Why, when given the choice..

Debate and discussion on racism and related issues

Moderator: Moderators

Elijah John
Savant
Posts: 12235
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 8:23 pm
Location: New England
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 14 times

Why, when given the choice..

Post #1

Post by Elijah John »

Why, when given the choice do Democrats almost always side with the forces or chaos, lawlessness and disorder? Why do they make excuses for the rioters or deny it's happening? Or attempt to shift responsibility for the chaos from the mayors who are allowing it and the rioters themselves, to the President, AG and federal agents who are attempting to stop it?

This seems very odd given the fact the law enforcement agencies and police departments are fully integrated. So, why don't the Democrats support law and order when many, many law enforcement officers are people of color themselves? And a lawful, orderly society helps law abiding minorities as well?

Why support lawless rioters as opposed to supporting integrated police departments and law abiding citizens, of all races?

When given the choice between criminal black lives or law abiding black lives, why do the Dems almost always choose the former and not the latter?

Where are the protests demanding justice for David Dorn, or David Patrick Underwood?
My theological positions:

-God created us in His image, not the other way around.
-The Bible is redeemed by it's good parts.
-Pure monotheism, simple repentance.
-YHVH is LORD
-The real Jesus is not God, the real YHVH is not a monster.
-Eternal life is a gift from the Living God.
-Keep the Commandments, keep your salvation.
-I have accepted YHVH as my Heavenly Father, LORD and Savior.

I am inspired by Jesus to worship none but YHVH, and to serve only Him.

User avatar
Mithrae
Prodigy
Posts: 4268
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 7:33 am
Location: Australia
Has thanked: 87 times
Been thanked: 169 times

Re: Why, when given the choice..

Post #11

Post by Mithrae »

Elijah John wrote: Wed Jul 29, 2020 7:39 am
Mithrae wrote: Wed Jul 29, 2020 4:30 am Perhaps most importantly, your defense of Donald Trump and brazenly double-standard attack on BLM suddenly ceased when proof of his racism - vilifying black peaceful protestors, support for white supremicists, use of Nazi symbolism, irrational 'birther' slander of a president for the infamy of being black - was provided (as if it hadn't been seen often enough before).[/list]
Re David Patrick Underwood, I stand corrected. Did not realize he was killed by a right wing extremist.
I've observed in the past that sometimes when people view the world through a partisan lens they can fall prey to a habit of assuming that the facts match their preferred narrative, rather than first checking or preferably publicly referencing any disputable claims. Obviously this has some bearing on one of the broad-brush accusations/'questions' in the OP also: Much of the violence surrounding these protests is instigated by right-wing groups (as Koko has shown in numerous threads) and potentially even police or federal agent provocateurs justifying the need for strong enforcement of law and order by sowing the seeds of chaos, so clamping down on the rights of mostly-peaceful protestors (and risking further escalation in the attempt to do so) would quite literally be handing a victory to many of the rioters. Provoking heavy-handed government response is explicitly part of the agenda of people like Underwood's right-wing killer. Indeed many commentators have suggested this escalation to be part of the agenda behind sending in federal paramilitary forces also; the parallel between Lincoln defending federal properties in Confederate territory in order to provide the Union with its casus belli and Trump's recent unwanted intervention seems difficult to ignore.

Elijah John wrote: Wed Jul 29, 2020 7:39 am -"Villifying black peaceful protestors'? I doubt it. The President criticizes rioters, black or white.
In the post which was clearly and explicitly referenced above, it was shown that among Trump's various attacks on black players who'd kneeled during the national anthem he called them "sons of *****es" and suggested that they "maybe" shouldn't be in the country. 'Doubting' information which has been amply demonstrated is a tendency that I have observed in the past among, for example, climate conspiracy theorists (or indeed all kinds of fringe partisan groups).
Elijah John wrote: Wed Jul 29, 2020 7:39 am -President Trump does not support white supremacists, demonstrate or please retract.
In the post which was clearly and explicitly referenced above, it was shown that Trump has gone out of his way to support monuments to the white supremicist losers of your Civil War (despite in other contexts being vehemently scornful of losers and disloyalty). Similarly he approvingly retweeted a video which included one of his supporters yelling "white power" and, despite eventually bowing to pressure and removing the tweet, the White House did not denounce or condemn that display of white supremicism even when directly questioned.
Elijah John wrote: Wed Jul 29, 2020 7:39 am -"Nazi symbolism" When, where, how?
In the post which was clearly and explicitly referenced above, it was shown that Trump, Pence and his campaign used a Nazi concentration camp symbol in a paid ad against Antifa. Again, supposedly just an accidental misunderstanding by all of them... and presumably we are supposed to believe that it's mere coincidence that this symbol designated "political prisoners: social democrats, liberals, socialists, communists, anarchists, gentiles who assisted Jews; trade unionists; and Freemasons" according to Wikipedia.
Elijah John wrote: Wed Jul 29, 2020 7:39 am - "Birther" accusations against President Trump is a Democrat fallacy and talking point. Remember Trump questioned Ted Cruz eligibility for the presidency too
Ted Cruz was born in Canada; there was never any dispute about that, and the fact that he was still considered eligible for the presidency by Republicans just emphasizes the racist nature of the widespread claims that Obama was ineligible due to supposedly being born in Africa. That racism isn't changed merely because Trump found it politically expedient to continue with the same kind of argument against his opponent.

