Page 19 of 23

Re: Poll on Racism: Samuel Jackson

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 3:02 am
by Woodruff
john9blue wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:If that was true, then why weren't African Americans screaming so much about voting for Herman Cain when he was running?


because blacks as a group vote democrat? because they get a disproportionate amount of handouts from democrats?


You guys have a lot of excuses. But none of them seems to answer the point of Jackson's ACTUAL statement...

Re: Poll on Racism: Samuel Jackson

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 11:12 am
by john9blue
Woodruff wrote:
john9blue wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:If that was true, then why weren't African Americans screaming so much about voting for Herman Cain when he was running?


because blacks as a group vote democrat? because they get a disproportionate amount of handouts from democrats?


You guys have a lot of excuses. But none of them seems to answer the point of Jackson's ACTUAL statement...


i wasn't even talking about jackson, you guys brought that up. i don't care what some hollywood star thinks, most of them are too far removed from reality for their opinions to matter.

Re: Poll on Racism: Samuel Jackson

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 12:09 pm
by BigBallinStalin
Woodruff wrote:
john9blue wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:If that was true, then why weren't African Americans screaming so much about voting for Herman Cain when he was running?


because blacks as a group vote democrat? because they get a disproportionate amount of handouts from democrats?


You guys have a lot of excuses. But none of them seems to answer the point of Jackson's ACTUAL statement...


Jackson said 2 things which are contradictory. How can one be trusted over the other?

show



My point is that even if you can quote someone out of context saying "I voted for him because he's black," it doesn't follow that the only reason which influenced his decision was the politician's skin color. People aren't known for articulating everything which influences their decision-making.

If the belief "I voted for Obama only because he was black" is true, then why weren't African Americans screaming so much about voting for Herman Cain when he was running? (Because their voting decision is influence more than the president's skin color. I don't know how I can make this any clearer).

Re: Poll on Racism: Samuel Jackson

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 12:32 pm
by ViperOverLord
BigBallinStalin wrote:
If the belief "I voted for Obama only because he was black" is true, then why weren't African Americans screaming so much about voting for Herman Cain when he was running? (Because their voting decision is influence more than the president's skin color. I don't know how I can make this any clearer).


95-97% (depending on the poll/source) of blacks voted for Obama (2008 - 13% turnout increase)
86-90% (depending on the poll/source) of blacks voted for Kerry (2004)

In an interview with Ebony, Jackson said, "I voted for Barack because he's black. 'Cuz that's why other folks vote for other people, because they look like them ... That's American politics, pure and simple. [Obama's] message didn't mean [bleep] to me."
\

- Many blacks were motivated to vote based on race for Obama.
- Many blacks who would not have shown up to vote otherwise, did show up and vote for Obama.

Clearly the best combination of a candidate for a black person is Democrat and black. I'm not sure why you would make the assertion if race was not a factor then they would be screaming so much about voting for Herman Cain (in a primary in which most blacks don't participate). That's silly. Especially since they already have their preferred combination.

Re: Poll on Racism: Samuel Jackson

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 12:38 pm
by BigBallinStalin
ViperOverLord wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
If the belief "I voted for Obama only because he was black" is true, then why weren't African Americans screaming so much about voting for Herman Cain when he was running? (Because their voting decision is influence more than the president's skin color. I don't know how I can make this any clearer).


95-97% (depending on the poll/source) of blacks voted for Obama (2008 - 13% turnout increase)
86-90% (depending on the poll/source) of blacks voted for Kerry (2004)

In an interview with Ebony, Jackson said, "I voted for Barack because he's black. 'Cuz that's why other folks vote for other people, because they look like them ... That's American politics, pure and simple. [Obama's] message didn't mean [bleep] to me."
\

- Many blacks were motivated to vote based on race for Obama.
- Many blacks who would not have shown up to vote otherwise, did show up and vote for Obama.

Clearly the best combination of a candidate for a black person is Democrat and black. I'm not sure why you would make the assertion if race was not a factor then they would be screaming so much about voting for Herman Cain (in a primary in which most blacks don't participate). That's silly. Especially since they already have their preferred combination.


