CDZ POLL: The "Is It Racist" Quiz

[Mac1958]

....you can’t create effective policy if you don’t understand where the Bubba’s (and the black equivalents) are coming from.

Wow!

"I don't know," is what the man said, yet he tacitly acknowledges that he doesn't like the guy.

I'm reminded of my and my kids' youth when in response to many a "why" question, the answer was "I don't know." Is it not incumbent upon adults to know why they do, say, and/or think whatever it be they think, say or do?

It's one thing to have weak foundations for one's behavior. It's wholly another to not know why one behaves as one does. The latter is the very definition of wasted effort and aimless action.

My favorite picture of the year!

Mr. Courtney gets it.
.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

we have literally allowed our communication skills to decay, that we may simply lack the same capacity for reasoned, reasonable, civil conversation.
.

I think much of that has to do with our media and the way it portrays racial issues.

If a rag tag group of white supremacists plays dress-up for the day, the media magnifies it to the point one would think they actually represent more than just the tiniest of tiny white fringe. If a very influential black leader calls for an army to go out and kill whites, the media hardly wants to touch it.

They have a narrative to sell, and so they highlight any event that confirms that narrative no matter how otherwise obscure and they discount anything that goes against their narrative no matter how meaningful. Some times I wonder if they are actually setting out to create a race war deliberately, such is their manipulation of public perception, and I think this manipulation lies behind the inability to discuss racial issues.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

If you've gotten into my sights as someone I want to attack, you've probably done something to deserve to get there.

Speaking of sanctimonious.

If being of sound mind, making reasonable , moderate statements , and expressing original thought is enough to incur your wrath, it appears that the problem is yours, not his.

 

[JoeB131]

The problem with that approach is nothing changes....you can’t create effective policy if you don’t understand where the Bubba’s (and the black equivalents) are coming from. There was a series once called I’ll Fly Away, about race and class tensions in a small southern town. One character asked another, who was poor white, why he hated blacks when they were just as poor as he was and his response was you have some who is lower than you...if it weren’t blacks there would be no one, he (white trash) would be at the bottom.

I understand exactly where the Bubbas are coming from. Sadly, too many of them are my relatives.

I would say the real problem isn't the "redneck", he's never going to change, no matter what. The real problem are people like my relatives who voted for Trump, because they aren't making the good union living my Dad made, or they feel that way of life threatened because they won't have unions for much longer.

The problem isn't "understanding" them. The problem is, they won't listen to reason. Their lives are miserable, and they blame the wrong people for it. Because the wrong people spend lots of money getting clowns like Limbaugh to tell them to blame someone else. And these people will always make up about 45% of the electorate.

 

[JoeB131]

My favorite picture of the year!

Mr. Courtney gets it.

Yeah, all that Nazi needed was a hug.

No, really.

 

[JoeB131]

If a rag tag group of white supremacists plays dress-up for the day, the media magnifies it to the point one would think they actually represent more than just the tiniest of tiny white fringe. If a very influential black leader calls for an army to go out and kill whites, the media hardly wants to touch it.

Okay, here's the thing.

I'm not sure that there is an "very influential black leader" calling for that sort of thing, because if there is, no one is actually listening. No armies have shown up killing whites, so you have to wonder if anyone actually said it.

On the other hand, we've had a distinct increase in hate crimes since Trump's election... almost like these people feel empowered now.

Update: Incidents of Hateful Harassment Since Election Day Now Number 701

If being of sound mind, making reasonable , moderate statements , and expressing original thought is enough to incur your wrath, it appears that the problem is yours, not his.

Except Mac hasn't done that.

Instead he makes sanctimonious statements, he really doesn't defend them, and he's just loved, loved, loved by the Right Wing.

He's the kind of liberal who shows up at Munich ready to give up the Sudetenland before negotiations even start.

We don't need appeasers, we need fighters.

 

[Muhammed]

Started in the CDZ in an effort to keep name-calling to a minimum. I'm sure we can all do that.

Quick background: I'm of mixed race (half Hispanic half European), my wife is also of mixed race, as are (obviously) our beautiful children. Our Christmastime family photos put any Celebrate Diversity! poster to shame, from Spanish & Mexican to Japanese to Nigerian. Not a full-bloody whitey amongst us.

Perhaps as a result, I take the terms "racist" and "racism" very seriously, and it saddens me to see the way the terms have been diluted and trivialized by people who feel they gain advantage by spraying them around like water.

So let's see where we stand. Please identify all terms you would normally feel are racist, and please comment, thanks.

For the record, I picked #6 and #7. I think #5 is borderline, and would depend on the situation.
.

