Patterico's Pontifications

3/16/2011

Do You Believe in Big Government? Gosh, You Are Such a Racist!

Filed under: General — Aaron Worthing @ 1:30 pm



[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here.]

Update: And just in time, Yglesias and Think Progress publish this tripe.  Here’s a hint, you cheap race-baiter.  Just because the majority of people wanting something might be white, doesn’t make it automatically racist.  Indeed, the belief that a view is necessarily racist unless there is a rainbow of colors supporting it is itself racist.

Now let me start by saying that the title is tongue-in-cheek.  Only an idiot would say that support for big government has a 1:1 relationship with racism.  But for decades it has been asserted that if you favor smaller government—especially states rights—you were more likely to be a racist.  The logic, I suppose, worked something like this.  When left to their own devices the states were more likely to discriminate and laws like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 were federal laws.  So wanting smaller government meant you wanted the end of anti-racist laws, so you must be a racist.

Well, in fact that is not true.  According to a recent Daily Caller article, the General Social Survey has shown for some time that in fact the most clearly racist white people support big government.  For instance, to give you a taste, feast your eyes on this chart:

By the way, am I the only one disturbed that this many white people answered the question in the affirmative?

Anyway, as they say, read the whole thing.

[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]

136 Responses to “Do You Believe in Big Government? Gosh, You Are Such a Racist!”

  1. I’m white and I believe in super duper squinchy-small government and also I have a sean john shirt.

    happyfeet (a55ba0)

  2. No surprises. The left is usually guilty of what they accuse you of.

    daleyrocks (ae76ce)

  3. It’s very simple: if any government policy or policy proposal either has or could be claimed to have a disparate impact on blacks/ Hispanics/ anyone other than whites, and you support said policy, you are a racist.

    Neither your reasoning nor your motives nor your arguments can ever clear you of the odious label of Racist®. And because you are a Racist®, you needn’t bother with trying to argue that you are not, or that your reasons for supporting the policy in question are not racist; as a Racist®, no one need debate you at all, because your arguments are simply to be dismissed out of hand.

    The Dana who simplifies these things for you (5a4fb2)

  4. One word: Projection

    Ok, a whole bunch of words:

    Psychological projection or projection bias is a psychological defense mechanism where a person unconsciously denies his or her own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, such as to other people. Thus, projection involves imagining or projecting the belief that others have those feelings.[1]

    Projection reduces anxiety by allowing the expression of the unwanted unconscious impulses or desires without letting the conscious mind recognize them.

    An example of this behavior might be blaming another for self failure. The mind may avoid the discomfort of consciously admitting personal faults by keeping those feelings unconscious, and by redirecting libidinal satisfaction by attaching, or “projecting,” those same faults onto another person or object.

    The theory was developed by Sigmund Freud – in his letters to Wilhelm Fliess, ‘”Draft H” deals with projection as a mechanism of defence'[2] – and further refined by his daughter Anna Freud; for this reason, it is sometimes referred to as Freudian Projection.[3]

    BfC (ffa9b4)

  5. Exactly you are a far-right KKK member although they were started as the strongarm faction of the democrap party.

    /Liberals

    DohBiden (984d23)

  6. A “racist” is anyone arguing with a liberal, or anyone who opposes the liberal program. It’s that simple.

    (A “sexist” is anyone arguing with a feminist.)

    Steven Den Beste (99cfa1)

  7. Exactly which is why libs call the KKK far-right.

    DohBiden (984d23)

  8. I love it when they prove something like this for us.

    JD (fd14c3)

  9. Steven Den Beste –
    True, even if the liberal/feminist is white/male and the person opposing is not; the opposer is automatically disqualified from the group.

    Foxfier (24dddb)

  10. This chart reminds me of days in Management Consulting — got data, need a point.

    Not sure what this chart tells me other than … 16% of whites think black are genetically inferior and since Obambi got elected Whites are more inclined to feel that way.

    Count me as part of the 86% that think the difference in outcomes has everything to do with attitude as opposed to aptitude.

    Torquemada (2a42d3)

  11. 17%, whatever.

    Torquemada (2a42d3)

  12. 10.This chart reminds me of days in Management Consulting — got data, need a point.

    That was funny, thanks.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  13. Not sure what this chart tells me other than … 16% of whites think black are genetically inferior and since Obambi got elected Whites are more inclined to feel that way.

    If I understand that chart right, you can’t add the two percentages, because they’re not percentages of the total population. Or if they are, it invalidates the entire point the chart is trying to make.

    Look at the categories: “Believe the government does too little & agrees with both” vs. “Believe the government does too much”. Broadly speaking, that’s “Democrats & independents” vs. “Republicans”.

    If the percentage on the vertical axis is “percentage of the total survey population”, then you can add the numbers to get a “17% of respondents were racists” conclusion. But in that case, you can’t conclude that Republicans are less racist than Democrats, because you’re comparing R to D+I. You’d need to see the breakdown by D vs. I vs. R, separately, to be able to conclude anything about racism in the D vs. R populations.

    However, if the percentage on the vertical axis is “percentage of people from that category who are racist” (i.e., the R number is “percentage of R’s who gave the racist answer” and the D+I number is “percentage of D+I’s who gave the racist answer”) then it’s safer to conclude “R’s are less racist than D’s”, though I’d still want to see the numbers breakdown for D vs. I. But if that’s the correct way to read the vertical axis, then you can’t just add the two percentages together; you’d need to take a weighted average instead, which would end up somewhere close to 10%, at a guess.

    Dashed-off comment here, hope it’s clear.

    Robin Munn (d55aaa)

  14. Not sure what this chart tells me other than … 16% of whites think black are genetically inferior and since Obambi got elected Whites are more inclined to feel that way.

    Count me as part of the 86% that think the difference in outcomes has everything to do with attitude as opposed to aptitude.

