If Republicans aren't racist, why did they nominate Paladino in New York? - Page 2

The Charnel Expanse · 23rd September 2010, 10:41 AM

Originally Posted by DJW

Actually, if you were to make the claim in the OP that Republicans must be into bestiality, you might see the absurdity of the original claim.

Guilt by association/insinuation has always been fair game in American politics.

Neally · 23rd September 2010, 10:47 AM

Originally Posted by Unabogie

But you can conclude that racism is not disqualifying among Republicans. That Republican voters are willing to vote for a person even though that person is a blatant racist. And that is the charitable interpretation of their vote.

And this isn't disturbing to you?

Did every person, or even a majority that voted for him know about his emails? Did they all define him as a racist and vote for him despite or because of it?

Unabogie · 23rd September 2010, 10:54 AM

Originally Posted by Neally

Did every person, or even a majority that voted for him know about his emails? Did they all define him as a racist and vote for him despite or because of it?

You mean they failed to know the first thing about the guy they voted for? With Republicans that's often a safe bet, but is woeful ignorance really a defense for voting in a racist?

I don't think so, do you?

Accidental Martyr · 23rd September 2010, 10:58 AM

Originally Posted by Neally

Did every person, or even a majority that voted for him know about his emails? Did they all define him as a racist and vote for him despite or because of it?

Probably not every person, but I live in Alabama and I knew about it. I would think people in New York would know about it.

Marquis de Carabas · 23rd September 2010, 11:00 AM

Originally Posted by Unabogie

But you can conclude that racism is not disqualifying among Republicans. That Republican voters are willing to vote for a person even though that person is a blatant racist. And that is the charitable interpretation of their vote.

And this isn't disturbing to you?

It's possibly disturbing. Not knowing the full platforms of Palladrino and his opponents, it's tough to say. So far as I know, they could be worse. Further, enjoying racially themed humor does not necessarily mean he would endorse and enact racist policies, though it is a huge red flag. The fact that he, as a politician seeking public office, forwarded the emails shows a horrible lack of judgment that, truthfully, would dissuade me from voting for him more so than the actual content of the emails would.

johnny karate · 23rd September 2010, 11:02 AM

Originally Posted by Neally

Did every person, or even a majority that voted for him know about his emails? Did they all define him as a racist and vote for him despite or because of it?

So you're argument is that the Republicans who voted for Paladino weren't necessarily racist, just stupid?

JoeTheJuggler · 23rd September 2010, 11:09 AM

Originally Posted by DJW

Actually, if you were to make the claim in the OP that Republicans must be into bestiality, you might see the absurdity of the original claim.

But the original claim is substantiated. Surely you're not saying the claim in the OP equivalent to a baseless claim?

And again, repeating a racist joke does actually make one a racist unless there is some other context of disapproval (such as providing an example of an offensive and racist joke in the context of an anthropological or sociological paper perhaps).

JoeTheJuggler · 23rd September 2010, 11:12 AM

Originally Posted by The Charnel Expanse

Guilt by association/insinuation has always been fair game in American politics.

What what what?
What association or insinuation are you talking about?

The guy actually e-mailed a racist cartoon. Not someone he knew or a friend of a friend, but Paladino himself. It was an overt act of racism. There really is no room for spin on this point.

DJW · 23rd September 2010, 11:14 AM

Originally Posted by johnny karate

So you're argument is that the Republicans who voted for Paladino weren't necessarily racist, just stupid?

Or at the very least ignorant. Frankly, though, most of the electorate seems ignorant in one way, shape or form.

DJW · 23rd September 2010, 11:19 AM

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

But the original claim is substantiated. Surely you're not saying the claim in the OP equivalent to a baseless claim?

And again, repeating a racist joke does actually make one a racist unless there is some other context of disapproval (such as providing an example of an offensive and racist joke in the context of an anthropological or sociological paper perhaps).

The OP is claiming that Republicans must be racist because they voted for the guy. My opinion is that that is a baseless smear, much as it would be if the OP claimed that the Republicans are into bestiality (we know that's the green party anyway).

Also, I don't believe that repeating a racist joke makes one a racist automatically. Humorless? Crass? Dumb? Sure.

Unabogie · 23rd September 2010, 11:24 AM

Originally Posted by DJW

The OP is claiming that Republicans must be racist because they voted for the guy. My opinion is that that is a baseless smear, much as it would be if the OP claimed that the Republicans are into bestiality (we know that's the green party anyway).

Also, I don't believe that repeating a racist joke makes one a racist automatically. Humorless? Crass? Dumb? Sure.

