This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please
enable JavaScript
in your browser.
Live
PTR
Beta
Classic
[RaP] Congressional White Caucus: Racist?
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
fenomas
For me it is like arguing with a person who thinks abortion is ok. No argument that could be presented to me will make me less likely to want to rip my hair out.
The first requirement for having a useful, sensible discussion about a controversial issue with someone you disagree with is that you must respond to the arguments they make, not the arguments you think it's almost as if they're making.
After all,
nobody
thinks "abortion is ok". But when someone comes along and says they think abortion ought to be legal despite how horrible it is, and you tell yourself "they're pretty much saying abortion is ok, so I'll respond with why I disagree with that", you're setting yourself up for hair-pulling.
So call me a debate purist, but when you say, "the logic reads to me like.." and then list a bunch of arguments nobody here has made, and probably nobody here supports, you're not taking the discussion toward useful places.
Post by
MyTie
For me it is like arguing with a person who thinks abortion is ok. No argument that could be presented to me will make me less likely to want to rip my hair out.
The first requirement for having a useful, sensible discussion about a controversial issue with someone you disagree with is that you must respond to the arguments they make, not the arguments you think it's almost as if they're making.
After all,
nobody
thinks "abortion is ok". But when someone comes along and says they think abortion ought to be legal despite how horrible it is, and you tell yourself "they're pretty much saying abortion is ok, so I'll respond with why I disagree with that", you're setting yourself up for hair-pulling.
So call me a debate purist, but when you say, "the logic reads to me like.." and then list a bunch of arguments nobody here has made, and probably nobody here supports, you're not taking the discussion toward useful places.
Ah, but I realize my weakness. For me to say "this is where I think I am wrong", and you to come along as say "let me explain how you said you were wrong, is how you are wrong", doesn't do anything but discourage me from future introspective. Furthermore, I have addressed the arguments made, not how the arguments sound to me.
I've learned, by this, never to admit that I have a biased opinion, or the other side of the discussion will insist that I see nothing but my biased opinion.
Post by
Sinespe
It's naive not to assume that everyone will read your opinion as biased one way or the other. Or it is thinking that everyone else is naive enough to take your opinion as balanced and fair, which I would consider an insult to the people you claim to be trying to start a debate with.
You're living in a sceptical world. I never read anything without assuming the person has an agenda behind writing it.
Post by
Jubilee
I used words like "right" and "legitimate"and then I didn't use the words right or wrong once.It seems like you are using semantics more than logic to build your argument. Either racism is right or wrong. Make up your mind and explain such. The congressional black caucus is racist. No doubt about it. But, it is accepted racism. That is "the beef" I have here. Am I wrong in seeing a problem here? I don't have a problem with their racism. I have a problem with the racism being accepted, but other racism being denied.
Please don't take my statements out of context and then blame me for arguing semantics. "Right" is two different words there.
My point is that not everyone thinks that morality is black and white like you. It's not fair to force those standards on others.
Post by
fenomas
The first requirement for having a useful, sensible discussion about a controversial issue with someone you disagree with is that you must respond to the arguments they make, not the arguments you think it's almost as if they're making.
After all,
nobody
thinks "abortion is ok". But when someone comes along and says they think abortion ought to be legal despite how horrible it is, and you tell yourself "they're pretty much saying abortion is ok, so I'll respond with why I disagree with that", you're setting yourself up for hair-pulling.
So call me a debate purist, but when you say, "the logic reads to me like.." and then list a bunch of arguments nobody here has made, and probably nobody here supports, you're not taking the discussion toward useful places.
Ah, but I realize my weakness. For me to say "this is where I think I am wrong", and you to come along as say "let me explain how you said you were wrong, is how you are wrong", doesn't do anything but discourage me from future introspective. Furthermore, I have addressed the arguments made, not how the arguments sound to me.
I've learned, by this, never to admit that I have a biased opinion, or the other side of the discussion will insist that I see nothing but my biased opinion.
I have no idea how you think this response related to my post. I'm not telling you to point out the flaws in your own argument; if you're aware of any you should work them out before making an argument in the first place.
All I'm telling you is that fuming against "racism as a solution to racism" is pointless because nobody is in favor of that. Remember: anyone who intends to hold serious opinions on complicated topics should be able to argue the case against their own position as well as the case for it. If you honestly think that people who support the Black Caucus hold that position because they believe the solution to racism is more racism, then I would posit that you don't understand the position of the people you disagree with.
Post by
Atik
After all, nobody thinks "abortion is ok".
*raises hand*
Pro-abortion... just saying...
