Cynthia McKinney website allows Racial Slurs

page: 7
1
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 10:18 PM
link   
df1, you are adding to this thread as much as anyone else right now. You, Ceci and I. Unless we're the agenda-driven Republicans you speak of, I don't think your theory holds water.

Plus, if you want to do a search for yourself, you'll find many threads on the above-mentioned white racists.

Jesus, what is your point? ATS members don't think with one mind. Maybe they're more upset about McKinney slugging somebody. Maybe there were much fewer members when those threads were started. I certainly don't know. Maybe the political climate was different then. I wasn't around then.

McKinney is having her day. In 3 years, we can look back and say she 'had her day'.

If you wish to believe that people tolerate white racists more than black racists, go ahead. If you think everyone has an agenda, think that.
I don't want to change your mind.




posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 10:32 PM
link   
df1 pointed out through his wisdom the complexities of racism. Racism is not as simplistic as others seem to paint it.

The problem is that some people, when claiming others are "screaming about race" and "playing victimhood", often forget that when they do the same thing against someone they think is racist. That is hypocrisy. That is something that happens regardless of race.

That is why honesty is important. I think this issue about racism would be better served, if the author just went right out and said his perceptions of race on another thread instead of using Ms. McKinney as a "straw man" because of her web site.

And also, accepting Greg Palast's comments and condeming them, plays a part of "identity issues" and racism.

It is quite different when someone of the same race says something against his/her race than someone who speaks negatively about another race.

Maybe there is shame in the acknowledgement that Greg Palast said these things?




[edit on 4-7-2006 by ceci2006]



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 03:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by df1
The operative words are " had their day". The total number of thread pages in these links devoted to the other racists totaled less than 4 thread pages. Yet the mckinney thread drones on day after day, soon to exceed 7 thread pages by itself.

Are ATS members more tolerant of white racists than they are of black of racists? Without factoring in partisan politics this would appear to be the case.
.

Well, that is one really simplistic, knee-jerk conclusion to reach. But if it fits your agenda, go for it.



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 01:42 PM
link   
Unfortunately, df1 doesn't have an agenda. He is making an astute observation about the tolerance level and apology given to a particular brand of racism opposed to another.

He is asking a question of fairness that is almost always overlooked and sometimes misconstrued--if the person embraces a simplistic view about racism.

The question is whether it is true or not. He put out evidence. And he made a fascinating observation about the length of threads devoted to white racists opposed to black ones.

And in contribution to this wonderful and astute observation, I ask who are the first ones to claim victimhood around here--when especially attacking Black politicians? And of course, when victimhood is espoused, why is it Cynthia McKinney the first one to take the brunt of accusations? Surely she is not the flavor of the month all the time. I could name a few others that the usual suspects implement as the "straw man" too.

And for those who claim "victimhood", why are they so ashamed to acknowledge the apparent "racism" (by BH's bar) by Greg Palast against his own people? Does it hurt to be a victim against your own race when regards to racism?

Or does "victimhood" only work when it has to do with Black racism against whites?

I think it contributes highly to df1's observation that there is more tolerance for white racists opposed to black racists.

Could it be because people don't adequately know the degrees of racism involved when making such a determination? Or do they all have "low bars" of tolerance? Or do they just use Black politicians as a scapegoat for their own inherent racism?


And in light of the title of the thread, I would submit that even some would have to hate and lose respect for themselves because they had played the "race card" too.

It certainly does mean that there are "identity issues" to deal with.


[edit on 5-7-2006 by ceci2006]



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 02:16 PM
link   
df1 brought up the agenda. (Supposedly a republican driven agenda to keep this thread at the top of the ATSNN page) Since none of us are republicans, I don't think it's valid.

I believe the first one to claim victimhood was Cynthia McKinney.

I don't think anyone is afraid to acknowledge racism by Palast. That's your assumption and your words. Just because someone doesn't say so here, doesn't mean they're afraid to do so. What's to be afraid of?

Your assumptions of other people playing the race card are ridiculous. You have no indication that that has happened. You're just making stuff up. Ditto on your assumption about "identity issues" whatever that is.