But in contrast to the recognized fact of Cruz's birth outside the US, Obama's Hawaiian birth certificate was publicly released, and confirmed by the Hawaii Department of Health, long before his 2008 election. Donald Trump (and many other prominent Republicans) continued to promote the irrational conspiracy theory that he was born in Kenya. In a 2009 news story two retired kindergarten teachers reminisced about a young Obama; Donald Trump continued to insist that nobody knew Obama when he was growing up. Hawaiian newspaper announcements of Obama's birth were publicized and confirmed by the state health department; Donald Trump claimed that they had "probably" been falsified by Obama's family.

In 2011 Obama's long-form birth certificate was released and all this information again widely publicized; before and after polls suggest that doubt regarding Obama's birthplace dropped from ~25% of all American adults (43% of Republicans) beforehand, to 'only' 23% of Republicans/13% of Americans afterwards. Donald Trump still soldiered on in his irrational race-based conspiracy theory, and was still claiming "credit" in 2014 for the release of "whatever that was."
Image

Needless to say, most of this information was directly or indirectly explained in the post which was clearly and explicitly referenced above.

Maybe you could try to make the argument that with his eyes on the upcoming election, Donald Trump himself was not irrationally racist but merely hoping to capitalize on widespread racism in the Republican party? As if that paints him in a better light? Maybe his vilification of black peaceful protest, use of Nazi symbols and support for white supremicists (not to mention repeated use of highly inflammatory/ambiguous language against Hispanic countries, people and congresswomen) are all just politically-calculated dog whistles also. They seem to be doing the job either way.

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9459
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 117 times
Been thanked: 182 times

Re: Why, when given the choice..

Post #12

Post by Bust Nak »

Elijah John wrote: Wed Jul 29, 2020 6:56 am So the ends justifies the means?
Some means, sure.
Can you see circumstances where lawless tactics discredit an otherwise worthy cause?
Yep. I am guessing we disagree on where that line lies.
Also, if I feel my cause is just, do I have a right to break the law or commit violence against other people?
Depends if I agree with your cause or not.
The fact that many LEA's are fully integrated refutes the notion of "systemic racism".
How? Sounded a bit like a "I have a black friend" defense.
Does it matter? Not if (all) black lives matter.
It does matter given the context of police reform.

Elijah John
Savant
Posts: 12235
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 8:23 pm
Location: New England
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 14 times

Re: Why, when given the choice..

Post #13

Post by Elijah John »

[Replying to Mithrae in post #11]

"Viewing the topic though a partisan lens", works both ways, doesn't it.

Again, how is questioning Obama's pob "racist"? It may be wrong, but how is it "racist"? Yet that is a common refrain with Democrats. "Trump questioning Obama's place of birth? How racist is that??". Turn it around, how is that racist?

Why do you assume that it MUST be racist to question Obama on this? Yes, it is seemingly demonstrably a mistaken line of attack, and seemingly untrue, but that does not make it racist. President Obama's race is co-incidental to the argument, and frankly irrelevant.

It seems to be the default position of liberals to pull out the race card when you want to discredit someone, with little supporting evidence except for repetition.
My theological positions:

-God created us in His image, not the other way around.
-The Bible is redeemed by it's good parts.
-Pure monotheism, simple repentance.
-YHVH is LORD
-The real Jesus is not God, the real YHVH is not a monster.
-Eternal life is a gift from the Living God.
-Keep the Commandments, keep your salvation.
-I have accepted YHVH as my Heavenly Father, LORD and Savior.

I am inspired by Jesus to worship none but YHVH, and to serve only Him.

Icey
Student
Posts: 59
Joined: Sun May 31, 2020 2:02 pm
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: Why, when given the choice..

