prone to stupid acts of reckless violence.
And that side is the Republicans.
-Your 'nerve pinch' thing has had no demonstration of evidence.
-Is racism worse than elitism? I don't know. Ask someone of colour.
-I didn't tell you what you thought or felt at all. I don't care what you think on the inside. I only care what I see. What I see is the Republicans being racist and people -note that I never accused you of it- defending them by pretending the democrats are 'just as bad' without any evidence.
Once again: Republicans exhibit a great degree of racism at all levels, Democrats do not. Denying that is a defence of the R.
Note: I have *never* denied that racism is the way the propaganda manifests itself in the Republican party. Nor have I stated that racism is how it manifests itself in the democratic party.
Doing such wouldn't be so much a defense of the R party, it would be blatantly stupid.
Campaigns are forced to appeal to the 'extremes' because of your voluntary voting system. I forget where I read that analysis.
Not sure where you originally read it, but I certainly said something quite similar. It's how you get people to vote in our system and it still only works on *some* of the population. I find the % of people in America who don't vote mind-boggling.
Anyway, this is what is being stated by me and so far as I can tell our host: [O]ne side is 'cleaner' than the other, and yes one sides followers are more prone to stupid acts of reckless violence.
And that side is the Republicans.
I completely concede that the R stupids are more prone to violence etc that the D stupids. In fact I'm pretty sure I've said that.
Is racism worse than elitism? I don't know. Ask someone of colour.
Handily.. I am someone of color. :)
What I see is the Republicans being racist and people -note that I never accused you of it- defending them by pretending the democrats are 'just as bad' without any evidence.
Right, but here's the problem. Putting aside the issue of comdemning the entire membership of the Republican party as racist. If you insist on judging 'bad' only by racist? Then yep there's no way the Dems are as bad.
But that's not the standard I'm applying. Nor is it the standard I've been talking about, nor is it the standard I've been getting static over.
Racist acts and signs are *not* the cause, they are the effect.
As I've pointed out repeatedly, the *cause* of those expressions of racism is the us vs them attitude instilled by calculated campaigns of emotional manipulation that are done by *both* parties. They create a divide where people on our side of the issue are good, people on their side of the issue are bad, and people on neither side of the issue are stupid.
The fact that *both* parties do it makes the Dems just as bad for fostering that atmosphere.
Are their members as violent? Nope, how could they be given the core anti-gun plank? Are their members as bigoted against blacks, gays, women and democrats? Nope , how could they be when the R core is old white guys, and the D core is everybody else. Are their members differently bigoted? Yes. (As an example I'd note that there are sub-groups within the Democratic party that are anti-white )particularly anti-white male), anti-military (not just anti-war), anti-business (though who wouldn't be) and anti-republican. They don't generally manifest in the insanely stupid ways the Republican bigots do, but they're certainly out there). Are their members just as petrified of the other guys getting control? Yes. Are their members just as unwilling to see people on the other side as people rather than as the 'opposition'? Yes.
Do these attitudes, in both parties come about on their own without any encouragement by the political machine? No. It's how politics works now. Both parties are to blame for that.
-I didn't mean to imply that YOU were bleating- I'm talking about the people who ARE defending the Republitrons.
-I'm an atheist who doesn't believe in God and I don't for one minute believe what you just wrote. Religious people -as a rule- believe in the invisible demons that they claim they believe in. So, no. Buddhisms are a lot less dangerous than Christianity, generally lacking the rigidity and us-vs-them nature of the Abrahamic religions. I don't think they're perfect, but they aren't even comparable.
-You missed the point again. You are trying to say that both parties are exhibiting the same amount of hate and that therefore pointing out the constant failings of the Rs is unfair. I am trying to point out that only the Rs are preaching hatred in official channels.
-It might be there 'even when it doesn't boil to the top,' but there's no evidence for it from the Democrats- at least not on the scope and scale of the Republitrons.
I'm an atheist who doesn't believe in God and I don't for one minute believe what you just wrote.