I didn't make that assertion. My position has been that skin color is not the only factor.

Phatscotty thinks otherwise: "He is racist for making his decision based solely on skin color. "
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=94454&start=435#p3596284

But Sammy J didn't. Why? Because: http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=94454&start=450#p3596865

Also, "Jackson said 2 things which are contradictory. How can one be trusted over the other?"
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=94454&start=450#p3596865

Re: Poll on Racism: Samuel Jackson

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 12:41 pm
by BigBallinStalin
I found that it's more revealing to actually ask people why they voted for Obama--instead of latching onto specific blog posts or news reports while pounding one's chest and screaming "RACISM!!!!!"

Re: Poll on Racism: Samuel Jackson

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 12:45 pm
by Neoteny
Some of my voting considerations in order of importance.

I voted for Obama because he was better than McCain.
I voted for Obama because I thought he was fairly left-leaning.
I voted for Obama because of that shit-eating smirk he does sometimes. I love it. (Bush had a good one too; Clinton's and Bush 1's were lame)
I voted for Obama because I was sick of the current conservative trend of being batshit loons.
I voted for Obama because he was black, to encourage the perception of racial equality in US politics, and to demonstrate that we actually don't trust old white men over everyone else. We've come a long way.

OH NOES NEOS A RACIST HE VOTED HOOSAIN CAUSHES BLACKSS!!1

Obviously we haven't come that far. Should his race be a consideration? No, but until we have minority presidents, and people like Phatscotty stop freaking out about imaginary "reverse discrimination," we will always be in this situation. At some point race won't be an issue, and I can drop that off my list of considerations. But until then, I'm going to give consideration to blacks, women, etc, until conservatives stop flipping their shit. I know, I'm a dreamer.

Re: Poll on Racism: Samuel Jackson

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 12:51 pm
by BigBallinStalin
Neoteny wrote:Some of my voting considerations in order of importance.

I voted for Obama because he was better than McCain.
I voted for Obama because I thought he was fairly left-leaning.
I voted for Obama because of that shit-eating smirk he does sometimes. I love it. (Bush had a good one too; Clinton's and Bush 1's were lame)
I voted for Obama because I was sick of the current conservative trend of being batshit loons.
I voted for Obama because he was black, to encourage the perception of racial equality in US politics, and to demonstrate that we actually don't trust old white men over everyone else. We've come a long way.

OH NOES NEOS A RACIST HE VOTED HOOSAIN CAUSHES BLACKSS!!1

Obviously we haven't come that far. Should his race be a consideration? No, but until we have minority presidents, and people like Phatscotty stop freaking out about imaginary "reverse discrimination," we will always be in this situation. At some point race won't be an issue, and I can drop that off my list of considerations. But until then, I'm going to give consideration to blacks, women, etc, until conservatives stop flipping their shit. I know, I'm a dreamer.


and I'm not the only one....

show

Re: Poll on Racism: Samuel Jackson

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 12:59 pm
by ViperOverLord
BigBallinStalin wrote:
I didn't make that assertion. My position has been that skin color is not the only factor.



Fair enough. Thank you for the clarification.

Re: Poll on Racism: Samuel Jackson

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 3:43 pm
by Lootifer
john9blue wrote:
Lootifer wrote:No, and i've discussed the reasons for this earlier in the thread.


link me so i can see how you managed to justify that LOL


viewtopic.php?f=8&t=94454&start=360#p3043710

Re: Phatscotty Poll on Racism

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 3:59 pm
by john9blue
Lootifer wrote:
Could it be racist under some circumstances? Yes. If the scouting organisation refused to scout "white" schools because they claim Black people are faster then they are being racist. But they are also acting under false pretences. They are not avoiding predominantly white schools because they believe Black people are faster, they are avoiding them because they believe white people to be slower, which, while it may seem like the same thing, it isn't because one is a positive and one is a negative.

e.g.
- I can be consistent and say Black people run fast, and then accept a white person into my sprint team (I never said white people can't be fast too)
- I am being inconsistant when I say White people run slow, and then accept a white person into my sprint team

Subtle but important difference. And any percieved racism always has its roots in the negative, not the positive.


the problem with this is that the positive DIRECTLY IMPLIES the negative.

take sexism, for example. if i was looking to hire someone in a technical field, and i give more consideration to men's applications (because i believe that men are better at technical things than women are), then i'm focusing on the positive but still being sexist. it is the exact same as giving less consideration to women's applications because i believe that women are less technical than men are (which is a negative).

the only difference from your example is that not every human is white or black. but the number of groups involved should have no influence on whether something is considered discrimination or not.

