Posted on 09/17/2009 1:58:09 PM PDT by vg0va3
Tired of having the race card played, but not have a rebuttal because you can't disprove the accusation?
I am. Instead, I try to frame the conversation around the definition of the word Racism - The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/racism
(Excerpt) Read more at dictionary.reference.com ...
One way that seems to be effective I learned from Neal Boortz. He will ask the accuser to explain to him what the word means. He politely request the accuser to, "define racism."
The accuser will typically describe anything but what is racism. In fact, it is interesting how many people do not know the real meaning of the word racism due to the word being thrown around so freely.
I have learned that once the accuser is informed of the true definition, I should then ask them to explain how the word applies to the issue being discussed.
For example, ask the accuser, how does Joe Wilson saying "you lie" to President Obama equal the belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others?
The response is like a master card commercial...priceless.
I argue from the angle of one race promoting itself over other races.
The black congressional congress is such an organization. The NAACP advocates advancement of blacks over other races. Ergo, both are racist organizations.
For a point to be racist, it must be racial in nature. A person believing in our Constitution does not make them a racist.
The logic card doesn’t work on liberals.
Careful there... they’ll change the definition on you..
I never argue the point as that is what they want.
I stick to the point and tell them that they do not know me so what ever they think then alright but the fact remains(then go back on topic
I’ve been having this conversation over at harmony-central. I just tell them that all people are racist to one degree or another, so they need to further qualify the word for it to have meaning. And once they do, you get to ask them what evidence resulted in that qualification.
But to be fair, it is entering Godwins law territory. Calling someone a racist now is almost like comparing them to hitler. It’s just dumb without ironclad evidence.
>>The logic card doesn’t work on liberals.<<
Actually, It made me laugh, but it is absolutely true.
I think we should all practice a bored, dismissive “whatever” shrug. As if the accusation is expected and will be ignored.
“For example, ask the accuser, how does Joe Wilson saying “you lie” to President Obama equal the belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others?”
That might work on a novice, but a professional race baiter would probably argue that Wilson would have more respect for a White President than a black one, and wouldn’t have done it if BO were white. No one did it to Bill KKKlinton and that SOB lied everytime he opened his yap.
I like the suggested rebuttel.
Couldn’t you argue that they are talking about respect and not racism?
I may not respect the President, but that does not mean I am superior to an entire race.
I wonder if they could be thinking of the word bigot (One who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.)
Is a bigot also a racist?
I just wish that we could re-educate Americans as to what the word really means.
I know, liberals have worked for decades to make the word toxic for their use at any time they desire.
"You're a racist."
"I don't object to the color of his skin, but the color of his politics. Red."
Cheers!
Never argue with an idiot. They’ll drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.
“Couldn’t you argue that they are talking about respect and not racism? I may not respect the President, but that does not mean I am superior to an entire race.”
I would counter that a racist probably would likely have less respect for a President of a different race than one of his own. Arguing the definition of a word is not usually effective since words have common meanings as well as dictionary definitions. Racists think their race is better than another, not necessarily that ALL members of his race are better than ALL of another.
I think a better strategy would be to take offense at being called a racist. Put the name caller on the defensive. Demand to know if the only reason for opposing a policy is race? If not, why do they jump to that hateful and offensive conclusion? Point out that conservatives have opposed similar policies from white presidents. Point out that whenever the other side is losing an argument they bring up race.
As you feel about the word, ‘racism,’ I have felt about the word, ‘homophobia.’ Are we to believe that people who shun homosexuality are ‘afraid’ of it? How in the world does such nonsense slip into the language? And while I’m on stupid language pet peeves, what about ‘horrific,’ ‘ironic,’ and ‘literally?’ Are any of those words ever being used correctly? :)
You may say the following in your kindest metro sexual voice with your head swaying side to side:
“And excreting contaminated “exhaust” in the form of a negative attitude.”
I know, lame.
How about “hugely”. Can’t we just say Huge, enormous, immense, tremendous.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.