You bring up a good point, I'm 22 and most years I cant sleep but in the last couple the quality of presents has slightly diminished and so my ability to sleep has increased ;)

"Coded racist-apologia"? Why can't words just mean what they mean? Who gets to define this code? How have I never received the evil racist handbook, so I can decipher these things?

Also, FYI, I also follow many other blogs and newswebsites. I verify what I read from original and multiple sources as much as possible. I'm a bit of a news junkie. hehe

*sigh* Coded racism is a term you should know being an adult living in the modern world and all that. Let me try and explain.

The whole "I worked hard for my success and didn't expect anything from anyone." thing has an implication attached to it. Namely that everyone else who isn't successful didn't work hard and did expect things from other people.

It is also definitely a thing that people think minorities, and black people in particular aren't willing to work hard and do expect things from other people, that it's "part of the black culture". Whether or not you believe that, or Mia Love believes that, is really neither here nor there, that is an idea that exists, that can be promulgated. Having a black woman stand in front of the Republican convention and say "My parents and I worked hard for our success" also says, implicitly "all the other poorer black people didn't work hard, and that's why they're not successful". This is the implication the RNC was applauding. Standing up to say "she's one of the good ones!" Think about that.

It's a huge inference, IMO. You are attributing much to what is not being said, which gives you the power to interpret it the way you like.

Yes, people are applauding Mia Love as a successful example of a black woman, daughter of immigrants. I will grant that there is a racial factor, but I think it is this: These are Americans. They want to be inclusive. They want to have blacks and hispanics and asians and everyone be a part of the American dream and the American project. They are thrilled when a Susana Martinez or a Condoleeza Rice succeeds. It shows that America is a land of opportunity for all. It confirms what they believe: that America is a place of freedom where hard honest work can pay off. That's not racism. That's inclusiveness. That's celebrating these people and their accomplishments.

Or that is what it would be at a Democrat convention, no?

It's not as huge an inference as you think. It would be one thing if these weren't ideas that existed independently of me saying them. But they are. You can't act like those ideas don't exist. Or like Mia Love's speech exists in a vacuum. It exists in a country where generally speaking black people don't become mayors or congressmen. It exists in a political climate where people really do suggest that the black community just needs to work harder, it exists in a political climate where a major magazine can publish an article like this: http://www.forbes.com/sites/quickerbettertech/2011/12/12/if-i-was-a-poor-black-kid/. It exists in a political climate where I can cite this article as an example of the phenomenon I'm talking about and my debate opponent (that's you) will sincerely ask "what's wrong with that article?" It exists in a political climate where black men have a 1 in 9 chance of being incarcerated, and yet people will turn around and say "what racism?".

Of course Republicans are happy when blacks and hispanics and other racial minorities succeed. Racism doesn't mean wanting minorities to fail. Racism means making it difficult for them to succeed, and then implicitly blaming them when they don't.

I wonder what the ratio of black congresspersons or black mayors is to the actual ratio of black citizens (which is only what 11% or something?). And we have a black President, if you hadn't noticed. Funny how that happened, in such a racist country.

I can actually see some problems with that Forbes article. It's a bit naive.

The war on drugs has a lot to do with the black incarceration rate, and I'm actually opposed to the war on drugs. There are other factors, and it's complicated. It's not part of a racist plot, though.

What are Republicans doing that makes it difficult for minorities to succeed? Advocating school choice for kids trapped in rotten inner city schools? Advocating enterprise zones that allow minorities to build small businesses? Those racists!

You know, so many black people in Baltimore, Detroit, Chicago, Philadelphia, etc. have been under Democrat governors and mayors for most of the last few decades. What the hell have they gotten? Who has made it difficult for blacks to succeed? Who wants to keep them in the fucking paternalism of the welfare state? Who would rather keep them on the plantation? The fucking Democrats, who, you might recall, were the party of slavery and segregation. Who are the real racists? The ones who say blacks can't succeed without special government help? Or the ones who believe that a black man or woman, like anyone else, needs the government to get out of their way, so they can rise to whatever heights they choose?

"Who would rather keep them on the plantation?" Hoooooo. You have no business using language like that. None whatsoever. Wow.

"The fucking Democrats, who, you might recall, were the party of slavery and segregation." - Very true. I think you'll find I cited that very same fact earlier in this debate. Things have changed since then.

"Who are the real racists? The ones who say blacks can't succeed without special government help? Or the ones who believe that a black man or woman, like anyone else, needs the government to get out of their way, so they can rise to whatever heights they choose?" - Oh good. This old canard again.