"Run, *******, run".

Not automatically racist to you? You have an unusually high bar for this, apparently.

Accidental Martyr · 23rd September 2010, 11:26 AM

Originally Posted by DJW

The OP is claiming that Republicans must be racist because they voted for the guy. My opinion is that that is a baseless smear, much as it would be if the OP claimed that the Republicans are into bestiality (we know that's the green party anyway).

Also, I don't believe that repeating a racist joke makes one a racist automatically. Humorless? Crass? Dumb? Sure.

What would you consider as evidence that someone is a racist?

DJW · 23rd September 2010, 11:29 AM

Originally Posted by Unabogie

"Run, ni**ers, run".

Not automatically racist to you? You have an unusually high bar for this, apparently.

"Don't move or the ****** gets it". No, Mel Brooks is not a racist.

mumblethrax · 23rd September 2010, 11:31 AM

Originally Posted by DJW

The OP is claiming that Republicans must be racist because they voted for the guy. My opinion is that that is a baseless smear, much as it would be if the OP claimed that the Republicans are into bestiality (we know that's the green party anyway).

Condoning racism is generally taken as a sign of racism, and I think that's an understandable inference, given it's seriousness.

Condoning bestiality is not generally taken as a sign of bestiality. I don't think this comparison works to indemnify Paladino against charges of racism.

DJW · 23rd September 2010, 11:33 AM

Originally Posted by Accidental Martyr

What would you consider as evidence that someone is a racist?

Proof that he believes that a race of people are inferior to his race. He may have found the stuff funny but not believe that black people are inferior to white people. Also, membership in a racist organization would be evidence to me.

johnny karate · 23rd September 2010, 11:34 AM

Originally Posted by DJW

Also, I don't believe that repeating a racist joke makes one a racist automatically. Humorless? Crass? Dumb? Sure.

This guy was a Tea Party candidate and we have been told repeatedly over the last year that the Tea Party not only isn't a racist organization, but that they will not tolerate racism of any kind.

Originally Posted by DJW

Or at the very least ignorant. Frankly, though, most of the electorate seems ignorant in one way, shape or form.

Kind of hard to take a firm stance on a "no toleration" policy if they're going to be willfully ignorant, isn't it? A simple search on Google News before Paladino won the primary would not only reveal that he sent those racist e-mails, but also establish he didn't even deny doing so.

JoeTheJuggler · 23rd September 2010, 11:35 AM

Originally Posted by DJW

The OP is claiming that Republicans must be racist because they voted for the guy.

No it isn't. It's asking how Republicans can nominate an overtly racist candidate if they aren't racist themselves. The OP ends with several such questions. If they're not racist, why aren't they denouncing this candidate?

So far, the most credible answer is that either they are also racist or they are ignorant of Paladino's racism. I don't think it's possible to argue successfully that they are not racist but they endorse a known racist candidate. I think it's legitimate to argue that if such overt racism in a candidate isn't important to you, you're probably racist.

JoeTheJuggler · 23rd September 2010, 11:36 AM

Originally Posted by johnny karate

This guy was a Tea Party candidate and we have been told repeatedly over the last year that the Tea Party not only isn't a racist organization, but that they will not tolerate racism of any kind.

Exactly!

JoeTheJuggler · 23rd September 2010, 11:39 AM

Originally Posted by DJW

Proof that he believes that a race of people are inferior to his race. He may have found the stuff funny but not believe that black people are inferior to white people. Also, membership in a racist organization would be evidence to me.

Sorry, but this is absurd. You don't think a cartoon that uses a highly-offensive racist slur (one that cannot even be repeated in most circumstances) and makes fun of someone based on race is not evidence of racism?

DJW · 23rd September 2010, 11:39 AM

Originally Posted by mumblethrax

Condoning racism is generally taken as a sign of racism, and I think that's an understandable inference, given it's seriousness.

Condoning bestiality is not generally taken as a sign of bestiality. I don't think this comparison works to indemnify Paladino against charges of racism.

I don't really see the difference. What if the OP stated that republicans must be perverts for voting for this guy?

Accidental Martyr · 23rd September 2010, 11:40 AM

Originally Posted by DJW

Proof that he believes that a race of people are inferior to his race. He may have found the stuff funny but not believe that black people are inferior to white people. Also, membership in a racist organization would be evidence to me.

So he has to unequivocally state that he thinks African-Americans are inferior to Caucasians, and show proof he is a member of the KKK, Aryan Nation or some other organization? His actions have no basis on your determination as to whether he is a racist?

