CDZ Legitimizing racism?

[TheParser]

As a newcomer, I hope that I have posted in the right forum. I understand that every poster must be civil.

*****

I have just read a thoughtful article by the senior political editor of the Los Angeles-based Jewish Journal.

I just want to briefly mention a few of his key points (you can read the article yourself).

1. For the word "racism" to remain a uniquely negative allegation, "two terms must be met: 'Racism' must be clearly and narrowly defined; and the definition must be one that the vast majority of people accept."

2. A "broad, or a vague, definition ...makes it a political tool that is hurled at too many positions and hence loses its effectiveness at being a red line beyond which positions become illegitimate, and because a nonconsensual definition of 'racism' turns it from the ultimate sin to yet another matter of disagreement."

3. "It is encouraging to see the president himself vehemently rejects such accusations [of racism because of his reported remarks about African immigrants], hence proving that 'racism' is still a negative enough term to scare off people."

4. "Is it essential to call the president a racist? Maybe, but first consider the possible negative impact that such expansive use of this terminology could have."

a. "Think how bad it would be if the attempt to delegitimize Trump ends up even slightly legitimizing racism."



I'm a computer-illiterate senior citizen, so I cannot link. Just google these words with the quotation marks:

"The Rush to Racism" Shmuel Rosner

 

[Tilly]

2. A "broad, or a vague, definition ...makes it a political tool that is hurled at too many positions and hence loses its effectiveness at being a red line beyond which positions become illegitimate, and because a nonconsensual definition of 'racism' turns it from the ultimate sin to yet another matter of disagreement."

Bingo. And this is here we find ourselves now, courtesy of the regressive left.

 

[Mac1958]

As a newcomer, I hope that I have posted in the right forum. I understand that every poster must be civil.

*****

I have just read a thoughtful article by the senior political editor of the Los Angeles-based Jewish Journal.

I just want to briefly mention a few of his key points (you can read the article yourself).

1. For the word "racism" to remain a uniquely negative allegation, "two terms must be met: 'Racism' must be clearly and narrowly defined; and the definition must be one that the vast majority of people accept."

2. A "broad, or a vague, definition ...makes it a political tool that is hurled at too many positions and hence loses its effectiveness at being a red line beyond which positions become illegitimate, and because a nonconsensual definition of 'racism' turns it from the ultimate sin to yet another matter of disagreement."

3. "It is encouraging to see the president himself vehemently rejects such accusations [of racism because of his reported remarks about African immigrants], hence proving that 'racism' is still a negative enough term to scare off people."

4. "Is it essential to call the president a racist? Maybe, but first consider the possible negative impact that such expansive use of this terminology could have."

a. "Think how bad it would be if the attempt to delegitimize Trump ends up even slightly legitimizing racism."



(I'm a computer-illiterate senior citizen, so I cannot link. Just google these words with the quotation marks:

"The Rush to Racism" Shmuel Rosner

I think there is a significantly incorrect assumption surrounding this word, and we see it on full display on this thread: CDZ - POLL: The "Is It Racist" Quiz

We automatically assume that those who spray the term around like water at everything that moves are trying to end racism in some way. They are not.

The people who are most likely to do this have no interest in healing racial wounds or in improving race relations. They are simply waiting for demographics to play out, and then they will have things their way.

In the interim, they're going to continue to divide Americans with that terribly important word, and they're going to continue to try to isolate their political opponents, so that demographics will play out as fully as they want. And it's certainly working, assisted by the fact that their political opponents don't seem to realize what's happening, and are playing right into it.
.

 

[DGS49]

Ironically, the victims of prejudice know best how it works.

Consider a person who has been convinced, one way or another, that "Black" people are inferior. Once he is convinced, then everything bad that he sees, hears, or reads about any Black person becomes the "proof" that supports and reinforces his prejudice. He could see 100 Black people doing wonderful or neutral things, then see one jaywalking and say to himself, "See, the bastards are always breaking the law!"

Which brings us to Donald Trump's "racism."

Decades ago, there is evidence that his father's real estate business employed practices that were ubiquitous at the time, but are now considered discriminatory and racist. Donald Trump publicly IMPLIED that in a class action lawsuit against one of his companies, be might not get fair treatment from a judge who is Mexican-American. He publicly pointed out that a disproportionate percentage of illegals from Mexico are drug dealers, robbers, rapists, etc. He has stated many times that we ought to be careful about accepting immigrants from Muslim countries where terrorist activities are prevalent (NOTE: Muslim is NOT A RACE!).