I dunno, who's racist, the one saying "My god, maybe there's something systematic that oppresses people along racial lines." or the one saying "If only they'd work harder and didn't stay on the plantation"? Hmmm? Listen, it's not about thinking black people need government assistance to succeed. It's about acknowledging that structural oppression is a thing.

"You know, so many black people in Baltimore, Detroit, Chicago, Philadelphia, etc. have been under Democrat governors and mayors for most of the last few decades." - Very true, and in those places black people are still worse off than white people, on the whole. But guess what, the discrepancy isn't worse than the discrepancy in say Georgia, Mississippi, Alabama, Texas etc.

"The war on drugs has a lot to do with the black incarceration rate, and I'm actually opposed to the war on drugs. There are other factors, and it's complicated. It's not part of a racist plot, though." - It's not about it being a racist plot. The war on drugs causes the high incarceration rate, therefore the war on drugs is racist. You're missing the point though. And I think I begin to see where there's confusion. You seem to think racism is exclusively a conscious, intentional thing. Which, I think is a point that has already been discussed in this debate, but I'll discuss it again, because it's important. Racism doesn't just mean hatred of other people who are black. It isn't limited to peanut throwing, and using slurs. Racism is a system of power relations that continually and in a thousand tiny and not so tiny ways continually privileges white people over and above other groups. Racism isn't always intentional, isn't always vitriolic or hateful, isn't always overt, and isn't always aware that it's racism. Racism can be accidental, paternalistic, it can be quiet, unassuming and simply patronizing. It can be subtle, it can be coded, and most importantly, it can be accidental. The point is, racism is deeply deeply engrained in our society, and when we try to ignore that, when we hew to political narratives that deny that, we are being racist, whether we mean to or not.

I said accidental twice, I should proofread better. = /

"Hoooooo. You have no business using language like that. None whatsoever. Wow."

It's official: Mafialligator is a PC-brainwashed idiot.

Listen, black people don't appreciate hearing white people talk about them in those terms. I've heard that said in my presence. I have been told, by black people, it is not the place of white people to appropriate and use slavery narratives for political arguments. It's their painful history, not ours.

That's kinda the key point here. Listen to what the oppressed group is saying. You've listened to Mia Love. It's a start. Now try listening to all the black Americans who don't agree with her. The 94-or-so% of them who plan to vote Obama. They have a narrative to present as well.

you should have been there when Mafia called us all racist for telling sicarius for not killing a dude and going to the cops instead.

In this case, I would say he is right.

speaking of which, anyone seen sicarius since?

So I'm not allowed to talk about it.

And your definition is so broad, and makes it into something so pervasive and insidious, that there is nothing to be done, it will never be overcome.

Useful. You can use it as a stick to beat your political opponents with no basis that they can actually respond to.

Actually no.
And that isn't what I said.
If you look back at the debate I specifically said that taking matters into his own hands was a bad idea.
But also said that if he feels, as a person of colour, that subjecting his friend, who was a rape survivor, to the rigors of a rape investigation would be traumatic, that it wasn't our place to tell him otherwise. And that arguing "no no, the police will protect you and not at all engage in victim blaming behaviour, even if you are a woman of colour" was a very privileged thing to do.

yes it was priviliged to tell him to go back to the police for a second time (after spending 1 or 2 hours there the first time under various tellings) instead of kicking some dude's head in.

The privilige...

bad whitey

"So I'm not allowed to talk about it." - You're allowed to make the argument that the welfare state is a tool of racial oppression. There's probably some truth in that. You just really shouldn't frame it using the language of slavery.

"And your definition is so broad, and makes it into something so pervasive and insidious, that there is nothing to be done, it will never be overcome." - You're beginning to get there. Yes. It's incredibly pervasive and insidious. But there is stuff to be done. You need to think critically about everything, and call out racism wherever you see it. Just because I'm saying the problem is bigger than you think, it doesn't mean that it can never be overcome. Just that it's much harder to overcome than just electing a president, and giving some Utah Mayor a 2 minute speech at the RNC.

"Useful. You can use it as a stick to beat your political opponents with no basis that they can actually respond to." - Two points. Yes, I absolutely intend to call out racism in my political opponents. Sorry, I didn't realize that was unfair. But you know else is racist? The Democratic Party. Guess what, they're racist too. Those people who vandalized Mia Love's wikipedia page? Incredibly racist, and misogynist. Other people who've been racist Bill Maher is SO racist. Joe Biden is a racist. Harry Reid, what are you kidding me? Why then do I support one side that is by my own admission racist, and not the other? Because at least one side seeks to tackle structural oppression. In a fight like this, you have to take the small victories where you can.