    Um, that’s 102%

    Some chump (e84e27)

  15. if I had to pick one figure from African American history what is my favorite I would have to pick George Washington Carver. He invented peabnut bubber! Some people say no happy the aztecs invented that. To which I say bring me some aztec peabnut bubber or shut your damn mouf thank you. Peabnut bubber is very very America my favorite is peabnut bubber and cherry jelly on toasted bagels but peabnut bubber is also very tasty in ice cream and also in smoothies such as the peabnut bubber moo from Jamba Juice. (Tasty tip you can ask the Jamba kids to make it with soy milk instead of the “chocolate base” and it tastes more peabnut bubbery.)

    Thank you Mr. Carver you made America better.

    happyfeet (ab5779)

  16. “disturbed that this many white people answered in the affirmative?” Would you be less disturbed if that many, oh e.g., Asians said yes?

    gp (1330f9)

  17. What a load of typical crap pseudoscience.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  18. mild corrective here:
    The logic, I suppose, worked something like this. When left to their own devices the states were more likely to discriminate and laws like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 were federal laws.

    the logic is simply a reference to historical fact:
    ‘states rights’ was used in the mid 19th century to defend slavery and used in the mid 20th century to defend racial segregation; but it otherwise has had only a minimal impact on American political thinking, outside of the Nullification Controversy, which is usually viewed as a tune up of the states rights arguments used twenty years later in the run up to the Civil War.
    So any advocacy of “states rights” has to deal with that historical linkage, nolens volens.

    That’s one reason that I think it’s better to advocate small government across the board, at federal, state and local levels. Your rights can be effectively trashed at all three levels, so they need to be defended at all three levels.

    On the main topic–I hadn’t considered this point before, but the fact that more big government supporters are racists does make sense to me. However, I don’t think that there’s a causative factor linking the two; I think instead that the group of people who are racists are inclined to believe in big government anyway. And the people whom I have in mind in saying this would not be KKKers or traditional Southern whites: I’m thinking of the ethnic groups in the Northeast and Midwest, who can be (or at least used to be) as virulently bigoted as any Southern defender of Jim Crow, and who in some degree formed the urban working class of the North and Midwest for most of the 19th century. As an illustration, remember (if you are old enough) the extreme reaction to integration of the Boston public school system on the part of the Irish of South Boston. They didn’t go as far as bombing churches and murdering civil rights volunteers, but integration was not exactly accepted peacefully and quietly.

    kishnevi (fb9343)

  19. The other day I was watching basketball on TV and marveled at the obvious superiority of negroes at this noble sport. It led me to muse upon the immense power that has been ascribed to the word “racist”. This word, when applied to anyone or anything you don’t like or agree with, instantly makes you the winner and reduces your opponent to whimpering sniveling denial. Its a magic word & it works every time!* Well, almost. Only white people can be racist.

    Douglas Leaon (392f36)

  20. The other day I was watching basketball on TV and marveled at the obvious superiority of negroes at this noble sport. It led me to muse upon the immense power that has been ascribed to the word “racist”. This word, when applied to anyone or anything you don’t like or agree with, instantly makes you the winner and reduces your opponent to whimpering sniveling denial. Its a magic word & it works every time!* Well, almost. Only white people can be racist.

    Douglas Leaon (392f36)

  21. Professional basketball players are some of the most remarkable specimens in nature, imo. That is a hell of a sport.

    I do think it’s fascinating that most excellent pro ball players are black. I don’t think it means the random white guy I meet will be worse at basketball than the random black guy I meet, but there is an obvious difference in the number of exceptional cases (similar to Summers’s point about men and math).

    Anyway, no surprise to me that the people who think blacks need handouts and quotas and a nanny government also think blacks are inferior. You don’t really think Barack Obama has respect for the average black man’s rugged individualism, do you? The last thing ACORN wants or believes in is the capacity for minorities to make in on their own steam.

    Clarence Thomas, on the other hand…

    Dustin (c16eca)

  22. The real story here is that people can’t read a chart. Community colleges should take note.

    Any headline writer worth his salt would write “Among white folks, small-government republicans are 3 times less racist than big-government liberals.”

    carlitos (00428f)

  23. Professional basketball players are people who play basketball professionally but mostly what they do is sell cable and satellite tv packages. This is important because this is how the overwhelmingly socialist-inflected and obamawhore-infused programming on cable is subsidized. The importance of your “professional basketball players” would be redefined, perhaps quite significantly, if people were allowed to purchase cable channels a la carte.

    happyfeet (ab5779)

  24. Yglesias continues his stranglehold on the position of one of the dumbest bloggers on the intertubes with that amazingly stupid piece of analysis. The guy whose charts he relied on seems like he never took a statistics course.

    “Paraphrasing – No relationship between the change in unemployment and the change in voter ID. Hmm, since I’m going to focus on the difference between 2008 and 2010, I’ll look at static measurements. Yeah, there’s a relationship over time between white population and voter ID, but it got really skewed in 2010.”

    Brilliant analysis!!!!!!!

    daleyrocks (ae76ce)

  25. Were there big white population shifts between 2008 and 2010? None were pointed out. So what caused the big shift in voter ID? Super genius Matt Yglesias leaves me wanting more.

    daleyrocks (ae76ce)

  26. Are the lefty trolls all on their coffee break? Surely they can defend this with their usual “brilliance”!

    M. Scott Eiland (27aed4)

  27. “…By the way, am I the only one disturbed that this many white people answered the question in the affirmative?…”

    Isn’t this about the same percentage of people who believe Elvis is still alive and hiding somewhere?

    AD-RtR/OS! (3d00ad)

  28. I think the lefty trolls are getting their talking points from No Brains Required.

    DohBiden (984d23)

  29. “…By the way, am I the only one disturbed that this many white people answered the question in the affirmative?

    I am disturbed by whites, indeed anybody, that ignores the piles of evidence on group differences in IQ — inheritable group differences in IQ. These of course are average differences, and it is not a question of inferiority (inferiority in what area?). But there is just a pile of evidence suggesting that blacks have a significantly lower IQ as a group than whites, and that mean national IQ correlates strongly with per capita income and the HDI index. That’s why highly socialist societies like Sweden, Finland and Denmark, are still neat, orderly, have most children living with two biological parents (though unmarried formally) and produce stuff like Nokia phones, Saabs and Ikea, and Bang and Olafson.

