In this case it's not as simple as rejecting it. When I (nearly incoherently) stated that some are proud to be white supremacists I was trying to illustrate that most people who are not, despise the concept. Hence the consideration of the term as defamatory.
Now if a fool wants to ascribe such beliefs to me I'd not take serious insult at it. But I do consider the label to be defamatory, all the more so when innappropriately used (because the epitome of a white supremacist is actually proud of it, those who revile that kind of thinking obviously are less enamoured by the term).
).
You must have been joking because that was toooooooooooooo silly.Quote: Quote:"Common ground" indicates agreement on core fundamental principles.
This is just classic, Noah. Is that your definition or mine? When I use the term "common ground" do you think it best to use your definition? Whatever happened to the "especially when a different working definition is established" nonsense you went in circles about earlier?
Noah, allow me to explain how "common ground" works.
This is an example of a disagreement. That is not "common ground".
"Common ground" is its opposite. Got it? The points on which we disagree are obviously not examples of "common ground".
-------- versus ---------
You demonstrate similar logical deficiencies as the first Noah.
Fundamental disagreements and common ground are not mutually exclusive.
Checking yourself... I guess that's admirable but you can't sweeten that up. Matter of fact you said exactly what you just said earlier.
Nearly incoherently....
What's incoherent is what is inherent in that very statement.
Do you see where obviously your insertion of your own definition of who and what a white supremacist is gets in the way here?
If you have whatever stereotypical idea you indicated you have about who is a "white supremacist" then you are definitely having a knee-jerk response to the term.
Now, if you say that the term "white supremacist" is the functional equivalent to "n@gga" then I understand your argument and, again, I have no problem with you rejecting whatever definition you care to.
It is perhaps what you said in terms of his unjudicious application or assigning of it.
White supremacist is not a term that I would feel is equivalent to "n@gga".
I think if you were objectively weighing them if you were comparing them it goes without saying which would be seen as the worst. But I digress...
Frankly, I don't recall you defining "common ground" just asserting that you indeed had "common ground" with Noah or at least the basis for it. So, it's a little hard to use "your" definition when you had not offered one that I was aware of. So your little game of spite and turn-a-round doesn't even have a basis - i.e. it hasn't been "established"...
I think you only laid out your idea of what "common ground" is later in that post. It is clear we don't have "common ground" about the meaning of the same. lol
Having another moment of "near" incoherence?
I'll allow you to clarify that if you can. lol
You can't assert that you have "common ground" per se with someone who has not agreed to work in concert with you and thereby acknowledge that you have the same goal and/or interest in mind.
It is readily apparent as much as you might want to pretend that you do not have the same goal in mind with Noah and African Americans that choose to support ideas like reparations, etc.
It matters not whether you agree with affirmative action or the historical viewpoints blacks have... It matters not whether YOU think reparations is a good idea or whatever.
That constitutes a very different goal and interest and not a mere mode of implementation that you have alluded to.
Remember, you implied that you are in favor of a person's "defining" autonomy... or rather not having to accept someone else definition or idea about a word, term or idea. Hmmm.... I guess when it comes to reparations and someone other than yourself (and perhaps those that agree with you) that such a principle all of a sudden can't be applied.
Frankly, blacks that favor reparations definitely aren't looking for your approval.
So calling it idiotic because YOU don't like it is irrelevant.
You don't define what it is and obviously have no interest in doing so in terms of "common ground" with blacks.... so how can you think that you have an accurate or definitive understanding of it?
What make you think your definition is what should be "accepted" and not rejected?
When you talk so much to the point were you can't help but to recognize your own incoherence then I think you need to find another intellectual sparring partner. Apparently, I got you out of your element.
You said it.... INCOHERENCE!!!!
Next time you slip up don't try to save face by saying "you do it too".
When you want to change the conversation or drop this futile one then let me know.
When you quote me, have the courtesy not to edit what i wrote. I express my ideas in a context which matters to my argument, and to edit what i've written when quoting it, is to remove the context.
You're not doing very well here, because you are ignoring the substance of the arguments of those to whom you respond--while defending, or at least appearing to defend, the arguments of Noah.
idea of your that I am "ignoring", presumably, the relevant points of arguments of those posed against mine, you will have to do the intellectually objective thing and cross analyze what others have said that have completely ignored what I have said.
I'm starting to agree. I'm starting to think that it's more about revenge than equality. - Craven
I see, you think then, that quoting someone partially--by editing a passage from the midst of the quote--is an acceptable debating technique? You surely need to get a clue when it comes to debate, you're just hopeless.
The point is that a white majority means that the majority of economic resources will be in white hands, absent any historical conditions which gives any other class of people dominance over whites.