All in all, Trump has a history of spouting off and tweeting random thoughts, and ANYONE WHO HAS ALREADY CONCLUDED HE IS A RACIST can find many, many examples of utterances he has made that can be construed as racist.

But what about the thousands and thousands of "people of color" he has worked with and employed over the years? You KNOW that the Leftist Media has been searching high and low for SOMEONE, ANYONE who can point to a personal instance of a racist action by The Donald. But where are those incidents? Where are the Black people who worked for him or interacted with him, citing his personal racist actions?

The lack of these anecdotes and people tells the story. Even with a Media that has shown itself willing to make stuff up, they still can't find Black people who are willing to go public with examples of how Trump discriminated against them.

While day after day after day we have people in the Media saying publicly that Trump is a racist.

And of course, that Trump is polarizing the nation.

 

[petro]

Frankly, I ignore the term as it adds nothing of value to any discussion anymore.
It has become a weapon of those seeking a moral high ground to paint dissenting opinion and opponents as sub human. Typically by those who put the least thought into a debate.
Irony is a push for "diversity" while only focusing on race as a qualifier for diversity.

 

[harmonica]

Ironically, the victims of prejudice know best how it works.

Consider a person who has been convinced, one way or another, that "Black" people are inferior. Once he is convinced, then everything bad that he sees, hears, or reads about any Black person becomes the "proof" that supports and reinforces his prejudice. He could see 100 Black people doing wonderful or neutral things, then see one jaywalking and say to himself, "See, the bastards are always breaking the law!"

Which brings us to Donald Trump's "racism."

Decades ago, there is evidence that his father's real estate business employed practices that were ubiquitous at the time, but are now considered discriminatory and racist. Donald Trump publicly IMPLIED that in a class action lawsuit against one of his companies, be might not get fair treatment from a judge who is Mexican-American. He publicly pointed out that a disproportionate percentage of illegals from Mexico are drug dealers, robbers, rapists, etc. He has stated many times that we ought to be careful about accepting immigrants from Muslim countries where terrorist activities are prevalent (NOTE: Muslim is NOT A RACE!).

All in all, Trump has a history of spouting off and tweeting random thoughts, and ANYONE WHO HAS ALREADY CONCLUDED HE IS A RACIST can find many, many examples of utterances he has made that can be construed as racist.

But what about the thousands and thousands of "people of color" he has worked with and employed over the years? You KNOW that the Leftist Media has been searching high and low for SOMEONE, ANYONE who can point to a personal instance of a racist action by The Donald. But where are those incidents? Where are the Black people who worked for him or interacted with him, citing his personal racist actions?

The lack of these anecdotes and people tells the story. Even with a Media that has shown itself willing to make stuff up, they still can't find Black people who are willing to go public with examples of how Trump discriminated against them.

While day after day after day we have people in the Media saying publicly that Trump is a racist.

And of course, that Trump is polarizing the nation.

what he said about the judge was not racist--YOU are exactly what this thread is about
EVERYTHING and EVERYONE is racist
the judge deal was a conflict of interest-- that is not the definition of racist...it had nothing to do with racism
Conflict of interest - Wikipedia
..the evidence that he is racist is very, very inadequate/weak

 

[harmonica]

I just saw in the news a few minutes ago, another black call Trump racist
it's getting laughable now
THEY are the racist for calling someone racist when they are not--or when there is very, very inadequate evidence

 

[Wyatt earp]

As a newcomer, I hope that I have posted in the right forum. I understand that every poster must be civil.

*****

I have just read a thoughtful article by the senior political editor of the Los Angeles-based Jewish Journal.

I just want to briefly mention a few of his key points (you can read the article yourself).

1. For the word "racism" to remain a uniquely negative allegation, "two terms must be met: 'Racism' must be clearly and narrowly defined; and the definition must be one that the vast majority of people accept."

2. A "broad, or a vague, definition ...makes it a political tool that is hurled at too many positions and hence loses its effectiveness at being a red line beyond which positions become illegitimate, and because a nonconsensual definition of 'racism' turns it from the ultimate sin to yet another matter of disagreement."

3. "It is encouraging to see the president himself vehemently rejects such accusations [of racism because of his reported remarks about African immigrants], hence proving that 'racism' is still a negative enough term to scare off people."

4. "Is it essential to call the president a racist? Maybe, but first consider the possible negative impact that such expansive use of this terminology could have."

a. "Think how bad it would be if the attempt to delegitimize Trump ends up even slightly legitimizing racism."