Re: Poll on Racism: Samuel Jackson

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 5:02 pm
by ViperOverLord
BigBallinStalin wrote:I found that it's more revealing to actually ask people why they voted for Obama--instead of latching onto specific blog posts or news reports while pounding one's chest and screaming "RACISM!!!!!"


Okay__ Why did you vote for Obama?

Re: Poll on Racism: Samuel Jackson

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 5:06 pm
by BigBallinStalin
ViperOverLord wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:I found that it's more revealing to actually ask people why they voted for Obama--instead of latching onto specific blog posts or news reports while pounding one's chest and screaming "RACISM!!!!!"


Okay__ Why did you vote for Obama?


PD already answered this for me:


Image

Re: Phatscotty Poll on Racism

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 5:13 pm
by Lootifer
john9blue wrote:the problem with this is that the positive DIRECTLY IMPLIES the negative.

No it doesn't.

It can do, but as I say a few posts earlier than the one I linked, you need more information to come to that conclusion.

This simple example shows what I mean...

There's a common saying in New Zealand sporting circles: "I support two teams: New Zealand, and anyone playing against Australia". The first half in itself does not imply ANY discrimination against Australia, thus by itself is non-discriminatory, however the second part is clarification that disrimination was implied. If you removed the section after the comma then there is no dicrimination.

If you are to say supporting something based on any arbartairy reason is discriminatory is basically saying the entire world is rife with discrimination.

I am not saying supporting someone based on skin colour is rational, it's dumb as f*ck, I am just saying it's not (neccessarily - it could well be, but further clarification is required) racist.

edit: sexism is not a good example because 99.99% of the cases where something similar to this threads' question occurs is not "A Man would be good at xxxx" but "A man woulod be better than a woman at xxxx" which includes the negative, and thus is discriminatory.

note: I mean unfairly discrimination when I use the term in this post; there are types of rational/fair discrimination in society for purely pragmatic reasons (e.g. Men and Woman dont compete in the same competition in the olympics, boxers have weight categories, etc etc).

Re: Poll on Racism: Samuel Jackson

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 6:21 pm
by ViperOverLord
BigBallinStalin wrote:
ViperOverLord wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:I found that it's more revealing to actually ask people why they voted for Obama--instead of latching onto specific blog posts or news reports while pounding one's chest and screaming "RACISM!!!!!"


Okay__ Why did you vote for Obama?


PD already answered this for me:

Image


Right__ as long as we're voting on appearance that doesn't include race we're safe.

Image

Image

How's 2012 shaping out for ya?

Re: Phatscotty Poll on Racism

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 7:33 pm
by john9blue
Lootifer wrote:No it doesn't.

It can do, but as I say a few posts earlier than the one I linked, you need more information to come to that conclusion.

This simple example shows what I mean...

There's a common saying in New Zealand sporting circles: "I support two teams: New Zealand, and anyone playing against Australia". The first half in itself does not imply ANY discrimination against Australia, thus by itself is non-discriminatory, however the second part is clarification that disrimination was implied. If you removed the section after the comma then there is no dicrimination.

If you are to say supporting something based on any arbartairy reason is discriminatory is basically saying the entire world is rife with discrimination.

I am not saying supporting someone based on skin colour is rational, it's dumb as f*ck, I am just saying it's not (neccessarily - it could well be, but further clarification is required) racist.

edit: sexism is not a good example because 99.99% of the cases where something similar to this threads' question occurs is not "A Man would be good at xxxx" but "A man woulod be better than a woman at xxxx" which includes the negative, and thus is discriminatory.

note: I mean unfairly discrimination when I use the term in this post; there are types of rational/fair discrimination in society for purely pragmatic reasons (e.g. Men and Woman dont compete in the same competition in the olympics, boxers have weight categories, etc etc).


the first half of that phrase is discrimination against all teams not from new zealand.

and the entire world IS rife with discrimination... lol

i understand your way of thinking but i don't really agree with it. according to your model, white supremacists and the black panthers are not racist groups.

