Obama '08?

I would just observe that as a white American, who lived for many years in the Midwest, for whatever flaws one might adduce in how Thomas has articulated what he describes as his friends' point of view, that, yes, it is a commonly held point of view, and not only in the Midwest.

0 Replies

snood wrote:

Alright, Setanta, let's indulge your need for petty squabble.

It would not be a petty squabble, had you not dragged out the corpse of the horse, and begun to flog it.

Setanta wrote:

snood wrote:
One could. One could say many things. I think I am more qualified to judge how people view black males because I am a black male. For my part, I will say that I differ with you on this, and am willing to leave it at that, although I doubt you will do the same.

Setanta:

Quote:
Certainly not--why should i? Having lived 50+ years as a white male, i could as easily assert, and with as much justice, that i am better qualified to comment on the degree to which white folks express racist opinions when black folks are not present.

...and I'd tend to say that was a reasonable assertion - you would know more about how white people talk when blacks aren't present. Why should you leave this be, and move on? It'd make you look like a big person - able to have someone disagree with you, and not get all huffy about it.

You really need to be ableto step outside yourself in such a situation and see the extent to which this applies to you. I simply observed that a lack of black incumbents in high office is not necessarily evidence of a degree of racism in the electorate. You are the one who got all huffy and decided to announce that only you are qualified to comment on what is or is not evidence of racism, trotting out a typical bit of idiocy on the part of American blacks which is to suggest that only black people are qualified to comment on what constitutes racism.

Apart from being absurd on the face of it, such an argument did not for a moment address the argument which i had advance, to wit, that more significant in a run for high office is the perception of those who will provide the funds. That was an observation of the justice of applying the alleged dearth of black incumbents in high office to a statement about the racism of the electorate. You didn't address that--you simply announced yourself as the only qualified member to comment on what is or isn't racist, and then attempted to suggest that any response on my part would be petty--of course, failing to acknowledge how petty your position is, the more so as you've never addressed the substance of what i wrote.

Quote:

Why should you? Because you and I haven't got a great track record for civil disagreement, so it would save a lot of time and wasted energy to leave it.

You have your irrational hatred based on your reaction to how i describe religious fantatics to thank for the conditions you describe. I have never characterized you as a religious fantatic, and my comments on them are always referential to fanaticism--nevertheless, you show up with hateful and snide remarks whenever you see my comments in a thread in which the subject of religion comes up, to drip sneers, including childish alterations of my screen name. You have made your bed, and now whine about being obliged to lie in it.

I advanced a proposition, and so far, i've seen no one offer a substantive refutation of it. You are attempting to suggest that i should not defend my point of view because of your habit of responding in an unpleasant manner to posts i make with which you disagree. You can forget that.

Quote:

Why should you? Because who knows, there might still be some hope you can come off as something less of an officious know it all.

Upon a time, you were cordial enough. However, having been wounded in your self-love because i refuse to refrain from describing religious idiocy as idiotic, religious bigotry as bigoted, and religious hypocricy as hypocritcal--and even though i had never characterized you in such terms--you have gotten petty and nasty whenever you see me post something with which you disagree. You don't respond that way if you happen to agree with what i've posted, and the recent episode with a member who questioned your military service is an example. You only seem to consider that i come off as "an officious know it all" when you don't care for the content of my posts. That's your problem, not mine.

Quote:

Setanta:

Quote:
Your personal experience is simply not decisive.

I'm not as practiced with the terminology, but isn't it a strawman argument to present something the other person hasn't even said, and then argue against it, as if he had? I never suggested my opinions were decisive, as you put it. I said I believe I would know more about how black men get reacted to.

No, i did not construct a strawman, but you are doing so now. What you wrote, on Page 15, was, exactly this:

[qutoe="Snood, In post #1925907"]Well maybe "willing to imagine" is descriptive of my stance, maybe not. I'd prefer to think that my 40+ years as a black male member of the electorate is more than enough that I don't have to imagine or conjur any realities.