Post #14

Post by Icey »

Elijah John wrote: Tue Jul 28, 2020 9:30 pm Why, when given the choice do Democrats almost always side with the forces or chaos, lawlessness and disorder? Why do they make excuses for the rioters or deny it's happening? Or attempt to shift responsibility for the chaos from the mayors who are allowing it and the rioters themselves, to the President, AG and federal agents who are attempting to stop it?

This seems very odd given the fact the law enforcement agencies and police departments are fully integrated. So, why don't the Democrats support law and order when many, many law enforcement officers are people of color themselves? And a lawful, orderly society helps law abiding minorities as well?

Why support lawless rioters as opposed to supporting integrated police departments and law abiding citizens, of all races?

When given the choice between criminal black lives or law abiding black lives, why do the Dems almost always choose the former and not the latter?

Where are the protests demanding justice for David Dorn, or David Patrick Underwood?
That's a grand overstatement about Democrats. I know people don't like to be grouped as a whole as a matter of fact (I've seen Christians on here scream and cry when someone groups them together with others).
Unless, of course, you know all democrats in the country.
Being that I don't know you from Adam (ironically), nor share all the concepts to which you seem to think democrats adhere, your claim is false, judgemental and biased.
Well done.

User avatar
Mithrae
Prodigy
Posts: 4268
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 7:33 am
Location: Australia
Has thanked: 87 times
Been thanked: 169 times

Re: Why, when given the choice..

Post #15

Post by Mithrae »

Elijah John wrote: Wed Jul 29, 2020 12:51 pm [Replying to Mithrae in post #11]

"Viewing the topic though a partisan lens", works both ways, doesn't it.

Again, how is questioning Obama's pob "racist"? It may be wrong, but how is it "racist"? Yet that is a common refrain with Democrats. "Trump questioning Obama's place of birth? How racist is that??". Turn it around, how is that racist?

Why do you assume that it MUST be racist to question Obama on this? Yes, it is seemingly demonstrably a mistaken line of attack, and seemingly untrue, but that does not make it racist. President Obama's race is co-incidental to the argument, and frankly irrelevant.

It seems to be the default position of liberals to pull out the race card when you want to discredit someone, with little supporting evidence except for repetition.
As I pointed out (you guessed it, in the post to which I clearly and explicitly directed your attention earlier :lol: ) claiming in the face of all evidence that the first African American president was actually born in Africa is obviously and unequivocally driven by his ethnicity.

Irrational conspiracy theories always have some kind of rationale or motivation to them, at least the widely accepted ones. The rationale behind rejection of the scientific evidence for evolution is obviously religious; the motivation behind rejection of the scientific evidence for climate change is primarily ideological. The motivation behind rejection of the overwhelming evidence for Obama's place of birth is obviously not primarily political, since the likes of Bill Clinton, George Bush, Bob Dole, Al Gore, John Kerry, John McCain, Mitt Romney, Hilary Clinton, Donald Trump and indeed Ted Cruz - all white presidential candidates of any party in other words - have not had their birth certificates widely, constantly and brazenly denied. Only the black man. The presence of some birthers among Democrats (~9% in mid-April 2011) further suggests that this irrationality was not driven by politics. And on top of that, the fact that this was indeed driven by and intended to exaggerate Obama's 'differentness' from the white norm is even further proven by the way in which claims of him being a Muslim became part of the narrative too... including Donald Trump's own suggestions that "Muslim" might be written on his 'real' birth certificate.

A fellow well-known to folk on these forums once said "Why do you see the speck in your neighbor’s eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbor’s eye." Seems to me that no-one has any credibility whatsoever making unsubstantiated broad-brush accusations against Democrats when they prove themselves incapable of acknowledging even a far more obvious and thoroughly-demonstrated fault in the Republicans' chosen leader: An obvious fault moreover which seems to be quite relevant in understanding the big picture of why America's racial tensions are reaching their worst point in fifty years to begin with.


It would be a bit like constantly harping on about all that nasty violence by American revolutionaries and claiming that any decent person should stand up and 'condemn' it, while adamantly defending the English king as a wise and benevolent leader. Such a perspective doubtless had some kind of internal sense to those who held it, but there'd be little chance of getting a coherent dialogue out of them unless they could first dig deep for some hints of objectivity and acknowledge at least one or two of the main antecedent conditions for that unrest.

Elijah John
Savant
Posts: 12235
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 8:23 pm
Location: New England
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 14 times

Re: Why, when given the choice..

Post #16

Post by Elijah John »

[Replying to Icey in post #14]

Then name some prominent Democrats who side with the police over the rioters.
There is enough who don't to make the generalization.
My theological positions:

-God created us in His image, not the other way around.
-The Bible is redeemed by it's good parts.
-Pure monotheism, simple repentance.
-YHVH is LORD
-The real Jesus is not God, the real YHVH is not a monster.
-Eternal life is a gift from the Living God.
-Keep the Commandments, keep your salvation.
-I have accepted YHVH as my Heavenly Father, LORD and Savior.

