High Things!

[Beebs]

Originally Posted by f3lix

I really think this deserves +rep. I thought it was amazing, myself.

I needed to spread some around before giving you more nets.

[THEINCREDIBLEdork]

Originally Posted by f3lix

But he's half white.

One Drop Rule

[f3lix]

Why are parties a good thing? It clumps wide-ranging thoughts into one title. A moderate running as a Republican gets 45% of the vote, but when he switches to Democrat, the other 45% vote for him automatically based on the label next to his name. This is just flat out stupid.

[Ironic Mustache]

Originally Posted by Beebs

That is 100% guaranteed to be abused at every and any opportunity.

Putting elected officials in charge of who gets to vote to elect them, that sounds good.

You would just answer a questionnaire on the same form as the ballot and if you don't score well enough on a fact based test, the ballot is shit canned. Wed be relying on the same people we trust to count the ballots.

[f3lix]

And yes, I know I left out 10% for independents and 3rd party lovers.

[f3lix]

The good thing about requiring voters to know the planks of the candidates, is that the ads for each candidate would suddenly be positive, so that voters knew who they were voting for, instead of the negative bull shit that we see today.

[Mr. Blonde]

Originally Posted by f3lix

But he's half white.

The amount of "Reverse-one-drop rule" that has been in effect since 2008 has frankly been fucking hilarious. It's only now that America has been getting more *gasp* progressive, that the majority of Americans actually like being able to say we have a black president, and conservatives HATE this fact. 40 years ago F3lix would probably have been calling him a filthy nigger.

[Beebs]

Originally Posted by f3lix

Why are parties a good thing? It clumps wide-ranging thoughts into one title. A moderate running as a Republican gets 45% of the vote, but when he switches to Democrat, the other 45% vote for him automatically based on the label next to his name. This is just flat out stupid.

They first and foremost provide a coherent opposition to whoever is in charge, they provide a mechanism to get people elected, and they simply allow for coherent platforms to exist.

It's not necessarily that they are great, it is that they are inevitable, and an exercise of first amendment rights.

[Beebs]

Originally Posted by Ironic Mustache

You would just answer a questionnaire on the same form as the ballot and if you don't score well enough on a fact based test, the ballot is shit canned. Wed be relying on the same people we trust to count the ballots.

Putting aside the fact that this, again, is a huge blow against the basic human right of self determination, in politics there are no such things as facts. Take one look at the shape of congressional voting districts and tell me anybody with power at stake can be trusted to make a fair questionnaire.

Which, even if they could, is basically indefensible from a personal freedom standpoint.

[Beebs]

Originally Posted by f3lix

The good thing about requiring voters to know the planks of the candidates, is that the ads for each candidate would suddenly be positive, so that voters knew who they were voting for, instead of the negative bull shit that we see today.

So if a politician changes stances on a subject (highly unlikely, I know) are people required to know both, retake the test, what? Where does it even state that a politician has to be elected on campaign promises? Shit, is that even preferable?

Seriously, have any of you put even the slightest amount of thought into this?

[Beebs]

Originally Posted by Mr. Blonde

The amount of "Reverse-one-drop rule" that has been in effect since 2008 has frankly been fucking hilarious. It's only now that America has been getting more *gasp* progressive, that the majority of Americans actually like being able to say we have a black president, and conservatives HATE this fact. 40 years ago F3lix would probably have been calling him a filthy nigger.

That's gonna need a second edit because your point is still not coming across, other than "if you don't like Obama, you're racist."

[Ugly Bastard]

Originally Posted by Mr. Blonde

The amount of "Reverse-one-drop rule" that has been in effect since 2008 has frankly been fucking hilarious. It's only now that America has been getting more *gasp* progressive, that the majority of Americans actually like being able to say we have a black president, and conservatives HATE this fact. 40 years ago F3lix would probably have been calling him a filthy nigger.

Why do you think f3lix doesn't call him that now?

[f3lix]

Obama is a filthy nigger that happens to have money and talks white.

[Mr. Blonde]

Originally Posted by Beebs

That's gonna need a second edit because your point is still not coming across, other than "if you don't like Obama, you're racist."

40+ years ago a lot of people called anyone with a drop of blood in them black, and that was a bad thing(one drop rule). Now that it's not viewed as a bad thing by a large amount of people, and in many cases, a good thing ("1st African American prez!"), conservatives are trying to de-black them, as if it matters at all.

[Fruitacious B]

Originally Posted by f3lix

Totally agree. Or at least identify 3 planks each candidate support.

I think there's quite a few candidates that couldn't pass that test, let alone voters.

[Beebs]

Originally Posted by Mr. Blonde

40+ years ago a lot of people called anyone with a drop of blood in them black, and that was a bad thing(one drop rule). Now that it's not viewed as a bad thing by a large amount of people, and in many cases, a good thing ("1st African American prez!"), conservatives are trying to de-black them, as if it matters at all.

I don't think his opponents are seriously saying that Obama isn't black, maybe factually point out that he is bi-racial, but I think both sides willing accept that he is "socially black".