What We Should Remember on Martin Luther King Day: Judge People by Their Character, Not Skin Color
by Edwin A. Locke (January 16, 2004)
What should we remember on Martin Luther King Day? In his "I Have a Dream" speech Dr. King said: "I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."
This statement means that in judging other men, skin color should be ignored--that it should not be a factor in evaluating their competence or moral stature. It follows that skin color should not be a factor in taking actions toward other people, e.g., hiring and admitting to universities.
What has happened in the years following King's murder is the opposite of the "I Have a Dream" quote above. Colorblindness now has been replaced with color preference in the form of affirmative action.
No amount of rationalizing can disguise the fact that affirmative action involves implicit or explicit racial quotas, i.e., racism.
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2399
from http://www.politicsforum.(org)/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5547
posted by smashthestate
Perhaps it should come as no surprise that someone as oft-quoted as Martin Luther King Jr., might occasionally have his words misinterpreted, misunderstood, or taken out of context. King's status as something of a secular saint only magnifies the willingness and desire of writers, academics, political commentators, and elected officials to expropriate King's words to advance one or another agenda.
Nowhere is the tendency to "play the King card" more apparent than in the claim by dozens of contemporary writers and theorists that King's principal goal was "color-blindness" and that he viewed the development of such a legally codified visual disability as the avenue by which racism would best be attacked.
To support this view, these writers rely principally on one line, from one speech – and it's not only the most famous line delivered by King, but also one of the few most folks have probably heard: namely, the one from the 1963 March on Washington, wherein King proclaimed his "dream" that one day persons "will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
For many, this is proof that King, were he alive today, would oppose race-conscious policies like affirmative action, since, after all, such efforts require targeted outreach, recruitment, and hiring goals for people of color previously locked out of opportunity in education, employment, and contracting.
Shelby Steele, in his 1990 best-seller "The Content of Our Character" presents a harsh critique of affirmative action efforts, claiming they have "done more harm than good" and implying that King would agree. Steele seeks to prove this not only with reference to the Dream speech, but also by recounting a 1964 presentation in which King implored black youth to "run faster" to get ahead: the implication being that King was an apostle of self-help and hostile to special efforts to provide full opportunities to people of color.
Clint Bolick – one of the leading critics of affirmative action – writes in his 1996 book, "The Affirmative Action Fraud," that King did not seek "special treatment" for blacks, and, as with Steele, mentions the "content of their character" remark as justification for his position. Tamar Jacoby, in her 1998 offering "Someone Else's House: America's Unfinished Struggle for Integration," says King's "dream" was color-blindness. Abigail and Stephan Thernstrom, in "America in Black and White," make the same claim as part of their critique of race-conscious programs, as do Terry Eastland, in "Ending Affirmative Action," and Paul Sniderman and Edward Carmines, in "Reaching Beyond Race," who say "the civil rights movement...took as its ideal a truly colorblind society, where, as Martin Luther King Jr. prophesied, our children would be judged..." by you know what.
Even writers not particularly hostile to affirmative action often make the same argument. Consider John David Skrentny's historical survey of race-conscious programs, "The Ironies of Affirmative Action," in which the author writes: "Martin Luther King believed in color-blindness and...also sensed that affirmative action would be counterproductive to the long-range goals of civil rights groups."
Similarly, Richard Kahlenberg – whose book "The Remedy" calls for a reorientation of affirmative action from a race to a class focus – argues the move to race-conscious affirmative action was a "changed direction" by the civil rights movement, after King's assassination, and that this shift has pushed America "further than ever from King's vision of a color-blind society."
Perhaps the most extensive articulation of the notion that the modern civil rights movement has betrayed King by supporting affirmative action comes from Dinesh D'Souza in his 1995 book "The End of Racism."
D'Souza says affirmative action "seems to be a repudiation of King's vision, in that it involves a celebration and affirmation of group identity." He then claims "black leaders are the strongest opponents of King's principles," which he defines as the doctrine that "race should be ignored and we should be judged on our merits as persons." Oddly enough, despite the faint praise for King's "vision," as he understands it, D'Souza then calls for the repeal of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, arguably the crowning legislative achievement of the movement King led.
Yet, despite the wealth of literature claiming that Dr. King principally sought color-blindness and would have opposed affirmative action, an examination of his writings makes such a position difficult to maintain. From the beginning, King placed responsibility for the nation's racial inequality squarely on whites.
In a 1956 article, collected in James Washington's superbly edited collection, "Testament of Hope: The Essential Writings and Speeches of Martin Luther King, Jr.," King said that whites had "rejected the very center of their own ethical professions...and so they rationalized" the conditions under which they had forced blacks to live.