Post by
fenomas
After all, nobody thinks "abortion is ok".
*raises hand*
Pro-abortion... just saying...
I mean that pro-choice people don't take that position because they think having an abortion is a relaxing way to spend an afternoon.
Post by
MyTie
After all, nobody thinks "abortion is ok".
*raises hand*
Pro-abortion... just saying...
I mean that pro-choice people don't take that position because they think having an abortion is a relaxing way to spend an afternoon.
Some do. Let's not get too offtopic here.
Post by
fenomas
I mean that pro-choice people don't take that position because they think having an abortion is a relaxing way to spend an afternoon.
Some do. Let's not get too offtopic here.
Nobody thinks an invasive surgical procedure is pleasant. Don't ascribe made-up motivations to people you disagree with to make it easier to disagree with them. Pro-choicers do not think abortion is fun and the Black Caucus doesn't consider what they are doing to be racist. You're free to disagree with them, but if you want to hold serious opinions you must accept that people believe what they say they do.
Post by
Patty
There's no 'It depends' option, so I can't really vote. But really, it depends on if the party is specifically for a certain group with a certain agenda (as, indeed, all political groups are to some extent) and what the agenda is. If this Congressional White Caucus (which I can't say I actually know what you're talking about in any depth) wishes to bring back segregation and injustice among racial lines, then yes, they are racist. However, I think that in many cases, a white/black/asian/pickles-only organisation which will actively reject people based on their ethnicity will be racist.
Post by
Magician22773
I have always argued that the double standard, "reverse racism", issues in the US are much more of a problem than a solution. In addition to your "White Caucus", where is :
White Entertainment Television
National Association for the Advancement of White People.
United Caucasian College Fund.
White Panther Party.
White History Month.
This list could go on and on. The fact is, is that probably 90% of the "racism" that exists in America today is "reverse racisim", and the majority of it is goverment funded and is just as blatent as the discrimination against blacks was before the Civil Rights Movement.
Being "Proud to be White" makes you a Klan Member.
Being "Proud to be Black" makes you a Community Leader.
Post by
Gnoktish
I can just say this: Racist.
If you only allow one specific skin color inside and reject all others, it's pretty much racism in the works.
Post by
gnomerdon
I have always argued that the double standard, "reverse racism", issues in the US are much more of a problem than a solution. In addition to your "White Caucus", where is :
White Entertainment Television
National Association for the Advancement of White People.
United Caucasian College Fund.
White Panther Party.
White History Month.
This list could go on and on. The fact is, is that probably 90% of the "racism" that exists in America today is "reverse racisim", and the majority of it is goverment funded and is just as blatent as the discrimination against blacks was before the Civil Rights Movement.
Being "Proud to be White" makes you a Klan Member.
Being "Proud to be Black" makes you a Community Leader.
qft.
Post by
Orranis
I just wanted to point out that "Racism" does not necessarily mean racial discrimination in all things, but racial discrimination specifically because you believe there are differences in races of the human species intrinsic to the race. Not that I agree with the idea that a Congressional White Caucus is necessarily any better or worse than a Black one, unless the specific reason for having it being singularly one race or the other is that you're discriminating not just because of their race, but because you think the races are intrinsically different because they are the race they are (for example, not culturally different and aside from simply skin-color or facial features), it's not technically 'racist.'
I have always argued that the double standard, "reverse racism", issues in the US are much more of a problem than a solution. In addition to your "White Caucus", where is :
White Entertainment Television
To be fair, this is a rather stupid one on both counts. White people can watch Black Entertainment Television, and assuming that all black people have the same tastes in what they watch on T.V. is a stereotype within itself.
National Association for the Advancement of White People.
United Caucasian College Fund.
While I agree that it's stupid to limit it to specific races, the average black family is less wealthy sound than the average white family, so if it had to be one or the other this one would make more sense. I do however agree more with "United Poverty College Fund" as a better idea than a "Black" and a "White" college fund.
White Panther Party.
Mmm... Yup.
The Black Panther party is not a black supremacist party, but rather an anti-racism party, which the White Panther Party is a pretty clear parallel to.
White History Month.
Honestly, I think Black History Month is stupid as a whole.
This says what I think in a voice I could never hope to say it in.
This list could go on and on. The fact is, is that probably
90%
of the "racism" that exists in America today is "reverse racisim", and the majority of it is goverment funded and is just as
blatent as the discrimination against blacks was before the Civil Rights Movement.
Sauce? I agree it's a problem, but pulling numbers out your ass does not help anyone.