    Haiti, Jamaica … well, some great music and tasty cuisine…

    stari_momak (d5f987)

  30. Here’s a link to links on both sides of the issue.

    http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/

    I’d point out that those professional psychometricians, have pretty much stopped (with one important exception, Nisbett) refuting the average differences in cognitive ability, and instead switch to policy (“There are no Public Policy Implications [to group differnces in Cognitive Abilit] something I’d like to be the case, but as the recent attempt to ‘dumb down’ that fire exam shows, there are policy implications.

    I’d also suggest that ‘conservatives’ and ‘libertarians’ are more sensitive to being called a racist, and so censure themselves even during polling– they know such opinions are streng verboten especially to conservatives.

    stari_momak (d5f987)

  31. censure, censor, whatever, both apply.

    stari_momak (d5f987)

  32. With his Dalron and Harvard education, Yglesias is remarkably unoriginal in thinking, but thats’ why
    Soros employs him, btw, can we get rid of this Ustache moby, cluttering up the intertubes

    narciso (a3a9aa)

  33. narc

    i suspect stari is sincere, if that is who you are talking about, albeit idiotic, anti-semitic and racist. but anyway, there isn’t a clear enough violation to justify me banning him, but you might appeal to patrick.

    Aaron Worthing (b1db52)

  34. correlation is not causation, did no one ever teach Matthew that, specially among unrelated variables,

    narciso (a3a9aa)

  35. It’s funny, because I’ve read Yglesias’s post several times now and I can’t find the part where he says–or even implies–that anybody is racist. Will someone please point it out to me?

    edawg (823dfd)

  36. Did any of you actually read his post? There’s not one accusation of anyone being racist in there. It’s fairly straightforward post about voter demographics changing over time.

    Jonathan (499b00)

  37. jonathan, edawg

    if you don’t think that’s the point you are naive. the left has been complaining that the tea party, conservatives, republicans, etc, are too white for years.

    And if not, what is the relevance of their color?

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  38. Maybe some of you should actually read Yglesias’ post, instead of whining about how unfairly you all are treated.

    NP (9dde0a)

  39. Maybe some of you should actually read Yglesias’ post, instead of whining about how unfairly you all are treated.

    Agreed. I don’t know what makes anybody think Yglesius was calling others “racist”, or that Yglesius himself was being racist.

    Kman (5576bf)

  40. kman

    lol, kman says someone should read a post.

    i did. we all know what he is saying. but i don’t expect you to be honest about it.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  41. we all know what he is saying.

    Apparently, you don’t. He’s merely saying that white voters are drifting Republican (which they are). That’s not accusing anyone of racism, nor is it racism itself.

    I guess, to you, any time the subject of race is raised, it is “racism”. Am I right?

    Kman (5576bf)

  42. Kman

    play dumb all you want, but he is asserting that white people are going to the republican party because of their “identity” and democrats will be seen as the party of non-whites. he is accusing these people of racism.

    If you can’t see that, then hand in your license to identify racism. You are clearly unqualified to ever find it.

    > Am I right?

    At best only twice a day, like a broken clock.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  43. NP, you should write a coherent comment rather than appear to be a useless troll.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  44. Kman, I guess you didn’t read the whole thing, because Yglesias was really making a prediction about both parties–that the GOP will become even more predominately white, and the Democrats will become even more predominately non white and questions of identity will become even more central. which is his tip toe around the truth way of saying racial politics will get even worse.

    However, Aaron, I don’t think Yglesias was saying the GOP is getting more racist; given what I’ve read of him before; he’s really complaining about both sides of the aisle.

    Granted, it’s been a while since I read him regularly. I got tired of his tropes (such as, While I think regulation is usually a bad thing, I think in this case regulation is a good thing–and about the only time he seems to found regulation to be actually a bad thing was when talking about barber shops).

    kishnevi (fb9343)

  45. he is asserting that white people are going to the republican party because of their “identity” and democrats will be seen as the party of non-whites. he is accusing these people of racism.

    He’s saying that we will become a country where party allegiance will be more closely tied to one’s racial identity. He’s saying that about everybody. No matter how you try to spin it, it’s still not accusing anybody of racism. I enjoy watching you try to make something out of nothing.

    Kman (5576bf)

  46. NP, jonathon, edawg, and kmart have proven themselves to be drooling imbeciles.

    JD (921cc9)

  47. I love it how kmart simply brushes reality aside. It is remarkable.

    JD (921cc9)

  48. Narciso, I’m impressed that you know what the Ustashe were, but I actually took this moniker in honor of the Serbs, not Croats. In any case the Ustashe were mostly about Catholicism, not race.

    I am not so impressed by attempts to get me banned–not because it would crush me, hurt my feelings a little, maybe– but because it would be yet another example of nominal conservatives shutting their eyes to the evidence. More depressingly, it would be yet another example of whites refusing to defend their interests in a multi-racial/multi-ethnic state in which they are rapidly becoming a small minority. Worse, it would be yet another example of mainstream white conservatives actively squelching thus of us who do have pride in who we are (including our biological heritage) and the society and civilization our ancestors created.

    stari_momak (d5f987)

  49. Are you serious, you are playing exactly into Yglesias hands, I’m latin as I’ve made clear, but
    that doesn’t make me a Democrat, stupid thinking has no purchase, no matter who makes it, and btw,
    I don’t get the Israel obsession,

    narciso (a3a9aa)

  50. “Worse, it would be yet another example of mainstream white conservatives actively squelching thus of us who do have pride in who we are (including our biological heritage) and the society and civilization our ancestors created.”

    stari_momak – No, more like people of integrity not abiding racists of any stripe, unlike the democrat party. Sorry, wrong again.

    daleyrocks (ae76ce)

  51. stari_momak – Ron Paul or the people over at Storm Front might be better places to ply your schtick from what I understand.

    daleyrocks (ae76ce)

  52. stari_momak – Why do you hate black people and Jooooos?

    daleyrocks (ae76ce)

  53. Kman

    > He’s saying that we will become a country where party allegiance will be more closely tied to one’s racial identity.

