"On White Privilege"

[Deviant Writer]

I have backpedaled on nothing here.

You backpedaled from that thread to this one.

Immaterial. You initially said that people accused Obama of being a Muslim because of his race. Later you added "ignorance". But my initial response was to your assertion that it was just race that led to the accusation.

Cool, and I've already said it's not just racism. We've covered this. Your initial response was noted, as were the obvious flaws of the counterargument. This was also noted.

What I claimed in a previous thread is immaterial.

Not when you say in this thread that you always said "I don't know" with regards to whether or not the president is a Muslim. You said before, you consider the president to be a Muslim. This isn't a legal procedure. I don't have to get permission to use evidence from a previous thread. That evidence is still there.

Yeah, really.

LOL, whatever you say.

All of which is immaterial because this entire conversation here is based on your assertion that Obama was accused of being a Muslim because of his race alone.

And, again, you provided your terrible counterargument meant as a justification for the accusation.

I'm not asserting he's a Muslim in this discussion.

You more or less insinuated it in this one and explicitly said it in another one.

Immaterial. There is enough in his background for people to at least notice "Islam" is associated with Obama. Whether rightly or wrongly people assume that he is a Muslim is immaterial here.

It's very material if the circumstantial evidence is garbage and the assumption is therefore garbage. You are trying to make a justification for the assumption whether or not you come out and admit it. You say something to the effect of "its much more likely that he's a Muslim than any other president" that's a rationalization for the behavior. That's a justification.

If you define backpedaling as sticking to the discussion here,

Those things aren't mutually exclusive. While you may think you are "sticking to the discussion" you can also be backpedaling from a previous statement on a previous thread. Which is what you are doing. I applaud you for it. That you are backpedaling from "Obama is a Muslim" to "I don't know if he's a Muslim" makes you better than our friends far, far on the right. You have that nagging feeling of doubt that goes something like "Why do I believe this conservative drivel I can't prove?"

 

[nightflight]

You backpedaled from that thread to this one.

I responded to your assertion that people suspected Obama of being a Muslim based solely on his race.

Cool, and I've already said it's not just racism. We've covered this. Your initial response was noted, as were the obvious flaws of the counterargument. This was also noted.

You first said it was racism, I challenged that and you later said it was also due to "ignorance". You admit you were in error before. This is good.

Not when you say in this thread that you always said "I don't know" with regards to whether or not the president is a Muslim. You said before, you consider the president to be a Muslim. This isn't a legal procedure. I don't have to get permission to use evidence from a previous thread. That evidence is still there.

Which is immaterial, because this whole discussion began by my challenging your insinuation that people suspected Obama of being a Muslim based on his race.

LOL, whatever you say.

Not whatever, just when I'm right. Like now.

And, again, you provided your terrible counterargument meant as a justification for the accusation.

My counterargument was that you were wrong in your insinuation that people thought Obama to be a Muslim based solely on his race.

You more or less insinuated it in this one and explicitly said it in another one.

Nope. In this discussion I countered your claim that people said Obama was a Muslim based solely on his race.

It's very material if the circumstantial evidence is garbage and the assumption is therefore garbage. You are trying to make a justification for the assumption whether or not you come out and admit it. You say something to the effect of "its much more likely that he's a Muslim than any other president" that's a rationalization for the behavior. That's a justification.

I know you are struggling here and we all are struggling with you. But again I was not arguing here whether or not Obama is a Muslim. I was challenging your earlier insinuation that people suspected Obama as being a Muslim based solely on his race. Basically, you cried "raaaaacism". I called you on that.

Those things aren't mutually exclusive. While you may think you are "sticking to the discussion" you can also be backpedaling from a previous statement on a previous thread. Which is what you are doing. I applaud you for it. That you are backpedaling from "Obama is a Muslim" to "I don't know if he's a Muslim" makes you better than our friends far, far on the right. You have that nagging feeling of doubt that goes something like "Why do I believe this conservative drivel I can't prove?"

If you want to argue about something in a previous thread, then go to that thread. But here I was challenging your assertion that people suspected Obama as being a Muslim based solely on his race, which you claimed on page 54 post 1078. But as to whether or not Obambam is a Muslim, we'll probably know in a few months when he leaves office. We'll probably know too if he's heterosexual. We may see him coming out of a Mosque smoking a cigarette and holding hands with a guy (not that there's anything wrong with that).

 

[Deviant Writer]

I responded to your assertion that people suspected Obama of being a Muslim based solely on his race.

