The Battle Bar, Our Wretched Hive of Scum and Villainy

At the same time, it's a double standard if he's saying one can be racist and one isn't. They're either both racist or neither.

Statements, even those using the same wording as the one prior, that are based on differences in worldviews and policies (but not on irrational dislikes of a race) are not.

Calling the two the same simply because they use the same words is both childish and simplistic, and absolutely positively wrong. It is also stupid.

There is a clear and articulable difference between the two situations. They are not equivalent so there is no double standard at all.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
[b]No.
There is no double standard. Statements irrationally based on race that are discriminatory or unfair are racist. For instance: mounting an obstructionist coup because the new leader after a peaceful democratic transfer of power is of a race that one does not approve of is racist.

Statements, even those using the same wording as the one prior, that are based on differences in worldviews and policies (but not on irrational dislikes of a race) are not.

Calling the two the same simply because they use the same words is both childish and simplistic, and absolutely positively wrong. It is also stupid.

There is a clear and articulable difference between the two situations. They are not equivalent so there is no double standard at all. [/B]

Lol. So explain again how one is viewed as racist and the other one isn't, because what you seem to be doing is trying to create a legitimate rationalization for one of the statements.

RH, read this and tell me if this is a double standard.

A. When Michael Jordan wins, it's because he led his team to victory. When Michael Jordan loses, it's because he lacked the ability to will his team to win.

B. When Lebron James wins, it's because he led his team to victory. When Lebron James loses, it's because his team sucks.

Now according to you, that wouldNOT be a double standard, because you have two elite basketball players in different situations (Jordan's team is undoubtedly amazing, Lebron's is allegedly shit). Ergo, you would claim that the statements are valid.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Lol. So explain again how one is viewed as racist and the other one isn't, because what you seem to be doing is trying to create a legitimate rationalization for one of the statements.

Statement A is based on a legitimate difference of opinion.
Statement B is based on a narrow minded bigotry.

Narrow Minded Bigotry is racist. Disagreements are not.

And are we really having this argument? Is TJ (and you by proxy) really going to advocate the idea that Howard Dean is racist against George Bush?

Edit: can you come up with a non-sports example? I refuse to learn more about the scoring of goals during the third playoff of basquetball than I already know.

Red, you are working from a premise that I called Howard Dean a racist, and you couldn't be more incorrect. I quoted the Howard Dean quote in order to show the ridiculousness of calling the TeaBagger movement racist based on the quote "taking our country back."

What I said was, if the Teabagger's are racist for saying this, then Dean is racist too. Since you say it is impossible for Dean to be racist based on this statement, then it is equally impossible for the Teabaggers, and everyone is happy.

You DO seem to be working from the idea that the Teabagger's ARE racist, but absolutely NOTHING has been provided that even suggests that they are.

The thing from the article that suggests racism (our country back) is completely negated by the fact that Dean said the same thing. So==No racism either way.

I haven't seen anyone advocating armed revolt yet, so until that happens, we pretty much have a case of an aspiring political movement trying to energize its base, EXACTLY as you described Dean.

If you can't see the double standard you are trying to allow here, I don't know what to say to you. We are talking about deferential treatment based on race. The "Yo Nigga" line you quoted is a PERFECT example of the racism i'm talking about.

The fact that a black man would allow another black man to say that to him, but be offended when a white man does it IS RACISM. It is the VERY DEFINITION of the word. You can't argue that, and have a leg to stand on. You would be arguing against the dictionary, a very hard thing to win.

Do I get your point? Yes. You are just saying the OBVIOUS political correct thing, and yes, I would have to be a MORON not to know the political climate in regards to race that we have today. I played a bit ignorant to get you to post the obvious, simply because the currently accepted OBVIOUS (that phrases by a group of people of one race, are acceptable, while not acceptable by another race) IS RACISM.

We are all Americans. Black/White/Asian, whatever, we are Americans,and the hyphenated word at the beginning of the word American shouldn't even exist. We keep racism ALIVE by doing EXACTLY what you are doing: Saying that it is okay for one race to say something, while not okay for another race to say it.

Which brings up one more thing: Obama had a black father, and a white mother. This makes him 50% white, and 50% black. Yet he is called the first black president, and is never referred to as white. Why is this? In truth, by now, we are almost all of a somewhat mixed heritage, how can we truly refer to ourselves as white or black? (another reason to drop the pseudo-term. ) I have a few black persons in my heritage, but I have never had anyone refer to me as black? I wonder why that is?

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
Statement A is based on a legitimate difference of opinion.
Statement B is based on a narrow minded bigotry.

Narrow Minded Bigotry is racist. Disagreements are not.

And are we really having this argument? Is TJ (and you by proxy) really going to advocate the idea that Howard Dean is racist against George Bush?

Edit: can you come up with a non-sports example? I refuse to learn more about the scoring of goals during the third playoff of basquetball than I already know.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
[b]No.
There is no double standard. Statements irrationally based on race that are discriminatory or unfair are racist. For instance: mounting an obstructionist coup because the new leader after a peaceful democratic transfer of power is of a race that one does not approve of is racist.

[/B]

Yea I really have no clue what you're saying here. Turn on ESPN or something.

Red, WHO is talking about a coup? where has the word "coup" even been used? You made that one up.