    So its not racist to say, “I belong to X because I am white”?

    > He’s saying that about everybody. No matter how you try to spin it, it’s still not accusing anybody of racism.

    Lol, so if you accuse enough people of racism, you’re accusing no one?

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  54. So its not racist to say, “I belong to X because I am white”?

    No, it’s not. Racial identity and racial prejudice (“racism”) are two different things.

    Kman (5576bf)

  55. Look, I can appreciate the position “let’s not get into race, it is too touchy and area.”

    I think that is a wrong position for whites (or EuroAmericans or whatever you want to call us), because other groups do explicitly promote their ethnic/racial insterests, to the detriment of the public good overall.

    But even if it is a good political strategy to keep quite about race, to earnestly adopt a ‘colorblind’ worldview, why is it necessary to insult those who look at the evidence and say ‘wait, it is quite possible there are average differences between groups’? Why compare us to crazies who believe Elvis is sharing a condo with Bruce Lee in Aspen? It’s not like the evidence isn’t out there for our position.

    And we don’t bring it up to be meanies, but to point out how such differences–if they exist– might affect real policy debates. For example, trying to ‘close educational gaps’, as in NCLB, might be all but futile looking at the big picture. As futile as a government program to produce more white world class sprinters. And maybe instead of our (white) kids getting guilt tripped into believing that they are the beneficiaries of ‘white privilege’ and ‘institutional racism’, people could take an ‘it is what it is’ approach to obvious disparities in educational achievement.

    stari_momak (d5f987)

  56. That last long comment was @Narciso, who seems a reasonable sort.

    Daleyrocks is just the usual slinger of ad hominem attacks. Like Eric Cartman sez ‘Whatever’.

    stari_momak (d5f987)

  57. Kman

    > [me] So its not racist to say, “I belong to X because I am white”?

    > [you] No, it’s not. Racial identity and racial prejudice (“racism”) are two different things.

    The mind boggles.

    So intentional segregation based on race is kosher with you? Funny, I thought that “whites only” restaurants and bathrooms were a BAD thing.

    And i guess according to you, loving v. virginia was wrongly decided.

    my God how mindlessly contrarian you are. you and i both know that what Yglesias is accusing them of is racism. but you are so determined to either attack me or defend them, that you have gone as far as to justify intentional segregation according to race. You know i am right, but you can’t ever admit i am right.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  58. “Daleyrocks is just the usual slinger of ad hominem attacks.”

    stari_momak – Not at all. I look at the body of your comments on this site and I see someone engaged in bigotry and race baiting in nearly every one, a perfect fit for today’s democrat party, the party of identity group politics. That party uses blacks when it is convenient for votes and discards them between elections. It is increasingly anti-zionist (read anti-semitic). Their belief in the inequality of ethnic groups is backed up by the party’s unwavering support of a blizzard of affirmative action programs in schools, hiring and on the job, and in hate crime legislation. You are here merely echoing those sentiments in the guise of a troll and fooling nobody.

    daleyrocks (ae76ce)

  59. stari_momak – This site has seen many visitors of your stripe before. You are not precious or unique.

    daleyrocks (ae76ce)

  60. of course this is not the first time when pretending to be against racism, you said something racist.

    http://allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2010/07/another-liberal-accuses-others-of.html

    which fits the profile, right? you are a white racist and you are a big government kind of guy.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  61. “So intentional segregation based on race is kosher with you?”

    Aaron, in all seriousness, how can you reconcile support for a state (Israel) which avowedly does segregate by religion (and because that religion is overwhelmingly passed on by parentage, de facto by ethnicity) , with your ‘raceblindness’ and even anti-racism here?

    And another point, there is a difference between saying ‘white people can advocate in their interests’, and saying ‘the government should prevent people of different races from marrying.’ After all, one of the biggest intrusions into private lives is government enforcement of mandatory integration. For instance, I couldn’t advertise for a roommate on Craig’s list stating I’d like to have a white (or black, or Latino) roommate. In a minimal government environment, I could live with whom I wanted, serve whom I wanted, sell my house to whom I wanted.

    stari_momak (d5f987)

  62. So intentional segregation based on race is kosher with you?

    I can’t believe I have to explain this to an adult, in this day and age.

    Intentional segregation is (typically) racism because the segregation is (typically) based on prejudice/animosity toward one race.

    But an all-black fraternity or college or group, the “segregation” of which isn’t based on prejudice/animosity, isn’t racist.

    Surely you can tell the difference. It’s like Jews tending to go to a synagogue rather than a Roman Catholic church. Just because they tend to identify with Judaism doesn’t mean they are prejudice against Catholicism. If you can understand that, then simply take my example and apply it to race.

    my God how mindlessly contrarian you are

    Hahaha. Looking back over the comments, I wasn’t the only one to question your claims that Yglesius was claiming “racism”… nor was I the first.

    you and i both know that what Yglesias is accusing them of is racism.

    Accusing WHO of racism? Republicans? Whites? Non-whites? Democrats?

    By the way, here’s a follow up racism accusation that he wrote. Get your smelling salts.

    Kman (5576bf)

  63. Because a particular religious faith is just like joining a fraternity.

    You still aren’t very good at this “logic” thing, Kman.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  64. You are not precious or unique.

    I don’t think I ever claimed to be.

    stari_momak (d5f987)

  65. Because a particular religious faith is just like joining a fraternity.

    It is in the sense that people who share certain identical traits tend to congregate and form associations together…. and it isn’t automatically prejudice or unseemly to do so!

    Kman (5576bf)

  66. Kmart is only an idiot on days that end in y.

    JD (fec6e2)

  67. Kman

    > But an all-black fraternity or college or group

    Ah, so you are okay with a frat deciding that no black people are allowed to join? A golf course excluding black people?

