Paul Revere by Cyrus Dallin, North End, Boston



Wednesday, December 10, 2014

What Is White Privilege?

Don't know?   Here's an example:

Joseph Houseman, a 63-year-old white man who, back in May, stood with a rifle on a street in Kalamazoo, Michigan. 

Someone called 911 and reported this.  When police arrived, Houseman refused to identify himself, grabbed his crotch, flipped them the bird and cursed. 

The police talked him down in an encounter that lasted 40 minutes. 

Houseman was not arrested. 

The next day, he got his gun back. 

He also, while carrying a loaded weapon while intoxicated, had no ID on him at the time.


Twelve year old Tamir Rice was playing with a pellet gun.  Someone called 911 and reported this. The police confronted him after the 911 call; and within 2 seconds, fatally shot him in his stomach.  Twelve years old.  He died the next day from the wounds.

Joseph Houseman, an armed old white guy who mouthed off to the police and did not comply with what the police commanded him to do, got talked down.

Tamir Rice, a black child with a pellet gun, got taken down, shot in his twelve year old stomach.

Can someone explain the difference in how the police reacted to these two similar confrontations? 

The yahoos on the extremist Bagger blogs all solemnly pronounce that if Eric Garner had cooperated with the police, the police wouldn't have had to choke him to death. Garner was unarmed. Houseman was armed.  Houseman did not cooperate with the police, was disrespectful to them, and nothing happened to him. No only did Houseman not cooperate with the police, he flipped them the bird, and yet they took 40 minutes to talk him down.  The police did not shoot or attempt to choke Houseman on the spot.  Why?

Why was a 12-year old Tamir Rice, shot within 2 seconds of the police driving up to the gazebo where he was sitting and playing with the pellet gun? And the old white guy who ignored the police and did not do what they commanded him to do was not?

Tell us why this isn't an example of white privilege. 

Then tell us why it doesn't make you sick. 


More white privilege, this time a teen in Aurora, Colorado, (of all places) open-carrying and being disrespectful to a cop. 

Leonard Pitts of the Miami Herald: 

"...anyone looking to define white privilege would be well advised to ponder the 40 minutes police spent sorting things out with the white man and the two seconds it took them to shoot the black boy. Privilege, you see, is not about being born with a silver spoon in one hand and a scholarship in the other. One can be poorer than dirt and a sixth-grade dropout and still enjoy white privilege. Because privilege is about the instant assumptions people make about you — your worth, your honesty, your intelligence — based on color of skin."


Josh said...

So, find one story in the extreme one way, juxtaposed with one another -- viola! Case closed.

Behold, the birth of social science. Blacks are 100x more likely to be killed if holding a weapon.

In all seriousness, though, it's not like America is without incidents of blacks holding loaded firearms, refusing to give a single inch, and not being arrested or murdered. The Black Panthers' adherence to the Constitution was pretty famous stuff back in the day. Back when police were objectively disproportionately harassing blacks and worse orders of magnitude beyond today's cherry-picked instances.

Sometimes, of course, police screw the pooch.

Maybe I would personally find forced apples to apples comparisons more legitimate if they were in fact apples to apples. Like, maybe if we're speaking about Robocop dealing with two like scenarios, where you know the officer in question is dealing with similar circumstances. Then, if different and disproportionate calls are made, it becomes easier to attribute a motive as to why.

Jerry Critter said...

I suspect many of the people claiming that there is no white privilege, also claim there is no racism in the US...and they are probably white.

It is hard to see priviledge when you have it.

Anonymous said...

"In September, police took a 17-year-old African-American boy out of high school in Cincinnati, Ohio, and arrested him on the suspicion that he had participated in an armed mugging. There was no evidence connecting him to the alleged crime, his public defender contended, save that the alleged victim brought the boy's Facebook photo to the police. The charges were dismissed, but only after the boy spent a month in detention, including time in isolation, according to a lawsuit filed last month.

The class-action lawsuit, filed on behalf of juvenile plaintiffs against two officials at Hamilton County juvenile court system, claims that the boy's case is part of a systematic problem in Hamilton County -- and possibly throughout Ohio -- where officials authorize warrants for arrest and incarceration without probable cause determination, which has a disproportionate impact on black children. The lawsuit also is filed against the Hamilton County Board of County Commissioners.