And as you were doing that, you backpedaled. We've already covered this. Your claim that you weren't backpedaling is immaterial because going from an assertion to "I don't know" is backpedaling.

You first said it was racism, I challenged that and you later said it was also due to "ignorance". You admit you were in error before.

I admitted no such error because no error was made, so your claim is immaterial. The error was made by your terrible counterargument, which was immaterial.

Which is immaterial, because this whole discussion began by my challenging your insinuation that people suspected Obama of being a Muslim based on his race.

Your "immaterial" claim is immaterial.

Not whatever, just when I'm right. Like now.

You were wrong on both occasions. You were wrong when you said Obama was Muslim in a previous thread, so that claim is immaterial. And you were wrong now by trying to justify the accusation by talking about his Muslim background that doesn't exist.

My counterargument was that you were wrong in your insinuation that people thought Obama to be a Muslim based solely on his race.

Your counterargument was his Muslim background. As has already been established, that doesn't exist. So you were wrong, making an immaterial claim. You later backpedaled AGAIN, by going from calling it his "Muslim background" to calling it an "association."

His association with Muslims is immaterial. You claimed that it made him more likely to be a Muslim and that immaterial claim is based on immaterial evidence.

Nope. In this discussion I countered your claim that people said Obama was a Muslim based solely on his race.

And that claim was immaterial, based on immaterial evidence.

I know you are struggling here and we all are struggling with you. But again I was not arguing here whether or not Obama is a Muslim. I was challenging your earlier insinuation that people suspected Obama as being a Muslim based solely on his race. Basically, you cried "raaaaacism". I called you on that.

Yes, and your immaterial counterargument was terrible and immaterial. We've already established that thanks to your fifty previous immaterial posts as well as your terrible arguments in the previous post, in which you immaterially claimed that the president was a Muslim.

If you want to argue about something in a previous thread, then go to that thread.

Again, I must have missed where evidence in a previous thread has to stay in that thread.

But as to whether or not Obambam is a Muslim, we'll probably know in a few months when he leaves office.

Is Obambam supposed to be a fusion of Obama and Bam Bam from The Flintstones? Do they need to do the Fusion Dance for that or Potara earrings?

We'll probably know too if he's heterosexual. We may see him coming out of a Mosque smoking a cigarette and holding hands with a guy (not that there's anything wrong with that).

If I bring up this comment in a future thread, I'm guessing you'll say "argue about it in the White Privilege thread!" while completely denying that you made the comment. I look forward to that.

 

[rturner76]

Yeah, cuz that's where the real dollars are at.

It's where the profit sharing is anyway and where decisions are made about 100's of millions of dollars.

 

[nightflight]

And as you were doing that, you backpedaled. We've already covered this. Your claim that you weren't backpedaling is immaterial because going from an assertion to "I don't know" is backpedaling.

You are going on the erroneous assumption that the topic of our discussion is whether or not *I* believe Obama is a Muslim, when in fact the topic is your insinuation that people who suspect Obama of being a Muslim are basing it on solely on his race, an assertion you made on page 54 post 1078.

I admitted no such error because no error was made, so your claim is immaterial. The error was made by your terrible counterargument, which was immaterial.

You initially insinuated that people who suspect Obama of being a Muslim are basing it on solely on his race, an assertion you made on page 54 post 1078. Later you added "ignorance" to it, probably because you saw how specious your earlier assertion was.

Your "immaterial" claim is immaterial.

I would agree if you were right.

You were wrong on both occasions. You were wrong when you said Obama was Muslim in a previous thread,

So go argue in that thread.

[/quote]so that claim is immaterial. And you were wrong now by trying to justify the accusation by talking about his Muslim background that doesn't exist.[/quote]

I was not trying to justify any such thing. You asserted on page 54 post 1078 that people who suspect Obama of being a Muslim are basing it on solely on his race, bringing up a hypothetical "white guy" who, you asserted, would not face such suspicions. My counter to that was Obama was more likely to be thought, whether right or wrong to be a Muslim because he has a background that includes Islam. That is not me saying he is or isn't. Its me saying that your assertion that people who suspect Obama of being a Muslim are basing it only on race is in error. If Obama had no background at all in Islam, the idea that he may be a Muslim wouldn't be brought up at all. No one would think of it. This is not hard to grasp.

Your counterargument was his Muslim background. As has already been established, that doesn't exist. So you were wrong, making an immaterial claim. You later backpedaled AGAIN, by going from calling it his "Muslim background" to calling it an "association."