I'm a computer-illiterate senior citizen, so I cannot link. Just google these words with the quotation marks:

"The Rush to Racism" Shmuel Rosner

Welcome for one, to link just highlight and copy paste on your cell phone, or if on a computer hit control c and control p



Now back to your topic, Trump is not a racism he is just anti PC , which the main stream media is trying so hard to fight.

 

[sartre play]

The racist tag on trump is over kill, what he really is elitist.

 

[Preacher]

As a newcomer, I hope that I have posted in the right forum. I understand that every poster must be civil.

*****

I have just read a thoughtful article by the senior political editor of the Los Angeles-based Jewish Journal.

I just want to briefly mention a few of his key points (you can read the article yourself).

1. For the word "racism" to remain a uniquely negative allegation, "two terms must be met: 'Racism' must be clearly and narrowly defined; and the definition must be one that the vast majority of people accept."

2. A "broad, or a vague, definition ...makes it a political tool that is hurled at too many positions and hence loses its effectiveness at being a red line beyond which positions become illegitimate, and because a nonconsensual definition of 'racism' turns it from the ultimate sin to yet another matter of disagreement."

3. "It is encouraging to see the president himself vehemently rejects such accusations [of racism because of his reported remarks about African immigrants], hence proving that 'racism' is still a negative enough term to scare off people."

4. "Is it essential to call the president a racist? Maybe, but first consider the possible negative impact that such expansive use of this terminology could have."

a. "Think how bad it would be if the attempt to delegitimize Trump ends up even slightly legitimizing racism."



I'm a computer-illiterate senior citizen, so I cannot link. Just google these words with the quotation marks:

"The Rush to Racism" Shmuel Rosner

A Jew talking about racism....damn that's some irony since Jews are the most racist and ethnocentric people on earth!

 

[Circe]

In the interim, they're going to continue to divide Americans with that terribly important word, and they're going to continue to try to isolate their political opponents, so that demographics will play out as fully as they want. And it's certainly working, assisted by the fact that their political opponents don't seem to realize what's happening, and are playing right into it.
.

Well said. I believe it's time for all of us to reject the name-calling by allowing them to characterize us that way but pointing out the gross hostility going on. Remember, no apologies, no explanations. Just say what we think about race, then stamp verbally on the knee-jerk name-callers. We have to stop this negative characterization of us.

 

[usmbguest5318]

As a newcomer, I hope that I have posted in the right forum. I understand that every poster must be civil.

*****

I have just read a thoughtful article by the senior political editor of the Los Angeles-based Jewish Journal.

I just want to briefly mention a few of his key points (you can read the article yourself).

1. For the word "racism" to remain a uniquely negative allegation, "two terms must be met: 'Racism' must be clearly and narrowly defined; and the definition must be one that the vast majority of people accept."

2. A "broad, or a vague, definition ...makes it a political tool that is hurled at too many positions and hence loses its effectiveness at being a red line beyond which positions become illegitimate, and because a nonconsensual definition of 'racism' turns it from the ultimate sin to yet another matter of disagreement."

3. "It is encouraging to see the president himself vehemently rejects such accusations [of racism because of his reported remarks about African immigrants], hence proving that 'racism' is still a negative enough term to scare off people."

4. "Is it essential to call the president a racist? Maybe, but first consider the possible negative impact that such expansive use of this terminology could have."

a. "Think how bad it would be if the attempt to delegitimize Trump ends up even slightly legitimizing racism."



(I'm a computer-illiterate senior citizen, so I cannot link. Just google these words with the quotation marks:

"The Rush to Racism" Shmuel Rosner

I think there is a significantly incorrect assumption surrounding this word, and we see it on full display on this thread: CDZ - POLL: The "Is It Racist" Quiz

We automatically assume that those who spray the term around like water at everything that moves are trying to end racism in some way. They are not.

The people who are most likely to do this have no interest in healing racial wounds or in improving race relations. They are simply waiting for demographics to play out, and then they will have things their way.

In the interim, they're going to continue to divide Americans with that terribly important word, and they're going to continue to try to isolate their political opponents, so that demographics will play out as fully as they want. And it's certainly working, assisted by the fact that their political opponents don't seem to realize what's happening, and are playing right into it.
.

In the interim, they're going to continue to divide Americans with that terribly important word, and they're going to continue to try to isolate their political opponents, so that demographics will play out as fully as they want. And it's certainly working, assisted by the fact that their political opponents don't seem to realize what's happening, and are playing right into it.