I think # 6 is questionable, but not #7.

 

[Mac1958]

I think # 6 is questionable, but not #7.

#7 is essentially the definition of the term. #5 and #6 are debatable, I'd think.

The rest are only for people who actively want to see racism.
.

 

[Mac1958]

Understanding isn’t excusing or agreeing or condoning. It is understanding. And listening.

Yep, and this goes directly to my point about how we've clearly allowed our most fundamental communication skills to decay. We'd now rather scream at each other and break things (and each other) than communicate, because we've simply lost the skill. We've stopped evolving and we're going in the other direction. We're now controlled by emotion, tribalism and ego, and not reason.

This problem has to be addressed before any of our other problems can be.
.

 

[Mac1958]

If a rag tag group of white supremacists plays dress-up for the day, the media magnifies it to the point one would think they actually represent more than just the tiniest of tiny white fringe. If a very influential black leader calls for an army to go out and kill whites, the media hardly wants to touch it.

Okay, here's the thing.

I'm not sure that there is an "very influential black leader" calling for that sort of thing, because if there is, no one is actually listening. No armies have shown up killing whites, so you have to wonder if anyone actually said it.

On the other hand, we've had a distinct increase in hate crimes since Trump's election... almost like these people feel empowered now.

Update: Incidents of Hateful Harassment Since Election Day Now Number 701

If being of sound mind, making reasonable , moderate statements , and expressing original thought is enough to incur your wrath, it appears that the problem is yours, not his.

Except Mac hasn't done that.

Instead he makes sanctimonious statements, he really doesn't defend them, and he's just loved, loved, loved by the Right Wing.

He's the kind of liberal who shows up at Munich ready to give up the Sudetenland before negotiations even start.

We don't need appeasers, we need fighters.

Joe, one day you call me a racist right winger, another day you call me a liberal.

And every day, every single day, you whine and complain about my posts, misrepresent my words and go after me personally.

And then you complain that I no longer try to communicate with you. It's amazing and fascinating to watch. Look at post 266. Yikes.

It was never my intent to get up in your head like this, but it's clear you don't realize how often you illustrate my points for me.
.

 

[JoeB131]

Joe, one day you call me a racist right winger, another day you call me a liberal.

No, guy, what I'll call you is pompous.

And every day, every single day, you whine and complain about my posts, misrepresent my words and go after me personally.

Guy, the problem is, I pretty much have you pegged for what you are.

You want to appease the right wing even when they make a daily assault on common decency.

You want to bring a hug to a gunfight.

I can go on with the metaphors all day.

It was never my intent to get up in your head like this, but it's clear you don't realize how often you illustrate my points for me.

This I think you love Trump so much. You're both narcissists.

It ain't about you, buddy.

we didn't lose in 2016 because we didn't spend enough time appeasing the racists. Trump didn't do any better than McCain or Romney. This is the point that you keep missing, keep avoiding and never, every want to talk about because mentioning it will summon C'Thulhu or something.

We lost because sanctimonious asses voted for Johnson or Stein because "Hillary was Just as Bad" or "Didn't Stand for anything" but she was "going to win anyway."

We do not need to give the Nazi with a Confederate Flag a hug on the hope that if we just understand his plight, he'll come around. Trump can wreck the economy and that guy will STILL vote for him when they are foreclosing on his double-wide.

And we don't need to mealy-mouth, "But maybe Haiti really is a $#!+hole!" That really is giving up the Sudetenland.

Oh noes, Joe Just used a Nazi Metaphor. Break out the fainting couch

 

[Mac1958]

Joe, one day you call me a racist right winger, another day you call me a liberal.

No, guy, what I'll call you is pompous.

And every day, every single day, you whine and complain about my posts, misrepresent my words and go after me personally.

Guy, the problem is, I pretty much have you pegged for what you are.

You want to appease the right wing even when they make a daily assault on common decency.

You want to bring a hug to a gunfight.

I can go on with the metaphors all day.

It was never my intent to get up in your head like this, but it's clear you don't realize how often you illustrate my points for me.

This I think you love Trump so much. You're both narcissists.

It ain't about you, buddy.

we didn't lose in 2016 because we didn't spend enough time appeasing the racists. Trump didn't do any better than McCain or Romney. This is the point that you keep missing, keep avoiding and never, every want to talk about because mentioning it will summon C'Thulhu or something.

We lost because sanctimonious asses voted for Johnson or Stein because "Hillary was Just as Bad" or "Didn't Stand for anything" but she was "going to win anyway."