I am inspired by Jesus to worship none but YHVH, and to serve only Him.

Elijah John
Savant
Posts: 12235
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 8:23 pm
Location: New England
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 14 times

Re: Why, when given the choice..

Post #17

Post by Elijah John »

Mithrae wrote: Wed Jul 29, 2020 2:44 pm
Elijah John wrote: Wed Jul 29, 2020 12:51 pm [Replying to Mithrae in post #11]

"Viewing the topic though a partisan lens", works both ways, doesn't it.

Again, how is questioning Obama's pob "racist"? It may be wrong, but how is it "racist"? Yet that is a common refrain with Democrats. "Trump questioning Obama's place of birth? How racist is that??". Turn it around, how is that racist?

Why do you assume that it MUST be racist to question Obama on this? Yes, it is seemingly demonstrably a mistaken line of attack, and seemingly untrue, but that does not make it racist. President Obama's race is co-incidental to the argument, and frankly irrelevant.

It seems to be the default position of liberals to pull out the race card when you want to discredit someone, with little supporting evidence except for repetition.
As I pointed out (you guessed it, in the post to which I clearly and explicitly directed your attention earlier :lol: ) claiming in the face of all evidence that the first African American president was actually born in Africa is obviously and unequivocally driven by his ethnicity.
Given the fact that his father was Kenyan, that he spent some early years in Kenya, and his Harvard bio-capsule said "Barack Hussain Obama, born in Kenya..." The mistake was understandable and should not be attributed to nefarious motivations.
Irrational conspiracy theories always have some kind of rationale or motivation to them, at least the widely accepted ones. The rationale behind rejection of the scientific evidence for evolution is obviously religious; the motivation behind rejection of the scientific evidence for climate change is primarily ideological. The motivation behind rejection of the overwhelming evidence for Obama's place of birth is obviously not primarily political, since the likes of Bill Clinton, George Bush, Bob Dole, Al Gore, John Kerry, John McCain, Mitt Romney, Hilary Clinton, Donald Trump and indeed Ted Cruz - all white presidential candidates of any party in other words - have not had their birth certificates widely, constantly and brazenly denied. Only the black man.


As indicated earlier, Trump challenged the white man Ted Cruz's eligiblity as well, based on his Canadian birth. Trump is a tough, no holds barred competitor no matter what the race of his opponent's (HRC) mentor (Obama). That should not be confused with racism. Why should Obama get a pass? Trump is an equal opportunity offender. See, even his supporters admit he is not perfect, and certainly has some rough edges. Sometimes he acts like a child, but he is still far preferable to what Democrats are offering nowadays. And as a side note, wouldn't it be fun to watch a debate between Biden and himself? The new Joe vs. the old Joe?
The presence of some birthers among Democrats (~9% in mid-April 2011) further suggests that this irrationality was not driven by politics. And on top of that, the fact that this was indeed driven by and intended to exaggerate Obama's 'differentness' from the white norm is even further proven by the way in which claims of him being a Muslim became part of the narrative too... including Donald Trump's own suggestions that "Muslim" might be written on his 'real' birth certificate.
.

"Muslim, Islam" is not a race, I think you know that. Yeah, you can read into all that if you want, and if you don't want to give President Trump the benefit of the doubt, but I doubt Trump gave it that much thought. Also, the fact that some Democrats too were "birthers" suggests that there was enough there to at least question Obama's pob.
A fellow well-known to folk on these forums once said "Why do you see the speck in your neighbor’s eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbor’s eye." Seems to me that no-one has any credibility whatsoever making unsubstantiated broad-brush accusations against Democrats when they prove themselves incapable of acknowledging even a far more obvious and thoroughly-demonstrated fault in the Republicans' chosen leader: An obvious fault moreover which seems to be quite relevant in understanding the big picture of why America's racial tensions are reaching their worst point in fifty years to begin with.
So if we don't agree with you or others on the Left that Trump is racist, we are in denial of the obvious? Really? Perhaps we are inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt, while his detractors are not. Remember, that same felow said "Judge not". No, it's not we who are judgemental. Perhaps we just see other explanations for the statements you provide as "evidence" or proof of his racism.