Come on. You know as well as I that words matter and how one expresses one's ideas is important. I suspect that you, I and plenty of others can talk about race all day long and never once say a damn thing that panders to political correctness, that is tacitly obsequious toward thin skins, or that could without "stretching" be construed as a racist remark.

I know damn well that if I can do it, and others who aren't entrusted to serve in the highest offices in the land can do it, then it's not asking too much of our elected and appointed high office holders to the same. Of course, one who is indeed a racist probably cannot do so and/or may not be willing to make the effort to do so; or doing so, would think themselves as pandering to political correctness, which, being a racist, they'd be right to think that.

 

[Mac1958]

As a newcomer, I hope that I have posted in the right forum. I understand that every poster must be civil.

*****

I have just read a thoughtful article by the senior political editor of the Los Angeles-based Jewish Journal.

I just want to briefly mention a few of his key points (you can read the article yourself).

1. For the word "racism" to remain a uniquely negative allegation, "two terms must be met: 'Racism' must be clearly and narrowly defined; and the definition must be one that the vast majority of people accept."

2. A "broad, or a vague, definition ...makes it a political tool that is hurled at too many positions and hence loses its effectiveness at being a red line beyond which positions become illegitimate, and because a nonconsensual definition of 'racism' turns it from the ultimate sin to yet another matter of disagreement."

3. "It is encouraging to see the president himself vehemently rejects such accusations [of racism because of his reported remarks about African immigrants], hence proving that 'racism' is still a negative enough term to scare off people."

4. "Is it essential to call the president a racist? Maybe, but first consider the possible negative impact that such expansive use of this terminology could have."

a. "Think how bad it would be if the attempt to delegitimize Trump ends up even slightly legitimizing racism."



(I'm a computer-illiterate senior citizen, so I cannot link. Just google these words with the quotation marks:

"The Rush to Racism" Shmuel Rosner

I think there is a significantly incorrect assumption surrounding this word, and we see it on full display on this thread: CDZ - POLL: The "Is It Racist" Quiz

We automatically assume that those who spray the term around like water at everything that moves are trying to end racism in some way. They are not.

The people who are most likely to do this have no interest in healing racial wounds or in improving race relations. They are simply waiting for demographics to play out, and then they will have things their way.

In the interim, they're going to continue to divide Americans with that terribly important word, and they're going to continue to try to isolate their political opponents, so that demographics will play out as fully as they want. And it's certainly working, assisted by the fact that their political opponents don't seem to realize what's happening, and are playing right into it.
.

In the interim, they're going to continue to divide Americans with that terribly important word, and they're going to continue to try to isolate their political opponents, so that demographics will play out as fully as they want. And it's certainly working, assisted by the fact that their political opponents don't seem to realize what's happening, and are playing right into it.

Come on. You know as well as I that words matter and how one expresses one's ideas is important. I suspect that you, I and plenty of others can talk about race all day long and never once say a damn thing that panders to political correctness, that is tacitly obsequious toward thin skins, or that could without "stretching" be construed as a racist remark.

I know damn well that if I can do it, and others who aren't entrusted to serve in the highest offices in the land can do it, then it's not asking too much of our elected and appointed high office holders to the same. Of course, one who is indeed a racist probably cannot do so and/or may not be willing to make the effort to do so; or doing so, would think themselves as pandering to political correctness, which, being a racist, they'd be right to think that.

We "can" do something, but will we? I don't see any indication, none, that politicians, pundits, politicos and partisans have the slightest intention of stepping away from their talking points and tactics. One end will scream RACISM at anything that moves. he other end will claim racism doesn't exist. And neither show any willingness to have an honest conversation. Everything now is us vs. them, attack, attack, attack.

And again, I can't even be sure it's intentional. The fundamental communication skills may simply no longer be there. Avoid using a muscle and it withers away.
.

 

[usmbguest5318]

As a newcomer, I hope that I have posted in the right forum. I understand that every poster must be civil.

*****

I have just read a thoughtful article by the senior political editor of the Los Angeles-based Jewish Journal.

I just want to briefly mention a few of his key points (you can read the article yourself).

1. For the word "racism" to remain a uniquely negative allegation, "two terms must be met: 'Racism' must be clearly and narrowly defined; and the definition must be one that the vast majority of people accept."

2. A "broad, or a vague, definition ...makes it a political tool that is hurled at too many positions and hence loses its effectiveness at being a red line beyond which positions become illegitimate, and because a nonconsensual definition of 'racism' turns it from the ultimate sin to yet another matter of disagreement."

3. "It is encouraging to see the president himself vehemently rejects such accusations [of racism because of his reported remarks about African immigrants], hence proving that 'racism' is still a negative enough term to scare off people."