Sorry, I should have phrased that better because I wasn't trying to say that all atheists believe that (I know that's not the case as I know plenty of atheists that don't feel that). I should have phrased it as 'If you're an atheist who's belief is that ....' my apologies that's what I get for posting in the wee hours.
You missed the point again. You are trying to say that both parties are exhibiting the same amount of hate and that therefore pointing out the constant failings of the Rs is unfair. I am trying to point out that only the Rs are preaching hatred in official channels.
Again if that's how it came across that's my bad. My point is not that the Rs and Ds are both officially preaching hatred. Because preaching *hatred* is not effective with the Ds core constituency. My point is that both the Ds and the Rs, equally, put out official party propaganda that encourages the us vs them attitude and further pushes apart the 'true believers' at a basic level that makes it harder for people to consider themselves and those who disagree with them as 'Americans' with love of country, etc, in common.
I'm saying it's done differently by each party, with the purpose of having the same effect. In terms of bubbling out in instances of glaring stupidity, the republicans have a lock on it... but by the same token democrats do it it's just rarely (I'd originally typed never there, but then I remembered the McCain as KKK member lawn jockey) as egregious or attention grabbing. I mean when was the last time that anyone made a big deal about someone on TV or the net saying the Rs were racists/hate poor people/hate black people. I think the last time was with Kanye West and that was mostly based on the context of when/where he did it.
It might be there 'even when it doesn't boil to the top,' but there's no evidence for it from the Democrats- at least not on the scope and scale of the Republitrons.
Yes and no. Partly that's a threshold of what twigs enough to get publicized. I'm not saying there's media bias, I'm saying that there's a level of speech that we don't really blink at. It's really only the truly crazy stuff that gets a lot of attention. The vast majority of it, on either the Rs or Ds side flies under the radar everyday.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2008-10-18 06:41 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-10-18 06:54 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-10-20 06:26 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-10-18 07:09 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-10-19 12:14 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-10-19 01:52 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-10-18 07:25 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-10-18 08:31 pm (UTC)"In John McCain's campaign office" implies a personal connection between McCain and that office, when in fact I doubt he's ever visited it. However much I disagree with McCain on just about every aspect of the man's personality and politics, I don't think he'd ever go so far as to endorse a sign like this, even in his own mind; I think he's irrational, but not quite that far gone.
To put it differently:
(no subject)
Date: 2008-10-18 08:57 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-10-18 11:15 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-10-18 07:28 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-10-18 09:05 pm (UTC)How can it inseminate Venezuela now?
(no subject)
Date: 2008-10-18 09:11 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-10-18 10:40 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-10-18 10:48 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-10-19 07:10 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-10-22 05:15 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-10-19 09:29 pm (UTC)...
Can we keep DisneyWorld though?
(no subject)
Date: 2008-10-18 10:48 pm (UTC)I hate this election cycle. Thank God it is over in less than 2 weeks.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-10-18 11:40 pm (UTC)I'm just waiting to see someone say "but Obama's racist against white people!!!!"
(no subject)
Date: 2008-10-19 02:23 am (UTC)Of course, I live in the Deep South, so it's unfortunately not like racist bullshit isn't common around here.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-10-19 03:52 am (UTC)What I'm really fairly curious about is why there's no room for middle ground here? Since when is coming out and saying 'There are a relatively equal number of egregiously stupid people on both sides of this issue' a *defense* of the republicans.
I think the point harald387 is making is that if you take a sampling out of a fairly large group of people you will find morons.
In the last election there were 120ish Million voters. Let's say that there are 55 Million registered republicans (a totally unofficial number that was the first one I saw on the internet, so I know it's not a 100 % reliable one). Now, let's say there are 100,000 certified would kill a minority when they saw them rabid racists, and another 500,000 who wouldn't do it, but wouldn't cry if it happened.
That would account for 1.01% of the party.
We're not saying that it's okay that some republicans are like that, we're just saying there is no way you can infer from even the actions of 600,000 people that everyone in the group they're in feels that way.