    > I wasn’t the only one

    You are the only one to say racial segregation is okay in order to make your argument.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  68. “And another point, there is a difference between saying ‘white people can advocate in their interests’, and saying ‘the government should prevent people of different races from marrying.’”

    stari – You seem to be confused. Are you under the impression that anybody in this country is limited from advocating for their own interests, ignoring democrat intimidation tactics of course? Do anti-miscegenation statutes still exist on the books of some states? Please elaborate on your red herrings.

    daleyrocks (ae76ce)

  69. Ah, so you are okay with a frat deciding that no black people are allowed to join? A golf course excluding black people?

    Once again, it depends on WHY.

    But more importantly — note that an organization (frat, golf course, etc.) EXCLUDING people on the basis of race is NOT akin to what Yglesius was writing about. Which is why racism doesn’t enter into it.

    It’s not racist if most white people gravitate to the Republican party (“Racist of who?” remains the unanswered question). It’s not racist if most non-whites gravitate toward the Democratic party (the same question applies). Just as it wasn’t racist to note that white people/black people prefer Pat Boone/Chuck Berry (feel free to substitute your own examples).

    Perhaps what Yglesius was writing about opens one — or both — parties to the accusation that they lack racial diversity. And perhaps that was what you meant to say. But that’s far different from allegations of actual racism.

    Kman (5576bf)

  70. “Aaron, in all seriousness, how can you reconcile support for a state (Israel) which avowedly does segregate by religion”

    stari – We are discussing the United States. Is it possible for you to comment without introducing your obsession with Israel and your Jooooo hate into each comment?

    daleyrocks (ae76ce)

  71. Stari

    > Aaron, in all seriousness, how can you reconcile support for a state (Israel) which avowedly does segregate by religion (and because that religion is overwhelmingly passed on by parentage, de facto by ethnicity) , with your ‘raceblindness’ and even anti-racism here?

    See why we think you are anti-semitic? No one talks about whether Pakistan has the right to exist as a country. And yet they not only make islam their official religion, but also will punish anyone who blasphemes their faith with death. recently a Pakistani Christian campaigned against this law and was gunned down for doing it. But here you are calling isreal segregated.

    I can’t bring a bible into Saudi, but you are singling Israel out.

    And in fact it is a myth that isreal is a segregated country.

    > And another point, there is a difference between saying ‘white people can advocate in their interests’, and saying ‘the government should prevent people of different races from marrying.

    What interest does a white person have, as it relates to their color?

    > In a minimal government environment, I could live with whom I wanted, serve whom I wanted, sell my house to whom I wanted.

    In which you fit the stereotype of a small government type who wants the freedom to practice racial discrimination.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  72. It is in the sense that people who share certain identical traits tend to congregate and form associations together…. and it isn’t automatically prejudice or unseemly to do so!

    So you’re okay with, say, a Congressional White Caucus? A White Firefighters/Police Association? A Miss White America contest? Etc, etc, ad infinitum, ad nauseam?

    Thanks for the clarification, twit.

    Darth Venomous (5927c6)

  73. As a comment on athletes, I’ll mention that black athletes are underrepresented in the World’s Strongest Man contests and the like.

    Some studies have been done and are google-up-able which purport to show that the bell curve for blacks in runny-jumpy-throwy sports is just a hair to the side of europeans (which means you get more at that world class high end) while the bell curve for scandinaviany types in lift/throw-amazingly-heavy-object-and-perform-certain-moves-with-it is similarly a touch to the side of the general population in its own way.

    luagha (5cbe06)

  74. So you’re okay with, say, a Congressional White Caucus? A White Firefighters/Police Association? A Miss White America contest? Etc, etc, ad infinitum, ad nauseam?

    I’m not okay with it, because historically, white groups which have claimed to promote or preserve “white culture” were, in truth, actually all about attacking and denigrating non-white culture — i.e., they were racist organizations. I have a hard time envisioning the existence of such groups like that having a non-racist agenda.

    Kman (5576bf)

  75. “I can’t bring a bible into Saudi, but you are singling Israel out.”

    You are avoding the question, but I will bite. I am singling Israeli out because you, along with many on the neoconservative and just plain conservative right, so vehemently support it, when it violates the universalist standards you apply here, for instance when you decry voluntary, none government-enforced, ‘segregation’ here.

    Here’s a question, would you support Germany’s right to restrict Turkish immigration on the basis that Germany wants to remain German?

    stari_momak (d5f987)

  76. none government-enforced -> non government enforced

    stari_momak (d5f987)

  77. kman

    > I have a hard time envisioning the existence of such groups like that having a non-racist agenda.

    Ah, so you judge where a person is a racist not by the content of their character but the color of their skin, eh?

    here’s a hint, Br’er Rabbit. The more you fight the more you will be stuck. just run away like you always do, before you dig yourself in even worse.

    and lord you better not let your firm know you are kman. they would probably see you as a racial harrassment suit waiting to happen. and they would think you are an incompetant in your profession.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  78. stari

    > so vehemently support it

    yeah, i am against genocide. crazy that.

    > Here’s a question, would you support Germany’s right to restrict Turkish immigration on the basis that Germany wants to remain German?

    see, you are basing that question on a myth. they restrict immigration from palestine, but not based on religion generally.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)


  79. I have a hard time envisioning the existence of such groups like that having a non-racist agenda.

    I see. And black groups don’t.

    So the Professionally Outraged™ stylings of the Rev’rnnnnnds Shahp-t’nnnnn Jack’s’nnnnn & Wright mean nothing to you. In other words, it’s not race-baiting if blacks do it, i.e. blacks can’t possibly have a racist agenda.

    Oooooooo-kay.

    Aaron’s right, son. Quit while you’re behind.

    Darth Venomous (a0b6a2)

  80. Ah, so you judge where a person is a racist not by the content of their character but the color of their skin, eh?

    No, and the (once again) feeble attempt to put words in my mouth remains a lame debate tactic.