If anyone here is racist, they owe no explanation to you about it. It doesn't mean they're afraid or have issues. They just don't wish to talk with you about it.



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 02:37 PM
link   
Probably so. But that doesn't stop me from asking questions again.

I just simply ask them. And if people answer them, good. If they don't, oh well.

But I what I asked is legitimate and I hope that someone has the candor of answering it. If not, so be it.

But, I think it is about the shame of condemning someone of the same race over their racist remarks. Or else someone would have condemned Greg Palast for his racism by now.


It's not ridiculous to talk about "identity issues". Greg Palast certainly has them if he is making these derogatory remarks against his race. And of course, the people who would criticize Ms. McKinney by guilt by association would have them as well because they mistakenly assume she made the comments even though she didn't.

There are identity issues at play here. Who is an "accepted" victim and who isn't?

Obviously, Black people aren't "accepted" victims because they are being accused of using the "race card" all the time. White people are "accepted victims" because affirmative action, Cynthia McKinney and reverse racism terrify them to pieces.

It seems there is a double standard about "victimhood" and who claims it. And there is a hypocrisy about giving empathy to a particular race of "victims".

Or it could be that people like to shove the days of Jim Crow under the rug and play at having a "color blind" society while nurting their own inherent racism about accepting "certain victims" and accusing others of "victimhood".

It's not ludicous at all. It's very legitimate. And it smacks of racism all the way--by your low bar of tolerance.






[edit on 5-7-2006 by ceci2006]



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by ceci2006
you have to argue whether the fetus has any life during the
early stages of conception when abortion is allowed.


WRONG (again).

Abortion is allowed at ALL stages of pregnancy. Not 'just' early stages.
And there is no question that there is life at all stages. The unborn child
even has a beating heart within the first few weeks.


aborted fetuses regardless of race aren't barred from any social institution.


You missed the point.

Abortion is black genocide. McKinney supports it. Jesse Jackson
even said so. He said that any black person who supported abortion
had 'sold out' because it was black genocide. Now that he's rich,
he supports it. Guess he sold out too.

www.blackgenocide.org...



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 02:40 PM
link   
What about the controversy about partial birth abortions? Ms. McKinney voted against that.

And besides, this is not even about abortion anymore. And it is not legitimate in terms of discussing it here. That part of conversation is long over.

Now, there are other issues to be asked:

Such as df1's question whether ATS members are more tolerant of white racists rather than black racists.



[edit on 5-7-2006 by ceci2006]



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky

© Cynthia McKinney 2006. All rights reserved.
www.cynthiaforcongress.com...


It all comes down to this. It is HER website. She is responsible
for it. She allows racial slurs. That is bigotry. It falls on her shoulders.
It's that simple.

Tony Snow DID NOT make a racial slur. He used the term 'tar baby'
in a completely NON RACIAL context that anyone with even half an
education would understand.


Tar Baby has more than one meaning. It was OBVIOUSLY used in the
intellectual context. However, the anti-white slurs on McKinneys site
have only one meaning - anti-white bigotry.

It's her web site. It represents her. She's ultimately resonsible.
No amount of blah blah blahing will change that. End of story.



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by ceci2006
Such as df1's question whether ATS members are more tolerant of white racists rather than black racists.


Take a poll. You cannot group "ATS members" all together as one. Any more than you can group all black people together as one. I'll answer for me. I am not more tolerant of any race being racist. Check out my posts in the past of people being racist against blacks. I become pretty livid at times.

And FF has the base down. McKinney is responsible. Snow didn't use the term racially. If Palast had said he likes to eat crackers in his chili, we wouldn't be having this conversation.



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by ceci2006
What about the controversy about partial birth abortions?
Ms. McKinney voted against that.

Good for her. Too bad she can't see that earlier abortion is murdering
tens of millions of other children as well. Perhaps there is hope for her yet.


And it is not legitimate in terms of discussing it here.
That part of conversation is long over.


You don't have any authority to decide what is 'legitimate' and what
isn't legitimate for discussion - on here or on any other thread.

Conversations on threads aren't 'long over' when there are still aspects
to be discussed.

Conversations on threads aren't 'long over' when they take place over
a holiday weekend when people are floating in and out.