AlBell · 23rd September 2010, 11:42 AM

Maybe voters agree with his platform.

http://paladinoforthepeople.com/about.php

The Charnel Expanse · 23rd September 2010, 11:44 AM

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

What what what?
What association or insinuation are you talking about?

The guy actually e-mailed a racist cartoon. Not someone he knew or a friend of a friend, but Paladino himself. It was an overt act of racism. There really is no room for spin on this point.

I'm talking about the people who voted for him.

JoeTheJuggler · 23rd September 2010, 11:45 AM

Originally Posted by AlBell

Maybe voters agree with his platform.

Even so, if they know he's a racist, they're at least willing to ignore the racism. You don't think that's a problem?

I wouldn't vote for someone no matter how much I agreed with his platform if I knew he was an overt racist like this. (Of course, I also doubt very much I would agree with the platform of an overt racism.)

JoeTheJuggler · 23rd September 2010, 11:46 AM

Originally Posted by The Charnel Expanse

I'm talking about the people who voted for him.

OK, then what's the association or insinuation there? We're talking about the people who actually voted for an overt racist, not someone who associated with someone who voted for him.

And again, the question is, if they're not racist, why didn't they renounce this candidate rather than vote for him in the primary?

DJW · 23rd September 2010, 11:47 AM

I don't tell racial jokes, and I don't forward idiotic e-mail, so I really don't know why my knickers are in a twist over this. It just seems wrong to come to the conclusion that the voters were racists.

mumblethrax · 23rd September 2010, 11:50 AM

Originally Posted by DJW

I don't really see the difference. What if the OP stated that republicans must be perverts for voting for this guy?

I say, "Probably not," for the reasons I've already spelled out. There is an expectation that candidates and voters will repudiate racism which just doesn't exist with bestiality.

DJW · 23rd September 2010, 11:50 AM

Originally Posted by Accidental Martyr

So he has to unequivocally state that he thinks African-Americans are inferior to Caucasians, and show proof he is a member of the KKK, Aryan Nation or some other organization? His actions have no basis on your determination as to whether he is a racist?

I think that if you're going to label someone a racist, then you need to get more evidence than forwarding racially insensitive e-mail.

johnny karate · 23rd September 2010, 11:51 AM

Originally Posted by AlBell

Maybe voters agree with his platform.

These are the same people who have rather indignantly informed us they will not tolerate racism of any kind.

Why have they made an exception for Paladino?

JoeTheJuggler · 23rd September 2010, 11:51 AM

Originally Posted by DJW

I don't really see the difference. What if the OP stated that republicans must be perverts for voting for this guy?

So if the guy was a known pedophile and the voters nominated him, you wouldn't have a problem with it?

I see you're quibbling over the very question the OP is asking. If they're not racist, at the very least they don't mind supporting a racist candidate (or they're ignorant of the guy's racism). This is contrary to claims made that they do not tolerate racism. In fact, I think it's a great big lie and that there is widespread racism.

Anyway, I don't buy the argument that there is such a thing as a sort of pro-choice non-racist (someone who isn't racist, but doesn't mind racism in candidates he supports).

JoeTheJuggler · 23rd September 2010, 11:53 AM

Originally Posted by DJW

I think that if you're going to label someone a racist, then you need to get more evidence than forwarding racially insensitive e-mail.

Sorry, but you cannot spin an overtly racist e-mail as "racially insensitive".

The guy was essentially repeating racist jokes. That is evidence that he is racist.

johnny karate · 23rd September 2010, 11:58 AM

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

The guy was essentially repeating racist jokes.

And just as a point of clarification, there are "racist jokes" and then there's racism couched as a joke that only racists think is funny.

A plane crashing in Africa with the caption "Run ****** Run" is clearly the latter.

The Charnel Expanse · 23rd September 2010, 12:00 PM

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

OK, then what's the association or insinuation there? We're talking about the people who actually voted for an overt racist, not someone who associated with someone who voted for him.

And again, the question is, if they're not racist, why didn't they renounce this candidate rather than vote for him in the primary?

The answer to that question is probably similar to the one to the question of why it took Obama such a long time to repudiate and distance himself from Jeremiah Wright. Probably some combination of ignorance as to the nature of the character of the man in question, and willingness to overlook the more foul aspects of his character because they found other things about him appealing.

The bottom line is that if you're going to make inferences about people based on the company they keep or how they vote, you're putting a pretty heavy burden of proof on yourself to show that such associations are actually damning.