4. "Is it essential to call the president a racist? Maybe, but first consider the possible negative impact that such expansive use of this terminology could have."

a. "Think how bad it would be if the attempt to delegitimize Trump ends up even slightly legitimizing racism."



(I'm a computer-illiterate senior citizen, so I cannot link. Just google these words with the quotation marks:

"The Rush to Racism" Shmuel Rosner

I think there is a significantly incorrect assumption surrounding this word, and we see it on full display on this thread: CDZ - POLL: The "Is It Racist" Quiz

We automatically assume that those who spray the term around like water at everything that moves are trying to end racism in some way. They are not.

The people who are most likely to do this have no interest in healing racial wounds or in improving race relations. They are simply waiting for demographics to play out, and then they will have things their way.

In the interim, they're going to continue to divide Americans with that terribly important word, and they're going to continue to try to isolate their political opponents, so that demographics will play out as fully as they want. And it's certainly working, assisted by the fact that their political opponents don't seem to realize what's happening, and are playing right into it.
.

In the interim, they're going to continue to divide Americans with that terribly important word, and they're going to continue to try to isolate their political opponents, so that demographics will play out as fully as they want. And it's certainly working, assisted by the fact that their political opponents don't seem to realize what's happening, and are playing right into it.

Come on. You know as well as I that words matter and how one expresses one's ideas is important. I suspect that you, I and plenty of others can talk about race all day long and never once say a damn thing that panders to political correctness, that is tacitly obsequious toward thin skins, or that could without "stretching" be construed as a racist remark.

I know damn well that if I can do it, and others who aren't entrusted to serve in the highest offices in the land can do it, then it's not asking too much of our elected and appointed high office holders to the same. Of course, one who is indeed a racist probably cannot do so and/or may not be willing to make the effort to do so; or doing so, would think themselves as pandering to political correctness, which, being a racist, they'd be right to think that.

We "can" do something, but will we? I don't see any indication, none, that politicians, pundits, politicos and partisans have the slightest intention of stepping away from their talking points and tactics. One end will scream RACISM at anything that moves. he other end will claim racism doesn't exist. And neither show any willingness to have an honest conversation. Everything now is us vs. them, attack, attack, attack.

And again, I can't even be sure it's intentional. The fundamental communication skills may simply no longer be there. Avoid using a muscle and it withers away.
.

We "can" do something, but will we? I don't see any indication, none, that politicians, pundits, politicos and partisans have the slightest intention of stepping away from their talking points and tactics.

You mean that specifically with regard to "national conversation" about race, right? I realize that's part of the thread context, but I want to ask just to be certain.

 

[usmbguest5318]

As a newcomer, I hope that I have posted in the right forum. I understand that every poster must be civil.

*****

I have just read a thoughtful article by the senior political editor of the Los Angeles-based Jewish Journal.

I just want to briefly mention a few of his key points (you can read the article yourself).

1. For the word "racism" to remain a uniquely negative allegation, "two terms must be met: 'Racism' must be clearly and narrowly defined; and the definition must be one that the vast majority of people accept."

2. A "broad, or a vague, definition ...makes it a political tool that is hurled at too many positions and hence loses its effectiveness at being a red line beyond which positions become illegitimate, and because a nonconsensual definition of 'racism' turns it from the ultimate sin to yet another matter of disagreement."

3. "It is encouraging to see the president himself vehemently rejects such accusations [of racism because of his reported remarks about African immigrants], hence proving that 'racism' is still a negative enough term to scare off people."

4. "Is it essential to call the president a racist? Maybe, but first consider the possible negative impact that such expansive use of this terminology could have."

a. "Think how bad it would be if the attempt to delegitimize Trump ends up even slightly legitimizing racism."



(I'm a computer-illiterate senior citizen, so I cannot link. Just google these words with the quotation marks:

"The Rush to Racism" Shmuel Rosner

I think there is a significantly incorrect assumption surrounding this word, and we see it on full display on this thread: CDZ - POLL: The "Is It Racist" Quiz

We automatically assume that those who spray the term around like water at everything that moves are trying to end racism in some way. They are not.

The people who are most likely to do this have no interest in healing racial wounds or in improving race relations. They are simply waiting for demographics to play out, and then they will have things their way.

In the interim, they're going to continue to divide Americans with that terribly important word, and they're going to continue to try to isolate their political opponents, so that demographics will play out as fully as they want. And it's certainly working, assisted by the fact that their political opponents don't seem to realize what's happening, and are playing right into it.
.

