Remember: the only Blacks capable of thinking for themselves are the ones who vote for white confederates.That old trope is directly out of Reconstruction, yet they wonder why they can only get 5%.
Attention Chauncey DeVega:I REJECT Herman Cain calling you a "Slave Catcher".I have consistently rejected with Black Progressive-Fundamentalists call people they disagree with "Slave Catchers". Cain is wrong to refer to you as such.A "Dog Catcher" catches "dogs".The Europeans who went to Africa were kidnapping EQUAL HUMAN BEINGS.We were never "Slaves".We were ENSLAVED!!!
War is peace! Freedom is slavery!
The more Cain speaks the more he destroys any basis for me to find any value in him...I found Boortz very paternal and he was steering Cain around like a dog on a lease..Mascots are so vunerable....
I don't know about "slave catcher," but I reacted negatively to your being called a "liberal blogger." I don't think that's true at all, except in the pejorative sense employed today, meaning anyone who is opposed to certain negative trends in modern American culture. Am I a liberal because I am anti-corporatist? Anti the current trend to economism in all things? Anti the erosion of rights now sweeping America? Anti the demonization of any group or person who wants America to move towards the future, and not return to the past? I don't think so. Liberal because of my affection for and appreciation of "minority Americans" or the disenfranchised? Even less so. The Sixties was my time of maturation on these issues, and in those days we thought of Liberals as privileged people, White, who proclaimed their love of equality, unless it was in their neighborhood, place of employment, or married to their sister. Many of us hated this obvious hypocrisy. All of the old labels have been so tortuously abused that they have become useless. I suppose that I am guilty too, viewing the label "Liberal" through my own prejudiced lens. I would accept the label if it were used to describe me as a "New Deal, Keynesian Liberal." That group accomplished great things, many now in danger of being unwound. The question is: why can't we be judged on the quality of our ideas, and on our characters, rather than being labeled and dismissed in only the shallowest of terms? By the way, I think that your condemnation of Mr. Cain was fully reason-based, with only incidental name calling, acceptable in the circumstances.
That really should have been a post on my own page. Sorry for using up so much space.
Well, I hope you're enjoying it all. I'm glad to see you and the site get some more exposure – a little respect, even if it's expressed in negative form. Shilling conservative propaganda pays well, and that's a key reason people get in the gig. On social issues especially, there's added cachet in having a "minority" shill the conservative line. Some people can confront that angle with more authority and credibility than others – and most importantly, with more insight. I take Cynthia Tucker's point, but I don't think she truly accounts for the bad faith necessitated by being in the conservative punditry these days. Differences of opinion are one thing, but many tenets of mainstream conservatism are blatantly, factually false. Having an open mind means giving someone a fair hearing, not turning off one's bullshit detector. To Fred's point – I have a positive association with "liberal," although I think I get where you're coming from about "limousine liberals" and the like. You're also correct that "liberal blogger" was being used as a dismissive label towards Chauncey DeVega. That said, it makes me think of the long game. William F. Buckley tried to demonize "liberal," and so did Nixon, Reagan and others. Gingrich and Frank Luntz waged a largely successful propaganda campaign during the 90s to demonize it. Fewer Americans describe themselves as liberal than conservative, even though their actual positions on policies tend to be liberal. They've internalized the BS. Mission accomplished; progressive/liberal change becomes harder. Every MLK Day, National Review and other conservative rags try to claim King was a conservative - and they gloss over that Buckley and NR argued against King, de-segregation and other civil rights. They were wrong, they were scumbags, and they still are – they just moved the goal posts after they lost. And they want us and everyone else to forget all that, and not to call them out. They never apologized, or admitted they were wrong – and they rarely do now. The lies and bad faith are thick, and it can be hard to tell where a sincere, useful idiot ends and an eager, willing shill begins. To a certain degree it doesn't matter, but to ignore that a given hack pursues specific consequences that benefit specific people is self-enforced naiveté. To tie all this up, I'd just say it's important to look at people like Cain both in terms of the overall right-wing propaganda machine, and his specific shtick/persona. Race is often discussed very poorly and shallowly in the mainstream media. Even if you're wrong (and I don't think you are), I appreciate you starting the conversation. (Also, I want to hear you debate "slave catcher" with Cain on NPR.)
