Louis
Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006
|
No Heddle, I didn't imply that. Learn to read. That is entirely orthogonal to the point I was making. Again you ignore the point(s) *I* am making and insert fantasies of your own confection.
If Steve's claims are false, which is a distinct possibility, then they won't be falsified by referral to your small, biased sample, which is basically no better than an anecdote. They will be falsified by referring to some productive evidence, which your 30 racist democrats isn't even close to being. Steve's claim has no support that he has provided either. BOTH of you are guilty of the same thing: i.e. in group/out group identity politics in absence of reliable evidence. Both of you are guilty of playing nonsense games and advancing support free ridiculous argumenta ad homines.
It is irrelevant who has more racists Reps or Dems, it is irrelevant whether you personally know more Dem racists than Steve or he more Rep racists than you. It is a woeful series of tiresome red herrings. Unless you and Steve have some statistically meaningful study to show that Rep voters or Dem voters are more racist than the other group on average, you have nothing. You're both just flapping your lips (or in this case fingers) and wasting everyone's time with meaningless identity politics.
So to establish the claim that the home of US white racism is the Rep party or the Dem party cannot be done or refuted by the means you two are engaged in. By virtue of the manner those means you are engaged in is expressed you are merely contributing to the noise and not the signal. Ignore these tiresome irrelevances unless you have some relevant, statistically meaningful evidence to bring to bear on the subject. You, as an intelligent, educated person are not only capable of bringing that sort of evidence to bear on a topic, it is your responsibility to do so.
What ISN'T irrelevant is the policies put forward for scrutiny by the various parties, their actual actions, their voting histories etc. Let's reduce this to one issue for the sake of simplicity: racial discrimination. Whether or not John McCain (or his supporters) uses the word "nigger" or Barack Obama (or his supporters) uses it are both gross irrelevances. What IS important are the policies John McCain or Barack Obama will enact which have an effect on racial discrimination.
The fact of whether or not I am more like John McCain or Barack Obama is yet another irrelevance. The point I've been making is "don't believe the hype". Don't buy into the to and fro of irrelevant crap from all sides. Is one side more guilty or irrelevant crap than the other? Quite possibly, but that itself is more often than not another exceedingly tiresome irrelevance. All that matters are the issues, the various policies formulated to deal with them, how and when those policies will be enacted.
The only time that the the racism of one party over the other becomes relevant is when you can demonstrate a link between formulation of policy and that groundswell of voter racism. If one party is continually promoting candidates for seats who unashamedly espouse demonstrably racist ideology, who campaign for policies that would enhance discrimination of the basis of race, more than the other party, then we can make these sorts of claims with some basis. Other than that, we can't.
That is precisely NOT what you or Steve are doing. That is precisely NOT what typifies the presidential political "debate" in the USA (and indeed elsewhere). My final point, repeated in several posts, has been that it is the responsibility of people with the intellect and education to appreciate this to try to ignore the irrelevances and focus on the issues. You are not doing that.
Louis
--------------
Bye.
|