In the interim, they're going to continue to divide Americans with that terribly important word, and they're going to continue to try to isolate their political opponents, so that demographics will play out as fully as they want. And it's certainly working, assisted by the fact that their political opponents don't seem to realize what's happening, and are playing right into it.

Come on. You know as well as I that words matter and how one expresses one's ideas is important. I suspect that you, I and plenty of others can talk about race all day long and never once say a damn thing that panders to political correctness, that is tacitly obsequious toward thin skins, or that could without "stretching" be construed as a racist remark.

I know damn well that if I can do it, and others who aren't entrusted to serve in the highest offices in the land can do it, then it's not asking too much of our elected and appointed high office holders to the same. Of course, one who is indeed a racist probably cannot do so and/or may not be willing to make the effort to do so; or doing so, would think themselves as pandering to political correctness, which, being a racist, they'd be right to think that.

We "can" do something, but will we? I don't see any indication, none, that politicians, pundits, politicos and partisans have the slightest intention of stepping away from their talking points and tactics. One end will scream RACISM at anything that moves. he other end will claim racism doesn't exist. And neither show any willingness to have an honest conversation. Everything now is us vs. them, attack, attack, attack.

And again, I can't even be sure it's intentional. The fundamental communication skills may simply no longer be there. Avoid using a muscle and it withers away.
.

One end will scream RACISM at anything that moves. he other end will claim racism doesn't exist. And neither show any willingness to have an honest conversation.

Truly, I don't know why it is that the discursively orthodox segment of the populace allows the "national conversation" to be dominated by such people. That that happens seems a material failing to me.

 

[Mac1958]

As a newcomer, I hope that I have posted in the right forum. I understand that every poster must be civil.

*****

I have just read a thoughtful article by the senior political editor of the Los Angeles-based Jewish Journal.

I just want to briefly mention a few of his key points (you can read the article yourself).

1. For the word "racism" to remain a uniquely negative allegation, "two terms must be met: 'Racism' must be clearly and narrowly defined; and the definition must be one that the vast majority of people accept."

2. A "broad, or a vague, definition ...makes it a political tool that is hurled at too many positions and hence loses its effectiveness at being a red line beyond which positions become illegitimate, and because a nonconsensual definition of 'racism' turns it from the ultimate sin to yet another matter of disagreement."

3. "It is encouraging to see the president himself vehemently rejects such accusations [of racism because of his reported remarks about African immigrants], hence proving that 'racism' is still a negative enough term to scare off people."

4. "Is it essential to call the president a racist? Maybe, but first consider the possible negative impact that such expansive use of this terminology could have."

a. "Think how bad it would be if the attempt to delegitimize Trump ends up even slightly legitimizing racism."



(I'm a computer-illiterate senior citizen, so I cannot link. Just google these words with the quotation marks:

"The Rush to Racism" Shmuel Rosner

I think there is a significantly incorrect assumption surrounding this word, and we see it on full display on this thread: CDZ - POLL: The "Is It Racist" Quiz

We automatically assume that those who spray the term around like water at everything that moves are trying to end racism in some way. They are not.

The people who are most likely to do this have no interest in healing racial wounds or in improving race relations. They are simply waiting for demographics to play out, and then they will have things their way.

In the interim, they're going to continue to divide Americans with that terribly important word, and they're going to continue to try to isolate their political opponents, so that demographics will play out as fully as they want. And it's certainly working, assisted by the fact that their political opponents don't seem to realize what's happening, and are playing right into it.
.

In the interim, they're going to continue to divide Americans with that terribly important word, and they're going to continue to try to isolate their political opponents, so that demographics will play out as fully as they want. And it's certainly working, assisted by the fact that their political opponents don't seem to realize what's happening, and are playing right into it.

Come on. You know as well as I that words matter and how one expresses one's ideas is important. I suspect that you, I and plenty of others can talk about race all day long and never once say a damn thing that panders to political correctness, that is tacitly obsequious toward thin skins, or that could without "stretching" be construed as a racist remark.

I know damn well that if I can do it, and others who aren't entrusted to serve in the highest offices in the land can do it, then it's not asking too much of our elected and appointed high office holders to the same. Of course, one who is indeed a racist probably cannot do so and/or may not be willing to make the effort to do so; or doing so, would think themselves as pandering to political correctness, which, being a racist, they'd be right to think that.