And in his famous "Letter from Birmingham Jail" (1963), King specifically criticized white ministers and white moderates who he faulted for being "more devoted to 'order' than to justice," and whom he said were perhaps more of a barrier to true freedom for blacks than the Klan.
In short, King was hardly color-blind. He was clear as to who the victims, and who the chief perpetrators of racism were, and he said so forcefully.
King was even more clear on so-called "preferential treatment" – what we now typically refer to as affirmative action. Although it is true that King called for universal programs of economic and educational opportunity for all the poor, regardless of race, he also saw the need for programs targeted at the victims of American racial apartheid.
In 1961, after visiting India, King praised that nation's "preferential" policies that had been put in place to provide opportunity to those at the bottom of the caste system, and in a 1963 article in Newsweek, published the very month of the "I Have a Dream" speech, King actually suggested it might be necessary to have something akin to "discrimination in reverse" as a form of national "atonement" for the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow segregation. The most direct articulation of his views on the subject is found in his 1963 classic "Why We Can't Wait," in which King noted:
"Whenever this issue of compensatory or preferential treatment for the Negro is raised, some of our friends recoil in horror. The Negro should be granted equality, they agree, but he should ask for nothing more. On the surface, this appears reasonable, but it is not realistic. For it is obvious that if a man enters the starting line of a race three hundred years after another man, the first would have to perform some incredible feat in order to catch up."
In his 1967 volume, "Where Do We Go From Here? Chaos or Community?," King was even more explicit when he said
"A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for him, in order to equip him to compete on a just and equal basis."
In a 1965 Playboy interview, King spelled out what "something special" might entail, and it was far more substantive than affirmative action. In fact, King stated his support for an aid package for black America in the amount of $50 billion. As King explained:
"...for two centuries the Negro was enslaved and robbed of any wages – potential accrued wealth which would have been the legacy of his descendants. All of America's wealth today could not adequately compensate its Negroes for his centuries of exploitation and humiliation."
Although some might consider the differing interpretations of King's views regarding affirmative action or color-blindness to be mere debate, the fact is that the claims of King's hostility to any race-conscious effort – claims which are evidently counter to his true beliefs – have had an impact on public policy and the national debate over affirmative action. For example, during the ultimately successful campaign in California to eliminate racial "preferences," supporters of Proposition 209 conjured the image of King repeatedly and, until criticized by the King family, had been planning to air a TV spot showing the "content of their character" segment of King's "Dream" speech.
According to Lydia Chavez, in "The Color-Bind: California's Battle to End Affirmative Action," the voiceover for the ad said: "Martin Luther King was right. Bill Clinton is wrong to oppose Proposition 209. Let's get rid of all preferences."
Similarly, Louisiana Governor Mike Foster eliminated certain affirmative action programs in that state upon taking office in 1996. According to Ellis Cose in "Color-Blind: Seeing Beyond Race in a Race-Obsessed World," as Foster signed the legislation outlawing a handful of race-conscious programs, he noted: "This just says we've got to be color-blind...Dr. King believed all men should be judged by their character, not by the color of their skin."
Foster went so far as to say that he "could find nothing in King's writing" that would indicate King would have disagreed with his actions that day, leading one to wonder just how much of King's work the governor had actually read.
Of course, in the end, how people feel about affirmative action or other race-conscious efforts to remedy the legacy and ongoing problem of discrimination is up to them. No one should assume that simply because Dr. King appears to have supported such efforts that this necessarily makes King, and those who support affirmative action today, correct. But it is telling that so many feel the need to link their views to King in an attempt to roll back such programs; to claim the mantle of moral authority provided by the words of this particular individual. It is an indication of how powerful a figure King remains, even 35 years after his death. But at the very least, regardless of the debate over the legitimacy of affirmative action, it seems only fair to insist that we present King's views honestly and completely and not attempt to use his words for purposes he would have found unacceptable.
Author: Tim Wise is an antiracist essayist, lecturer and activist. He can be reached at [email protected].
"...during the last three years of his life, King questioned his own understanding of race relations. As King told journalist David Halberstam[/i], "For years I labored with the idea of reforming the existing institutions of the society, a little change here, a little change there. Now I feel quite differently. I think you've got to have a reconstruction of the entire society, a revolution of values." King also told Halberstam something that he argued in his last book, Trumpet of Conscience: that "most Americans are unconscious racists." For King, this recognition was not a source of bitterness but a reason to revise his strategy. If one believed that whites basically desired to do the right thing, then a little moral persuasion was sufficient. But if one believed that whites had to be made to behave in the right way, one had to employ substantially more than moral reasoning."