We do not need to give the Nazi with a Confederate Flag a hug on the hope that if we just understand his plight, he'll come around. Trump can wreck the economy and that guy will STILL vote for him when they are foreclosing on his double-wide.

And we don't need to mealy-mouth, "But maybe Haiti really is a $#!+hole!" That really is giving up the Sudetenland.

Oh noes, Joe Just used a Nazi Metaphor. Break out the fainting couch

I'm sure that's all very interesting. Whatever works for you.

Frankly, if this behavior provides some kind of catharsis for you and makes you decent in real life, I'm all for it.

So it's all good. No harm no foul.
.

 

[Mac1958]

we have literally allowed our communication skills to decay, that we may simply lack the same capacity for reasoned, reasonable, civil conversation.
.

I think much of that has to do with our media and the way it portrays racial issues.

If a rag tag group of white supremacists plays dress-up for the day, the media magnifies it to the point one would think they actually represent more than just the tiniest of tiny white fringe. If a very influential black leader calls for an army to go out and kill whites, the media hardly wants to touch it.

They have a narrative to sell, and so they highlight any event that confirms that narrative no matter how otherwise obscure and they discount anything that goes against their narrative no matter how meaningful. Some times I wonder if they are actually setting out to create a race war deliberately, such is their manipulation of public perception, and I think this manipulation lies behind the inability to discuss racial issues.

Well first, as I've mentioned, I don't think that the people who do this the most have any interest in improving race relations or promoting healing. They're just waiting for demographics to take over and they'll have what they want. No need to be civil at this point.

And I do think the media has a lot to do with it, but that includes conservative talk radio, which has been pushing a simplistic, binary, us vs. them, hyperbolic narrative since Limbaugh went national and spawned a few dozen copycats. Their fingerprints are all over this, too.

This is cultural now, and therefore will be much more difficult to address.
.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Joe, one day you call me a racist right winger, another day you call me a liberal.

No, guy, what I'll call you is pompous.

And every day, every single day, you whine and complain about my posts, misrepresent my words and go after me personally.

Guy, the problem is, I pretty much have you pegged for what you are.

You want to appease the right wing even when they make a daily assault on common decency.

You want to bring a hug to a gunfight.

I can go on with the metaphors all day.

It was never my intent to get up in your head like this, but it's clear you don't realize how often you illustrate my points for me.

This I think you love Trump so much. You're both narcissists.

It ain't about you, buddy.

we didn't lose in 2016 because we didn't spend enough time appeasing the racists. Trump didn't do any better than McCain or Romney. This is the point that you keep missing, keep avoiding and never, every want to talk about because mentioning it will summon C'Thulhu or something.

We lost because sanctimonious asses voted for Johnson or Stein because "Hillary was Just as Bad" or "Didn't Stand for anything" but she was "going to win anyway."

We do not need to give the Nazi with a Confederate Flag a hug on the hope that if we just understand his plight, he'll come around. Trump can wreck the economy and that guy will STILL vote for him when they are foreclosing on his double-wide.

And we don't need to mealy-mouth, "But maybe Haiti really is a $#!+hole!" That really is giving up the Sudetenland.

Oh noes, Joe Just used a Nazi Metaphor. Break out the fainting couch

You sure do like to use the word "we". Considering the utter extremism and unquestioning dogmatism of your posts, if there is actually a "we" involved, one needs to look no further to explain why Trump is sitting in the white house.

 

[JoeB131]

I'm sure that's all very interesting. Whatever works for you.

Translation- I have nothing to say, so let's try to minimize it by being... pompous.

Yes, let's talk about the other guy when you can't possibly refute what is said, but don't have to integrity to admit as much.

 

[JoeB131]

Well first, as I've mentioned, I don't think that the people who do this the most have any interest in improving race relations or promoting healing. They're just waiting for demographics to take over and they'll have what they want. No need to be civil at this point.

There's a compelling reason to be civil to Nazis? Being civil to Nazis usually ends up with you sneaking out of the country in the middle of the night like my grandparents did.

nd I do think the media has a lot to do with it, but that includes conservative talk radio, which has been pushing a simplistic, binary, us vs. them, hyperbolic narrative since Limbaugh went national and spawned a few dozen copycats. Their fingerprints are all over this, too.

Oh, see, Mac said something bad about Limbaugh, so that makes all his trashing of liberals okay now.

 

[JoeB131]

You sure do like to use the word "we". Considering the utter extremism and unquestioning dogmatism of your posts, if there is actually a "we" involved, one needs to look no further to explain why Trump is sitting in the white house.