We "can" do something, but will we? I don't see any indication, none, that politicians, pundits, politicos and partisans have the slightest intention of stepping away from their talking points and tactics. One end will scream RACISM at anything that moves. he other end will claim racism doesn't exist. And neither show any willingness to have an honest conversation. Everything now is us vs. them, attack, attack, attack.

And again, I can't even be sure it's intentional. The fundamental communication skills may simply no longer be there. Avoid using a muscle and it withers away.
.

We "can" do something, but will we? I don't see any indication, none, that politicians, pundits, politicos and partisans have the slightest intention of stepping away from their talking points and tactics.

You mean that specifically with regard to "national conversation" about race, right? I realize that's part of the thread context, but I want to ask just to be certain.

Well, I'm not really specifying. Any conversation. Anywhere. I'll take anything. Ultimately that's what is needed, but we're so far from it that I don't really think about it in that context.
.

 

[usmbguest5318]

As a newcomer, I hope that I have posted in the right forum. I understand that every poster must be civil.

*****

I have just read a thoughtful article by the senior political editor of the Los Angeles-based Jewish Journal.

I just want to briefly mention a few of his key points (you can read the article yourself).

1. For the word "racism" to remain a uniquely negative allegation, "two terms must be met: 'Racism' must be clearly and narrowly defined; and the definition must be one that the vast majority of people accept."

2. A "broad, or a vague, definition ...makes it a political tool that is hurled at too many positions and hence loses its effectiveness at being a red line beyond which positions become illegitimate, and because a nonconsensual definition of 'racism' turns it from the ultimate sin to yet another matter of disagreement."

3. "It is encouraging to see the president himself vehemently rejects such accusations [of racism because of his reported remarks about African immigrants], hence proving that 'racism' is still a negative enough term to scare off people."

4. "Is it essential to call the president a racist? Maybe, but first consider the possible negative impact that such expansive use of this terminology could have."

a. "Think how bad it would be if the attempt to delegitimize Trump ends up even slightly legitimizing racism."



(I'm a computer-illiterate senior citizen, so I cannot link. Just google these words with the quotation marks:

"The Rush to Racism" Shmuel Rosner

I think there is a significantly incorrect assumption surrounding this word, and we see it on full display on this thread: CDZ - POLL: The "Is It Racist" Quiz

We automatically assume that those who spray the term around like water at everything that moves are trying to end racism in some way. They are not.

The people who are most likely to do this have no interest in healing racial wounds or in improving race relations. They are simply waiting for demographics to play out, and then they will have things their way.

In the interim, they're going to continue to divide Americans with that terribly important word, and they're going to continue to try to isolate their political opponents, so that demographics will play out as fully as they want. And it's certainly working, assisted by the fact that their political opponents don't seem to realize what's happening, and are playing right into it.
.

In the interim, they're going to continue to divide Americans with that terribly important word, and they're going to continue to try to isolate their political opponents, so that demographics will play out as fully as they want. And it's certainly working, assisted by the fact that their political opponents don't seem to realize what's happening, and are playing right into it.

Come on. You know as well as I that words matter and how one expresses one's ideas is important. I suspect that you, I and plenty of others can talk about race all day long and never once say a damn thing that panders to political correctness, that is tacitly obsequious toward thin skins, or that could without "stretching" be construed as a racist remark.

I know damn well that if I can do it, and others who aren't entrusted to serve in the highest offices in the land can do it, then it's not asking too much of our elected and appointed high office holders to the same. Of course, one who is indeed a racist probably cannot do so and/or may not be willing to make the effort to do so; or doing so, would think themselves as pandering to political correctness, which, being a racist, they'd be right to think that.

We "can" do something, but will we? I don't see any indication, none, that politicians, pundits, politicos and partisans have the slightest intention of stepping away from their talking points and tactics. One end will scream RACISM at anything that moves. he other end will claim racism doesn't exist. And neither show any willingness to have an honest conversation. Everything now is us vs. them, attack, attack, attack.

And again, I can't even be sure it's intentional. The fundamental communication skills may simply no longer be there. Avoid using a muscle and it withers away.
.

We "can" do something, but will we? I don't see any indication, none, that politicians, pundits, politicos and partisans have the slightest intention of stepping away from their talking points and tactics.

You mean that specifically with regard to "national conversation" about race, right? I realize that's part of the thread context, but I want to ask just to be certain.

Well, I'm not really specifying. Any conversation. Anywhere. I'll take anything. Ultimately that's what is needed, but we're so far from it that I don't really think about it in that context.
.

Okay. Though I agree we are far from it, as you write, I have seen signs of a few folks being willing to engage in honest discourse.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

As a newcomer, I hope that I have posted in the right forum. I understand that every poster must be civil.