Regarding the rest:
You gave us this link:
http://d35pmartin.newsvine.com/_news/2010/03/04/3980317-minority-retort-the-issue-most-of-the-far-right-tea-bagging-types-have-with-barack-obama-is-that-hes-black-?
and then supplied us with a quote in which Howard Dean uses the same string of words as some words that the Tea Party has used that have been called racist. You imply that it is a perfect rebuttal for the idea that the Tea Party (why do I keep typing "Palin" for that?) is racist.

The only way for that parallel to be conclusive proof that the Tea Party isn't racist is for their rhetorical situations to be identical. Because they are not, the quote does nothing.

The only thing I want out of this is for you to realize that responding to the argument "Tea Party slogans saying that they intend to take the country back is racist" with "Howard Dean also used the phrase "take the country back" is asinine.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis

The only thing I want out of this is for you to realize that responding to the argument "Tea Party slogans saying that they intend to take the country back is racist" with "Howard Dean also used the phrase "take the country back" is asinine.

This is simply not true. both are saying the exact same phrase to energize a base of voters to vote out a political enemy. There is no difference. None. You absolutely cannot call the Tea Part racist because of the words "take our country back."

Originally posted by Red Nemesis

1. I used the phrase "obstructionist coup" to refer to the fact that the Republicants simply don't want anything to happen.
2. Texas Wants to Secede
3. The first result for googling militia+tea+party+secession actually talks about how Tea Party secessionist talk doesn't go far enough.
4. There are people within the Tea Party (that defines itself as a populist movement, so you can't dismiss them as saying that they "aren't real tea baggers" without becoming an elitist liberal like me) that advocate secession in earnest.

Read your links. Interesting your link is titled : "Texas wants to secede" but there is NOTHING in the article that says anything about texas wanting to secede.

"There's a lot of different scenarios," Perry said. "We've got a great union. There's absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that. But Texas is a very unique place, and we're a pretty independent lot to boot."

The second link didn't have facts. It was political commentary. It was no more credible than a Rush Limbaugh diatribe.

There has been no talk about armed revolt. there is a reason they call themselves a political movement.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
[B]It was a joke about how little I care about sports.

Yea I'm not really caring. I provided an example according to your logic. Respond.

Why is this even an argument? Dean was referring to taking back the US from the extreme right and the Teabaggers are talking about taking back the US from... well liberal people?

Neither statement has anything to do with blacks.

Originally posted by Autokrat
Why is this even an argument? Dean was referring to taking back the US from the extreme right and the Teabaggers are talking about taking back the US from... well liberal people?

Neither statement has anything to do with blacks.

Not that I know what's going on between them two...But if this is the case, then we would take both statements at equal value.

Originally posted by Autokrat
Why is this even an argument? Dean was referring to taking back the US from the extreme right and the Teabaggers are talking about taking back the US from... well liberal people?

Neither statement has anything to do with blacks.

Very exactly. This was my entire point in 3 sentences.

Originally posted by Autokrat
Why is this even an argument? Dean was referring to taking back the US from the extreme right and the Teabaggers are talking about taking back the US from... well liberal people?

Neither statement has anything to do with blacks.

The only thing I want to explain is how much of a nonsequitur TJ's post was.

The argument (as best as I can see it) went:
[list=1][*]Some people called the Tea Party's comment "take back the nation" racist
[*]Dean also said "take back the nation"
[*]Either Dean AND the Tea Party are racist or neither of them are
[/list]

The reason this fails so miserably is that the contexts can be very different. I did not mean to say that the Tea Party's statement was racist, only that sharing a phrase with Howard Dean doesn't make them not.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis

The reason this fails so miserably is that the contexts can be very different. I did not mean to say that the Tea Party's statement was racist, only that sharing a phrase with Howard Dean doesn't make them not.

But they CANNOT be for the reason of using that phrase. That phrase doesn't make them racist. And don't get me wrong, i'm sure quite a few of them ARE racist, but not for using that statement. That statement is clearly meant to galvanize and excite the base of followers they have. (of which i'm not one)

I think we're in agreement then.

Tea Baggers may or may not be racist, and they use the phrase "take our country back."

Howard Dean is not racist, and he uses the phrase "take our country back."

The second fact has no bearing whatsoever on the first.

Especially since there were tea-baggers before obama got elected.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teabaggers

Teabagging is a slang term for the act of a man placing his scrotum in the mouth[1] or on or around the face (including the top of the head) of another person, often in a repeated in-and-out motion as in irrumatio. The practice resembles dipping a tea bag into a cup of tea.[2][3]

The practice has also been mimicked in online video games, and applied to the Tea Party protesters as a pejorative.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
I think we're in agreement then.

Tea Baggers may or may not be racist, and they use the phrase "take our country back."

Howard Dean is not racist, and he uses the phrase "take our country back."

The second fact has no bearing whatsoever on the first.

considering I was responding to the comment: (semi quoted) "When they say, we are going to take our country back, it is pretty obvious who they think took it from them."

It has EVERYTHING to do with it. Blanket racism of Tea Baggers is not addressed by the Dean quote, but THIS article, and especially the act of attributing racism to this comment, is perfectly refuted by the Dean quote.

Originally posted by truejedi
considering I was responding to the comment: (semi quoted) "When they say, we are going to take our country back, it is pretty obvious who they think took it from them."

It has EVERYTHING to do with it. Blanket racism of Tea Baggers is not addressed by the Dean quote, but THIS article, and especially the act of attributing racism to this comment, is perfectly refuted by the Dean quote.

nou.

It really doesn't. This article, the one that identifies the motivations of the Tea Party as racist, is absolutely unaffected by Howard Dean.