And for the underlined part, no. NO. That is
completely ^&*!ing false.
When black people start hanging white people for trying to vote you can say that. If you think that, get over yourself.
Being "Proud to be White" makes you a Klan Member.
Being "Proud to be Black" makes you a Community Leader.
Being "Proud to be " only makes sense in the context of that race being commonly thought of as inferior.
Post by
montezuma7
I don't care if there is a white caucus or not. What I dislike is that if someone speaks out against the Black Caucus, they are labeled racist, but at the same time, if someone speaks for a white caucus, they are also labled racist. I despise double standards. I hate it when society says it's "ok" for a group of people to do something because of skin color, but not "ok" for another group of people. Either it is ok for everyone, or it isn't.
That's what people with no real arguments do, they call you racist and divert attention from real issues. Like if anyone disagrees with obama they are a racist, even though he's made a lot of mistakes worthy of criticism.
That's just how the liberal media is, you have to cut through all the bs sometimes and get used to it.
The cbc is racist in the sense that they exclude whites, but who really cares? There's no law against it and it serves a purpose of pushing a minority agenda. Minorities need special interest groups sometimes because their needs are often different than the mainstream. Whites don't need their own caucus because whites are not a minority with minority issues and agendas to further.
What we need is to do is realize that races and demographics *are* different and stop trying to make everyone the same and instead celebrate our differences and strengths and work together. That's the real problem, when special interest groups try to push a self serving agenda at the expense of another group of people.
Post by
fenomas
When black people start hanging white people for trying to vote you can say that. If you think that, get over yourself.
Quoted to make sure people see it.
I have always argued that the double standard, "reverse racism", issues in the US are much more of a problem than a solution.
You're talking about policies and ways of thinking that white people put into place. Sorry, but you're not oppressed until a group other than your own is deciding what you can and can't do and there's nothing you can do about it.
So when black people are in control of whether or not there is a "white history month", then your complaint will stop sounding like whinging. Right now, the reason there is now White History Month is because your white congressmen think it's a stupid idea.
where is :
White Entertainment Television
National Association for the Advancement of White People.
...
These are great points. In the same vein, why does the government give assistance to other people but not me? Just because I make a couple hundred K a year is no reason to have a double standard. Where are MY food stamps? Where are MY jobs programs? Why doesn't Habitat for Humanity build ME a house? In short, and to summarize your post,
why is somebody else getting something I don't get
?
Post by
fenomas
The cbc is racist in the sense that they exclude whites, but who really cares? There's no law against it and it serves a purpose of pushing a minority agenda. Minorities need special interest groups sometimes because their needs are often different than the mainstream. Whites don't need their own caucus because whites are not a minority with minority issues and agendas to further.
Back to substance ;) I largely agree, but but I don't think the CBC is quite "racist" per se. They exclude whites because they have a political agenda and they feel including whites would weaken their ability to further that agenda (and I imagine they're right). Presumably if the world ever becomes such that it's politically advantageous for the CBC to include whites I imagine they'd do it. So I'm not sure "racist" is the right term for a political group doing what's politically expedient.
Post by
MyTie
Being "Proud to be White" makes you a Klan Member.
Being "Proud to be Black" makes you a Community Leader.
Being "Proud to be " only makes sense in the context of that race being commonly thought of as inferior.
Why must my race be commonly thought of as "inferior" in order to be proud of it? Are blacks commonly thought of as inferior? Where is your evidence to support such a radical claim?
Post by
MyTie
Where are MY food stamps? Where are MY jobs programs? Why doesn't Habitat for Humanity build ME a house? In short, and to summarize your post,
why is somebody else getting something I don't get
?
You do realize that these points you bring up are not based on race, but based on income levels?
Post by
fenomas
Where are MY food stamps? Where are MY jobs programs? Why doesn't Habitat for Humanity build ME a house? In short, and to summarize your post,
why is somebody else getting something I don't get
?
You do realize that these points you bring up are not based on race, but based on income levels?
Of course. The trouble is you don't see that people who support preferential treatment by race do so because they consider race similarly linked to social and economic inequalities (such as with income levels).
That is, you seem to imagine that black history gets a month and white history doesn't for reasons like "because it's okay to be racist against whites but not blacks". In that you are deluding yourself. Black history gets a month because people consider it to have been marginalized; white history doesn't because people don't. In telling yourself it's
really
because of reverse racism you're making up a motivation that's trivially easy to disagree with instead of honestly disagreeing with the motivation held by the people you disagree with.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.
© 2021 Fanbyte