Sometime in the last year I saw a stat that officially 1% of the population of the US has been or was in the US penal system.
I understand the perception that they're all racist, misogynist homophobes... and part of that is that we don't hear about the moderates on either side... but you just can't say they're all like that.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-10-19 03:57 am (UTC)There is not an equal amount of egregiously stupid crap coming from Democrats. Certainly not from party officials and campaign offices and the like, at any rate.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-10-19 05:38 am (UTC)It's as if someone is on the corner yelling 'Christians suck!', another person comes up and says 'All religious people suck, equally!' and the first one looks to the second one and says 'WHY ARE YOU DEFINDING CHRISTIANS!'
(no subject)
Date: 2008-10-19 05:46 am (UTC)Your example is the same. Not all religious people suck equally. Trying to conflate Christians -who have a lot of suckage- with Buddhists (for example) -who don't- is deflecting the issue.
Here's an example: you have two people. One is covered in blood, the other only has a few spots. A third person points out that one is soaked in gore, and a fourth says 'but they both have blood on, right!"
Except that in this case, the blood isn't on the hands of the chap with less- it's mostly been flicked at him by the soaked guy.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-10-19 07:18 am (UTC)The Democratic party does not suck to nearly the same extent as the Republicans, and bleating that they do is only concealing the latter by attempting to muddy the former.
First of all, I'd like to keep the conversation civil, so let's avoid:
1) The implication that I'm a republican, republican apologist or trying to excuse racist asshats. I'm not, I'm not and I'm not, and I'm getting tired of saying that. It's really, really tiring to keep being told I'm excusing or defending people I have no respect for.. particularly with a total lack of reference to where I've done so.
2) Let's avoid terms like 'bleating' shall we with the fun implication that someone is just a sheep parroting pre-fed notes. It's a fun little side-swipe insult but that's all it is.
But as far as your comment.... it really depends, for the most part on your viewpoint, and maybe I'm just a lot more cynical than you are. But I'm not the only one that's that cynical. In the religion example for instance if you're an atheist and don't believe in god, than every religion is merely an attempt by one group of people to make others live by their standards, most often in exchange for some form of power/influence. They all use different methods but it's having the same effect.
To use your violence example it's like two people standing side by side, one person beat someone to death with a pipe, the other used a ancient eastern nerve pinch to kill them. One of them is certainly messier, but dead is dead.
And no, I'm *not* saying that the people incited by the democrats are as *physically dangerous* as the people incited by the republicans. I'm not saying that democratic propaganda leads to anything like the displays the republican propaganda inspires. I'm just saying that the effect it has below the surface is as dangerous.
My personal viewpoint is that in general at the highest levels of debate it's a really really really bad thing to instill the attitude that it's *us* versus *them*. Because regardless of who wins, the person who gets elected is going to be the President of the United States of America and of all the people who live there, not just the people that agree with them.
When I sit back and read the flyers that I get every day at this point, and see the ads on TV, I see alot of items that are intended to make sure people are thinking along those lines. And it's dangerous. As I've said before along the various comments the 'us vs them' hate/fear mongering is different because it's tailored to different audiences... schoolbooks for kindergardeners are different than those for highschoolers, so a campaign to reach an unemployed steel-mill worker is likely to be different than a campaign targetting a tenured sociology professor.
But the campaigns are both there. The effect of it is most obvious on those with the least impulse control and those who are the most afraid, and that's always going to be the racists, sexists etc, everyone who's afraid that they're going to lose what they have to the new and different. But it's there even when it doesn't boil to the top.
an addendum...
Date: 2008-10-19 07:18 am (UTC)I have both democratic and republican friends. The republicans, if they speak frankly think that anyone who supports Obama doesn't understand economics, doesn't understand current events and are just 'liberals with a cause'. The Democrats think the Republicans are just racist assholes, trying to protect their retirement funds and not caring who gets dragged down by that.
It's not that they think the other side has a viewpoint and they disagree, it's not that they think they want a different direction. It's that they think the other side is silly, stupid, evil and bad for the country. That's *both* sides that think that.