Pamela Matthews, 46, the legal guardian of the boy, "S.W.", said that when she heard her son had been taken out of history class and put in jail, "I assumed it was a joke; I started laughing." Her son is a good student with no juvenile criminal record, according to his sworn court testimony, and Matthews said that he had a solid alibi: "He was at home, asleep."

Ducky's here said...

Behold, the birth of social science. Blacks are 100x more likely to be killed if holding a weapon.
No, at least not in the current cases.
They are 100X times more likely to be killed if not holding a deadly weapon.

The issue here is not the shooting of armed suspects. The shooting of the armed man who stabbed the Yeshiva student in the Brooklyn is not drawing the attention given to Tamir Rice or Eric Garner.

As for back in the day, you don't believe Fred Hampton was assassinated?

It's been a long slog to get police accountability for their aggression.
And it needs to be done.

Ducky's here said...

I'm wondering what happens if a group of armed black men show up at the local 7/11 mimicking the "open carry" loons.

Rational Nation USA said...

Shaw, your mission is noble. Hopefully we'll see it realized.

Dave Miller said...

In spite of the claims of some, the issue is not about equivalency... it's about likelihood.

If the man with the gun was black, most likely, he'd be dead.

Ducky's example is spot on... black men with guns... crooks... White men with guns... patriots.

Let's look at Cliven Bundy... here we had a white man defying law enforcement, supported by an armed white militia.

Does anyone seriously think if he and the militia would have been black that it would have ended peacefully?

ANd that's before we ever get to the fact that when a black person breaks the law, he's a thug deserving of death, but a guy like Bundy is a patriot, in spite of his lawlessness.

Think I'm wrong? Check out the conservative blogosphere...

Josh said...

@ Ducky's here:

So, more qualifying criteria?

And this is just a general question, to no one in particular.

Many people cite how much more likely a black person is to be harmed or killed by a cop, and often use those numbers to suggest solid reasoning (self preservation) behind fleeing and resisting. But does anyone have the numbers on how much more likely, if at all, cops are to be harmed or killed by blacks as opposed to other races?

Just curious.

@ Jerry,

Ironically enough, it's usually also white people telling everyone else about how pervasive white privilege is. Somewhere, just speculating here, there might be a minority shouting, "Check your privilege!" to white folks who seek to tell the world what white privilege is, who has it, and how it operates.

Dave Miller said...

Well Josh, as a white guy married to an African American woman, here's my personal experience...

I've been denied rental housing...
I've been moved repeatedly to the back of line in restaurants in the south...
I've listened as my brother in law has told of the need to travel in the south with US Marshals just to do his job...
I've listened as family members have told of being stopped by police fir DWB, even though they themselves were cops...

These are just a few personal anecdotes ive lived through. You think white priviledge doesn't exist? Really?

Jerry Critter said...

"'s usually also white people telling everyone else about how pervasive white privilege is."

Are you implying that black people don't know that white privilege exists, or don't think it exists? Those without the privilege always know.

KP said...

Recall that $38 dollar valuation for facebook IPO that was no good?

Sometimes it takes a couple years to realize the truth. Trading at $77 dollars.

Politics bares some similarity.

The internet is great that way. Written proof that ideologues are as flawed as the rest of us.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Thank you all for your comments. I'm away from home, with limited time and Internet access. Enjoy the music and artistry in the next blog post. Again, thank you for the thoughtful comments.

Josh said...

@ Dave,

I've been, in my life:

- Followed around stores
- Pulled over for no reason
- Hit by a police officer in the ribs with a club
- Thrown out of stores on multiple occasions
- Refused service at a high-end eatery downtown
- Been passed over for a job due to my skin color
- Watched a few of my family members denied benefits
- Denied rental property personally
- Thrown out of school for correcting a teacher who got my name wrong
- Laid off for workers accepting lower wages

This shiz isn't supposed to happen to a white guy. I'm a straight, white male! Where be muh privileges?

But where do I say white privilege doesn't exist? From what I can read, I didn't even come close to implying such.

However, if we're going to get into this debate, I'm more than willing to argue the side that what most consider to be "white privilege" is actually wealth privilege. I was beyond dirt poor growing up; the underbelly of poverty: water/electric 2 weeks a month, meals 3 nights a week, etc.

I'm sure some white folks do lead very privileged lives. Though saying "white privilege" has a connotation of all whites being privileged for being white.

But pay no attention to me. Unlike Jon Stewart, I just don't "get it."

