Scobleizer - Latest Comments in “Default” racism

Re: “Default” racism

Johnathan P.Jansky — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 15:47:01 -0000

Barack Hussein Obama's father, stepfather and grandfather were Muslims. He was by Islamic law born a Muslim. This cannot be changed. Mohammed said if anyone turns his back on Islam, kill him. Why no death threats by radical Muslims? Do they know something we don't? Obama became a Christian when he started having political ambitions. (read up on his church for a shock) How do we know he's a Christian? Because he says so? The principle of Al-Takeyya conveys the understanding that Muslims are permitted to lie.
He is indeed a liar. Not only about being a Muslim has he lied, but he stated that his father was a 'goat herder' when he was a prosperous farmer. He's an admitted drug user. He was involved in a shady real estate deal with a guy who associated with radical Muslims. He has demonstrated his immaturity by trying to get Fox banned from his news conferences, and by warning against making fun of his ears. He's an empty suit pimped by the media. As someone said, the presidency is not an entry level position.

Re: “Default” racism

Me — Mon, 29 Jan 2007 04:17:05 -0000

Injustice has put it too simply, and indulged in some fallacies. This is a topic that requires some reflection and subtlety - if the problem were simple, it would be resolved.

I say that last because there is an enormous will to efface racism from our national discourse and personal attitudes. People are embarassed to be racist - and this is a real step forward. There are now and will always be people who lack the clarity and self-control to deal with the different == antagonist feature that comes standard with human beings (look at the manual - it's listed as a known bug :), just as we haven't yet nailed down the wifebeaters and cheaters and adulterers and theives and murderers and etc. Obama will rise or fall on his character - because there really are very few that let race override all other considerations now. We've just seen too many good and competent folk to let the tropes of 'inferiority' overtake us completely.

I've lived outside the States in several parts of the world, and seen the racism that abides in these places. Let me tell you, since you obviously don't know, that the "default racism" is MUCH less destructive than the daily, bald-faced, rampant racism that prevails in many parts of Europe. Yeah, they're civilized here, but scorn for people of different ethnicities and nationalities is a part of life.

We work actively to keep this from infecting our children - but we're anxious to go back to the States so we don't have to be so darned vigilant all the time. There are still places in the US that things are "bad" - but there's nowhere in the US that's as bad as most of the rest of the world, and here I include the Deep South and South Central. Things are pretty tame here in comparison to the greater part of humanity.

Just some perspective.

Re: “Default” racism

injustice — Sun, 28 Jan 2007 14:31:50 -0000

This pretty much put's it all into a nice little package. Don't get
>me wrong I have and work with many black people and they are my friends but
>if I wore a shirt to work that say 100% WHITE oh boy they'd be pissed and
>I'd be a racist. I just don't get it...?
If this hurts your feelings, Please let me know!
Proud To Be White
Someone
Finally said it.
How many are actually
Paying attention to this?
There are African Americans,
Mexican Americans,
Asian Americans, Arab
Americans, Native Americans, etc.
And then there are just Americans.
**************************
You pass me on the street
And sneer in my direction.
You Call me "White
Boy," "Cracker," "Honkey,"
"Whitey," "Caveman"
. And that's OK.
But when I call you, Nigger,
Kike, Towel head,
Sand-nigger, camel Jockey,
Beaner, Gook, or Chink ...
You call me a racist.
****************************
You say that whites commit
A lot of violence against you,
So why are the ghettos
The most dangerous places to live?
You have the United Negro
College Fund. You have
Martin Luther King Day.
You have Black History Month.
You have Cesar Chavez
Day. You have Yom Hashoah. You
Have Ma'uled Al-Nabi.
You have the NAACP.
You have BET.
If we had WET (White Entertainment
Television)

We'd be racists.
**************************

If we had a White Pride
Day .
You would call us racists.
*************************

If we had White History
Month .
We'd be racists.
**************************
If we had any organization
For only whites to "advance" OUR
Lives .
We'd be racists.
**************************

We have a Hispanic Chamber
Of Commerce, a Black
Chamber of Commerce, and
Then we just have the plain
Chamber of Commerce.
Wonder who pays for that?
If we had a college fund
That only gave white students
Scholarships

... You know we'd be racists.
*************************

There are over 60 openly
Proclaimed Black Colleges in
The US , yet if there
Were "White colleges" ...
THAT would be a racist college.
****************************

In the Million Man March,
You believed that you were
Marching for your race
And rights. If we marched for our race and rights,
You would call us racists.
***************************

You are proud to be black,
Brown, yellow and orange, and you're not afraid to anounce it.
But when we announce our
White pride ...
You call us racists.
**************************
You rob us, carjack us,
And shoot at us.
But, when a white police
Officer shoots a black gang member or
beats up a black drug-dealer running
From the law and posing a threat to society
You call him a racist.
****************************

I am proud.
But, you call me a racist.