No one would be happier if Obama was willing to pursue higher office, and if he found that he had broad support. I differ with some about the chances of the latter, and there are ample grounds for my opinion, not the least of which is mentioned above.[/quote]

Which clearly states that your anecdotal experience is a sound basis for your statment. As your statement was in response to my comment about your willingness, along with Habibi, to imagine a degree of racism, there is no reason to consider that to have been a refutation. Throughout all of this, i have steadily questioned the degree to which a lack of blacks and women in high office is evidence of attitudes in the electorate. Your statement here, however suggests the mere experience of being a black man allows you to see "realities" which others inferentially do not. So, i advanced a thesis, you failed to address the substance of the thesis, relying rather on the contention that your race qualifies you to perceive reality more effectively than those of other races (which is the implication, whether you now try to deny it or not).

So, i simply pointed out that your personal experience is not a decisive argument in refutation of my thesis--which it is not.

Quote:

Setanta:

Quote:
And, once again, the point i was making is that the number of blacks elected to high office is not necessarily to be considered indicative of a the degree of racism in the electorate.

It may or may not be. I think racism has more to do with it than you think it does, and that's called a disagreement. And once again, I say that you and I simply disagree about this, and I am fine to leave it at that, but you seem to have a burr in your butt.

I don't intend to abandon my thesis in the face of your bald contention that your race qualifies you speak of realities which is inferentially denied others because of their respective races. I'm more than happy to leave it that i advanced a thesis, which you did not refute in terms of the substance, but simply dismissed, ex cathedra, by claiming an authority conferred on you by the mere accident of the color of your skin. Apart from the absurdity of railing against racism while advancing a racist thesis yourself (to the effect that the color of your skin qualifies you to judge such matters more surely than those whose skin is not that color)--you have offered nothing in refutation of my thesis, other than a racist statement. It seems to have left you with a burr in your butt that i not only refuse to acknowledge that as a decisive refutation, but refuse to be silent simply because you have used puerile insults in a attempt to silence me.

Now your have another burr to put in your shorts--i'm accusing you of a racist attitude.

Quote:

Setanta:

Quote:
In debate, it helps to address what someone has actually said or written, as opposed to one's personal stalking horses

From what's gone before, I'd say you should take your own advice.

As you have never addressed the substance of my thesis, but only advanced the racist proposition that the color of your skin authorizes you to speak with an authority which those whose skin is not that color do not possess, my remark is more pertinent than ever.

You will do better in debate to address what i have written, as opposed to trotting out your racist resentments.

0 Replies

It's nice to see CI enter this thread. If you'll excuse my hold-up, CI, maybe you could shed some more light on this issue of race. You mentioned once that you have several close relatives who are conservative, ran for public office, and won. How much trouble did they experience in their candidacies because of their race?

0 Replies

snood:
Alright, Setanta, let's indulge your need for petty squabble.

Setanta:

Quote:

It would not be a petty squabble, had you not dragged out the corpse of the horse, and begun to flog it.

I'm concerned that you're becoming demented. You started this latest episode between the two of us.

snood:
One could. One could say many things. I think I am more qualified to judge how people view black males because I am a black male. For my part, I will say that I differ with you on this, and am willing to leave it at that, although I doubt you will do the same.

Setanta:

Certainly not--why should i? Having lived 50+ years as a white male, i could as easily assert, and with as much justice, that i am better qualified to comment on the degree to which white folks express racist opinions when black folks are not present.

Snood:
...and I'd tend to say that was a reasonable assertion - you would know more about how white people talk when blacks aren't present. Why should you leave this be, and move on? It'd make you look like a big person - able to have someone disagree with you, and not get all huffy about it.

Setanta:

Quote:

You are the one who got all huffy and decided to announce that only you are qualified to comment on what is or is not evidence of racism, trotting out a typical bit of idiocy on the part of American blacks which is to suggest that only black people are qualified to comment on what constitutes racism.