DJW · 23rd September 2010, 12:01 PM

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

So if the guy was a known pedophile and the voters nominated him, you wouldn't have a problem with it?

I see you're quibbling over the very question the OP is asking. If they're not racist, at the very least they don't mind supporting a racist candidate (or they're ignorant of the guy's racism). This is contrary to claims made that they do not tolerate racism. In fact, I think it's a great big lie and that there is widespread racism.

Anyway, I don't buy the argument that there is such a thing as a sort of pro-choice non-racist (someone who isn't racist, but doesn't mind racism in candidates he supports).

I believe I already made the point that he wouldn't have gotten my vote. I do have a problem with his actions. We'll have to discuss the widespread racism at a later date, because I have to go. Regardless, this has been a thought provoking thread for me. Thanks all. Cheers.

AlBell · 23rd September 2010, 12:06 PM

Originally Posted by johnny karate

These are the same people who have rather indignantly informed us they will not tolerate racism of any kind.

Perhaps some didn't get the memo. Or, they define racism differently.

Quote:

Why have they made an exception for Paladino?

Back to the platform they agree with. And/or individual voters saw nothing to take exception with.

dudalb · 23rd September 2010, 12:08 PM

Originally Posted by The Charnel Expanse

The answer to that question is probably similar to the one to the question of why it took Obama such a long time to repudiate and distance himself from Jeremiah Wright. Probably some combination of ignorance as to the nature of the character of the man in question, and willingness to overlook the more foul aspects of his character because they found other things about him appealing.

The bottom line is that if you're going to make inferences about people based on the company they keep or how they vote, you're putting a pretty heavy burden of proof on yourself to show that such associations are actually damning.

We agree on something...........

Unabogie · 23rd September 2010, 12:15 PM

Originally Posted by The Charnel Expanse

The answer to that question is probably similar to the one to the question of why it took Obama such a long time to repudiate and distance himself from Jeremiah Wright. Probably some combination of ignorance as to the nature of the character of the man in question, and willingness to overlook the more foul aspects of his character because they found other things about him appealing.

The bottom line is that if you're going to make inferences about people based on the company they keep or how they vote, you're putting a pretty heavy burden of proof on yourself to show that such associations are actually damning.

But there's a huge distinction you're missing. You're conflating the sin of omission (which is failing to repudiate someone you know) with the sin of commission (actively forwarding racist emails to others). That isn't about Paladino's associations, it's about his actions.

In this case, the voters had a clear choice between Lazio and a racist and they chose the racist. And now, they have a clear choice between Cuomo and the racist and they're still choosing the racist.

JoeTheJuggler · 23rd September 2010, 12:15 PM

Originally Posted by DJW

"Don't move or the ****** gets it". No, Mel Brooks is not a racist.

See my earlier post. If you use the insult or slur in a context that doesn't express approval, it is not evidence of racism. That is NOT the case with the e-mails Paladino forwarded.

JoeTheJuggler · 23rd September 2010, 12:18 PM

Originally Posted by AlBell

Perhaps some didn't get the memo. Or, they define racism differently.

Language works by convention. You can't define "racism" to be something other than what it is (not honestly, anyway).

Quote:

Back to the platform they agree with. And/or individual voters saw nothing to take exception with.

Exactly. Individual voters apparently condone racism and agree with (or at least don't object to) his platform.

JoeTheJuggler · 23rd September 2010, 12:21 PM

Originally Posted by Unabogie

But there's a huge distinction you're missing. You're conflating the sin of omission (which is failing to repudiate someone you know) with the sin of commission (actively forwarding racist emails to others). That isn't about Paladino's associations, it's about his actions.

Exactly. It would be quite a different matter if Obama gave Wright a political appointment. (Trying to think of something analogous to voting for a racist.)

Can we at least all agree that no one is committing guilt by association here?

(When I tried this before, the discussion shifted back and forth from Paladino's racism to the question of racism among Republican voters. Either way, no one is committing guilt by association. Voting for someone is also an action not an association.)

