I am offended by Obama's condescending tone toward white Americans.

Oh, look. It's the return of the talking points parade.

D'A

Can you say anything more true.
I know theres alot of hate there and hate blurrs your ability to see the reality of the state of things.
Try being black in Africa, the home of thier ancestors.
I think it would be great to have true open dialogue about race. I agree this country needs it, there are too many mis-understandings, but white americans cannot truly step up to the mic until the fear of a lashing is set aside.
Geraldine is a perfect example.

Yes, because life is sooooooo much better in Africa these days...

????
Obviously not!
Just follow the mass and you to will be left not represented after the genral election.

e

CG - if you knew half as much about the "larger world" as you claim to know you would understand that the numbered point are absolutely true.

In that case, CG, could you provide evidence to show that the description is wrong.

Ignorance truly is bliss, eh Urgent?

With what I've seen and been exposed to, I can honestly say my opinion is based on experience, not ignorance.

First of all who are these blacks that you speak of? In America most people of color from whatever group have been discriminated against at some point. So is your claim that Whites have done more to help people of color than people of color themselves. Nonsense.

Furthermore, the fact that United States has more civil liberties than most places on earth is not a testimony to whether or not blacks in America have enjoyed greater freedoms here. I have many friends whose ancestors migrated to Europe that would beg to differ with that opinion. Both sides of my families (who are not from America) would disagree with you greatly. Though in other countries there may be less freedoms or more economic difficulty than there is in America, there is less racial inequality.

@AGO: the phrase: "No Irish Need Apply" mean anything to you?

black people are not the only group that was once oppressed in the U.S. At one point, even the ancient Saxons of England were oppressed by the Danes. If you look at it fairly, everyone in the U.S. is part of a minority that was once oppressed.

Right on Protag!
Right in the kisser.

None of those events occur within the last 143 years. Alot has changed since then, ever heard of Martin Luther King?

I feel I am wasting your time. I admit I cannot prove the description (it's not my claim anyway). The description is subjective.

I agree with Protag - it has been 143 years. Isn't it time to move on? Race should not be an issue, but our politicians keep making it an issue. We need to be truly color blind.

P.S. My math, as always, should be checked several times.

yes, it's so massive that I have managed to NEVER see ANY in almost 2 decades of life here...

Are you kidding? "Irish Need Not Apply" How many irish were whipped, force to eat their own feces, fed to sharks, whipped then stuck in a cotton gin along with vermin in rodents placed there to eat through the sores? Don't compare. It's making you look really foolish. Also, Africans didn't have the luxury of blending in.

Choom Gang: Interesting how easily people step off of their ill constructed soap box in the face of facts. I had the history of slavery abolishment in mind but wasn't sure. Hard to argue against.

Protagoras: Has it ever dawned on you that you wouldn't see the racial inequality. You wear rose colored glasses my friend.

I used to live in Northern New Jersey, relatively close to New York City. Now I live in ~20 miles from Albany, NY.

20 years is a long time. it's about 1/4 the length of a human life. In some places, it's middle aged.

AGO: welcome to the 21st century. We don't do that stuff anymore!

This supports the claim. anger should obviously be directed toward Asian Americans.

Of course Not!

it would be crazy to blame someone of a different race, or take a condescending tone toward someone who is economically better off than you are.

Protagoras: You lie by pretending that carlisle is speaking to the claim rather than to your stupidity.

D'A

The fact that the US has discriminated against pretty much every minority that tried to come to the US is not an argument that the US has helped Black people or is a leader in equality. Yes, it discriminated horribly against the Blacks and the natives. It also discriminated against the Chinese rather badly. It also discriminated against the Irish and the Italian. It also discriminated against the Japanese. And it wasn't all that fond of the Jews. I might be missing some groups in there.

It's true that Martin Luther King Jr. did a lot to help racial inequality. I'm not clear how this is an argument for how the white Americans have done so much to help black people.

Also, if you don't see racial discrimination, it probably means you're white. Part of the luxury of being white is not needing to notice how you're treated better. A lot of racial discrimination is subtle. Just as you may not have noticed sexism, but I'm female and I have. A lot of it is small and subtle - I haven't lived in the areas where it's really bad. But it certainly exists.

Anyhow, I don't see how Obama did anything wrong. Nor do I see how I'd be disenfranchised by him. The problem with that statement is it contradicts the claim. If a black man isn't disenfranchised by a white man leading the country, then how am I disenfranchised by a black man leading the country?

Right, the point was, is that I can't be angry at asian americans and stereotype them because statistically they make more than I do. Analogously, black people can't blame white people for making more than they do.

And I'm saying that in absolutely no way justifies what the claim says. (@ CG)

@Rachel, it's real cool to stereotype white people.

How did I stereotype white people? I wasn't even talking about white people as a group in my comment.

It is cute that coffee does not make blacker.

"Also, if you don't see racial discrimination, it probably means you're white."