@ Jerry,

I'm implying no such thing. I'm explicitly stating that, ironically enough, the very people you say have a hard time seeing their privilege are the very people who are forever droning on about it and who tell everyone else what white privilege is, who has it, how it affects everyone else, etc.

I'm expressly stating, unequivocally, the people you claim can't see their privilege are the people who point it out and talk about it the most.

Read: Obviously white folks see it very clearly! They're leading the charge in bringing attention to it.

And they need to check their privilege, for reals!

Where the rest of the inference comes from, I haven't the slightest.

Jerry Critter said...

White folk don't see white privilege as privilege. They see it as their right.

Josh said...

@ Jerry,

So, Shaw created this "What Is White Privilege" post to which I'm responding. I'm assuming here she is white. Therefore, a white person calling attention to white privilege, really meaning they see it as a "right," means that Shaw sees privilege as her right and not as privilege. Same for Dave, too, whom you've thrown under the bus. Suddenly...Jerry.

Working with some sound logic there, Jerry.

Maybe I should have called you out initially for your overlooking of Asians, Natives and Latinos in your immediate assertion that anything non-white was black.

Not trying to have a go, honestly, but I really think it's you who needs to check your privilege here. It's showing something fierce.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Josh, your experience would be the exception, not the rule. For African Americans, it's the rule, not the exception. I know a woman who is a respected lawyer, with exquisite fashion sense, who, without exception, is followed around high end department stores. Guess what color her skin is?

Every African American male I've met in my life has had some form of suspicion attached to his behavior by the majority of white people he has had to interact with. Your experience, however, is almost unheard of in the lives of the non-Africana-American people I've known all my life.

Your experience is NOT the norm for a majority of white males, poor or not poor, but it is the norm for African-Americans, males and females.

This isn't about you.

Josh said...

"This isn't about you."

But it's about Dave? It's about everyone else's anecdotal experiences -- so long as they are in line with the popular viewpoint?

It's about everyone.

My experience is an incredibly common experience amongst poor whites. I understand a lot of progressive-leaning white folks didn't come up in trailer courts, on skid row, in mountain hollers, etc. But many of us did. Many of us know exactly what it's like to be followed, to by typecast, to be harassed, etc. But, of course, this isn't anything attributable to skin color. It's more about looking the part of a poor punk.

Sorry, but there are many whites out there whose "privilege" is evidently lost in the mail.

I don't deny that there's white privilege out there. I just think it's exceedingly bigoted to hold whites to be so monstrous and to hold all minorities to be so incredibly disadvantaged and basically bullied by aforementioned horrible whites.

Your championing of that Jon Stewart line spoke volumes. He defo needs to check his privilege.

We certainly have some problems in this nation. Holding the line that all blacks = victims, and white boy, STFU, your "exception" doesn't matter, does little to get to the truth.

I can rant on forever, obviously, but I'm always reminded in these types of conversations about the assumptions of racism, how long people have been living under them, and how long all proposed antidotes have failed to work. If a new medicine created never addressed the illness, two things would necessarily have to happen: 1) We would need to see if we defined the illness correctly; 2) We would need to rework the medicine.

But not for issues of race. No. Never. All sophistry, all the time, use emotion or GTFO.

Dave Miller said...

Josh... The wealth Priviledge argument is a good one except we've seen where money for African Americans does not get them Priviledge either. Recall the Harvard prof who was confronted entering his own house...

My wife's family, while not rich, do well and that has not saved them either.

I've never, absolutely never, been denied restaurant service when I'm with white folks... Only with African American folks...

I think a lot of us leftys would be happy if conservatives would acknowledge the reality that there truly is discrimination based solely on color.

Jerry Critter said...

Josh - "...a white person calling attention to white privilege, really meaning they see it as a "right"...

No it doesn't. That's crap. It just means they acknowledge that white privilege exists.

"... I really think it's you who needs to check your privilege here. It's showing something fierce."

I am not sure what you mean by "check your privilege here", but I am clearly a recipient of white privilege. There is no doubt that I have received special treatment and considerations, both professionally and personally, because I am white, tall, and slim, the trifecta of success in America.

Josh said...


First, I wish more people would speak about these things, personally. I know I might be alone in that, with folks here screaming at me, "NO! You need to agree with US and stop talking, racist!"