Snood:
I didn't say that, or even suggest that. Where do you get "only blacks can comment on racism" from what I said? What I said was that my being a black man gave me some knowledge about how whites react to black males - is that a hard concept for you, that I have noticed how white people react to me?

Setanta:

Quote:

Apart from being absurd on the face of it, such an argument did not for a moment address the argument which i had advance, to wit, that more significant in a run for high office is the perception of those who will provide the funds.

Snood:
I "addressed your argument" with all the care I thought it merited. I said that it may be true. You might not have noticed because you were busy waiting for someone to genuflect at the great Setanta's opinion.

Setanta:

Quote:

That was an observation of the justice of applying the alleged dearth of black incumbents in high office to a statement about the racism of the electorate. You didn't address that--you simply announced yourself as the only qualified member to comment on what is or isn't racist, and then attempted to suggest that any response on my part would be petty--of course, failing to acknowledge how petty your position is, the more so as you've never addressed the substance of what i wrote.

Snood:

That you can't discuss this without blatantly lying speaks to your irrationality when it comes to dealing with someone who doesn't give a shet how blindingly brilliant you think you are. I never said I was the "only qualified member" to do anything.

Quote:
Why should you? Because you and I haven't got a great track record for civil disagreement, so it would save a lot of time and wasted energy to leave it.

Quote:

You have your irrational hatred based on your reaction to how i describe religious fantatics to thank for the conditions you describe. I have never characterized you as a religious fantatic, and my comments on them are always referential to fanaticism--nevertheless, you show up with hateful and snide remarks whenever you see my comments in a thread in which the subject of religion comes up, to drip sneers, including childish alterations of my screen name. You have made your bed, and now whine about being obliged to lie in it.

Snood:
Your petty, juvenile and insipid snipes at religion were never just relegated to fanaticism. You're telling bald faced lies. You targeted anyone who had an "imaginary friend" as you so cutely like to call it. You take obvious pleasure at trying to skewer anyone who isn't apologetic about having faith, then you have the gall to try to act like you're acting out of some civil desire for social reform, or some crusader for the separation of church and state. No one's whining here, Setanta. You just don't get to bluster and longwind me until I shrink away, that's all.

Quote:

I advanced a proposition, and so far, i've seen no one offer a substantive refutation of it.

Snood:

Perhaps that's because the only one who gives a scrap about your proposition/rant, vis-a-vis the Obama in '08 thread, is you.

Quote:

You are attempting to suggest that i should not defend my point of view because of your habit of responding in an unpleasant manner to posts i make with which you disagree. You can forget that.

Snood:
If anything, I am "attempting" to keep my focus on the things in this forum I find stimulating, entertaining, uplifting, or otherwise pleasant. so yeah, I'd probably like it if you shut the hell up sometimes - gotta plead guilty to that.

Quote:
Why should you? Because who knows, there might still be some hope you can come off as something less of an officious know it all.

Quote:

Upon a time, you were cordial enough.

Snood:
As were you - that seems to stop everytime you don't feel sufficiently deferred to.

Quote:

However, having been wounded in your self-love because i refuse to refrain from describing religious idiocy as idiotic, religious bigotry as bigoted, and religious hypocricy as hypocritcal--and even though i had never characterized you in such terms--you have gotten petty and nasty whenever you see me post something with which you disagree. You don't respond that way if you happen to agree with what i've posted, and the recent episode with a member who questioned your military service is an example. You only seem to consider that i come off as "an officious know it all" when you don't care for the content of my posts. That's your problem, not mine.

Snood:
That's your characterization of what has been the nature of our exchanges. I have another. You have, indeed thrown me in with the lot that you dismiss as "Christians", and have even forgotten, evidently that you did so. I will support you, as you did me with the service thing, when and if a position you are taking that I agree with is being assailed. But I won't be talked down to simply because I disagree with you.