Re: Poll on Racism: Samuel Jackson

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 7:43 pm
by BigBallinStalin
ViperOverLord wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
ViperOverLord wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:I found that it's more revealing to actually ask people why they voted for Obama--instead of latching onto specific blog posts or news reports while pounding one's chest and screaming "RACISM!!!!!"


Okay__ Why did you vote for Obama?


PD already answered this for me:

Image


Right__ as long as we're voting on appearance that doesn't include race we're safe.

Image

Image

How's 2012 shaping out for ya?


I'm not sure! Mitt Romney's haircut is BANGIN'!

Re: Phatscotty Poll on Racism

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 8:14 pm
by Lootifer
john9blue wrote:i understand your way of thinking but i don't really agree with it. according to your model, white supremacists and the black panthers are not racist groups.

Maybe, but can we honestly say with a straight face white supremacists and the black panthers are only positive thinking groups? If they were I wouldnt hesitate to call them non-racist (while at the same time calling them dumb as f*ck). However in reality we DO know they have very strong negative dialog and beliefs.

Re: Poll on Racism: Samuel Jackson

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 11:07 pm
by Woodruff
BigBallinStalin wrote:I found that it's more revealing to actually ask people why they voted for Obama--instead of latching onto specific blog posts or news reports while pounding one's chest and screaming "RACISM!!!!!"


I voted for Obama for a number of reasons. Off the top of my head (probably not thinking of some, but in a general order of importance):
I expected him to kill the Patriot Act, shut down Guantanamo and get us the hell out of Iraq.
I disliked McCain quite strongly based on his voting as regards military disabled benefits, while being a disabled veteran himself.
Compounding my dislike for McCain was...if he dies, we get WHO?
I expected Obama to be pretty liberal socially.

Re: Poll on Racism: Samuel Jackson

PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2012 12:50 am
by BigBallinStalin
john9blue wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:Those are stereotypes, but at least we're getting closer to showing everyone that people do not vote for Obama only because he's black.


those are facts, not stereotypes.


This is what you said: "because blacks as a group vote democrat? because they get a disproportionate amount of handouts from democrats?"
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=94454&view=unread#p3596328

These are stereotypes, and not facts (as you've portrayed by your own words), because...


FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEDDDDDOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMMMM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


On a more serious note, it's best not to place such truth in aggregates of groups. "Blacks" don't all vote democrat. The assertion that "blacks as a group vote democrat" is erroneous because it presumes that all blacks do such a thing. Individuals have different preferences, and act differently from each other--even though as you posit: "as a group" they may do "action X." Groups and races don't make decisions; only individuals do. I know, my good man, that I am nitpicking, but it's important to not homogenize entire groups of people.

Furthermore,




FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEDDDDDOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMMMM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Re: Poll on Racism: Samuel Jackson

PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2012 4:14 pm
by Lootifer
Hey BBS on Feb 29th you can propose to ME!

Re: Poll on Racism: Samuel Jackson

PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2012 4:28 pm
by BigBallinStalin
Image



















Lootifer wrote:Hey BBS on Feb 29th you can propose to ME!




Image

Re: Poll on Racism: Samuel Jackson

PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 5:21 pm
by pmchugh
I don't think it is important that americans vote for obama, I think it is important that they vote for whoever opposes Romney, Newty-G and Santorum.

Re: Poll on Racism: Samuel Jackson

PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2012 2:13 am
by Phatscotty
pmchugh wrote:I don't think it is important that americans vote for obama, I think it is important that they vote for whoever opposes Romney, Newty-G and Santorum.


Ron Paul!

Re: Poll on Racism: Samuel Jackson

PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2012 2:34 am
by ViperOverLord
pmchugh wrote:I don't think it is important that americans vote for obama, I think it is important that they vote for whoever opposes Romney, Newty-G and Santorum.


Woodruff?