Perhaps you hope for some reason of feeling needed or something that blacks will consult your approval concerning reparations, but... what you think about reparations is irrelevant and you know you haven't had anyone approaching you asking you in the sense of asking you for advice about the reparations.
It is apparent that your definition was not akin to Noah's which was shall I say less stereotypical than yours (at least in the sense that it didn't typecast, perhaps, certain individuals who would be view as eccentric anyway.)
WHATEVER meant just that... WHATEVER!!
I.E. "Whatever" you would say, since it was not in agreement with Noah's definition (hmmm.... that context thing keeps rearing its ugly head)... those things/definition of yours and not Noah's were what you were insulted by because you rejected Noah's definition so what is left?
So, logically, to the extent that you are insulted or feel defamed it is your vision of what a white supremacist that is conjured up in your mind.
Learn how to read!!!!!!!!!
Are you dyslexic?
I said that there must be some fundamental core value that are shared n common and, beyond that, the parties involved would have to consciously agree to whatever it is the feel is their "common ground".
It can't be "common ground" if one party like yourself asserts that there is something shared in common that from their (your) vantage point is something that can be worked on when the other party does not mutually share that opinion.
Oh, but I guess you can dictate common ground all by yourself, huh?
(This is some more ridiculous obfuscation of yours that is soooo much a waste of time.)
It was also intended to illustrate, by eliciting your focus on the reality of politics and party dynamics, how yet even those parties have their own separate agendas and views for how to bring some of those ideas that are shared in common.
So if you respect the legitimacy of the two party system then you must accept that even though you feel you have reason to believe you have "common ground" with Noah that he can perfectly seek to set about seeing you even as an 'enemy' when it comes to certain issues just like the political parties.
Let me say however, "common ground" obviously is something that's agreed upon. You can't assert that you have "common ground" per se with someone who has not agreed to work in concert with you and thereby acknowledge that you have the same goal and/or interest in mind.
That so-called common goal is not in and of itself common ground. The common goal is akin to the core fundamental values/principles I talked about.
Mr. Semantics?
Common ground amongst parties is something explicitly agreed to.
Now.... read that definition again.... Common Ground is contingent on agreement and logically any common goal will represent some core fundamental values that are shared.
But you have not outlined where you and Noah have acknowledge that you agree on anything. You have made assertions on your own.
More importantly, you have not outlined the "basis" upon which you and Noah or whoever will arrive at or reach a "mutual understanding"... that allows you to work together. That is what common ground is all about, working together? All you have said is that ya'll should because you feel you have the same goal in mind.
Big lot... small lot...
I'll tell you outright. Your assertion that you want to see the lot of blacks improved says nothing.
It amounts to just mere talk. Anyone can say that.
So it is no cause by virtue of that simple statement to think that somehow Noah or anyone black should be more careful not to offend you "because you're on our side".... That's yet to be determined.
Don't go making wild assumptions to things that you have not agreed with Noah or blacks upon.
And the whole "improvement" is as vague as change...
because it too is relative and the amount or type of improvement you may be in favor of may very well be seen as a negative or counterproductive enterprise... or one that really doesn't meet the higher goal of what the ultimate "improvement" may be as far as African Americans are concerned.
So this is all evidence that you have established NO common ground whatsoever...
You can't assert that you have "common ground" per se with someone who has not agreed to work in concert with you and thereby acknowledge that you have the same goal and/or interest in mind.
I just did. 
But for you, the avg. Joe Craven, we would have to seriously talk in order see how we could work together....
and you my friend don't have any credentials by what your relative intellect has shown here to even approach the ability of any leader to communicate enjoining ideas.
Just cut the pretense.
If you truly want to help or see things improve for black people think I suggest you kill your ego and listen to black people and follow their lead
instead of perhaps trying to suggest what is "best"...
If you want to feel like you have common ground with black people
but feel you have the right to dictate the extent of the goal if not the ultimate goal itself then you are not seeking to work with black people. You are trying direct them (us)....
Sorry, but you aren't qualified to give direction and perhaps hardly any suggestions.
You better follow the leader when it comes to that or, as I said, cut the pretense.
I do have common ground with black people.
What I think about reparations is just as relevant as what you think buddy.
Craven, I'm done with this, unless you want to comment on the MLK things I post then we're done with this exchange.
Nevertheless, this pretense that you have "common ground with black people" assumes that you know ALL black people and whether they feel they have "common ground" with you.
I guess you have some unique privilege of claiming stuff just because you think it.
In the spirit of your idiotic "great black leader" quip, tell me what black leaders have you aligned yourself with and have decided to follow?