23rd September 2010, 10:41 AM	#41
The Charnel Expanse Muse Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: The Transition Hospital Posts: 940	Originally Posted by DJW Actually, if you were to make the claim in the OP that Republicans must be into bestiality, you might see the absurdity of the original claim. Guilt by association/insinuation has always been fair game in American politics.
	__________________ Nature abhors a vacuum, which is why my dog barks at the roomba. "I nominate The Charnel Expanse as the greatest poster in the history of the Internet." - - johnny karate

23rd September 2010, 10:47 AM	#42
Neally Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 3,101	Originally Posted by Unabogie But you can conclude that racism is not disqualifying among Republicans. That Republican voters are willing to vote for a person even though that person is a blatant racist. And that is the charitable interpretation of their vote. And this isn't disturbing to you? Did every person, or even a majority that voted for him know about his emails? Did they all define him as a racist and vote for him despite or because of it?
Neally Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 3,101

23rd September 2010, 10:58 AM	#44
Accidental Martyr Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Treading water in a sea of retarded sexuality and bad poetry. Posts: 1,852	Originally Posted by Neally Did every person, or even a majority that voted for him know about his emails? Did they all define him as a racist and vote for him despite or because of it? Probably not every person, but I live in Alabama and I knew about it. I would think people in New York would know about it.
	__________________ "Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith, I consider a capacity for it terrifying and absolutely vile!" Kurt Vonnegut

23rd September 2010, 11:00 AM	#45
Marquis de Carabas Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: vuori Posts: 27,106	Originally Posted by Unabogie But you can conclude that racism is not disqualifying among Republicans. That Republican voters are willing to vote for a person even though that person is a blatant racist. And that is the charitable interpretation of their vote. And this isn't disturbing to you? It's possibly disturbing. Not knowing the full platforms of Palladrino and his opponents, it's tough to say. So far as I know, they could be worse. Further, enjoying racially themed humor does not necessarily mean he would endorse and enact racist policies, though it is a huge red flag. The fact that he, as a politician seeking public office, forwarded the emails shows a horrible lack of judgment that, truthfully, would dissuade me from voting for him more so than the actual content of the emails would.
	__________________ Jesus ... wasn't he the bloke who turned fish into wine and made the lepers multiply? -KateHL Violence is more acceptable than incest. I have been told to keep this in mind.

23rd September 2010, 11:02 AM	#46
johnny karate ... and your little dog too. Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 7,830	Originally Posted by Neally Did every person, or even a majority that voted for him know about his emails? Did they all define him as a racist and vote for him despite or because of it? So you're argument is that the Republicans who voted for Paladino weren't necessarily racist, just stupid?
	__________________ Lost your faith in humanity? Click here to have it restored. Or here.

23rd September 2010, 10:54 AM	#43
Unabogie Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Portland, OR Posts: 5,857	Originally Posted by Neally Did every person, or even a majority that voted for him know about his emails? Did they all define him as a racist and vote for him despite or because of it? You mean they failed to know the first thing about the guy they voted for? With Republicans that's often a safe bet, but is woeful ignorance really a defense for voting in a racist? I don't think so, do you?

23rd September 2010, 11:09 AM	#47
JoeTheJuggler Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: St. Louis Posts: 26,819	Originally Posted by DJW Actually, if you were to make the claim in the OP that Republicans must be into bestiality, you might see the absurdity of the original claim. But the original claim is substantiated. Surely you're not saying the claim in the OP equivalent to a baseless claim? And again, repeating a racist joke does actually make one a racist unless there is some other context of disapproval (such as providing an example of an offensive and racist joke in the context of an anthropological or sociological paper perhaps).
	__________________ "That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons

23rd September 2010, 11:12 AM	#48
JoeTheJuggler Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: St. Louis Posts: 26,819	Originally Posted by The Charnel Expanse Guilt by association/insinuation has always been fair game in American politics. What what what? What association or insinuation are you talking about? The guy actually e-mailed a racist cartoon. Not someone he knew or a friend of a friend, but Paladino himself. It was an overt act of racism. There really is no room for spin on this point.
	__________________ "That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons

23rd September 2010, 11:14 AM	#49
DJW Muse Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Boston, MA Posts: 581	Originally Posted by johnny karate So you're argument is that the Republicans who voted for Paladino weren't necessarily racist, just stupid? Or at the very least ignorant. Frankly, though, most of the electorate seems ignorant in one way, shape or form.

23rd September 2010, 11:19 AM	#50
DJW Muse Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Boston, MA Posts: 581	Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler But the original claim is substantiated. Surely you're not saying the claim in the OP equivalent to a baseless claim? And again, repeating a racist joke does actually make one a racist unless there is some other context of disapproval (such as providing an example of an offensive and racist joke in the context of an anthropological or sociological paper perhaps). The OP is claiming that Republicans must be racist because they voted for the guy. My opinion is that that is a baseless smear, much as it would be if the OP claimed that the Republicans are into bestiality (we know that's the green party anyway). Also, I don't believe that repeating a racist joke makes one a racist automatically. Humorless? Crass? Dumb? Sure.