The only people I have seen is from the "oh there are no races" crowd saying things like "we're all multi-racial" or bi-racial people identifying him specifically as bi-racial so as to further identify with him.

[Mr. Blonde]

Originally Posted by Beebs

I don't think his opponents are seriously saying that Obama isn't black, maybe factually point out that he is bi-racial, but I think both sides willing accept that he is "socially black".

The only people I have seen is from the "oh there are no races" crowd saying things like "we're all multi-racial" or bi-racial people identifying him specifically as bi-racial so as to further identify with him.

I see what you mean, but with how much of America is right now (desperately trying to prove that none of us are racist), important black people are popular. This makes a black candidate an almost automatic, unwritten political version of Affirmative Action. I personally like Barack Obama, but I have no doubt that this was a large factor in his election. Many conservatives have also realized that his "blackness" likely influenced his election therefore are trying to diminish it to make him less popular.

I wonder how long it will take race to die, we need a global catastrophe to realize we're all humans.

[Beebs]

Originally Posted by Mr. Blonde

I see what you mean, but with how much of America is right now (desperately trying to prove that none of us are racist), important black people are popular. This makes a black candidate an almost automatic, unwritten political version of Affirmative Action. I personally like Barack Obama, but I have no doubt that this was a large factor in his election. Many conservatives have also realized that his "blackness" likely influenced his election therefore are trying to diminish it to make him less popular.

I wonder how long it will take race to die, we need a global catastrophe to realize we're all humans.

Now I see what you are getting at, and I think you have identified a real trend; people really have swung the pendalum so far from trying to sound racist that it is absurd and people call people of their own race racists over things that simply are not race related.

I don't think racism, or other forms of sectarianism, will ever be eliminated from peoples minds, even if the practicing of discrimination could possibly be legislated out of existence. People are, to a large degree, tribal and think in terms of "in groups" and "out groups". This almost certainly is hardwired into our DNA as it was a breeding advantage to keep your caveman ass away from strangers.

So even if racism, and indeed race itself, can be eliminated, there will always be sectarianism based on something. The balkans is a region that shows people of the same genetic race, south slavic, fighting centuries of wars over other differences, like religion. The religious fighting isn't even about the faiths themselves, or even by people who actually consider themselves religious. The religion in these cases is just an identifying factor, in that "we are Catholic/Muslim/Orthodox and they are not." Again though, the religion is not really important as anything other than a defining trait in the sense that it is seen as part of the national identity that Croats are catholic, Bosniaks are muslim, and Serbs are orthodox.

[Ironic Mustache]

Wanting to eliminate the race issue is laissez faire racism. You can't just forget about all the struggles minorities go through, so treating everyone as if things are equal when they're not, is racist. So basically you're racist if you're actually racist, but you're also racist if you're not. You racists just got schooled "Intro to Race and Inequality" style.

[Repugnant Abomination]

I was going to jump into this conversation, but it looks like Beebs is pretty much holding it down.

[Ironic Mustache]

Beebs' favorite word: Absurd

[Mr. Blonde]

Originally Posted by Repugnant Abomination

I was going to jump into this conversation, but it looks like Beebs is pretty much holding it down.

This is why we have negrep.

[Beebs]

Originally Posted by Ironic Mustache

Wanting to eliminate the race issue is laissez faire racism. You can't just forget about all the struggles minorities go through, so treating everyone as if things are equal when they're not, is racist. So basically you're racist if you're actually racist, but you're also racist if you're not. You racists just got schooled "Intro to Race and Inequality" style.

I don't think Blonde ever implied that minorities struggles should be forgotten. Also I don't think you can say that just because a person belongs to a group that has a higher rate of struggles means that particular person has gone through those struggles, or that a person from a group that traditionally has it easier in some way has not personally faced those struggles.

[Beebs]

Redskins coach Mike Shanahan a racist? Rick Reilly says 'No way.' - ESPN

Good article on people being so absurdly quick to try to make themselves look better by accusing people of their own race of racism, regardless of what the facts of the matter are.

This week, John Feinstein, the Washington Post columnist, said something that reminds me of a kidney stone I once had. I just couldn't let it pass without some gnashing of teeth.
...
"I think there's racial coding going on here, and it's my belief that that kind of behavior is worth firing a coach for," Feinstein claimed Tuesday. "Dan Snyder's not gonna do it, but I think it's out of control."
...
"The first spin [Shanahan uses] is that [McNabb] doesn't know the terminology for the two-minute offense, i.e., he's stupid," Feinstein opined. "The next day, it's, well, his cardiovascular, he's out of shape, i.e., he's fat." And that's when Feinstein dropped the "racial coding" thing, i.e., Shanahan's a racist.

Just reading those lines drops a person's IQ all the way to wrestling-fan level.

Feinstein is touching a cold stove top here and pretending to burn his finger

[thekremlin]

Yes he's right, but Rick Reilly is an awful writer. He combs the country looking for stories or events that are somewhat ridiculous and then acts outraged. Why is an ESPN even writer writing an article about an article by a local unheard-of sportswriter