Snood, In post #1925907 wrote:

Well maybe "willing to imagine" is descriptive of my stance, maybe not. I'd prefer to think that my 40+ years as a black male member of the electorate is more than enough that I don't have to imagine or conjur any realities.

No one would be happier if Obama was willing to pursue higher office, and if he found that he had broad support. I differ with some about the chances of the latter, and there are ample grounds for my opinion, not the least of which is mentioned above.

Setanta:

Quote:

Which clearly states that your anecdotal experience is a sound basis for your statment.

Snood:
No Setanta, it clearly states that my anecdotal experience is part of what I consider sound grounds for my opinion.

Quote:

As your statement was in response to my comment about your willingness, along with Habibi, to imagine a degree of racism, there is no reason to consider that to have been a refutation.

Snood:
You accuse someone of living in a dream world, then want to crow about it if they don't "refute" you, like- what? that proves they are? Are you from the moon, or what?

Quote:

Throughout all of this, I have steadily questioned the degree to which a lack of blacks and women in high office is evidence of attitudes in the electorate. Your statement here, however suggests the mere experience of being a black man allows you to see "realities" which others inferentially do not.

Snood:

That's your characterization. And what you inferred is your problem. And I don't consider my experience "mere", as I'm sure you don't, yours.

Quote:

So, i advanced a thesis, you failed to address the substance of the thesis, relying rather on the contention that your race qualifies you to perceive reality more effectively than those of other races (which is the implication, whether you now try to deny it or not).

Snood:

You make it sound so nefarious. I said my experience as a black man has given me insight into how whites react to black males. I'll stand by that. It is a simple statement that I suspect only bothers you because you've got issues.

Quote:

So, i simply pointed out that your personal experience is not a decisive argument in refutation of my thesis--which it is not.

Snood:
My personal experience and my statement remains, unchanged, whether taken in relation to your "thesis", or totally ignoring it. Get over yourself.

Setanta:
And, once again, the point i was making is that the number of blacks elected to high office is not necessarily to be considered indicative of a the degree of racism in the electorate.

Snood:
It may or may not be. I think racism has more to do with it than you think it does, and that's called a disagreement. And once again, I say that you and I simply disagree about this, and I am fine to leave it at that, but you seem to have a burr in your butt.

Quote:

I don't intend to abandon my thesis in the face of your bald contention that your race qualifies you speak of realities which is inferentially denied others because of their respective races. I'm more than happy to leave it that i advanced a thesis, which you did not refute in terms of the substance, but simply dismissed, ex cathedra, by claiming an authority conferred on you by the mere accident of the color of your skin. Apart from the absurdity of railing against racism while advancing a racist thesis yourself (to the effect that the color of your skin qualifies you to judge such matters more surely than those whose skin is not that color)--you have offered nothing in refutation of my thesis, other than a racist statement. It seems to have left you with a burr in your butt that i not only refuse to acknowledge that as a decisive refutation, but refuse to be silent simply because you have used puerile insults in a attempt to silence me.

Snood:
I'm not "railing against racism" in this thread, Setanta. I'm merely stating my truth, as simply as I know how. And yes, I think being a black man gives me insights into the treatment of blacks that you cannot have. You can acknowledge that, or put it on your nose and soak it, I really don't care.

Setanta:
Now your have another burr to put in your shorts--i'm accusing you of a racist attitude.

In debate, it helps to address what someone has actually said or written, as opposed to one's personal stalking horses

Snood:
From what's gone before, I'd say you should take your own advice.

Quote:

As you have never addressed the substance of my thesis, but only advanced the racist proposition that the color of your skin authorizes you to speak with an authority which those whose skin is not that color do not possess, my remark is more pertinent than ever.

You will do better in debate to address what i have written, as opposed to trotting out your racist resentments.

Snood:
You're entitled to the opinon that my thnking I have better insight into whites reactions to a black male is a racist proposition. I think your burr is at least as big as mine, and perhaps bigger. It bothers you (deny it or not)that I actually think that being a black male might give me insight into how whites react to a black male in America. Tough.