The Gift That Keeps On Giving: Obama's New Pastor Claims Wright was LYNCHED!

How many do you need?

Nice word change there, from racist to hatred.

I stayed out of that whole affair, it came up when I was still a newb. I read a couple of the threads about it, but I didn't pay that much attention.

My point was that some people denied lynching imagery was neccesarily racist in a situation where whites were directing such imagery at blacks. Now that the tables are turned, those same people are nowhere to be found.

JCDs comment at the beginning is becoming more relevent with each passing minute.

Sorry. I thought the defining feature of racism was hatred.

Let me restate: I see no evidence that the U.S. incorporates racism as formal doctrine.

Obama is a-goin down.

This is good, it means the Dem nominee will be Shrillery who is pretty much unelectable.

McCain is going to win.

Ever?

Let me make my own position clear: no one owns language, and no one's politics get to limit anyone else's use of it. There is and ought not be a single word that is off limits to some but not to others. And there should be no usage of that word that is allowable for some but not for others.

Now.

Don't try to make friends with me.

Aaaah.

But recenty enough that people still alive now (Wright for example) can still remember...vividly.

And, to be sure, even the now could be disputed. Perhaps that was what Michelle Obama was getting at.

More than one every seven years, especially when the "racist" statements aren't clear cut.

If he'd said "Fuck Whitey up the ass! Let's kill all those cracker-ass motherfuckers! I hate all white people!" then I'd probably only need one example to convince me.


But if he's saying "God damn America because it has a history of treating its citizens as less than human," that's not enough for me.

Nor is "9/11 was a terrible tragedy, but the correct response probably isn't to kill innocent civilians on the other side. In case you didn't know, America has killed its fair share of innocent civilians in the past."

"White America created AIDS!" is pretty stupid, but that's ignorance, not racism, and anyway, the theory was founded by a white man.

Does the U.S. remain a racist institution as long as anyone who can remember institutional racism in any form continues to exist? If so, isn't that racism merely their state of mind and not the current state of affairs?

To put it another way: if I practiced racism, then I had a change of heart and denounced racism and began living my life without practicing it, would I still be a racist because someone might remember me from before?

I'd also like to point out that while Wright's anger might--might!--be in some small measure justifiable based on his own life circumstances, the promulgation of racist lies is not. We mustn't overlook that Wright preached hateful lies.

Does that mean I can say "economic draft?"

You could but I don't know what it means.

Sounds racist to me.

If I stopped beating my wife tomorrow, the legacy of that abuse wouldn't go away the same day. She'd still rightly hold a grudge, at least until the bruises went away and the dentist fixed her teeth.

Should we apply the same standards we use with convicted criminals?

Which ones are those? The HIV thing is backed up by at least one scientist, which is all you need depending on the argument.

What I originally said was this:

Which implies past or present. The past is undeniable. Even if the United States no longer is, as long as there are people alive who were around when it was, there are still ghosts of the past. That's what I meant in that other thread about it being a lagging indicator....by as much as a lifespan.

No.

But...if that someone continues to think of you or remember you that way, that's your cross to bear. You can't make them "not do that" anymore.

I'll give you that. If Wright was running for president, we'd have a big problem.

With Obama, it's guilt by association. He's the Gloria to Wright's Archie. She turned out just fine. As have countless RL children of racists, both white and black, and all without disavowing their parents outright.

Is a person who is once a wife-beater always a wife-beater?

Yes. Unless you think that a person who has served a term in prison should still be treated upon release as if they were still committing the crime.

Whatever.

It's racist to point out the scientists working on the polio project were white?

Barack Hussein Obama would be shocked to see someone uncomfortable with pointing out simple facts.

If I say, "A chinese restaurant made my chicken friend rice," does that make me a racist too?

On the racism = hatred (or not) matter...I've heard many defenses of the Confederacy which suggest that southerners didn't hate blacks, but simply found them subhuman and felt that slavery was essentially their place in the world.

So apparently no hatred involved, but clearly a racist view.

As long as there are races, there will always be racists. That in no way forgives racism. And it in no way forgives a national figure like Obama for continuing to associate with racism.

And wouldn't you denounce that person for being unfair?

If someone said they hung out with the KKK (yeah, extreme example, I know, but they're more fun) but NOT for the racism, but just for the comeradery of wearing uniforms, hanging out in the forest, woodcrafts, etc., would that be believeable? Even if it were TRUE, would it be acceptable? Or would condemning a person for that be merely charging them with guilt by association?

At what point does membership in an organization become an endorsement of that organization? I'd say..."at membership."

Is a person who was once an alcoholic always an alcoholic?

We don't generally release death-row inmates if they find Jesus and renounce their crimes. Nor do we release most criminals the moment they repent.

What? Like people say whenever a new study refuting climate change comes out, "the debate isn't over."

Or is this debate less acceptable somehow?

So, just to be clear...

If I think Race X is subhuman, and therefore not entitled to the rights all human beings are entitled to, I do NOT therefore hate Race X?

How about if I decide I want to work them to death? Or to use them as food or fertilizer?

[This is just a side game; I'm willing to concede it's possible to be racist (like, in a paternalist way) without being hateful, but that the practical effect is usually the same.]

Which is apples and oranges in regards to a minister who is openly preaching racism from the pulpit.

Today. Not 150 years ago.

The debate's not over on that.

Depends on the definition of alcoholic. I would say a person who doesn't drink cannot be an alcoholic. AA would correct me and say that once a person is addicted they have the potential to relapse. I'd respond that until a person actually relapses, they're not. Of course, then we can spin out of control on how likely Person A is to relapse, etc. but I don't think that will be productive.

The upshot is: the issue of addiction and potential for relapse clouds "alcoholic" too much to be used as a good point of debate.

True. But that's OUR limitation. We don't know who REALLY has a change of heart and who is merely saying they have in order to forgo punishment.

All right, I'll consider the evidence. Just who is it who claims HIV is man-made and can show that it is engineered to kill black people?

I negrepped most of his posts in the "Fake Pregnancy, Trap a Nigga" thread.

What the fuck?

Double post. See below.

Wouldn't that logic suggest that people hate their pets?

Either that or they think their pet is covered by the Bill of Rights.

My sister-in-law has a 19 year old cat. Maybe the cat should register to vote

Sounds like the situation with racism to me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_conspiracy_theories#Man-made_origin_of_AIDS

Don't hold me to any of that personally. I didn't make those claims up, and I'm not willing to say I agree with any of it. I'm just pointing out that it's a theory held by more than a few people, and not just by blacks. It's more than just a "racist lie."