Uh, Guy, Trump is in the White House because the Von Papen Republicans and the Neville Chamberlain Democrats knew it was wrong.... and did nothing.

But do keep avoiding the point, because, hey, speaking the truth might summon C'Thulhu.

Trump won because too many people saw it was wrong, but did nothing.

The Republicans who let him get the nomination,or the Democrat who voted for Jill Stain because they didn't promise the Millenials the moon or the moderate who voted for Dope Smoking Gary Johnson because Hillary had emails or something.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Uh, Guy, Trump is in the White House because the Von Papen Republicans and the Neville Chamberlain Democrats knew it was wrong.... and did nothing.

But do keep avoiding the point, because, hey, speaking the truth might summon C'Thulhu.

Trump won because too many people saw it was wrong, but did nothing.

The Republicans who let him get the nomination,or the Democrat who voted for Jill Stain because they didn't promise the Millenials the moon or the moderate who voted for Dope Smoking Gary Johnson because Hillary had emails or something.

To the extent that voters cast for a third party candidate in protest, I agree with you. However, to the extent that voters cast for third party candidates because that's whom they truly wanted to see in the WH, I don't agree with you, and I don't for two reasons:

• "Princely manhood" -- See the first two paragraphs at the link. AFAIK, that's about as succinct a discussion of it as one is going to find.
• Logic -- The notion of voting using the "lesser of two evils" (LOTE) rationale is illogical. I've elsewhere on USMB discussed how and why it is and in that post, one'll find ample credible links to additional content on the matter, so I'm not going to here reprise those remarks.

That said, I'm well aware that there are likely, at most, a million Americans who hold themselves to the ethical/moral standard of princely manhood, so it's certain that, other perhaps than when it's convenient to do so, no more than a million folks are in a position to or of a mind to hold others to that standard. Whereas my own upbringing provides me with some sense of how many folks might have been raised to and indeed do ascribe to the notion of princely manhood, I have no guide for positing how many folks (1) realize that the LOTE line of reasoning as applied to voting is thoroughly illogical and (2) refrain from using it to select a candidate for voting. I suspect, only on a gut-level basis, that it no more folks do so than ascribe to princely manhood.


As for the most basic question of whether third party voting choices materially affected the election outcome, well, that's hard for me to say. I can't say because I haven't found information that allows me to lean one way or the other. There's no question that in each of the "battleground" states that Trump won, third party candidates won more than enough votes to have given Clinton the win had those votes gone to her. AFAIK, Johnson won the largest plurality of third party votes; however, what share of Johnson voters were choosing between Johnson and Trump vs. between Johnson and Clinton is not at all known to me. The fact that Libertarians are generally part of the conservative bloc of voters suggests they were making the former evaluation. That Trump is such a despicable human being suggests their analysis was of the latter nature.

Because I cannot use the third-party vote as a means for determining, "by the numbers," as it were, why the outcome we observe is as it is, I can only attribute Clinton's loss to Democrats/others who would have chosen her over Trump having instead abstained from casting and/or abdicated their duty to cast a vote for POTUS.

 

[JoeB131]

To the extent that voters cast for a third party candidate in protest, I agree with you. However, to the extent that voters cast for third party candidates because that's whom they truly wanted to see in the WH, I don't agree with you, and I don't for two reasons:

voting for third party candidates is always a waste of a vote.

what we need to do is chuck the electoral college and have a system like the French have. The top two vote getters go into a runoff if no one gets 50%.

There's no question that in each of the "battleground" states that Trump won, third party candidates won more than enough votes to have given Clinton the win had those votes gone to her. AFAIK, Johnson won the largest plurality of third party votes; however, what share of Johnson voters were choosing between Johnson and Trump vs. between Johnson and Clinton is not at all known to me. The fact that Libertarians are generally part of the conservative bloc of voters suggests they were making the former evaluation. That Trump is such a despicable human being suggests their analysis was of the latter nature.

Well, that's an easy one to figure out.

Trump got about the same amount of votes as Mitt Romney and John McCain got. Between 45% and 47%, between 60 and 63 million votes. Trump didn't move the needle on that end of the spectrum, which is why I think guys like Mac who sit here and whine that we aren't hugging the Nazis enough and understanding their White Trash plight are truly silly.

Spoiler alert. The White Trash is in a "plight" because for the last 40 years, they keep voting for Republicans who screw them over to help the rich. That's why they have a plight.

Now, Hillary did move the needle- downward. She got about the same amount of votes as Obama got in 2012, but it was only 48% of the electorate.