23rd September 2010, 11:24 AM	#51
Unabogie Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Portland, OR Posts: 5,857	Originally Posted by DJW The OP is claiming that Republicans must be racist because they voted for the guy. My opinion is that that is a baseless smear, much as it would be if the OP claimed that the Republicans are into bestiality (we know that's the green party anyway). Also, I don't believe that repeating a racist joke makes one a racist automatically. Humorless? Crass? Dumb? Sure. "Run, *******, run". Not automatically racist to you? You have an unusually high bar for this, apparently.
	Last edited by LashL; 23rd September 2010 at 12:53 PM. Reason: To properly mask auto-censored word

23rd September 2010, 11:26 AM	#52
Accidental Martyr Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Treading water in a sea of retarded sexuality and bad poetry. Posts: 1,852	Originally Posted by DJW The OP is claiming that Republicans must be racist because they voted for the guy. My opinion is that that is a baseless smear, much as it would be if the OP claimed that the Republicans are into bestiality (we know that's the green party anyway). Also, I don't believe that repeating a racist joke makes one a racist automatically. Humorless? Crass? Dumb? Sure. What would you consider as evidence that someone is a racist?
	__________________ "Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith, I consider a capacity for it terrifying and absolutely vile!" Kurt Vonnegut

23rd September 2010, 11:29 AM	#53
DJW Muse Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Boston, MA Posts: 581	Originally Posted by Unabogie "Run, niers, run". Not automatically racist to you? You have an unusually high bar for this, apparently. "Don't move or the **** gets it". No, Mel Brooks is not a racist.
	Last edited by LashL; 23rd September 2010 at 12:54 PM. Reason: To properly mask auto-censored word

23rd September 2010, 11:31 AM	#54
mumblethrax Species traitor Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,062	Originally Posted by DJW The OP is claiming that Republicans must be racist because they voted for the guy. My opinion is that that is a baseless smear, much as it would be if the OP claimed that the Republicans are into bestiality (we know that's the green party anyway). Condoning racism is generally taken as a sign of racism, and I think that's an understandable inference, given it's seriousness. Condoning bestiality is not generally taken as a sign of bestiality. I don't think this comparison works to indemnify Paladino against charges of racism.

23rd September 2010, 11:33 AM	#55
DJW Muse Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Boston, MA Posts: 581	Originally Posted by Accidental Martyr What would you consider as evidence that someone is a racist? Proof that he believes that a race of people are inferior to his race. He may have found the stuff funny but not believe that black people are inferior to white people. Also, membership in a racist organization would be evidence to me.
	Last edited by DJW; 23rd September 2010 at 11:34 AM. Reason: in not is

23rd September 2010, 11:34 AM	#56
johnny karate ... and your little dog too. Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 7,830	Originally Posted by DJW Also, I don't believe that repeating a racist joke makes one a racist automatically. Humorless? Crass? Dumb? Sure. This guy was a Tea Party candidate and we have been told repeatedly over the last year that the Tea Party not only isn't a racist organization, but that they will not tolerate racism of any kind. Originally Posted by DJW Or at the very least ignorant. Frankly, though, most of the electorate seems ignorant in one way, shape or form. Kind of hard to take a firm stance on a "no toleration" policy if they're going to be willfully ignorant, isn't it? A simple search on Google News before Paladino won the primary would not only reveal that he sent those racist e-mails, but also establish he didn't even deny doing so.
	__________________ Lost your faith in humanity? Click here to have it restored. Or here.

23rd September 2010, 11:35 AM	#57
JoeTheJuggler Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: St. Louis Posts: 26,819	Originally Posted by DJW The OP is claiming that Republicans must be racist because they voted for the guy. No it isn't. It's asking how Republicans can nominate an overtly racist candidate if they aren't racist themselves. The OP ends with several such questions. If they're not racist, why aren't they denouncing this candidate? So far, the most credible answer is that either they are also racist or they are ignorant of Paladino's racism. I don't think it's possible to argue successfully that they are not racist but they endorse a known racist candidate. I think it's legitimate to argue that if such overt racism in a candidate isn't important to you, you're probably racist.
	__________________ "That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons

23rd September 2010, 11:36 AM	#58
JoeTheJuggler Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: St. Louis Posts: 26,819	Originally Posted by johnny karate This guy was a Tea Party candidate and we have been told repeatedly over the last year that the Tea Party not only isn't a racist organization, but that they will not tolerate racism of any kind. Exactly!
	__________________ "That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons

