Many angry man wouldn't marry interracial couple

Here is a good example of a typical "black crime" thread:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2364632/posts

Among the comments you'll find in this thread (which are fairly typical for this sort of thread:

From by Bryanw92:

And who says blacks don’t have strong families? How many white moms would help their kid commit murder?

From GeorgiaDawg32:

35-year-old Tarranisha Davis and her 15-year-old son, Tremaine.

Since race wasn’t mentioned, I’m guessing those pesky Amish have the strangest names..

From Duffboy:

But, her fiance’ says she’s inn-o-cin’.

From garyhope:

Who knows what the hell kind of name “Tarranisha” is. Oh, wait a minute, I do know what kind of name it is.

From Frank_2001:

“Wha’ dey call y’alls?”

“Tarranisha!”

“Would dat be wit’ one r , or two?”

From AEMILIUS PAULUS:

What’z impotent is dee bama am president.

From mountn man:

Amish with a tan.

She seems to have the same scowl as our "presidents" ~~wookie~~ wife

That's just one thread. There are many more like that. Want more? I'm sure I can find worse.

Those comments are all out of bounds; and actually pretty embarrassing.

As a white man, I am too.

Question assumptions. Good advice.

I have seen a few blatantly racist posts on FR. I have hit the abuse button myself. It happens. Less on FR than elsewhere. Much less. It’s human nature and is in evidence on every blog and every forum on the internet.

But I can tell the difference between commenting - often sarcastically - on real-life racial situations and serious “racism.” Apparently you can’t.

In a media world full of politically correct hypocrisy there ought to be times when the charges of racism themselves can be ridiculed as they rightfully ought to be.

To observe some self-imposed “zero tolerance” code of absolute silence as opposed to tolerating free speech is to be cowed and a victim of politically correct intimidation.

Adults talk about adult things here on Free Republic.

Question the assumption that you are mature enough to handle it.

But if you are going to be so sensitive as to think that the sarcastic “amish” mentions are racism I think you are simply a victim of the left’s imposition of phoney white guilt.

Those comments are all out of bounds; and actually pretty embarrassing.

Absolutely! But that's not even all of the comments in that one thread nor is that the only thread like that. That's the problem. More examples?

This thread isn't as bad as I expected (I cut people a lot of slack for comments like the one about "So they kin git some of that Obama money! From his stash!" because that reflects comments that real people from the area made) but it did contain a couple of comments like this:

From Lockbar:

Nex time I see’s Obama, I’m gunna axe him where he be stay’n.

...but earlier thread on the same article is more typical of what I normally see in such threads.

How does this all look to outsiders?

It fits every tired stereotype out there; and we can do much better than that

His defense of why he made that decision was equally stupid. It is 2009, he needs to get out of public office.

Yea, we’re all a bunch of racists here! Do I smell troll?

Yep, he needs to be fired or removed. Maybe he can get in touch with Senator Byrd?

But I can tell the difference between commenting - often sarcastically - on real-life racial situations and serious “racism.” Apparently you can’t.

I cut people a significant amount of slack but I don't think it's so easy to tell the difference. Let me put it this way, what exactly is the sarcasm about?

In a media world full of politically correct hypocrisy there ought to be times when the charges of racism themselves can be ridiculed as they rightfully ought to be.

Absolutely. And I'm also perfectly willing to defend Rush Limbaugh on Barack the Magic Negro because I understand exactly what the song meant. But just like with that song, it doesn't matter of it's motivated by genuine racism or not if it looks racist. Is it really worth an inside laugh if it alienates plenty of people who should be listening to the conservative message?

To observe some self-imposed “zero tolerance” code of absolute silence as opposed to tolerating free speech is to be cowed and a victim of politically correct intimidation. Adults talk about adult things here on Free Republic.

Ah, the Excluded-Middle Fallacy. No internet discussion would be complete without it. I'm not recommending a "zero tolerance" code of "absolute silence". That and the classic, we won't be "cowed and a victim of politically correct intimidation." No, why try not to look racist, right? Instead we'll make ourselves look like the stereotypical white bigots that the left and mainstream media try to paint us as, right? That makes about as much sense as it does for black kids to avoid getting educated because being educated is acting white. Yeah, that'll show 'em! We'll look exactly like our enemies want us to look!

Question the assumption that you are mature enough to handle it.

Ah, the ad hominem, too. More logical fallacies from such a mature individual?

But if you are going to be so sensitive as to think that the sarcastic “amish” mentions are racism I think you are simply a victim of the left’s imposition of phoney white guilt.

Ah, and the faux psychoanalysis of my motives. Would any internet discussion be complete without that, too?

AndyJackson’s been a Freeper since 1999. big truck has been a Freeper since 2006. I’ve been a Freeper since 1998. You’ve been a Freeper since 2001. I think we can rule out trolling. I also don’t think anyone has claimed that we are “all a bunch of racists”. In fact, I don’t assume that all of the comments that look racist were posted by racists. I simply think they make us look racist and in the war of ideas, that’s what matters.

It fits every tired stereotype out there; and we can do much better than that

That, and it hurts the overall conservative message. To be clear, I think it's legitimate to talk about many of the issues that seem to attract such comments (e.g., black crime rates, black-on-white crime, black academic performance, black culture, etc.) but it undermines any legitimate points that might be made about those things to talk about them like a stereotypical racist. It turns black conservatives off. It turns plenty of whites off, too. And I've been told by more than one black that the reason they don't and won't vote Republican is because racists feel too comfortably at home on the right. So when people ask, "Why do black and Hispanic conservatives vote for Democrats?" the answer is that the belief that Republicans and the right are racist is so poisonous to the "brand" that those groups want nothing to do with Republicans or the right. That's sad, bad, and counter-productive.

Ah, and the faux psychoanalysis of my motives. Would any internet discussion be complete without that, too?

Your response started out OK but degenerated. Simply put, you are in the wrong IMO.

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.

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.)

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.

This is a complete scam. The man just recently changed to the republican party. Nothing wrong here.

I would agree with your first two sentences. Something does not fit. This is unless some law was still on the books and the judge wanted to out it.

What we should all get a laugh out of is the MSM. The silly school childish eyes and "incredible" expressions as they huff and puff over the "latest outrage".

As for myself, it sure does not matter to me who marries who. These days it is not a union to be taken lightly. Good luck to ALL married couples, man and woman both.

Your response started out OK but degenerated. Simply put, you are in the wrong IMO.

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.

Here, here.

By the way, Greg Gutfeld ending all of his Daily Gut columns on Big Hollywood with, “And if you disagree with me, then you’re probably a racist,” is a great way to poke fun at the overuse of the racism charge by the left without actually looking racist in the process.

>>>I am daily stunned at a whole host of bigoted positions that remain visible right here on FR,

Many sensible conservatives were lost in the Rudy purges, while at the same time there has been an influx of Paulist/Bircher influence. The results were predictable.

On your posts #41 and #55.

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.

There are plenty of legitimate things to criticize Barack and Michelle Obama about.

My mistake, I used the word critique.