Meanwhile, Gary Johnson went from 1,275,951 in 2012 to 4,489,233 in 2016. He more than tripled his vote total. Now, if Hillary went down and Trump stayed flat, where do you think those votes came from?

It wasn't from the Republican Base that Neville Mac thinks we just need to appease some more by sending just some brown people home. No, it was from the far left who voted for Stein, or the moderates who voted for Obama last time, but just didn't like Hillary, but since she was going to win anyway, why not do a protest vote?

Now, final note. The biggest problem at the end of the day was Mrs. Clinton herself. She isn't likable, she always comes off as a little phony. And you can't discount good old fashioned misogyny. Go to a Star Wars forum and see how much people are freaking out about female leads. But what she wasn't was "Far left winger regressive" like Mac goes on and on about. She made real appeals to the middle, often at the expense of the left.

 

[usmbguest5318]

OT:

To the extent that voters cast for a third party candidate in protest, I agree with you. However, to the extent that voters cast for third party candidates because that's whom they truly wanted to see in the WH, I don't agree with you, and I don't for two reasons:

voting for third party candidates is always a waste of a vote.

what we need to do is chuck the electoral college and have a system like the French have. The top two vote getters go into a runoff if no one gets 50%.

There's no question that in each of the "battleground" states that Trump won, third party candidates won more than enough votes to have given Clinton the win had those votes gone to her. AFAIK, Johnson won the largest plurality of third party votes; however, what share of Johnson voters were choosing between Johnson and Trump vs. between Johnson and Clinton is not at all known to me. The fact that Libertarians are generally part of the conservative bloc of voters suggests they were making the former evaluation. That Trump is such a despicable human being suggests their analysis was of the latter nature.

Well, that's an easy one to figure out.

Trump got about the same amount of votes as Mitt Romney and John McCain got. Between 45% and 47%, between 60 and 63 million votes. Trump didn't move the needle on that end of the spectrum, which is why I think guys like Mac who sit here and whine that we aren't hugging the Nazis enough and understanding their White Trash plight are truly silly.

Spoiler alert. The White Trash is in a "plight" because for the last 40 years, they keep voting for Republicans who screw them over to help the rich. That's why they have a plight.

Now, Hillary did move the needle- downward. She got about the same amount of votes as Obama got in 2012, but it was only 48% of the electorate.

Meanwhile, Gary Johnson went from 1,275,951 in 2012 to 4,489,233 in 2016. He more than tripled his vote total. Now, if Hillary went down and Trump stayed flat, where do you think those votes came from?

It wasn't from the Republican Base that Neville Mac thinks we just need to appease some more by sending just some brown people home. No, it was from the far left who voted for Stein, or the moderates who voted for Obama last time, but just didn't like Hillary, but since she was going to win anyway, why not do a protest vote?

Now, final note. The biggest problem at the end of the day was Mrs. Clinton herself. She isn't likable, she always comes off as a little phony. And you can't discount good old fashioned misogyny. Go to a Star Wars forum and see how much people are freaking out about female leads. But what she wasn't was "Far left winger regressive" like Mac goes on and on about. She made real appeals to the middle, often at the expense of the left.

While the scenario you posit above is plausible, the information and line of reasoning you've given for it being more probable than other scenarios is not probative of conclusion at which you've arrived.

Trump got about the same amount of votes as Mitt Romney and John McCain got.

??? -- Given the margins that can effect a win and the electoral-college impact, the two to three million vote differences among the popular vote each man garnered is material, thus not qualitatively "about the same," even though in the abstract, the quantities would in many other situations and discussions be fairly considered "about the same."

GOP popular vote totals

• 2008 McCain popular vote --> 59,948,323
• 2012 Romney popular vote --> 60,933,504
• 2016 Trump popular vote --> 62,984,825

if Hillary went down and Trump stayed flat, where do you think those votes came from?

I don't know where the votes came from. I know from where they may have come and I haven't seen in your argument anything that indicates cogently they came from none of those sources. The first source for them and which folks wanting to argue for the conclusion you are is that they result from more people voting for someone for POTUS and Trump was the candidate for whom those "new voters" chose.

As I wrote, I don't know whether that's from whence the incremental increase Trump realized came, but I do know you haven't shown that it is not, and since you're the one arguing for the conclusion you are, that is a scenario you need to show either did not materialize or is highly improbable to have been /the scenario that did materialize.

FWIW, I'd be surprised to learn that nobody has performed a rigorously comprehensive and sound/cogent analysis of the 2016 POTUS election outcome and, considering qualitative exit poll data, quantitative vote counts, and other information determined what factors/behaviors account for the incremental popular-vote increase Trump obtained.​