"Many other Americans have Muslims in their families or have lived in a Muslim-majority country -- I know, because I am one of them," Obama said.

Obama administration officials acknowledged Wednesday that they have emphasized certain elements of the president's Muslim background as he prepares to deliver his speech.

"The background is appropriate in this speech," a senior administration official said. "It partially opens the door to dialogue. I don't think there's any question he has a unique background that has value."- http://www.foxnews.com/politics/200...openness-muslim-roots-ahead-egypt-speech.html

So yes, Obama does have Islam in his background. That's not to say he is or isn't a Muslim. But he has more of a background in Islam than your hypothetical "white guy" you referenced on page 54 post 1078, when you insinuated that people suspected Obama of being a Muslim solely on his race.

His association with Muslims is immaterial. You claimed that it made him more likely to be a Muslim and that immaterial claim is based on immaterial evidence.

No, I claimed it made it more likely that some would suspect him of being a Muslim, rather than the hypothetical "white guy" your referenced on page 54 post 1078. You made it about race, I called you on it. The rest is your deflection.

And that claim was immaterial, based on immaterial evidence.

Yes, your claim was quite immaterial. It has been throughout this discussion.

Yes, and your immaterial counterargument was terrible and immaterial. We've already established that thanks to your fifty previous immaterial posts as well as your terrible arguments in the previous post, in which you immaterially claimed that the president was a Muslim.

I claimed no such thing in this discussion; you are lying. I merely countered your insinuation which you made on page 54 post 1078 that people who suspected Obama of being a Muslim were basing it on solely on his race. Nowhere in this discussion did I insist or suggest that Obama IS a Muslim. Try again.

Again, I must have missed where evidence in a previous thread has to stay in that thread.

When its not pertinent to the discussion, as is the case here. You seem to think this is about *me*, when in fact its about your assertion on page 54 post 1078 that people who suspected Obama of being a Muslim were basing it on solely on his race.

Is Obambam supposed to be a fusion of Obama and Bam Bam from The Flintstones? Do they need to do the Fusion Dance for that or Potara earrings?

Obamabam, Oblabla, The Prog King........whatever you like.

If I bring up this comment in a future thread, I'm guessing you'll say "argue about it in the White Privilege thread!" while completely denying that you made the comment. I look forward to that.

I'm sure you will. You seem a bit obsessed with me.

 

[nightflight]

It's where the profit sharing is anyway and where decisions are made about 100's of millions of dollars.

Fill out an application and send in a resume. Its how things work.

 

[Rick Otto]

Fill out an application and send in a resume. Its how things work.

Know somebody who is a blood relative or be in-laws. It's called The Good Ol' Boys" network. It's how things really work, as opposed to how things are supposed to work.
I'm surprised you either didn't already know about this, or that you... what? Think as if ignoring the ugly side is somehow rising above it?
I can't figure you out sometimes.

LOL! I sure enjoyed reading your argument last "few" posts.
You guys suckered me into thinking it was going to be intelligent.

 

[Rick Otto]

Enthused?

Yeah. It heals the scars left by over indulgence in self righteous indignation and anger.
Just a thought.
Anxious?

 

[Rick Otto]

Yeah, cuz that's where the real dollars are at.

Real dollars are legally off shore where they can't help keep credit loose enough for small business to start up & operate.
Entertainingly flip remark, tho.

 

[Deviant Writer]

You are going on the erroneous assumption that the topic of our discussion is whether or not *I* believe Obama is a Muslim,

You do, and the rest of this conversation has been your deflection.

You initially insinuated that people who suspect Obama of being a Muslim are basing it on solely on his race, an assertion you made on page 54 post 1078. Later you added "ignorance" to it, probably because you saw how specious your earlier assertion was.

I added ignorance because ignorance is another reason.

I would agree if you were right.

I am right.

So go argue in that thread.

I'm good, thanks.

My counter to that was Obama was more likely to be thought, whether right or wrong to be a Muslim because he has a background that includes Islam. That is not me saying he is or isn't.

That is you insinuating it.

So yes, Obama does have Islam in his background.

He has Christianity in his background, which the social conservatives ignore.

That's not to say he is or isn't a Muslim.

Because you have already done that, and are denying it now.

You made it about race, I called you on it.

And your argument was terrible. We have already discussed this.

The rest is your deflection.

Saying race and then race and ignorance is not a deflection. Backpedaling from one thread to the other, denying the comments you made in a previous thread, while telling me to go to necro that old thread (that we both know you won't respond to anyway)--now that's a deflection.