***************************

Why is it that only whites
Can be racists?
I hope no one is offended by this
That is not my goal, my goal is to wake some sort of us not I we not me

Re: “Default” racism

justelise — Sun, 28 Jan 2007 06:15:12 -0000

I don't think it would be considered racism if you hate everyone equally as long as you can turn that hatred inward as well. You are what you hate, right?

The media forgot about Al Gore's movie? I guess the Oscar nod and flood of articles about it after the nomination are considered "forgetting" then?

Re: “Default” racism

Brent — Sun, 28 Jan 2007 05:02:59 -0000

Is it considered racism if you hate everyone equally?

By the way, I wonder what Al Gore thinks of the media forgetting about his "movie". If I were Gore I'd just learn to lay low and make a few $billion with Google for now.

Re: “Default” racism

LayZ — Fri, 19 Jan 2007 15:28:50 -0000

@86. Really? Tell that to Ted Kennedy. He calls him Osama. http://www.youtube.com/watc...
And then CNN makes the same association...THE OTHER WAY!!! http://www.rawstory.com/new....

So, if a Senator in HIS OWN PARTY makes the slip, and a News organization partial to him can make the mistake, how likely do you think the uniformed voter will be to make the same association come election time? Like it or not, some people will associate his first and middle name with two of the most hated figures in the US since Hitler.

Re: “Default” racism

TDavid — Fri, 19 Jan 2007 14:31:36 -0000

Vote for Osama? Layz, you mean Obama. Barack Obama is his name, yes? Talk about Freudian slips!

Re: “Default” racism

LayZ — Fri, 19 Jan 2007 12:40:20 -0000

Scoble do you even know the definition of "racism"? Based on your post I submit that you don't. This country has seen fit to apply the "r" word to every racial situation they see. That's because of the heavy connotation the word carries.

What you are describing is more bigotry than racism. And there IS a difference. I don't think there are many in this country that would think a black man is incapable of being president BECAUSE of his race. THAT would be racism. What you describe is people not wanting to vote for Osama because he is black. That is bigotry. Use the terms properly.

Now, I submit that Osama won his Senatorial race because he is both Black and a Democrat. The voters wanted to see themselves as enlightened. Here's a question for you: Can a Black Republican be elected President? Would Osama have a this much gravitas if he was a Republican? How many times have we seen blacks and liberals accuse black conservatives of being "Uncle Toms"? Clarence Thomas? Colin Powell? Condi Rice?, JC Watts? So what do you call that type of judgmentalism?

Re: “Default” racism

LayZ — Fri, 19 Jan 2007 12:18:33 -0000

"I’ll certainly be leaning towards voting for whoever DOESN’T try to put it as the Democrats against the Republicans, or the rich against the poor."

Well you can cross Edwards off that list as well. He's still going with that "two Americas" thing that did him in in 2004. What did Einstein say the definition of insanity was? Doing the same thing over again and expecting a different result?

Re: “Default” racism

LayZ — Fri, 19 Jan 2007 12:07:23 -0000

Osama shouldn't be President because he's not qualified. Scoble, what about the people that are saying Mitt Romney has no chance because he's LDS? (Mormon?) Colin Powell was pulling pretty good numbers a few years ago when people were lobbying for him to run. I don't recall anyone mentioning he had no chance because of the color of his skin.

I think the thing that will work against Osama is his name, (add his middle name: Hussein, to that) and well, his past apparent cocaine use. Couple with the fact he has no significant accomplishments to show for. Repeat after me: "Senators do not get elected President"

Re: “Default” racism

TDavid — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 21:07:36 -0000

Hey podesta - don't recognize you, sorry. Are you dropping my name in this conversation for any particular reason?