    I meant what I said: that I have a hard time envisioning an white-only group or organization that isn’t based on racial animosity against non-whites. If you can describe or identify such an organization, even a hypothetical one, then please do so.

    …they would probably see you as a racial harrassment suit waiting to happen.

    Wait, wait. I say that whites-only groups strike me as inherently racist (unless someone can give me a good counter-example), and from that, you conclude that I’m opening myself (or my firm) up to a racial harassment suit?? Really?? From who??? The down-is-up-ism of some on the right really amuses me. Weird.

    Kman (5576bf)

  81. In other words, it’s not race-baiting if blacks do it, i.e. blacks can’t possibly have a racist agenda.

    Nice try putting words in my mouth.

    No, of course black groups have racist agendas. They CAN, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that they all DO.

    Kman (5576bf)


  82. No, and the (once again) feeble attempt to put words in my mouth remains a lame debate tactic.

    On the contrary. Do the words “bump, set, spike!!!” mean anything to you?

    You’ve just had your @$$ whipped again, regardless of your numerous bleatings to the contrary.

    Darth Venomous (a0b6a2)


  83. No, of course black white groups have racist agendas. They CAN, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that they all DO.

    See how easy that was?

    Except in your feeble one-third-cell (and I’m being generous there) mind.

    Game, set, match. Thanks for playing.

    Darth Venomous (a0b6a2)

  84. stari appears to be an unreconstructed loony libertarian white nationalist, which explains the bigotry and racism. From this blog:

    “I don’t really care what a governor of a godforsaken state of Egypt says or does.

    I do care that every single presidential candidate in the last primary/general election season felt obliged to pay fealty to Israel and AIPAC. I do care that 43 years after the event the USS Liberty incident is still being covered up. I do care that the US government ignores the interests of, say, the 80% of us who aren’t Jews or deluded ‘Christian Zionists’. I do care that organized Jewry and heavily Jewish organizations (hello, ‘A’CLU) are behind every effort to transform this country demographically through mass immigration, legal and illegal.

    Comment by stari_momak — 12/8/2010 @ 10:05 am”

    From bloggingheadstv:

    “Why do I stress white nationalism?

    (1) Its the ‘most repulsive argument’ — so if you can get ‘correct thinkers’ thinking about it, then they will start thinking about other aspects of American culture and immigration (2) any immigration restrictionist anywhere is going to be accused of ‘racism’. Within three or four posts CIS and Krikorian were accused of racism. So, if critics want to open that can of worms, lets really open it (3) Living in California,I see a demoralized white population, particularly the young white, males from the working class. They copy black or ‘Latino’ ways and speech. They see their history denigrated. They see other groups expressing racial solidarity (MeCha, La Raza). They need their heritage back and white nationalism is the only what to do that at this point.”

    daleyrocks (ae76ce)

  85. No, of course black white groups have racist agendas. They CAN, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that they all DO.

    Then name one. Name one that doesn’t have a racist agenda. I’ll wait.

    Kman (5576bf)

  86. Nor Luap is the only man who can save American, but we need to follow Hermann Hoppe’s policy on immigration!!!!!!11ty!!!!!!

    daleyrocks (ae76ce)

  87. What’s always striking about these conversations is that the kman position refuses to adopt a logical rule that can be applied to everyone equally. They instead just want to say ‘I can’t see this group as being bad, and I can’t see this group doing the same without being racist’

    Their rule is to elevate themselves to elite status, where they can pick and choose who is right or wrong, and they resent the notion of a simple rule that applies equally because it takes away the need for philosopher kings they see themselves as.

    We don’t need special racist for blacks organizations. The only people who think blacks need that hold blacks in contempt. Obama, for example, given his ACORN past, does not have a very high opinion of the average black American.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  88. Didn’t put words in your mouth, Kman. I pointed out the anti-white racism you are apparently engaged in.

    > I’m opening myself (or my firm) up to a racial harassment suit?? Really?? From who???

    White people, you idiot. You do know that the law against racial discrimination applies to white people, right?

    And yes, it is possible for a white person to be racist against their own kind. As you are indeed proving.

    > The down-is-up-ism of some on the right really amuses me. Weird.

    Indeed the very fact that you think that this is like gravity is telling.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  89. Another gem from the stari_momak collection:

    “stari_momak said,

    on March 22nd, 2009 at 9:05 am

    The people I don’t like, go don’t go to meeting and talk about them all day.

    I think most white separatists/nationalists would like to be able to do that, tyrone. Unfortunately, we can’t. Mass immigration is transforming almost every white (or European-descended or whatever you want to call it). Bussing and other forms of forced intergration are removing our ability to separate ourselves. Block voting by so-called ‘minorities’ is ensuring that we cannot rule ourselves. Basically we want to be left alone — we don’t think we need blacks or others.”

    http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2009/03/18/mainstream-scholars-attend-racist-conference-hosted-by-jewish-astrophysicist/

    daleyrocks (ae76ce)

  90. “see, you are basing that question on a myth. they restrict immigration from palestine, but not based on religion generally.”

    No, I am trying to suss you out on which groups have a right to exist and which don’t. Apparently you don’t think that whites in North America have a right to continue as an identifiable group — which I think we are, which the Founding Fathers and most of our political leaders down to JFK thought we were– and to mobilize in our political interests. If fact, you seem to think we don’t have any interests, perhaps maybe we don’t even exist. That’s a pretty conventional leftist position — search for Critical Whiteness Studies, or Noel Ignatiev.

    On the other hand, you think that Jews do have a right to exist in their own ethnostate, and to lobby here with groups like AIPAC, the JDL, etc, and to encourage marriage amongst their own group (JDate, Elliot Abrams jihad against intermarriage -even if the non-Jewish partner convert! see here

    http://www.slate.com/id/3660/entry/23966

    For Israel’s effective ban on interethnic/interreligious marriage see here

    http://mondoweiss.net/2009/10/more-on-israels-bar-on-intermarriage.html

    Again, I don’t care what the Israeli’s do, just trying to figure out why one group has the privilege of existing, and my group doesn’t.

    stari_momak (d5f987)

  91. I totally stand by that — and that ‘tyrone’ wasn’t me using a ‘stereotypical’ name , I was addressing a commentator whose handle is tyrone.