"I take Cynthia Tucker's point, but I don't think she truly accounts for the bad faith necessitated by being in the conservative punditry these days."You're right, she doesn't account for the bad faith, which means that she's making a bad faith argument herself. She ticks off some of Cain's policy positions that she disagrees with, implying that they are what Chauncey should have addressed, but goes on to say "But he used his time to give a very un-candidate-like speech — full of slogans and platitudes but lacking substance." Exactly, and I think Chauncey addressed Cain's speech on the terms on which he delivered it. I watched the video, and he didn't really talk about policy. That's not the worst part of that column, though. The worst part is her refusal (and it is a refusal, because she has to be aware of it) to address things like Cain's "some black people can think for themselves" crack, and his use of the "blacks on the Democrat plantation" rhetoric, while decrying the supposed black liberal presumption that black conservatives "are not entitled to think differently". More than anything else, that column reveals Cynthia Tucker's own fealty to the white political establishment.
We were never "Slaves".We were ENSLAVED!!!You know, Constipated Faceplant, I have to agree with this. Something similar comes up when defending Black conservatives from their white tokenizers.Invariably, they will accuse me of calling Condi or Colin or whomever a "token".It's like, no, reread. I did not call them "tokens". I said, people like you USE them in tokenistic ways, and it doesn't work.What's amazing about the homsschool educational "system" is, the people truly do not understand the difference. This is why I tend to just talk down to them.Why bother trying to have a rational conversation with people that delusional?
[quote]War is peace! Freedom is slavery![/quote]Ish - please allow me to add more:1) (According to "United For A Fair Economy)BLACK PEOPLE will achieve RACIAL EQUALITY by supporting (confiscatory) Progressive Taxation To The Tune of 90% and Government Programs Through Which Our Equality Will Be Achieved2) Though Obama Is Also The "Commander In Chief" We Won't Hold Anti-War Protests Against Him Because Though He Expanded The War In Afghanistan and Did Drone Bombings In Pakistan HE Didn't Actually Start The War - The Previous "Commander In Chief That We Didn't Like " did.3) The Imperialist America needs to be put in check globally so that its capitalistic forces can stop exploiting people. We need to prevent these foreign nations who are now standing up on their own legs from destroying America by destroying our domestic industrial capacity.
[quote] I said, people like you USE them in tokenistic ways, and it doesn't work.[/quote]Oh Crap:Let's study the use of TOKENS for a minute.I have argued that the partnership between the "Black Quasi-Socialist Progerssive-Fundamentalist Racism Chaser" and the "White Snarling Fox Liberal" is one based on the willingness of the BQPFRC to TRANSACT THE INFERIORITY OF BLACK PEOPLE for the receipt of some benefit at the end of the transaction.The BQPFRC make agrees to be a poster child for the legislative agenda of Snarling Foxes (such as the late Sen Ted Kennedy). The Snarling Foxes, in their bid to help "The Least Of These" have found a willing poster child in the portion of Black people who don't SLAP HIM when they are referred to with the pronoun "The Least Of These".By being a PERMANENT VICTIM and/or having the POWER of the "Slave Master's Whip" still cracking over our Black children, born in 2005 and now in the 1st grade - it absolves the PROGRESSIVE-ESTABLISHMENT that run these schools (and that dominated these kid's household) from being held accountable.Get it Oh Crap?WHO has done more damage to the Black community in the past 50 years?Have they made us more ORGANICALLY COMPETENT?
lol@constipated faceplant...,Ronald, can you name and provide a link to even one negroe conservative proponent/exemplar of the "organic" competency you've been paying so much lip service to?As much as you be flappin them DSL's about it, one would expect a veritable plethora of here-to-date unknown Booker T's just waiting in the wings to wash, rinse, repeat their proven models for organic uplift.
Post a Comment