For whatever it's worth, Robert or anybody else reading is welcome to contact me to talk about any topic. I'm easy to find ;)

I don't have much to say about the topic except I'd like to see the Clintons back in the White House.

I'd take them over any candidate I've seen and the current abomination in office. And you know if Hilary is in the White House Bill is too and I'll gladly take him and his intern screwing antics over anybody else in the field at the moment.

I wish the elections were here now, in fact. We can't get Bush out of office soon enough for our economy to further go into the toilet and a senseless war to claim more of our brave men and women soldiers.

Re: “Default” racism

John — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 17:04:10 -0000

I am tired of the bias against southern states. Last time I checked New York was about to explode because of that black man who was killed by the police outside a nightclub, and LA isn't known for it's race friendly relations. Anyone in Massachusetts remember that murder case around 17 years ago where the white guy said a black man killed his wife when it was him? You think that won't happen in Oregon, Seattle, or Vermont anytime soon??? Racism is everywhere. I am not saying there is no racism in the south, just that you northern/western 'liberals' should look at your all white neighborhoods first, and fix your states first.

Re: “Default” racism

Tom — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 16:28:25 -0000

"I’m sick of the default. What about you?"

Well I'm sick of reading about who might be running in an election that is almost two years away to be honest. I think it was Dave Winer who said recently that the elections in the US are are becoming a full-time issue nowadays. It's getting ridiculous.

Anyway the comment isn't racist, of course it isn't. I'm sure there's a fair number of black people who have said it too, does that make them racists?

Re: “Default” racism

Don Park — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 11:50:37 -0000

I got an idea. Why don't we just go with whoever gets nominated?

Re: “Default” racism

Neal — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 11:19:12 -0000

I've participated in numerous discussions on Obama and Clinton, and in every one I've made two statements. 1) I don't think Obama can win because of his race 2) I don't think Clinton can win because she's a woman. That's not racism, that's acknowledgment that racist attitudes exist out there. I would vote for either over any other candidate out there.

Elections aren't usually landslides, they're close. Each of those candidates will garner additional votes because of their race/sex but they will also lose votes for those reasons. I think attitudes, and demographics, have changed in this country - but not to the degree that the candidates won't still suffer a net loss of votes.

On the other hand, if Clinton and Obama would take a higher route, thinking of how this country would gain from their pairing as running mates rather than what they themselves would lose, I think you'd see a surefire win that would propel us into a more positive future.

Re: “Default” racism

Tomi Itkonen — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 09:58:58 -0000

Just select a president who's more interested in building bridges than bombing them. Thanks.

That is quite normal for me to say because there's an ocean between U.S. and us. Yeah, puns.

@62 It's definitely a challenge for his campaign organization; how they are going to handle that one? There comes so many bad associations, obstructing him.

Re: “Default” racism

Ewan McIntosh — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 03:52:47 -0000

The old chestnut of "are they racist" or "are they just stupid" is coming out this side of the pond as overt racism is played out on national TV against an Indian contestant of Celebrity Big Brother (and Jermaine Jackson is getting some, too). The TV complaint watchdog's website has even collapsed under the strain of last night's 20,000+ complaints that got through!

http://edu.blogs.com/edublo...

Re: “Default” racism

Podesta — Wed, 17 Jan 2007 21:42:33 -0000

I hsven't read all the comments because I'm pressed for time. However, I did want to focus on the one that is the most bigoted among the first thirty in my opinion.

"I think that when racism is not turning into discrimination there is no problem. Racism is about peoples “inside” feelings and know body else can control them. To be honest I’m sick of leftist shit trying to be political correct. Let us be free to be racist and distinguish the beauties of difference."

Being 'free to be racist' means being free to deprive other folks of their rights. What Tomaat is calling for is EXACTLY what the post-Civil War amendments and civil rights law seek to end.

Also, your assumption that you don't associate with people who hold bigoted beliefs may not be accurate, Robert. Try discussing black people with Doc Searls or TDavid sometimes.

In regard to your experiment, I think that if I, a person of color, were making the same statement, many white people would rush to tell me that Obama's race is not an issue, precisely because it is.

Re: “Default” racism

Scott — Wed, 17 Jan 2007 21:40:28 -0000

Downloaded the audio versions of Obama's books from Audible.com. Listened to the man's words in the man's voice. His life, his, faith, his achievements, and the transparency of self that he captures in his writing and speaking; I remain impressed with him.

