My response degenerated because it was pointless to try to respond to logical fallacies and easier to just point out what they were. If you want to discuss the issue on the merits, I'd be happy too. I'm not speculating on your true motives and would prefer not to question your maturity. Motives and maturity are irrelevant but you could ask if you are interested in my motives. My motivation is that I think that being thought of as "racist" is a huge Achilles Heel for the right and it's why 90%+ blacks and a majority of Hispanics and Asians vote for Democrats, even when they identify themselves with conservative positions. The belief that whites, conservatives, and Republicans are racist is not harmless, benign, or something we should be ignoring. I don't think the vast majority of white people, conservatives, or Republicans are racist.
Just like those who attacked Rush IMHO I don't believe that anything I say will convince you. And I purposely took the Question Assumptions idea to task because you brought it up in your screen name.
I'm willing to believe that none of the people I quoted are really racists, though I think that at least one comment was clearly bigoted. But what they posted looks bad and HereInTheHeartland also acknowledged as much after skeptically asking for evidence.
Rather than trading pointless barbs, as I've said what I meant and I stand by it, let me give you an example of just a few times just recently that people have unfairly and unjustly called "racism" when it was not warranted. I believe that your accusations serve as an appropriate warning but not sufficient evidence of true racism so I would let them slide under the First Amendment principle of freedom of Speech (which is under assault step-by-step by the PC crowd.)
The First Amendment is irrelevant to this discussion, since it protects genuinely racist speech, as well, in my opinion. It's not a matter of what people can say but what they should say. Let me focus on the one example that I think is genuinely bigoted and I'll explain why.
One of the quotes I copied was, "And who says blacks don’t have strong families? How many white moms would help their kid commit murder?" I think this is genuinely bigoted because the truth is that most black moms don't help their kids to commit murder and there are certainly some white moms who have done so. The assumption that only black mothers would be so terrible is, in my opinion, bigoted. Let me digress to explain where I draw the line.
I believe that stereotypes serve the purpose of improving our ability to make estimates about unknown people. For example, it makes sense to assess a male stranger as being a bigger threat than a female stranger because males are generally bigger and more dangerous and much more likely to be a violent criminal. Sometimes those estimates will be wrong but they will often be more accurate than the sort of estimate you might make knowing nothing about the person. That said, there are ways where this can go wrong and cross over into bigotry.
The first is that normal people (A) look at the whole individual and not simply a single stereotypical aspect, (B) readily abandon their stereotypes once they know enough about an individual to assess them as an individual rather than a stereotype, (C) and generally have both positive and negative stereotypes about any category. Thus, for example, the age, physical shape, or dress of a male can readily counteract the treat assessment I might make simply on the basis of them being male. An elderly man does not pose the sort of threat a young man does, nor does a handicapped man pose the same threat that an able-bodied man does. And once I get to know a man, I shouldn't be using stereotypes to judge them at all. Basically, normal people use stereotypes as a default but drop them when they don't fit or more information is available.
A bigot, on the other hand, will focus only on a particular aspect of a person (e.g., that they are black), will insist on applying their stereotypes to a person no matter how much additional information they know about the person that contradicts the stereotypes (this also manifests as "only X do Y" as in the assumption that only black mothers would help their children commit murder), or will only focus on negative stereotypes and will even go out of their way to attack any positive as a negative.
In the case of Barack Obama, he is perhaps the least stereotypical black person imaginable. He's a square. He's geeky. He doesn't talk black. His heritage is East African rather than West African (like most African Americans) and he doesn't have "slave heritage". He's an upper-class lawyer and politician. He's half-black and was raised by a white mother and white grandparents. Yet what do we get in threads about Barack Obama? Jokes about him speaking in Ebonics, about the Jeffersons and Sanford and Son, and so on. In short, generic black jokes that play on black stereotypes and play on nothing we know about Obama except that he's black. Similarly, in an article about a crime, what's the one detail that replies focus on? That those involved are black.