And second point, "...with no basis that they can actually respond to." What is with this idea that for an argument to be valid, it must necessarily contain some weakness that the other side can exploit. If you're having trouble responding to a criticism it might not be because the criticism is unfair. Sometimes the criticism is correct.

"yes it was priviliged to tell him to go back to the police for a second time (after spending 1 or 2 hours there the first time under various tellings) instead of kicking some dude's head in.

The privilige... " - I think I specifically just said that I'd said he shouldn't attack the guy. But please, don't let that get in the way of your made up story. Your story is so much more interesting than the truth that sometimes the police aren't nice to rape survivors.

so he should go kick the guys head in or let the rapist go around doing the same thing (as he said this guy did this serially)

those were the options.

sorry if that got in the way of your story of oppression and evil forum posters who dared suggest someone be sure a rape was investigated

Also yes, you brought up a point of the story that I'd forgotten; they'd already involved the police once and it didn't go well for them. But even that direct experience with that specific police force, and that specific case wasn't quite enough. You know better! You know how police will treat a rape survivor who is a woman of colour.

"so he should go kick the guys head in" - Quite emphatically no. Again, he should not have done that.

"or let the rapist go around doing the same thing (as he said this guy did this serially)" - Letting the guy go around doing it some more is an undesirable outcome, I agree. But you can't force someone who doesn't want to come forward about her rape to do so. And it would also be wrong for him to go behind her back and tell the police about her rape, without her permission. Look, I see what you're getting at, I really, really, really do. And it's a shitty situation no matter how you look at it. But again, you can't force someone to relive a traumatic experience like a rape. Under any circumstances. It was her choice, and she chose not to. End of story.

"sorry if that got in the way of your story of oppression and evil forum posters who dared suggest someone be sure a rape was investigated" - That's not fair. Listen, the way the police treated this woman when she first came forward was pretty terrible, and was linked to forms of oppression that we already know plenty about. Yes, that rape should have been investigated, but it wasn't just suggested that she come forward, and it wasn't just suggested that sicarius go behind her back and out her as a rape survivor without her permission, it was urged. It was pushed forward as the only way forward. Her experiences, and her feelings, and her right to decide whether or not to come forward with the story, as you know, the PERSON WHO WAS ACTUALLY RAPED were completely ignored, overruled and dismissed. Do you honestly not see the issue with that?

So if everybody's racist and it is so pervasive, why bother pointing it out. Might as well point out that those people are breathing.

I would submit that both sides are "tackling structural oppression." They have different means of doing so. And I would argue that the Republican approach actually respects black people as equal human beings.

"So if everybody's racist and it is so pervasive, why bother pointing it out. Might as well point out that those people are breathing." - Because getting people to start thinking about it, is how you get people to stop doing it. It's actually is surprisingly effective.

I would argue that it misrepresents the Democratic side to say they don't respect black people as equal human beings.

I would also argue that while I do understand that Republicans want to tackle the issue, their approach to it is misguided and will ultimately prove to be counterproductive.

At any rate Santa I'm sorry if I offended you in that debate. I will admit I came on a little strong, did a poor job arguing for the point I was trying to make, and unfairly painted some people who really were trying to get the best possible outcome as bigots, when they really were, at worst, just not really in a position to understand this person's experiences. So I apologize for all that. I do stand by the actual substance of my point though. It's ultimately her decision to come forward or not, and no one else (especially not, white, men who aren't rape survivors) can understand her situation and her experiences in a way that allows them to ignore her decision or make that decision for her.

Also, I think it would be best if we tabled this debate for now, moved it to another thread, or moved it to private messages, and let the debate at hand get back on track.

I feel we've reached as close to a consensus as we can get, and don't see much point in further discussion.

Fair enough. I think we got somewhere at least.

IT'S CHRISTMAS AND SANTA IS EVEN HERE!!!!

I stopped listening to Mafialligator when he said that I hated transsexuals since I wouldn't want to have sex with one. I suggest you all stop listening too.

I never said you hated transsexuals I said you had a prejudice against one because you said that you would lost interest in someone otherwise appealing if you found out they were transgendered. What is this, lie about things I said day?