    But I’m glad that you feel me so important as to do a web search for me.

    stari_momak (d5f987)

  92. Just dropping in with a link. Remember those Dem Michiganders who were putting fake tea party candidates on the Nov. ballot in an effort to draw votes away from Republican candidates? And remember I was really ticked off about it?

    Well the “officials” now have official mug shots, and they’re facing nine felony counts.

    http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/dpp/news/two-charged-in-tea-party-election-fraud-20110316-mr

    elissa (fafca4)

  93. thanks elissa. i have no problem with that kind of off topic thing.

    Stari

    that slate article was incorrect. period. you see crap and misinformation like that all the time.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  94. > I’m opening myself (or my firm) up to a racial harassment suit?? Really?? From who???

    White people, you idiot.

    White people? Just random white people off the street, you mean? Or some whites-only group like…. well, like what?

    And they’re going to sue me (or my firm) because I have a hard time envisioning how a whites-only group could be non-racist?

    Okay. Well, you’ve put the fear of God into me there, law boy. (/sarcasm)

    LOL!

    Kman (5576bf)

  95. @daleyrocks, you are employing the ‘point and stutter’ technique of argument. I stand by every one of those statements, although today I wouldn’t call it ‘white nationalism’ so much as ‘white advocacy’. I think whites are an identifiable group with our own history and accomplishments. I think that history and accomplishments and yes, the biology, is worth preserving. Search as much as you want, you won’t find me calling for government enforced segregation, or a ban on interracial marriage, or attacks against Jews, or the abolition of Israel. You will find someone who believes that his own group, white people (or EuroAmericans, if you will) have the right to exist.

    stari_momak (d5f987)

  96. How can the slate article be incorrect? It was a dialog between Eric Liu and Elliot Abrams himself? When you have time, read it.

    stari_momak (d5f987)

  97. Kman

    > White people?

    White employees, moron. anyone who works with you or under you. you are a racist against your own kind. not to mention that you are a racist generally, arguing for instance that islam is a racial trait.

    Seriously, you should not be opining on racial issues, and certainly never calling anyone else racist.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  98. Anyways, I’ve got to get to work. It’s been fun, and I really do mean that. Cheers.

    stari_momak (d5f987)

  99. stari

    > How can the slate article be incorrect?

    Sure, slate is perfect, just like jesus christ.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  100. I don’t see a big difference between stari’s POV and the NAACP’s POV.

    I don’t think whiteness is any more important than blackness. I would be delighted if people abandoned concern for racial heritage altogether. But it’s good that stari’s willing to honestly argue the same points that the other race favoring folks do, and I think it’s perfectly decent.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  101. stari_momak – This post is about the U.S., not Israel. Why can’t you resist the temptation to keep Israel out of the discussion?

    “@daleyrocks, you are employing the ‘point and stutter’ technique of argument.”

    No, merely letting people know who and what you are. Why would you have an objection to that? Do you have something to hide about your views? Why attack me for posting them?

    daleyrocks (ae76ce)

  102. @Aaron

    It is Elliot Abrams writing, for Pete’s sake. Are you suggesting that Slate has published an article under his name without his permission?

    FWIW, I agree with Abrams. I have no problem with JDate.

    More on Jewish, at least Orthodox Jewish, opposition to intermarriage. In one case, a Jewish school actually airbrushed out one guy’s (non-Jewish, Korean) wife from a Yeshive reunion picture.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/22/magazine/22yeshiva-t.html?_r=1

    Again, I have no problem with this– for a small group it probably makes a lot of sense if they want to continue to exist.

    @daleyrocks

    If you keep researching my internet commenting oeuvre, you’ll find that I sometimes use the example of Tibet being swamped by Han Chinese. That is, most libs believe the Tibetans have a right to avoid being swamped demographically, but, say, Irish people don’t. Am I anti-Sintic too? Anyhoo, people seem to relate more to the example of Israel as an ethnostate, however.

    Okay, really really gonna work now.

    stari_momak (d5f987)

  103. Kman – It is nice to see you agreeing so closely with a white separatist today. I knew you had it in you.

    daleyrocks (ae76ce)

  104. White employees, moron

    You just keep coming off more AW-like the more you type. It amuses me.

    Hey, law boy — Even if your claim is true that I, a white dude, am an anti-white racist, don’t I have to — you know — actually harass the white employees I work with in order to be sued for racial harassment? Just an errant thought….

    Oh, wait wait. I know what you’ll say: they can still SUE me for racial harassment even though I never actually harassed them for anything. LOL! If that’s the case, I’ll take my chances.

    Seriously, you should not be opining on racial issues, and certainly never calling anyone else racist.

    There you go again! Just as Yglesius didn’t call anyone racist in his post, I haven’t called ANYONE racist this whole thread. Even you. It’s the ringing of your own words in your own ears.

    Kman (5576bf)

  105. It is nice to see you agreeing so closely with a white separatist today.

    According to AW, I’m a racist against whites. Which kind of makes me not at all like a white separatist.

    Maybe you two should coordinate your senseless ad hominem arguments.

    Kman (5576bf)

  106. This blogroach is still here?

    SPQR (26be8b)

  107. I haven’t called ANYONE racist this whole thread.

    Congratulations.

    BTW, you are a bigot and a creep, Kman. And you’re ashamed of your extremist blog and wouldn’t dare link it, would you?

    Dustin (c16eca)

  108. Kman is a piece of work.

    BTW i didn’t know chernobyl killed everyone off i only thought it killed about 40 to 3,000 people.

    DohBiden (984d23)

  109. SPQR, if the gentleman is a blogroach (wonderful term, that), we need to find out what attracts him. But we know, don’t we?

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  110. And just imagining what Kman’s blog would be like, I wouldn’t link it if it were me, either.