Or do you think blacks should follow what you think.
See... that's the kind of ridiculous stuff I have no time for.
That, and all these preconceived, premeditated, precontrived and snide remarks.
"I'm beginning to think it's about revenge"....
BS like that which is only a project of some psychotic stuff in your mind I have no time for and if you think like that, there is NO common ground in any meaningful sense that can ever be established and maintain.
Your suspicions like that will inevitably ruin it. Because, you and I both know you have NO basis wherein you get that idea from your exchange with me.
Like I said... premeditated and pre-contrived....
Next time, don't have a form argument or reply ready for use when discussing things with me or anyone else black, regardless of your curiosities, fears, anxieties, suspicions, etc.
Deal with what I have said to since it is you and I talking.
Craven, we may have common goals and a common reality... (Much like MLK and Malcolm X did... as well as all Americans then) but we absolutely DO NOT have common ground until we come together and agree to terms with HOW we will go about working together at tackling common problems.
Common ground "across the aisle" politically with Demo./Repub. means that they have agreed to and found a way inwhich they can work together, in concert.... [Honesty... would have you admit to that.]
There is no such thing as a bi-partisan, common ground agreement to work towards a common goal or on a common problem wherein there is still some disagreement on how to implement it. That's a contradiction in terms.
When you get a clue.... Craven.... then talk to me.
The fact is that is not an example of common ground as you want to pretend you have.
There is no such thing as common ground wherein disagreement exist.
I can't help that you either can or refuse to use your brain to figure that out in order to maintain your pretense.
Also, I have no time for you childish games of "I know you are but , what am I?"
Comments like this shows your have no serious intentions concerning common ground:Quote:What I think about reparations is just as relevant as what you think buddy.
Perhaps you hope for some reason of feeling needed or something that blacks will consult your approval concerning reparations...
Simply, the context there is how relevant and how influential what you think about reparations is to HOW BLACK PEOPLE THINK ABOUT REPARATIONS.
That is to say that what black people think is somehow contingent or dependent in someway on what you think. That is the only way inwhich your view can possibly be relevant, which it is not. And to say that what you think is as relevant as what I think as a black person about a black issue... well that's just awkward.
Okay, I'm black and I have an opinion about reparations. You're white or some undisclosed ethnicity and you have an opinion...
Hmmm.... If your views are as relevant as mine then how come I haven't consulted what you think...
I mean, by what you say, what you think should be relevant (important) to me, and frankly, it is NOT!
Also, let me see.... I've posted extensively my thoughts on the subject on other msg boards and by the reaction I got from the black posters there... (hmmm....) my views/articulation seemed to be relevant/important to them much more so than the white posters and others (black or otherwise) that perhaps voiced the same reservations you may have.
I don't know what you actually think about it - and don't care
because all I have heard from you is your emotion-laden reaction to it.
I don't recall your exact words but you called it idiotic... don't know if that was about the concept in general or just you reaction to Noah... Either way, that makes you views even more irrelevant and more of a non-starter with me....
SO YOU ARE MR. IRRELEVANT when it comes to that.
But since you want to delude yourself or play turn-a-round on every issue raised simply because you can type it.... go ahead Knock Yourself Out!
All you're doing is proving my earlier point about msg boards and some it not all of your specious reasons for how you regarded Noah...
I don't think that by your definition that Black people have common ground with ALL black people.
WHAT????
I've never said it should be important to you.
What I have said is that I am enjoying this exchange and that I'd toy with you but not discuss Noah the First seriously. Frankly I credit you with at least elementary intelligence for determining that it should not be important to you.
You are right, it shouldn't. Just as the majority of what you say is of no importance to the majority of teh world, black or otherwise.
Get back in that box!
Craven, you have revealed for too much of yourself with your egomanical quips!
Ah!!! Mind sharing the polling wherein you have determined this majority of the world thingy where you dare speak for the majority of black people? This is the funniest thing I ever heard!!!
Since you "toy" with me and happen to be so gracious as to credit me with "at least elementary intelligence" lol what does that say about your self-concept and your perspective by which you judge African-Americans to be intelligent?
I guess you are the mode and the model, huh?
And, when someone black doesn't agree with you then they are some how less intelligent, huh?
So, tell me, do you equate intelligence (subjectively) as expression of a certain ideology
or do you routine make it a habit of calling black people or others who disagree with "less intelligent" or having at least "elementary" intelligence.
Pandora!! Pandora!!!
Ahh the ole assumption. Frankly I think my opinion on this is exactly as relevant as yours. Just like I stated. That sense of entitlement of yours is the source of great mirth for me.
) I got to tell the folks!!]