The FACT that many people, of all races, see abortion
as black genocide is definately something that SHOULD be discussed.

YOU have no authority whatsovever to decide what is legitimate discussion
and what is open for discussion or not. The FACT that abortion is black
genocide and that McKinney supports it was brought up and is absolutely
something that is valuable information - even though you don't like it.

You didn't even look at the facts did you?? tsk tsk tsk
www.blackgenocide.org...



[edit on 7/5/2006 by FlyersFan]



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
McKinney is responsible. Snow didn't use the term racially. If Palast had said he likes to eat crackers in his chili, we wouldn't be having this conversation.


That's it in a nut shell. Anything else is just noise and diversion attempts.
There isn't anything else to say is there BH? McKinney is responsible
for her website. Case closed.



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 02:57 PM
link   
Whatever you say. We're not talking about Tony Snow anymore as well.

We're talking about White shame and victimhood--especially when applying scapegoats.

I think that White people are probably more vicious about being racist against their own than other races. And I also think in light of this, people would blame Ms. McKinney because she is convenient to do so. And they would use the hypocrisy of victimhood to do it.

When you have been part of the power structure for so long, it is hard when someone coming from that same power structure says something racist and hurtful to his/her own.

The only way to cover this shame is to proclaim a scapegoat of another color.

It isn't new. Susan Smith and Charles Stuart did it too.


[edit on 5-7-2006 by ceci2006]



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 02:59 PM
link   
I see McKinney as responsible. But some don't and they're entitled to their opinion. I also see Palast as responsible for his words. I do not hold McKinney responsible for saying the words, but I think they both share responsibility. And she's at the top of the chain, so I think she should do something about it unless she wants people to continue to think she has race issues. This isn't the first indication (by far) that she has racist tendencies.



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 03:01 PM
link   
But do you think Greg Palast ought to be condemned for calling other White people a derogatory name?

Or are you only willing to embrace your victimhood against Blacks who are racist against whites?



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by ceci2006
We're talking about White shame and victimhood--especially when applying scapegoats.


WTF is "White shame" now?
and who is the victim of whom you speak?



I think that White people are probably more vicious about being racist against their own than other races.


Yeah, those white people... You know how they are...




posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by ceci2006
But do you think Greg Palast ought to be condemned for calling other White people a derogatory name?


Yes. And I have condemned him 3 times now in this thread, at least!



Or are you only willing to embrace your victimhood against Blacks who are racist against whites?


My victimhood??? I'm no victim. I don't go there. I don't know what you're talking about.



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 03:05 PM
link   
I realize that you may feel like a victim whenever racism against blacks occurs, but I don't have that mindset. I refuse to be victimized. I am not a victim regardless of who is racist toward whom. You have a lot of nerve throwing that particular accusation around.



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 03:06 PM
link   
Well isn't it true? Greg Palast didn't mince words when he used hurtful terminology that the author and others found offensive.

But of course, the anger wasn't turned toward him. It was turned toward Cynthia McKinney because of her web site.

The true anger isn't about her at all. The frustration is being placed in a subjugated position by another White person. It's a question of power here as well.

It's about people not being able to criticize their own race on bigotry.

For me, Cynthia McKinney could be as bigoted as Archie Bunker for all I care. I acknowledge and accept that.

But "victimhood" is something that everyone plays at being. Some are more forthcoming about their "victimhood" than others, however.

And I am not a victim about White racism against Blacks. You have a lot of nerve throwing that around about me. I simply ask questions and proactively try to debate the issue. It's up to others to discuss it with me.







[edit on 5-7-2006 by ceci2006]



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by ceci2006
Well isn't it true? Greg Palast didn't mince words when he used hurtful terminology that the author and other found offensive.


Isn't what true? I'm afraid you've totally lost me on the victim thing.

And I have computer problems so if I suddenly disappear, it's because my computer stopped.



The true anger isn't about her at all.

It's about people not being able to criticize their own race for bigotry.


I don't buy that. The anger was about her hypocricy. She played the race card (implying that it's NOT ok to be racist) then she turned around and allows the racist slur on her site. THAT'S what the anger (if you want to call it that) is about.





new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join