That's exactly what bigots do. They look past everything that they might now about an individual and see only their race. Even if the intent isn't bigoted and the person isn't bigoted, replies that look at nothing but race certainly look bigoted. I don't know if anyone I quoted is a real bigot and I'm willing to assume none of them are, but their replies all look bigoted and all play on negative black stereotypes. It's exactly what you'd expect to find if white conservatives were bigots. It plays into it's own stereotype, and rather than challenging the stereotype, it seems to confirm it. In other words, knowing nothing about a person than they are conservative, likely white, and are making racially insensitive comments, it sure increases the odds that they are really a bigot. You don't fight that sort of negative stereotype by confirming it.
And that brings me to another point -- attacks on Michelle Obama as ugly or, worse, a "wookie". In my personal opinion, Michelle Obama's appearance is average to above average. She's not a stunning beauty but there is nothing particularly ugly about her, unless you inherently find black women ugly or have impossibly high standards. Yes, the press fawning over her as the second coming of Jackie Kennedy is ridiculous and I'm sure at least some of the attacks on her is a backlash against the absurdity but attacking her appearance is crude and unnecessary (appearance is an aesthetic judgement) and it pokes a stick into a very sore spot for blacks and black women (see this trailer). Further, attacks on his children are also out of bounds, as were attacks on Sarah Palin's children.
There are plenty of legitimate things to criticize both Barack and Michelle Obama about. Plenty. Harping on race makes race and racism the issue and overwhelms the rest of the message. It's foolish. It's counterproductive. And it begs the question of why people do it.
Finally, there was a very real attempt by StormFront and other racists to use right-wing message boards in general and Free Republic in particular for recruiting (see this www.stormfront.org thread titled How do we penetrate Free Republic from 2004, for example). Giving comments that look fairly bigoted a pass only gives aid and comfort to such efforts and helps them achieve their goal. It seems pretty clear to me, for example, that a lot of the black on white crime threads are designed to encourage bigotry.
This may also serve as an example of why you may be getting more serious resistance to your premise than you might have expected. One has to draw the line somewhere and many of us are so sick of the false racism charge that we see no reason to infringe on others' free speech anymore. It doesn't make any real difference. See Rush.
I get resistance every time I raise the topic until I explain myself, then usually most people resisting me disappear when I start putting up evidence. That, or as HereInTheHeartland did, they acknowledge that I have a point. Sometimes someone on the other side makes their case, which is fine, too.
I agree there are plenty of false charges of racism out there and the other side is playing with fire, too, by crying wolf so often. But your claim that "many of us are so sick of the false racism charge that we see no reason to infringe on others' free speech anymore" is simply playing into the other side's hand. Being sick of the other side is no excuse to descend into barbarism yourself. Yes, "Don't cry wolf," is a great childhood lesson that those who cry racism at things that aren't racist need to learn. But, "Two wrongs don't make a right," is a great childhood lesson that many conservatives also need to learn. Frustration does not justify bad behavior. And the only people who get hurt by looking and sounding like bigots are conservatives, who wind up playing into the hand of the other side.
There are plenty of legitimate things to critique Barack and Michelle Obama about. Plenty. Harping on race makes race and racism the issue and overwhelms the rest of the message. It's foolish and counter productive. And it begs the question as to why people do it.
First of all, I have read over these two posts carefully. I feel free without any ad hominem on your part to reply. Yes, it does beg the question about these posts about black violence- especially toward white people. In Canada without the first amendment to the constitution, much of the general public and media have to live a lie. They dare not inveigh about the wicked goings on in Toronto regarding race. It would be professional and political suicide for anyone to decry the crime and deterioration of certain districts- alluding to racial make up. They have to make fools of themselves on multi-culture days.
I have driven from Ontario down through Michigan, to take a quick route to Detroit/Windsor. I also drove through Flint, Michigan. It was there that three silly white teens hopped on a freight and jumped off in Flint. It was near a "neighbourhood". Only about five years ago. One was killed by blacks and the girl raped, the other lad beaten.
