Jump to content
FraidoCat FraidoCat (Member)

Imagine. The Tea Party and White Privilege.

Politics   (6,042 Views 90 Comments)
4,008 Visitors; 499 Posts
If you find this topic helpful leave a comment.

You are reading page 3 of Imagine. The Tea Party and White Privilege.. If you want to start from the beginning Go to First Page.

Can't wait to read the responses on this topic, I imagine, you won't get any.lol If you do, the excuses will be rampant... hold on lemme get the popcorn.. Lov u Fraido.

i read the entire article, as well as the comments afterwards.

only a handful, were non-supportive.

overall, a very "empathetic" response.;)

tim wise rocks!

leslie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
when you're up to it, i'd be curious to hear other thoughts...

because for me, i can only see one perspective, which i already posted.

i'm always interested in expanding the mind.:)

leslie

Not aimed at you, leslie, but what's that saying? "some days it's not worth gnawing through the restraints." :idea:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read this a few days ago. It does call into question what I as a white American experience. I don't expect or experience discrimination when I go into any business or deal with any patient. I can see and hear the put downs directed towards others.

If I visit AZ for example I don't have to worry about a police officer making up a "valid reason" to stop me to check my papers as an alleged undocumented alien (Or stopping me if I allegedly did something as simple as missing a garbage can with a piece of litter or claiming I spit on the street.)

If I were olive skinned with brown eyes in Bemidji MN I would have to worry about being arrested just for looking like an ojibwe from Red Lake.

Because we don't walk in the shoes of the minority we don't always hear or see the subtle signs of racism used to deny opportunity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or, not to put too fine a point on what tnt said: "I've tried to see things your way, but I can't get my head that far up my ---":D

Seriously......I'm pretty sure most people have a very difficult time trying to get inside the heads of those with different belief systems, if indeed they bother to try at all. I don't imagine many do; after all, when you're a "normal" person, you can't very well relate to a serial killer or a child molester, can you?

Whenever I simply cannot understand where someone else is coming from, I figure that it's best to accept what is, instead of beating my head against the wall trying to convince others that MY way of thinking is the "correct" one. That's why I've stayed out of this thread until now, and why I'm going to back right off once I post this. It's taken me a lot of years, but I'm learning that sometimes, discretion IS the better part of valor and I just need to shut the heck up. ;) Peace out!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seriously......I'm pretty sure most people have a very difficult time trying to get inside the heads of those with different belief systems, if indeed they bother to try at all. I don't imagine many do; after all, when you're a "normal" person, you can't very well relate to a serial killer or a child molester, can you?

usually, i do understand the other perspective, but still don't agree.

sometimes i do, though...or, i see their point.

however, while i can't relate to a serial killer/child molester, sometimes i do wonder what made them into the bad seed they are...

obviously i think of horrific and ongoing child abuse, and am pretty certain many other "normal" folks wonder, as well.

and sometimes, i'll find myself feeling saddened at what they must've endured, yet still recognize they need to be taken out of society.

that said, i agree about discretion being better part of valor.

some things are just not worth our precious energy.:)

leslie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand where the ideologue left is coming from. I even agree with most of their goals.

I just don't agree with their methodology.

For example: I think the absolute most people possible should be provided with the most health care possible. Most on the left agree with me on this. We disagree in how that is done.

The free market, a true win-win exchange (and not the gov't coerced exchange that is called health care today) would do that for the most people, at the best price.

Socialized anything doesn't work. It's a race to the lowest common denominator instead of a call to excellence.

In 1983, the phone system was deregulated. Ma Bell died. Within a decade, cell phones made their debut. Today, my blackberry cell has internet, text and nationwide long dx for cheaper than my parents paid to RENT that black rotary dial 25 yrs ago. Better still. The poorest Americans have a cell phone. The market found a niche for every segment.

It's not that I'm not empathetic to the goals of most leftists: to better the lives of even the poorest people. I a conservative BECAUSE conservatism better accomplishes those goals. Not only do I share many of the concerns of the left, moreover, I propose methods that would actually accomplish those goals.

I'm not a 'compassionate conservative' - a stupid campaign slogan. I'm a conservative because conservatism IS COMPASSION.

Of course, it's easier to bash me as cruel and heartless (because I don't believe that government is the best method to help people, especially the poorest and most in need) in a discussion about an article about not seeing the other side of things. The irony, though, is thick. . .