    Probably all kinds of screen licking over everyone’s favorite guest blogger and amateur cartoonist. Perhaps a few pictures in drag queen ensemble (don’t interpret this as an insult to gays) and generally lots of other indications of psychotic attention whore behavior we all see in Kman 50 times a day.

    What were you like ten years ago, before you started stalking Aaron? I guess you were probably stalking someone else.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  111. Kman

    > Even if your claim is true that I, a white dude, am an anti-white racist, don’t I have to — you know — actually harass the white employees I work with in order to be sued for racial harassment?

    Wow, incompetent in your profession too. I never said you had completed an offense under the statute. i only asserted that they would see you as a risk they were not interested in taking.

    > I haven’t called ANYONE racist this whole thread

    I don’t recall if you called anyone a racist here. but you have in other contexts and you and i know it and nothing i said limited my comment about you calling people racist to this thread. indeed several times in this thread i specifically referred to an email exchange when you accused a man of being a racist and managed to say something racist when doing it.

    excellent reading comp as usual.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  112. Btw, there is a new thread where i realized that much of this was coming from yglesias himself and respond. you might or might not want to keep discussing this there.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  113. Simon Jester, spilled Cheerios mostly.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  114. Uglysias is an joke.

    BTW what will the opponents of nuclear power do when they cant turn on their TV or can’t turn on their Air conditioning in the summer?

    DohBiden (984d23)

  115. Dustin

    > Probably all kinds of screen licking over everyone’s favorite guest blogger…

    Actually, i didn’t see any mention of me on it.

    > and amateur cartoonist.

    um, yeah, VERY amateur in my case.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  116. Doh

    > BTW what will the opponents of nuclear power do when they cant turn on their TV or can’t turn on their Air conditioning in the summer?

    some want it that way.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  117. But Aaron, they want it that way for other people, not important folk like themselves.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  118. SPQR, just think of a blogroach with Glenn Close’s face: he won’t be ignored.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  119. Then name one. Name one that doesn’t have a racist agenda. I’ll wait.

    Name a black group that doesn’t.

    Go ahead. I’ll wait.

    Darth Venomous (c8614a)

  120. midnight star

    happyfeet (ab5779)

  121. People should actually take a look at the Yglesias post linked at the top — there’s absolutely nothing race-baiting about it. It just says “White people generally vote for Republicans, and are doing so at an increasing rate” and posts a graph to support this claim.

    It’s completely anodyne stuff. I don’t know what there counts as race-baiting.

    Neil the Ethical Werewolf (4261c0)

  122. Stuff White People Like: Republicans

    Yeah, that sounds a lot like a race baiting democrat to me. I can see why Aaron resents it, but the rest of the post is just a reasonable analysis of demographics.

    Don’t you think that Obama’s skin color has something to do with decreasing Democratic party ID advantage between 2008 and 2010? I am not sure that this trend will necessarily continue beyond the Obama presidency.

    Comments like that don’t help. Blaming racism for democrat failures is annoying.

    However, I think Yglesias didn’t intend his title to come across that way (I’m sure everyone knows it’s a reference to a humor site). And the comment section he’s sporting is actually pretty good, too.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  123. Amen when we are unable to build any more nuclear power pants in the next 7 months these idiots will be whining about how they are dying due to the heat.

    And these useful idiots will be told you wanted it that way.

    DohBiden (984d23)

  124. Don’t you think that Obama’s skin color has something to do with decreasing Democratic party ID advantage between 2008 and 2010

    Yeah, it couldn’t be his complete lack of leadership ability, continuous fumbling of any aspect of foreign policy, and the train wreck that his domestic policy both is and will make of this nation.

    No, it couldn’t be that.

    Scott Jacobs (d027b8)

  125. Actually, reading Aaron’s newer post, I think I should have read more of Yglesias’s other work before forming an opinion.

    His post can be read as racism free analysis of the stats, so I do grok the reactions.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  126. Maybe you two should coordinate your senseless ad hominem arguments.

    — Kman is arguing with the gerbils in his head again.

    Icy Texan (c816cc)

  127. dustin

    i think its impossible to understand his phrase in the follow up post “anti-anti-racism” except as i outlined in the new post. I am supposedly anti-anti-racism. So he wrote an anti-racist post. so his target must have been racism.

    the man is a cheap race-baiter and i called him on it.

    Aaron Worthing (73a7ea)

  128. Yeah, I agree with you, Aaron. Your follow up helped me see where you’re coming from.

    Yglesias was dancing around the issue with his benign analysis of the statistics, but he apparently exposed his dog whistle with that “anti anti racist” comment. I have a poor ear for racism… I’ve been that way my entire life and it’s been occasionally a comical plot device in the sitcom of Dustin’s Interactions With Sensitive People.

    And it’s interesting reading the comments. Some are very thoughtful, and some go off on this race baiting tangent.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  129. Look at IQ test results, the state of nations ruled by blacks, (look at US cities by black population), consumption of welfare etc.

    I am surporised that there isn’t more disgust from the right at black inferiority and more patronising from the left RE black inferiority.

    Smarty (b78ca5)

  130. *falcepalm*

    i am sick of these mobies coming here and arguing that black people are inferior.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  131. Yes because black conservatives are inferior.

    Get lost KKKilgore Trout.

    DohBiden (984d23)

  132. And no i don’t think black conservatives are inferior just exposing our moby as the racist he is.

    DohBiden (984d23)

  133. I WANT MY REELY LIFE MY DREAM MY YOU ARE FROM HERE NO ANY MORE NO ANY MORE WITH MY GREETING
    TO YOU FOR TIME YOU GIVE ME FOR THIS ALIFAQIH ALI

    ALI AHMED HUSSIEN (90c7c4)

  134. WE ALL GOSH FROM THE LONG LONG TIME THIS IS MY ANSWER FOR YOU ? ALL YOU GET MY ANSWER

    ALI AHMED HUSSIEN (90c7c4)

  135. Somebody’s been tainted by ‘mad goat’!

    Icy Texan (81c642)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 3.3327 secs.