I claimed no such thing in this discussion; you are lying. I merely countered your insinuation which you made on page 54 post 1078 that people who suspected Obama of being a Muslim were basing it on solely on his race. Nowhere in this discussion did I insist or suggest that Obama IS a Muslim. Try again.

Insults? Okay, I'm sorry that you being proven wrong is so aggravating but you certainly insisted that Obama was a Muslim. When you mentioned "my Muslim faith" and a myriad of other things that was absolutely you trying to paint the president as a Muslim. You don't have to explicitly say that, though of course you have already.

When its not pertinent to the discussion, as is the case here.

It's totally pertinent to the discussion. Whether or not Obama deserves to be called a Muslim, whether it's because of his race. You DO think Obama is a Muslim, whether or not you acknowledge your comments in a previous thread or not, and of course you would say it's not about his race. All Muslim conspiracy theorists would say its "not his race."

Obamabam, Oblabla, The Prog King........whatever you like.

I just call him Obama. Though I call Donald Trump, Drumpf, Dump, and [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse], and the Birther King.

I'm sure you will. You seem a bit obsessed with me.

The funny thing is, this comment doesn't insult me. In a future thread, you'll probably deny having said it, and tell me to come here to talk about it instead.

Anyways, we're pretty much done here, since you are stooping to insults. Obama obviously isn't a Muslim and whoever thinks otherwise is not that bright.

 

[Chesterton]

We'll see if they start allowing black employees in the front office

Look, racism in business or any competitive endeavor is self-defeating. For any given employer there is a finite pool of qualified people to hire. Take two employers, one racist and one not racist. The racist employer eliminates a portion of the available pool and in doing so he's shooting himself in the foot, because his competitor by not being racist will have access to the full pool of talent. Other things being equal, the racist cannot compete in the long run. It's a free market economic principle you can't get around.

 

[whatbogsends]

Know somebody who is a blood relative or be in-laws. It's called The Good Ol' Boys" network. It's how things really work, as opposed to how things are supposed to work.
I'm surprised you either didn't already know about this, or that you... what? Think as if ignoring the ugly side is somehow rising above it?
I can't figure you out sometimes.

Yes, that is how things work. Who you know is, and has been more important than what you know.

Those who get privilege because they are in The Good Ol' Boys network is a vanishingly small portion of "white people".

There was certainly systematic racism in our nations history, and there is no doubt that the repercussions of that racism impact social and economic outcomes today. That being said, much of the privilege today is associated from one's parents. Children of college educated parents significantly out-perform children of non-college educated parents. Children born into higher socioeconomic class significantly out-perform children born into lower socioeconomic class. Children born into stable, 2-parent households significantly out-perform children born into 1-parent households. The statistics for these racial indicators does, indeed, vary by race. That doesn't equate to disparate results today being due to racial bias, insomuch as it equates to economic and social advantages carried on by individual parents.

I support programs that help less fortunate people get opportunity. I support a system of meritocracy. I support laws and practices that treat people as people, regardless of race.

The arguments made that "because the outcomes for X race is worse than the outcomes for Y race, the only possible explanation is racial bias" is an argument based on an assumption, and ignores the larger context. Arguments that "because a large percentage of powerful people belong to X race, all people of X race have a privilege" are similarly flawed.

No one has addressed the explanation for the disparity of outcomes for whites playing in the NBA (hint, shifting the discussion into ownership of the NBA doesn't count as "addressing" the issue). Are they not getting drafted because there is racial bias against whites? Do whites not have the resources available to them to hire good coaches to outperform other racial groups? You have repeated the claim that there is no "real" difference between racial groups, then how do you explain that the disparate outcomes in certain areas favor other races besides whites?

 

[Chesterton]

No one has addressed the explanation for the disparity of outcomes for whites playing in the NBA (hint, shifting the discussion into ownership of the NBA doesn't count as "addressing" the issue). Are they not getting drafted because there is racial bias against whites?

YES! I absolutely know that is the case. I went to walk-on tryouts for an NBA team. Soon as they saw me, they told me I probably wasn't "NBA material", which is obviously code words for "you're a white guy". I know my rights, so I demanded further explanation, but all they could come up with were flimsy excuses like the fact that I'm five-foot-one, that my vertical leap can only be measured with highly specialized micro-measurement equipment, and such. As I was leaving, those bigots even had the nerve to accuse me of stealing, and I was humiliated by having to lift my shirt and show that it was in fact my belly and not a basketball. I belong on that team! It's racism I tell ya.