And I agree that the color of his skin will be a factor in a political race in America, but mostly because many Americans believe that this is what many other Americans are thinking. I don't think its necessarily a bad thing that skin color becomes an explicit talking point in a presidential election. The effects of racism are just as destructive to a society that continues to live largely in denial of the cultural divides in America.

Re: “Default” racism

Andrew Simpson — Wed, 17 Jan 2007 21:08:05 -0000

In 1999 the Gallup organisation asked the question:

"If your party nominated a generally well-qualified person for president who happened to be a 'X' would you vote for that person?" "X" is Atheist, Baptist, Black, Catholic, Homosexual, Jewish, Mormon, and Woman.

95% would vote for someone black, 92% for a woman, 59% for a homosexual, and 49% for an atheist.

As a nation, you have bigger problems than racism! As a shining example of a nation founded on secular principles, the growing reverse trend is worrying.

Re: “Default” racism

Ryan — Wed, 17 Jan 2007 20:18:17 -0000

"Imagine the entire south and mid west voting for a black person????"

"While the people that most of us associate with don’t have a problem with it, the majority of dumb Americans would."

For what it's worth, Minneapolis is in the Midwest, and it was ranked as "America's Smartest City" recently, and 3 of the top 5 were Midwestern cities (St. Paul, the "twin city" of Minneapolis, was ranked as #4). That was based on bachelor's degress per capita, residents' SAT scores, "creativity scores" (such as patents per capita), number of universities, locally-born Nobel Prize recipients, etc.

I think the stereotyping of Midwesteners is quite unfair and not based on reality. Someone used the term "echo chamber" to describe what happens regarding attitudes on the coasts, but apparently it doesn't end at the coastlines.

Re: “Default” racism

Ryan — Wed, 17 Jan 2007 20:00:13 -0000

I'll just throw out an idea here for discussion--one problem here is that the very *discussion* of the topic of racism exacerbates the problem of racism. Like a witch hunt, everything becomes racism. The more we talk about race, the more we divide ourselves by race. In the words of Morgan Freeman, the only way to get rid of racism is to "stop talking about it."

Personally, I get the impression that, as a nation, we're still just too immature to handle the issue. There are always going to be parts of society--amongst all races--that are racist. That will (hopefully) change over time. We also seemingly aren't mature enough to be able to distinguish between racism and appreciation of racial differences. But in one very real sense, the more we discuss it, the more it doesn't go away. We aren't mature enough yet to have a vision of what it would be like not to have racism, and there is a point to be made that it is due in part because we can't envision not talking about it.

Now, discuss. :P

Re: “Default” racism

Rob — Wed, 17 Jan 2007 19:44:50 -0000

The majority of people I know, and probably you know, I can happily say are not racist and wouldn't have a problem electing a black, yellow, green or purple person. The problem in your country is, that just like the people who voted in the current administration, the majority of Americans are stupid white men. Those people would never vote for a black person. Imagine the entire south and mid west voting for a black person????

It will not happen in our life time.

I think that is the point you were trying to make. While the people that most of us associate with don't have a problem with it, the majority of dumb Americans would.

BTW - I'm not taking a swing at Americans, I am Australian and we are just as guilty as you of electing a moron. We even have a state of rednecks who allowed a bigot to win a couple of state seats.

Re: “Default” racism

Nick — Wed, 17 Jan 2007 19:26:55 -0000

Saying He won't be elected because of the color of his skin is something I agree with. It doesn't mean anythign about me being racist. It means I believe racism does exist still & it, more than likely, will cost him enough votes that he will not be elected. So, when I read a statement like that from you, why would I come on and argue it if I believe it to be true.

Re: “Default” racism

Peter — Wed, 17 Jan 2007 18:44:31 -0000

Unfortunately, my political beliefs square neither with the Dems or the Reps. I may not vote this coming election since there is no strong third party that supports my beliefs.

I won't vote for Barack not because he's black, rather, I won't vote for him because he's far too liberal. Same goes for Clinton. They would ruin this country and hand it over to the UN. While I would prefer a strong third party instead of just two, we have to vote for who's running. Edwards, Obama, Clinton... they're all too liberal. And the Reps are fielding no one besides Rudy G. that's any good at being a politician with a modicum of decency and honor. If Rudy runs, I'll have to vote for him, since he's the lesser of all the evils.