I've used that SotM verse against race baiters, especially the virtue trumpeting white race baiters who shout "RACIST" at the drop of a hat to people they disagree with. A bit of projection maybe? As I indicated earlier, (perhaps on another thread), very few average Americans go around saying or doing racists things anymore, so the race baiters seem to feel the need to delve deeper into "thought crimes" which they call "implicit bias" among other things. But who is qualified to delve into the psyche of others except for Jesus Christ, God Himself, or a trained psychotherapist? Left wing college students? Antifa? BLM? Bored suburbanites after yoga class? Hardly.
It would be a bit like constantly harping on about all that nasty violence by American revolutionaries and claiming that any decent person should stand up and 'condemn' it, while adamantly defending the English king as a wise and benevolent leader. Such a perspective doubtless had some kind of internal sense to those who held it, but there'd be little chance of getting a coherent dialogue out of them unless they could first dig deep for some hints of objectivity and acknowledge at least one or two of the main antecedent conditions for that unrest.
You really think rioters are "patriots" and "freedom fighters"? Ironic, those very same rioters are tearing down statues of the very founding fathers you compare them to, and burning American flags. They disparage the founders as "dead white men" Is all that justified? Do you really want to compare and contrast these rioters and thugs to the American founders? Perhaps that would be a good topic for another thread.
My theological positions:

-God created us in His image, not the other way around.
-The Bible is redeemed by it's good parts.
-Pure monotheism, simple repentance.
-YHVH is LORD
-The real Jesus is not God, the real YHVH is not a monster.
-Eternal life is a gift from the Living God.
-Keep the Commandments, keep your salvation.
-I have accepted YHVH as my Heavenly Father, LORD and Savior.

I am inspired by Jesus to worship none but YHVH, and to serve only Him.

Elijah John
Savant
Posts: 12235
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 8:23 pm
Location: New England
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 14 times

Re: Why, when given the choice..

Post #18

Post by Elijah John »

Bust Nak wrote: Wed Jul 29, 2020 9:33 am
Elijah John wrote: Wed Jul 29, 2020 6:56 am
Also, if I feel my cause is just, do I have a right to break the law or commit violence against other people?
Depends if I agree with your cause or not.
;)

I guess that's what it amounts too, right? That is why we have law and order to appeal to. That is why we need law and order.
My theological positions:

-God created us in His image, not the other way around.
-The Bible is redeemed by it's good parts.
-Pure monotheism, simple repentance.
-YHVH is LORD
-The real Jesus is not God, the real YHVH is not a monster.
-Eternal life is a gift from the Living God.
-Keep the Commandments, keep your salvation.
-I have accepted YHVH as my Heavenly Father, LORD and Savior.

I am inspired by Jesus to worship none but YHVH, and to serve only Him.

User avatar
Mithrae
Prodigy
Posts: 4268
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 7:33 am
Location: Australia
Has thanked: 87 times
Been thanked: 169 times

Re: Why, when given the choice..

Post #19

Post by Mithrae »

Elijah John wrote: Thu Jul 30, 2020 3:27 pm
A fellow well-known to folk on these forums once said "Why do you see the speck in your neighbor’s eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbor’s eye." Seems to me that no-one has any credibility whatsoever making unsubstantiated broad-brush accusations against Democrats when they prove themselves incapable of acknowledging even a far more obvious and thoroughly-demonstrated fault in the Republicans' chosen leader: An obvious fault moreover which seems to be quite relevant in understanding the big picture of why America's racial tensions are reaching their worst point in fifty years to begin with.
So if we don't agree with you or others on the Left that Trump is racist, we are in denial of the obvious? Really? Perhaps we are inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt, while his detractors are not.
I make a habit of trying to give people the benefit of the doubt, specifically including Donald Trump when he was elected (had a bit of an argument with my father over that :lol: ). But doing so again and again and again, for his use of Nazi symbols after vilification of black peaceful protesters after support for white supremicists after inflammatory anti-hispanic remarks after irrational race-based conspiracy theory... it pretty quickly stops being 'benefit of the doubt' and is simply wilful denial.

And the simple fact is that while many of his 2016 supporters might have just been staunchly anti-Democratic or desperate for change from the status quo of the political establishment, and some ongoing supporters might have been trapped by partisanship and cognitive dissonance into deceiving even themselves about the nature of his rhetoric and actions, it seems overwhelmingly probable that many if not most of his ongoing supporters see the same things that I and most of the rest of the world see... and love him for it. But that's neither here nor there I suppose; I'll leave you to your anti-Democrat topic.

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9459
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 117 times
Been thanked: 182 times

Re: Why, when given the choice..

Post #20

Post by Bust Nak »

Elijah John wrote: Thu Jul 30, 2020 3:43 pm I guess that's what it amounts too, right? That is why we have law and order to appeal to. That is why we need law and order.
Yes, but lets change the law for the better, and start applying existing ones equally.

Post Reply