*****

I have just read a thoughtful article by the senior political editor of the Los Angeles-based Jewish Journal.

I just want to briefly mention a few of his key points (you can read the article yourself).

1. For the word "racism" to remain a uniquely negative allegation, "two terms must be met: 'Racism' must be clearly and narrowly defined; and the definition must be one that the vast majority of people accept."

2. A "broad, or a vague, definition ...makes it a political tool that is hurled at too many positions and hence loses its effectiveness at being a red line beyond which positions become illegitimate, and because a nonconsensual definition of 'racism' turns it from the ultimate sin to yet another matter of disagreement."

3. "It is encouraging to see the president himself vehemently rejects such accusations [of racism because of his reported remarks about African immigrants], hence proving that 'racism' is still a negative enough term to scare off people."

4. "Is it essential to call the president a racist? Maybe, but first consider the possible negative impact that such expansive use of this terminology could have."

a. "Think how bad it would be if the attempt to delegitimize Trump ends up even slightly legitimizing racism."



I'm a computer-illiterate senior citizen, so I cannot link. Just google these words with the quotation marks:

"The Rush to Racism" Shmuel Rosner

Insecure People Have a Desperate Need to Believe in Equality

There is justifiable and unjustifiable racism. The very fact that debate is forbidden on whether it is ever justified proves that it usually is.

 

[Preacher]

As a newcomer, I hope that I have posted in the right forum. I understand that every poster must be civil.

*****

I have just read a thoughtful article by the senior political editor of the Los Angeles-based Jewish Journal.

I just want to briefly mention a few of his key points (you can read the article yourself).

1. For the word "racism" to remain a uniquely negative allegation, "two terms must be met: 'Racism' must be clearly and narrowly defined; and the definition must be one that the vast majority of people accept."

2. A "broad, or a vague, definition ...makes it a political tool that is hurled at too many positions and hence loses its effectiveness at being a red line beyond which positions become illegitimate, and because a nonconsensual definition of 'racism' turns it from the ultimate sin to yet another matter of disagreement."

3. "It is encouraging to see the president himself vehemently rejects such accusations [of racism because of his reported remarks about African immigrants], hence proving that 'racism' is still a negative enough term to scare off people."

4. "Is it essential to call the president a racist? Maybe, but first consider the possible negative impact that such expansive use of this terminology could have."

a. "Think how bad it would be if the attempt to delegitimize Trump ends up even slightly legitimizing racism."



I'm a computer-illiterate senior citizen, so I cannot link. Just google these words with the quotation marks:

"The Rush to Racism" Shmuel Rosner

A Jew talking about racism....damn that's some irony since Jews are the most racist and ethnocentric people on earth!

that's funny coming from a racist, anti-Semite, uneducated lowlife.

maybe if you focused on advancing yourself, you wouldn't hate everyone else so much.

Awwww you got your panties in a wad over my comment..how cute.

 

[jillian]

As a newcomer, I hope that I have posted in the right forum. I understand that every poster must be civil.

*****

I have just read a thoughtful article by the senior political editor of the Los Angeles-based Jewish Journal.

I just want to briefly mention a few of his key points (you can read the article yourself).

1. For the word "racism" to remain a uniquely negative allegation, "two terms must be met: 'Racism' must be clearly and narrowly defined; and the definition must be one that the vast majority of people accept."

2. A "broad, or a vague, definition ...makes it a political tool that is hurled at too many positions and hence loses its effectiveness at being a red line beyond which positions become illegitimate, and because a nonconsensual definition of 'racism' turns it from the ultimate sin to yet another matter of disagreement."

3. "It is encouraging to see the president himself vehemently rejects such accusations [of racism because of his reported remarks about African immigrants], hence proving that 'racism' is still a negative enough term to scare off people."

4. "Is it essential to call the president a racist? Maybe, but first consider the possible negative impact that such expansive use of this terminology could have."

a. "Think how bad it would be if the attempt to delegitimize Trump ends up even slightly legitimizing racism."



I'm a computer-illiterate senior citizen, so I cannot link. Just google these words with the quotation marks:

"The Rush to Racism" Shmuel Rosner

A Jew talking about racism....damn that's some irony since Jews are the most racist and ethnocentric people on earth!

that's funny coming from a racist, anti-Semite, uneducated lowlife.

maybe if you focused on advancing yourself, you wouldn't hate everyone else so much.

Awwww you got your panties in a wad over my comment..how cute.

I was just stating fact. *shrug*