23rd September 2010, 11:39 AM	#59
JoeTheJuggler Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: St. Louis Posts: 26,819	Originally Posted by DJW Proof that he believes that a race of people are inferior to his race. He may have found the stuff funny but not believe that black people are inferior to white people. Also, membership in a racist organization would be evidence to me. Sorry, but this is absurd. You don't think a cartoon that uses a highly-offensive racist slur (one that cannot even be repeated in most circumstances) and makes fun of someone based on race is not evidence of racism?
	__________________ "That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons

23rd September 2010, 11:39 AM	#60
DJW Muse Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Boston, MA Posts: 581	Originally Posted by mumblethrax Condoning racism is generally taken as a sign of racism, and I think that's an understandable inference, given it's seriousness. Condoning bestiality is not generally taken as a sign of bestiality. I don't think this comparison works to indemnify Paladino against charges of racism. I don't really see the difference. What if the OP stated that republicans must be perverts for voting for this guy?

23rd September 2010, 11:40 AM	#61
Accidental Martyr Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Treading water in a sea of retarded sexuality and bad poetry. Posts: 1,852	Originally Posted by DJW Proof that he believes that a race of people are inferior to his race. He may have found the stuff funny but not believe that black people are inferior to white people. Also, membership in a racist organization would be evidence to me. So he has to unequivocally state that he thinks African-Americans are inferior to Caucasians, and show proof he is a member of the KKK, Aryan Nation or some other organization? His actions have no basis on your determination as to whether he is a racist?
	__________________ "Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith, I consider a capacity for it terrifying and absolutely vile!" Kurt Vonnegut

23rd September 2010, 11:42 AM	#62
AlBell Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 5,507	Maybe voters agree with his platform. http://paladinoforthepeople.com/about.php
AlBell Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 5,507	__________________ "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." M. Thatcher, Economics: Share The Wealth. Obamanomics: Share The Pain. Important things in life–beauty, grace, redemption, compassion, loyalty, love–are beyond the reach of reason. Which doesn’t make them any less real.

23rd September 2010, 11:44 AM	#63
The Charnel Expanse Muse Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: The Transition Hospital Posts: 940	Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler What what what? What association or insinuation are you talking about? The guy actually e-mailed a racist cartoon. Not someone he knew or a friend of a friend, but Paladino himself. It was an overt act of racism. There really is no room for spin on this point. I'm talking about the people who voted for him.
	__________________ Nature abhors a vacuum, which is why my dog barks at the roomba. "I nominate The Charnel Expanse as the greatest poster in the history of the Internet." - - johnny karate

23rd September 2010, 11:45 AM	#64
JoeTheJuggler Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: St. Louis Posts: 26,819	Originally Posted by AlBell Maybe voters agree with his platform. Even so, if they know he's a racist, they're at least willing to ignore the racism. You don't think that's a problem? I wouldn't vote for someone no matter how much I agreed with his platform if I knew he was an overt racist like this. (Of course, I also doubt very much I would agree with the platform of an overt racism.)
	__________________ "That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons

23rd September 2010, 11:46 AM	#65
JoeTheJuggler Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: St. Louis Posts: 26,819	Originally Posted by The Charnel Expanse I'm talking about the people who voted for him. OK, then what's the association or insinuation there? We're talking about the people who actually voted for an overt racist, not someone who associated with someone who voted for him. And again, the question is, if they're not racist, why didn't they renounce this candidate rather than vote for him in the primary?
	__________________ "That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons

23rd September 2010, 11:47 AM	#66
DJW Muse Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Boston, MA Posts: 581	I don't tell racial jokes, and I don't forward idiotic e-mail, so I really don't know why my knickers are in a twist over this. It just seems wrong to come to the conclusion that the voters were racists.

23rd September 2010, 11:50 AM	#67
mumblethrax Species traitor Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,062	Originally Posted by DJW I don't really see the difference. What if the OP stated that republicans must be perverts for voting for this guy? I say, "Probably not," for the reasons I've already spelled out. There is an expectation that candidates and voters will repudiate racism which just doesn't exist with bestiality.

23rd September 2010, 11:51 AM	#69
johnny karate ... and your little dog too. Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 7,830	Originally Posted by AlBell Maybe voters agree with his platform. These are the same people who have rather indignantly informed us they will not tolerate racism of any kind. Why have they made an exception for Paladino?
	__________________ Lost your faith in humanity? Click here to have it restored. Or here.