I found the article very one-sided. Many of the "imagine" points have happened in reverse. For example, in AZ the protest crowds were throwing water bottles at cops and the media reported it as "righteous indignation". I attended and spoke a Tea Party on April 15th to a thousand well-heeled fellow citizens and many here think that alone makes me a terrorist or a racist.

Do you know what the definition of a racist is? Somebody that wins an argument with a liberal. . . That would be funny if it wasn't sad.

~faith,

Timothy.

Edited by ZASHAGALKA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Timothy, as usual I disagree with just about everything you say. I certainly don't understand your last line at all, was it supposed to be a joke?

BTW, ATT was a very happy monopoly (not a socialist entity) in 1983 and didn't out of the kindess of their heart split up. The government anti-trust folks forced it. Whether or not this fostered the eventual great phone you own is unknown because the folks in Asia were years ahead of us on that kind of stuff anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Timothy, as usual I disagree with just about everything you say. I certainly don't understand your last line at all, was it supposed to be a joke?

BTW, ATT was a very happy monopoly (not a socialist entity) in 1983 and didn't out of the kindess of their heart split up. The government anti-trust folks forced it. Whether or not this fostered the eventual great phone you own is unknown because the folks in Asia were years ahead of us on that kind of stuff anyway.

ATT was a government regulated monopoly. The gov't created the monopoly for Ma Bell and protected them, much as they have done with many health insurance companies today. The gov't didn't deregulate Ma Bell because the left thought it was the right thing to do. Ma Bell was deregulated because the REAGAN Justice Dept pursued it.

How does the gov't protect the current health insurance industry? Gov't tax breaks for employer provided insurance and lobby demands for "minimum coverage" ensures that the average insured person isn't the customer AND that policies are too expensive to be bought as an individual. These things are done on purpose to eliminate competition.

It's a win-win for gov't and the insurance industry to be in bed together.

1. The insurance companies win because they face no competition and gov't demanded inclusions allow them to charge much more for policies than they otherwise would on the free market. If you get health insurance from your employer, YOU ARE NOT THE CUSTOMER. Your employer is.

Car insurance companies know that the moment a claim is filed is the most important interaction they can have with their customer. If they screw up the customer service of a claim, that customer will tell 100 people about it.

But what if a health insurance company denies your claim? You aren't the customer, and neither are your peers to their insurance. It's not like anybody you tell can change their coverage based on your experience. Worse, denying your claim IS PROVIDING EXCELLENT CUSTOMER SERVICE - to the insurance company's customer: your employer, who will pay less in future coverage by your denial.

2. In exchange for assuring no competition for the insurance industry, the price of policies can be kept artificially high, allowing politicians to use those policies to cram in all their lobbyist charms that lead to mo' better campaign contributions.

This idea that the insurance company is the enemy is only a half-truth. They are the enemy because they are NOT free market based. They are a gov't protected racket. Crony Capitalism isn't capitalism, and it isn't the free market. There's a reason why the insurance companies signed on to Obamacare. Rhetoric aside, they are in bed together.

So. the solution to gov't interference is MORE gov't interference? Nice. Won't work, and will only make things worse. But, the beauty of that is that, in a decade, the left can say that more gov't interference making things so much worse means we need single payer. That will make things better. Not.

How does this relate to the thread? Many of the posters were patting their backs about how open and inclusive they are while hinting and not so subtly hinting that conservatives aren't like them in this respect. You know those conservatives have no empathy.

It couldn't possibly be that I believe that getting gov't out of the way is the more empathetic solution. No. I'm heartless. I get it.

How does that last line relate? The word 'racist' has been tossed around too cavalierly. I stand amazed that people ON THIS SITE that were so opposed to Pres. Bush and his policies cannot possibly imagine that my opposition to Pres. Obama could be based on my opposition to his policies. No. It must be race.

This President was supposed to usher in a post-racial era. Instead, everybody that disagrees with this Administration is a racist. THAT was the thrust of this thread. Imagine if those white tea party people weren't so racist; then they'd understand.

It's not a joke, Tweety. Anybody that doesn't sing Kumbaya to this Administration is a racist these days. That's fine, but then, the term racist no longer means what it used to mean, and it is no longer the rightful indictment that it should be.

The left should reserve the term for people that are racist and not everybody that disagrees with them on policy.

No. It wasn't so subtle that this thread was a racial accusation to anybody that doesn't agree with the left. Re-read the title. My opposition to socialism has to be based on 'white privilege'. Keep telling yourselves that.

Shame! I find it ironic that a thread supposed to be about the inability to see where others come from is so one-sided and blinded to where . . . others come from.