Yes, Rachel, you did. You made a general statement about a group of people with attributes (being white) had nothing to do with your conclusion (not noticing racial inequality).

pretending to be dumber than you are is quite an appelflap.

every racist is an oliebol

No CG, look at the graph again. The graph YOU posted. Asian Americans make the most. Therefore they are the one's doing the discriminating.

(I absolutely do not believe this, I am only following CG's reasoning).

*blinks* Do you really think whites get discriminated against in the same ways blacks do?

Protagoras, don't be stupid. Really.

Didn't say the same way; where are you getting that from?

i'm not reading all the comments already here, but i wanted to point out that the description and claim don't match.

Thank you Vynce for staying on subject. That most certainly is true.

Protagoras: You pointed out the discrimination against Irish as being relevant to how Blacks in America feel. I was simply pointing out that no other discrimination in America compares to how slaves were treated for 400 years. Also the lingering effects are quite different as well.

@AGO: No, my point is that there are no lingering effects. Lingering effects are all hype: they are self-fulfilling prophesies. If people would just shut up and get over what happened generations ago, then all the "lingering effects" would disappear, just as it has for the Irish. No ill effects, no one screaming for equality. In other words, I am blaming those (either black, white, or any other race) that maintains the idiotic illusion that you can have both your heritage and equality in the United States. So, what will it be, you can only have one: culture, or equality?

Protag, since you felt that I was taking your words out of context the last two times I quoted you, I advise you to claim "Lingering effects are all hype." or whatever you're trying to say there, before I get sick of waiting for you to do it yourself.

Protagoras, are you ever right?

Mental Note: Protag became Elwood P Dowd mid-discussion.

Mental Note: Elwood P Dowd (formerly known as the artist called Protag) is foolish for assuming that one can disown their heritage. Also, protage is ignorant for assuming that people of color above all are able to disown their heritage without some type of skin bleaching.

"Lingering effects are all hype" gives perfect support for this claim: <iframe src="http://jyte.com/widget/claim/id-explain-but-you-wouldnt-understand" scrolling="no" style="width:400px;height:60px;border:1px solid #777;"></iframe>

Ok that didn't work: Here's another go at it. "Lingering effects are all hype" gives perfect support for this claim:"Lingering effects are all hype" gives perfect support for this claim: http://jyte.com/cl/id-explain-but-you-wouldnt-understand

"Elwood P Dowd... is foolish for assuming that one can disown their heritage."

ad hominem.

Also, he likes to pretend he doesn't know what the phrase 'ad hominem" means. He's had it explained to him in the past; he's just dishonest that way.

D'A

Ad hominem, D'A, calling a person dishonest, resorting to destroying their reputation rather than their argument; that's ad hominem.

here's some ad hominem for you:

you idiot, you just let me prove to every one I do, in fact no what ad hominem means twice.

(I really don't think your an idiot, but I couldn't refuse the ad hominem.)

should be a ';' after "D'A."

But you could refuse to use proper grammar. Do you really 'no' anything?

let's just say I was using it in the colloquial sense.

I will now engage in yet another educational effort:

The Difference Between Insults, Ad Hominem Arguments, and Fallacious Ad Hominem Arguments
----------------------------------------------

Insult: Protagoras, you lying shitbag, don't you have enough sense to know when to quit?

Ad Hominem Argument: Because Protagoras is a lying shitbag, his claims to be using "ad hominem" "in the colloquial sense" are questionable at best.

Fallacious Ad Hominem Argument: Because Protagoras is a lying shitbag and he claims the Earth revolves about the Sun, the Earth does not revolve about the Sun.

HTH. HAND. Shitbag.

D'A

I'll let that slide D'A, since you obviously didn't read my last comment.

your right, CG, in that case:

@D'A: wasn't supposed to be rock solid. it was a way of avoiding saying, "I was wrong about the whole ad hominem thing, please accept my apologies." but since I seem to be able only to dig my hole deeper and deeper on the ad hominem issue:

I was wrong about the whole ad hominem thing, please accept my apologies.

Okay, trying to explain this as simply as possible.

If you are white, you do not get discriminated against the way blacks do, because you are white. Because it doesn't happen to you, you don't see it. You don't notice the black person being followed around to make sure he or she doesn't shoplift, because you may not even notice that the black person is in the store or have any information about who is where, why. You don't notice black people being treated differently for services, because you aren't black. You don't notice black people having trouble getting taxis to stop for them, because you never tried to hail a cab as a black person.

Because you are white, you don't notice unless you take real effort to be in a position where you can notice. And you didn't, so you are ignorant.

my point: If you say, "blacks are discriminated against." you breed a kind of victimized feeling in black people, who in turn, demand that the wrongs done to them be corrected, and this in turn angers white people, thereby dragging out the problem instead of fixing it.

Sweeping problems under the rug and pretending that they don't exist is not a strategy that has historically been shown to be effective.

Yelling and screaming about injustice is a strategy that has historically been shown to slowly decrease injustice.