Do you think I stopped in Flint? True, a large black truck driver was said to have intervened. How would people know about the vile hatred of certain people for others, because of the colour of their skin? Unpleasant though it may be, Free Republic posters let us know about the situation. That in certain areas, white people are simply fools to go there.
Now let me concur with you on Michelle Obama. Photo shots of her earlier showing anger have been put on the internet. A puzzle to me that she could thus be angry. That aside, this lady is looking after her two nice little kids in the best possible way. Given a classy dress and that dazzling smile, I think she is a bit of a looker. (Oh fire away folks).
Just an old working class lad here with a shot of Crown Royal to boot.
If a liberal wants to accuse you of racism they will make something up to do it with. I agree that blatant *racism* must be censored but there is a gray area. It is that gray area that you are afraid of and I am not. It bothers me a bit but there are appropriate times to discuss and even joke about such things in a FREE society. Without that FREEDOM we are lost. And that is EXACTLY what the left wants. They want us to shut up entirely so that we are *safe* from the self-appointed PC thought police. I used to be afraid, too. I grew up in that PC climate in Los Angeles. I was even caught in the wrong part of Los Angeles when the last big riots (Rodney King) broke out. If looks could literally kill you should have seen what was in the eyes of the rioters. Mostly they wanted others to be scared. That's what the left wants, too, on a daily basis. I'm older and more mature now. I say, screw 'em. They're liars and I won't censor any but the most egregious truly racist examples (which I do on a regular basis.) Conservatives can't be taken seriously if they are cowed and frightened of every tiny slight. Conservatism can't be killed by little trolls calling us "racists" either. That's the myth they want to portray. Don't be scared of their lies and thought-control and as a result you fight with other conservatives. They win, we lose. Fight the left OUTSIDE of Free Republic. (Maybe you do, I don't mean anything by that.) That's what an activist site is about. You do as much damage here to FR by calling your fellow FReepers "racists" - or more - than the original posts do that really mean nothing much in themselves. Hit the abuse button or move on or send FReepmail. Don't air dirty laundry in the same venue you are worried that the bad guys are reading. THAT makes us look worse.
being thought of as "racist" is a huge Achilles Heel for the right
If a liberal wants to accuse you of racism they will make something up to do it with. I agree that blatant *racism* must be censored but there is a gray area. It is that gray area that you are afraid of and I am not. It bothers me a bit but there are appropriate times to discuss and even joke about such things in a FREE society. Without that FREEDOM we are lost. And that is EXACTLY what the left wants. They want us to shut up entirely so that we are *safe* from the self-appointed PC thought police.
I used to be afraid, too. I grew up in that PC climate in Los Angeles. I was even caught in the wrong part of Los Angeles when the last big riots (Rodney King) broke out. If looks could literally kill you should have seen what was in the eyes of the rioters. Mostly they wanted others to be afraid. That's what the left wants, too, on a daily basis. I'm older and more mature now. I say, screw 'em. They're liars and I won't censor any but the most egregious, truly racist examples (which I do on a regular basis.)
Conservatives can't be taken seriously if they are cowed and frightened of every tiny slight by the opposition. Conservatism can't be killed by little trolls calling us "racists" either. That's the myth they want to portray.
Don't be scared of their lies and thought-control and as a result you fight with other conservatives. They win, we lose.
Fight the left OUTSIDE of Free Republic. (Maybe you do, I don't mean anything by that.) That's what an activist site is about. You do as much damage here to FR by calling your fellow FReepers "racists" - or more - than the original posts do that really mean nothing much in themselves. Hit the abuse button or move on or send FReepmail.
Don't air dirty laundry in the same venue you are worried that the bad guys are reading. THAT makes us look even worse.
I can’t say I really disagree.
I think, however we can DISCUSS true issues in the black (and other) communities, like the absence of fathers being linked to crime, etc., without saying things like “yeah, I be bangin’ hos in different area codes” to make our point.