 

[nightflight]

You do, and the rest of this conversation has been your deflection.

Classic projection.

I added ignorance because ignorance is another reason.

Yes, after you were called out for your ridiculous insinuation. Just own it.

I am right.

Probably about a lot of things. But not this.

I'm good, thanks.

I don't blame you; integrity takes effort.

That is you insinuating it.

How could I be insinuating it when I said "whether right or wrong?" You really are struggling here.

He has Christianity in his background, which the social conservatives ignore.

Which is immaterial to this discussion.

Because you have already done that, and are denying it now.

Immaterial to the discussion. You said on page 54 post 1078 that people suspected Obama of being a Muslim based solely on his race. You said a hypothetical "white guy" wouldn't face such suspicions. I merely pointed out your error, being that if Obama didn't have some connection somehow with Islam the issue wouldn't even have been brought up; no one would think to bring it up.

And your argument was terrible. We have already discussed this.

Your argument was terrible, which is why later you added "ignorance" to your assessment that people suspected Obama of being a Muslim based on race alone, which you asserted on page 54 post 1078.

Saying race and then race and ignorance is not a deflection. Backpedaling from one thread to the other, denying the comments you made in a previous thread, while telling me to go to necro that old thread (that we both know you won't respond to anyway)--now that's a deflection.

You pivoted and didn't admit it. This was the basis of this whole discussion, not what I believe about Oblabla. You keep trying to make it about me when its about your statement on page 54 post 1078 where you asserted that people suspected Obama of being a Muslim based solely on his race.

Insults? Okay, I'm sorry that you being proven wrong is so aggravating but you certainly insisted that Obama was a Muslim. When you mentioned "my Muslim faith" and a myriad of other things that was absolutely you trying to paint the president as a Muslim. You don't have to explicitly say that, though of course you have already.

I was pointing out your error made on page 54 post 1078 where you asserted that people suspected Obama of being a Muslim based solely on his race.

It's totally pertinent to the discussion. Whether or not Obama deserves to be called a Muslim, whether it's because of his race. You DO think Obama is a Muslim, whether or not you acknowledge your comments in a previous thread or not, and of course you would say it's not about his race. All Muslim conspiracy theorists would say its "not his race."

What I think of Obama is immaterial to this discussion. You asserted on page 54 post 1078 that people suspected Obama of being a Muslim based solely on his race. I challenged that. You cried "raaaaacism" as progressives tend to do; I countered. You later added "ignorance" because you knew I was right. Just admit it; its okay.

I just call him Obama. Though I call Donald Trump, Drumpf, Dump, and [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse], and the Birther King.

I call him The Orange King.

The funny thing is, this comment doesn't insult me. In a future thread, you'll probably deny having said it, and tell me to come here to talk about it instead.

Why would you even bring it up? Are you going to say in a future thread "you accused me of being obsessed with you!!!!"

Yeah, that won't sound insane.

Anyways, we're pretty much done here, since you are stooping to insults. Obama obviously isn't a Muslim and whoever thinks otherwise is not that bright.

Whether or not Obama is a Muslim is immaterial to this discussion. You stated on page 54 post 1078 that people suspected Obama of being a Muslim solely on his race. I countered that by saying if Obama didn't have some connection to Islam in his background, the charge wouldn't exist at all; no on would think to make it. This is not to say that Obama is or isn't a Muslim. It is to say however your insinuation that people suspected Obama of being a Muslim based solely on race is wrong.

 

[rturner76]

Look, racism in business or any competitive endeavor is self-defeating. For any given employer there is a finite pool of qualified people to hire. Take two employers, one racist and one not racist. The racist employer eliminates a portion of the available pool and in doing so he's shooting himself in the foot, because his competitor by not being racist will have access to the full pool of talent. Other things being equal, the racist cannot compete in the long run. It's a free market economic principle you can't get around.

Major corporations get around it every day with their all white board rooms and HR departments

 

[nightflight]

better not.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Envy is sinful.

There are countless people who have far, far more than I every will simply because of their looks or family name. They've had it relatively easy compared to me. Should I envy them? Would my envy be excused by God? No and NO

 

[rturner76]

Envy is sinful.

There are countless people who have far, far more than I every will simply because of their looks or family name. They've had it relatively easy compared to me. Should I envy them? Would my envy be excused by God? No and NO

So. the standard of white privilege is ok to live by because it is envy to want equal treatment in a society and envy is bad? Is that what you are saying here?

 

[nightflight]

Dangit, I'm still white!

 

[nightflight]

bn