I'll keep doing it my way.

reason?

(@ CG)

Rachel: the Irish. It worked for them. I've never seen (or heard of) a "no Irish need apply sign" in recent years.

...(CG) and talking excessively about a level of discrimination not really worth mentioning.

What's your point? Yes, some groups managed to blend in better and improve despite discrimination. The degree of discrimination and length of discrimination appear to be factors. The natives and the Blacks who faced the worst discrimination and the longest length of severe discrimination are doing most poorly.

Some abused children turn into healthy, successful adults. Some have lifelong problems. The examples of the first part do not in any way justify abuse, nor should they ever be used as arguments for why someone who was abused does not need to be given assistance in dealing with the potentially lifelong consequences of that abuse. The issue is the same with systematic mistreatment of groups of people. By the way, Blacks were legally discriminated against within the lifetimes of some of the people still alive today. My mother remembers traveling to the South and seeing the signs for White bathrooms and Colored bathrooms.

You know what else seems to be a factor? the fact that you don't hear about the other cases of oppression. That surely has a great impact too.

What do you mean you don't hear about the other cases of oppression? I don't know what sort of education ~you~ got, but I heard about tons of them.

From early childhood I was taught that the Nazis went after the Jews, the gypsies, and the disabled (I learned about going after homosexuals later, my parents left that bit out). In school we did a project on the discrimination against the Irish and the Irish potato famine. Probably in Middle School. Elementary School has an assembly where they brought in a Holocaust survivor who had been in a concentration camp to talk about it. I remember in college a bit of discussion about the Armenian holocaust. Oh, and of course, the discrimination against the Japanese-Americans during World War II was always made into a big point, since we shouldn't think the US didn't do awful things too. I can't list all of the information and times discrimination against the natives of the Americas has come up or been discussed. Oh, and the Chinese being mistreated on the railroads, and the people cutting off their queues, that gets discussed periodically.

Just because you don't discuss discrimination don't assume all of us are ignorant and uneducated.

Yes, but some of those are over discussed. Such as racial equality in the U.S.

s/equality/inequality;

I disagree. I don't think any form of injustice that still exists can be overdiscussed. If it hasn't ended, then it's not overdiscussed.

Apparently people like you are still woefully ignorant on the subject, so it needs more discussion.

Insanity.

You've dug yourself into a hole. EVERYTHING can be over discussed.

I disprove what you say:
We get rid of all useful education, and focus only on issues of race. we then churn out tolerant idiots to serve in the workforce. No, we can DEFINITELY over discuss the issue. All discussions must be done in balance. We can discuss one form exclusively, allowing no time for the others, which is also an over discussion.

I don't know how you can possibly justify that statement.

NO. I am not woefully ignorant. I have not experienced what people *claim* exists in the U.S. I've had plenty of discussion about it, but all discussion has always been in theory. During the discussion on the issue I never said I didn't hear about racial injustice, or that I had never discussed the issue. I said I had never experienced it.

Ad Hominem.

I'll explain why. I had some time to think.

You don't want to admit I'm right (I know, it stings to admit you're wrong on any issue, I've felt that sting before too). So rather than attacking my argument, you are attacking me. You assume me to be ignorant and stupid, therefore, anything I say is also ignorant and stupid, therefore, I am wrong.

That is ad hominem.

I am discussing racial injustice with my neighbor. I own a pool. In my pool is an infant drowning. I continue to discuss racial injustice with my neighbor. The child drowns. Rachel would claim, "you can't discuss racial injustice too much." Therefore I did nothing wrong.

D'A reviewed the comments. I was right, it was ad hominem.

It wasn't spelled out in logical procession, so of course, you are incapable of seeing it, but it is there. study it more carefully, I did.

If you actually had read what I said just before (and after) that comment, you would realize that by saying your attack was ad hominem, was really a benevolent act of me. The alternative is that you are lazy and stupid. I don't like to insult people.

Oh, by the way, between what you said, and what I said, we have an enthymeme.

Actually, I think you're ignorant and stupid and dishonest. Your comments in this claim alone prove that thesis.

One of the ways in which you are dishonest is that you fail to differentiate between a fallacious and a proper ad hominem argument. It's not the most important way in which you are dishonest, it just happens to be obvious at the moment.

D'A

Here is your problem. you say, either the arguments are not ad hominem, or if they are ad hominem, they are not fallacious. You provide some reason (a flimsy one at best) in a feeble attempt to show that your attack is the conclusion, and not the premise. But since the attack leaves out a premise in either case, (your second attack doesn't even make sense), I feel justified in assuming that the personal attacks are baseless, and are a means of avoiding having to admit you are wrong, essentially, dismiss what I have to say, because of groundless accusations. Notice too, that I did not infer that the accusations were actually groundless if you read this comment, only that you did not provide grounds, and thus, I was quite justified in assuming there were none.

P.S. D'A,
**sometimes it's easier if you sound the words out.**