23rd September 2010, 11:53 AM	#71
JoeTheJuggler Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: St. Louis Posts: 26,819	Originally Posted by DJW I think that if you're going to label someone a racist, then you need to get more evidence than forwarding racially insensitive e-mail. Sorry, but you cannot spin an overtly racist e-mail as "racially insensitive". The guy was essentially repeating racist jokes. That is evidence that he is racist.
	__________________ "That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons

23rd September 2010, 11:58 AM	#72
johnny karate ... and your little dog too. Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 7,830	Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler The guy was essentially repeating racist jokes. And just as a point of clarification, there are "racist jokes" and then there's racism couched as a joke that only racists think is funny. A plane crashing in Africa with the caption "Run ****** Run" is clearly the latter.
	__________________ Lost your faith in humanity? Click here to have it restored. Or here. Last edited by LashL; 23rd September 2010 at 12:55 PM. Reason: To properly mask auto-censored word

23rd September 2010, 12:00 PM	#73
The Charnel Expanse Muse Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: The Transition Hospital Posts: 940	Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler OK, then what's the association or insinuation there? We're talking about the people who actually voted for an overt racist, not someone who associated with someone who voted for him. And again, the question is, if they're not racist, why didn't they renounce this candidate rather than vote for him in the primary? The answer to that question is probably similar to the one to the question of why it took Obama such a long time to repudiate and distance himself from Jeremiah Wright. Probably some combination of ignorance as to the nature of the character of the man in question, and willingness to overlook the more foul aspects of his character because they found other things about him appealing. The bottom line is that if you're going to make inferences about people based on the company they keep or how they vote, you're putting a pretty heavy burden of proof on yourself to show that such associations are actually damning.
	__________________ Nature abhors a vacuum, which is why my dog barks at the roomba. "I nominate The Charnel Expanse as the greatest poster in the history of the Internet." - - johnny karate

23rd September 2010, 12:01 PM	#74
DJW Muse Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Boston, MA Posts: 581	Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler So if the guy was a known pedophile and the voters nominated him, you wouldn't have a problem with it? I see you're quibbling over the very question the OP is asking. If they're not racist, at the very least they don't mind supporting a racist candidate (or they're ignorant of the guy's racism). This is contrary to claims made that they do not tolerate racism. In fact, I think it's a great big lie and that there is widespread racism. Anyway, I don't buy the argument that there is such a thing as a sort of pro-choice non-racist (someone who isn't racist, but doesn't mind racism in candidates he supports). I believe I already made the point that he wouldn't have gotten my vote. I do have a problem with his actions. We'll have to discuss the widespread racism at a later date, because I have to go. Regardless, this has been a thought provoking thread for me. Thanks all. Cheers.

23rd September 2010, 12:06 PM	#75
AlBell Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 5,507	Originally Posted by johnny karate These are the same people who have rather indignantly informed us they will not tolerate racism of any kind. Perhaps some didn't get the memo. Or, they define racism differently. Quote: Why have they made an exception for Paladino? Back to the platform they agree with. And/or individual voters saw nothing to take exception with.
AlBell Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 5,507	__________________ "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." M. Thatcher, Economics: Share The Wealth. Obamanomics: Share The Pain. Important things in life–beauty, grace, redemption, compassion, loyalty, love–are beyond the reach of reason. Which doesn’t make them any less real.

23rd September 2010, 12:08 PM	#76
dudalb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 22,836	Originally Posted by The Charnel Expanse The answer to that question is probably similar to the one to the question of why it took Obama such a long time to repudiate and distance himself from Jeremiah Wright. Probably some combination of ignorance as to the nature of the character of the man in question, and willingness to overlook the more foul aspects of his character because they found other things about him appealing. The bottom line is that if you're going to make inferences about people based on the company they keep or how they vote, you're putting a pretty heavy burden of proof on yourself to show that such associations are actually damning. We agree on something...........

23rd September 2010, 12:15 PM	#77
Unabogie Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Portland, OR Posts: 5,857	Originally Posted by The Charnel Expanse The answer to that question is probably similar to the one to the question of why it took Obama such a long time to repudiate and distance himself from Jeremiah Wright. Probably some combination of ignorance as to the nature of the character of the man in question, and willingness to overlook the more foul aspects of his character because they found other things about him appealing. The bottom line is that if you're going to make inferences about people based on the company they keep or how they vote, you're putting a pretty heavy burden of proof on yourself to show that such associations are actually damning. But there's a huge distinction you're missing. You're conflating the sin of omission (which is failing to repudiate someone you know) with the sin of commission (actively forwarding racist emails to others). That isn't about Paladino's associations, it's about his actions. In this case, the voters had a clear choice between Lazio and a racist and they chose the racist. And now, they have a clear choice between Cuomo and the racist and they're still choosing the racist.