I, however, am far past being dissuaded in opposition by baseless accusations and innuendo. The elections thread on this site did that for me, over a year ago.

~faith,

Timothy.

Edited by ZASHAGALKA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow.

Reagan? Really? It was pursued for more years under a Democrat than Reagan, yet you're going to partisan that lawsuit with innuendo?

You're good.

And you're so wrong on many levels about why I liked this OP. That's all I have to say. But you typing many words about it sure makes you seem smart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How does this relate to the thread? Many of the posters were patting their backs about how open and inclusive they are while hinting and not so subtly hinting that conservatives aren't like them in this respect. You know those conservatives have no empathy.

It couldn't possibly be that I believe that getting gov't out of the way is the more empathetic solution. No. I'm heartless. I get it.

How does that last line relate? The word 'racist' has been tossed around too cavalierly. I stand amazed that people ON THIS SITE that were so opposed to Pres. Bush and his policies cannot possibly imagine that my opposition to Pres. Obama could be based on my opposition to his policies. No. It must be race.

This President was supposed to usher in a post-racial era. Instead, everybody that disagrees with this Administration is a racist. THAT was the thrust of this thread. Imagine if those white tea party people weren't so racist; then they'd understand.

It's not a joke, Tweety. Anybody that doesn't sing Kumbaya to this Administration is a racist these days. That's fine, but then, the term racist no longer means what it used to mean, and it is no longer the rightful indictment that it should be.

The left should reserve the term for people that are racist and not everybody that disagrees with them on policy.

No. It wasn't so subtle that this thread was a racial accusation to anybody that doesn't agree with the left. Re-read the title. My opposition to socialism has to be based on 'white privilege'. Keep telling yourselves that.

Shame! I find it ironic that a thread supposed to be about the inability to see where others come from is so one-sided and blinded to where . . . others come from.

I, however, am far past being dissuaded in opposition by baseless accusations and innuendo. The elections thread on this site did that for me, over a year ago.

~faith,

Timothy.

The purpose of this thread was to bring attention to the reality of white privilege in America. Not to label every conservative as a racist. There are many people who disagree with the Obama Administration for principled reasons, that's fine. However, there are many others who disagree with him for irrational reasons, like fear, stupidity and just plain racism.

Tim Wise did a good job in his article showing how white privilege and racism are alive and well in this country. Regardless the actual number of Tea-Partiers who are bigots, they are able to do the things they are doing because they benefit from white privilege. Do you actually think, that had the Tea-Partiers been black or maybe Muslims, protesting for a different cause the same way there would not have been problems? Of course there would be problems. If black people, for example, held large protests across the country and brought guns to them, there would be panic in the streets. You sir, have missed the point of this thread.

I think the informed citizen knows where Tea-Partiers are "coming from". One would have to be blind not to know, their PR firm, Fox News, has taken every opportunity to tell the nation about their cause. There was a poll done not long ago that shows who they are and what they stand for, they are predominantly:

-White

-Male

-Older than 45

-Wealthy

-Well-educated

-Conservative

-Angry

-Willfully ignorant of socialism.

And so, it's hard to believe the claims from the right that the tea-partiers are "diverse" and "bipartisan". There are elements of racism in the Tea-Party and they are benefitting from white-privilege.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shame! I find it ironic that a thread supposed to be about the inability to see where others come from is so one-sided and blinded to where . . . others come from.

That's an unfair and untrue presumption on your part, the fact that I disagree with your conservative stances doesn't mean I have an inability to see where you're coming from. I get where you're coming from, you eloquently state your case and some of the time I read them. (I didn't read the one above in it's entirity because I'm not interested any more in your objection to the "socialist agenda" of health care. That's old news to me.).

Also, I disagree with those whom posted that conservative can't be empathetic. That's not fair either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's an unfair and untrue presumption on your part, the fact that I disagree with your conservative stances doesn't mean I have an inability to see where you're coming from. I get where you're coming from, you eloquently state your case and some of the time I read them. (I didn't read the one above in it's entirity because I'm not interested any more in your objection to the "socialist agenda" of health care. That's old news to me.).

Also, I disagree with those whom posted that conservative can't be empathetic. That's not fair either.

I was responding to parts of what you said, but as has happened numerous times in the past, I wasn't aiming at you, personally.

I was directing the comments in question to the presumption that conservatives aren't empathetic. As you said, you addressed that also.

~faith,

Timothy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
×

This site uses cookies. By using this site, you consent to the placement of these cookies. Read our Privacy, Cookies, and Terms of Service Policies to learn more.