It's a dangerous divide and it just gets wider and wider and wider, and it's something that is put into effect by the RNC and DNC. It's in how they campaign, how they advertise, how they motivate and who they target. At the highest level of both parties it's a game, a game where things as important as the *right* to vote become game pieces ('Let's make sure these folk are registered', 'Let's make sure these folk aren't', 'Let's make sure these votes are counted', 'Let's make sure these votes are excluded'). At the highest levels, it's a game.
But at the lowest levels, it's something completely different. If you're the person who lost their house and the Republicans succeed in getting you purged from the voter rolls? That's very, very real. Top level elected officials work together, and understand it's a game.... but their policies inspire bad bad blood at workers at the lower levels and broad haps between the people who believe what they're selling.
It's why there's been more violence in recent years between campaign workers, etc. And despite all of that, despite people fairly high up in both parties *knowing* that things are getting more polarized.. they keep using the same tools... because those tools work.
So yes, one side is 'cleaner' than the other, and yes one sides followers are more prone to stupid acts of reckless violence. But the core issue that drives that whole thing, the core issue that makes it possible to consider everyone on the other side evil, or subhuman or what have you.. is the result of what both sides have been doing for years.
One with a wrench, the other with a nerve pinch... but both victims are just as dead.
Is racism worse than elitism? In a sense that the first has a far higher percentage chance to result in physical violence? Sure. But if you're judging it based on the increasing diminishing median and the fact that both sides are leaving less room for a middle ground and redefining that middle ground as enemy territory then they're both just as bad.
I'm not excusing *any* of it, and given that I personally spent my high school years dealing with a combination of racism/classism (because one of the most racist parts of New York is Westchester County, I would seriously appreciate it if people would stop telling me what it is I think/feel and how much I like the republicans.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-10-19 07:49 am (UTC)Once again: Republicans exhibit a great degree of racism at all levels, Democrats do not. Denying that is a defence of the R.
-Campaigns are forced to appeal to the 'extremes' because of your voluntary voting system. I forget where I read that analysis.
-Anyway, this is what is being stated by me and so far as I can tell our host: [O]ne side is 'cleaner' than the other, and yes one sides followers are more prone to stupid acts of reckless violence.
And that side is the Republicans.
-Your 'nerve pinch' thing has had no demonstration of evidence.
-Is racism worse than elitism? I don't know. Ask someone of colour.
-I didn't tell you what you thought or felt at all. I don't care what you think on the inside. I only care what I see. What I see is the Republicans being racist and people -note that I never accused you of it- defending them by pretending the democrats are 'just as bad' without any evidence.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-10-19 05:33 pm (UTC)Note: I have *never* denied that racism is the way the propaganda manifests itself in the Republican party. Nor have I stated that racism is how it manifests itself in the democratic party.
Doing such wouldn't be so much a defense of the R party, it would be blatantly stupid.
Campaigns are forced to appeal to the 'extremes' because of your voluntary voting system. I forget where I read that analysis.
Not sure where you originally read it, but I certainly said something quite similar. It's how you get people to vote in our system and it still only works on *some* of the population. I find the % of people in America who don't vote mind-boggling.
Anyway, this is what is being stated by me and so far as I can tell our host: [O]ne side is 'cleaner' than the other, and yes one sides followers are more prone to stupid acts of reckless violence.
And that side is the Republicans.
I completely concede that the R stupids are more prone to violence etc that the D stupids. In fact I'm pretty sure I've said that.
Is racism worse than elitism? I don't know. Ask someone of colour.
Handily.. I am someone of color. :)
What I see is the Republicans being racist and people -note that I never accused you of it- defending them by pretending the democrats are 'just as bad' without any evidence.
Right, but here's the problem. Putting aside the issue of comdemning the entire membership of the Republican party as racist. If you insist on judging 'bad' only by racist? Then yep there's no way the Dems are as bad.
But that's not the standard I'm applying. Nor is it the standard I've been talking about, nor is it the standard I've been getting static over.
Racist acts and signs are *not* the cause, they are the effect.
As I've pointed out repeatedly, the *cause* of those expressions of racism is the us vs them attitude instilled by calculated campaigns of emotional manipulation that are done by *both* parties. They create a divide where people on our side of the issue are good, people on their side of the issue are bad, and people on neither side of the issue are stupid.
The fact that *both* parties do it makes the Dems just as bad for fostering that atmosphere.
Are their members as violent? Nope, how could they be given the core anti-gun plank?
Are their members as bigoted against blacks, gays, women and democrats? Nope , how could they be when the R core is old white guys, and the D core is everybody else.
Are their members differently bigoted? Yes.
(As an example I'd note that there are sub-groups within the Democratic party that are anti-white )particularly anti-white male), anti-military (not just anti-war), anti-business (though who wouldn't be) and anti-republican. They don't generally manifest in the insanely stupid ways the Republican bigots do, but they're certainly out there).
Are their members just as petrified of the other guys getting control? Yes.
Are their members just as unwilling to see people on the other side as people rather than as the 'opposition'? Yes.
Do these attitudes, in both parties come about on their own without any encouragement by the political machine? No. It's how politics works now. Both parties are to blame for that.
And that's *not* a defense of any of them.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-10-19 07:41 am (UTC)-I'm an atheist who doesn't believe in God and I don't for one minute believe what you just wrote. Religious people -as a rule- believe in the invisible demons that they claim they believe in. So, no. Buddhisms are a lot less dangerous than Christianity, generally lacking the rigidity and us-vs-them nature of the Abrahamic religions. I don't think they're perfect, but they aren't even comparable.
-You missed the point again. You are trying to say that both parties are exhibiting the same amount of hate and that therefore pointing out the constant failings of the Rs is unfair. I am trying to point out that only the Rs are preaching hatred in official channels.
-It might be there 'even when it doesn't boil to the top,' but there's no evidence for it from the Democrats- at least not on the scope and scale of the Republitrons.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-10-19 03:07 pm (UTC)Sorry, I should have phrased that better because I wasn't trying to say that all atheists believe that (I know that's not the case as I know plenty of atheists that don't feel that). I should have phrased it as 'If you're an atheist who's belief is that ....' my apologies that's what I get for posting in the wee hours.
You missed the point again. You are trying to say that both parties are exhibiting the same amount of hate and that therefore pointing out the constant failings of the Rs is unfair. I am trying to point out that only the Rs are preaching hatred in official channels.
Again if that's how it came across that's my bad. My point is not that the Rs and Ds are both officially preaching hatred. Because preaching *hatred* is not effective with the Ds core constituency. My point is that both the Ds and the Rs, equally, put out official party propaganda that encourages the us vs them attitude and further pushes apart the 'true believers' at a basic level that makes it harder for people to consider themselves and those who disagree with them as 'Americans' with love of country, etc, in common.
I'm saying it's done differently by each party, with the purpose of having the same effect. In terms of bubbling out in instances of glaring stupidity, the republicans have a lock on it... but by the same token democrats do it it's just rarely (I'd originally typed never there, but then I remembered the McCain as KKK member lawn jockey) as egregious or attention grabbing. I mean when was the last time that anyone made a big deal about someone on TV or the net saying the Rs were racists/hate poor people/hate black people. I think the last time was with Kanye West and that was mostly based on the context of when/where he did it.
It might be there 'even when it doesn't boil to the top,' but there's no evidence for it from the Democrats- at least not on the scope and scale of the Republitrons.
Yes and no. Partly that's a threshold of what twigs enough to get publicized. I'm not saying there's media bias, I'm saying that there's a level of speech that we don't really blink at. It's really only the truly crazy stuff that gets a lot of attention. The vast majority of it, on either the Rs or Ds side flies under the radar everyday.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-10-19 10:48 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-10-19 02:16 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-10-19 09:27 pm (UTC)