But I appreciate civil debate, and thank you for not yet calling me a racist and-or idiot, as has happened very recently. But anyway...

Make up your mind. Which way do you want it? Privilege or discrimination? One is not necessarily the other nor even indicative of the other.

Just because someone's bigoted doesn't mean they're also privileged, showing privilege, or taking privilege. The two are being conflated.

If I own a restaurant and a black woman is coming in and I say, "Out with you, nigress!" is this white privilege or racism? If I'm that type of asshole, I doubt just being white is a privileged class; I probably also don't want atheists or gays or Jews inside either.

That guy who was stopped walking into his home -- it's just being automatically assumed that it's white privilege because it wouldn't happen to whites. However, if a white person tells his/her story that it has happened to them, what happens?

"This isn't about you. You're the exception. It happens to blacks more. Nobody cares. It doesn't harm you. It was probably a mistake. Look at the numbers!" and so on. So, we're programmed to instantly think "racism!" over a story like that. When, could it be that the guy got worked up over an honest mistake? It could be that the white cop was a racist, sure; but it could also be the other way. It could also be that other way in many instances, but here's a thought experiment. (Sorry for the long rants, but I feel I need to clearly make a point, lest it's misread and misquoted frequently.)

Take all of those personal experiences I listed above, and just replace white with black. Tell me, how well does "because I'm black" fit with every single one of 'em? Every single one. And, in some cases, no doubt it's racism at play. However, that's now just our assumption every time. Nothing else is looked at but the skin colors of people involved.

"I think a lot of us leftys would be happy if conservatives would acknowledge the reality that there truly is discrimination based solely on color."

If that's aimed at me, 1) I'm not a conservative; 2) I've acknowledged such multiple times in just this exchange alone. Could I get, I wonder, progressives to acknowledge that any slight to befall a racial minority isn't necessarily part of white supremacist society?

Could I get white progressives to see the extreme irony in "white privilege"? lol

Josh said...


"Josh - "...a white person calling attention to white privilege, really meaning they see it as a "right"..."

But that was your exact argument to me. Exactly. Now it's "crap" when I use it back against you?

You said: "White folk don't see white privilege as privilege. They see it as their right."

Now you're saying that you, white folk, can see your privilege.

Man, which way are you going on this one?

And, yeah, I find it to be the height of privilege for white people to create the rules and standards by which "white privilege" exists and operates.

Seriously. You don't see the irony here?

"Whites are privileged. Blacks are disadvantaged. Every white person is privileged. Every minority is discriminated against frequently. The nation is set up for whites to be advantaged. White people have trouble seeing their privilege, but it's there. They're all beneficiaries of privileged.


A white person."

Man. You can't make this stuff up.

okjimm said...

I am suspecting that Josh is a articulate, contrarian troll..."Behold, the Birth of Social Bullshit".....

Craig said...

But not for issues of race. No. Never. All sophistry, all the time, use emotion or GTFO

Josh, I'll try not to let my emotions get the better of me. Seems to be a popular tactic on the Right to accuse your opponent in a debate of arguing from emotion.

There are plenty of empirical studies to back up the existence of 'white privilege' and the persistence of racial discrimination in hiring, housing, health care, the criminal justice system, education, etc. Here's a study from the U of Chicago Grad. Business School that found job applicants with names like Brendan and Emily on their resume are 50% more likely to get an interview than Lakisha or Jamal.

I don't doubt your experience with class discrimination. Here's the difference, you can wash off the trailer park, get a haircut, brush your tooth and put on a clean shirt. See if you aren't treated differently. Not so much if you're black or brown. This study is a compendium of studies done on discrimination. This might be worth taking a look at,

Further, the frequency with which discrimination is reported does not decline among those higher in the social hierarchy; in fact, middle-class blacks are as likely to perceive discrimination as are working-class blacks, if not more (Feagin & Sikes 1994, Kessler et al. 1990).

One more thing. It's anecdotal but emotion is not involved. I'm a remodeling contractor. Last summer I was doing a job in an exclusive gated community on a golf course. I drive a 2000 Ford F-150. It runs great, it's paid for but the body has seen better days. Each time I drove up to the gate, the guard asked what address I was going to and sent me through.

The electrical contractor I use has a black electrician. He came out 3 times. He's driving a nice van with the company's logo and contractor license number printed on the van. He had a work order in hand and all 3 times the guard had to call the homeowner before he was let in. I'm only guessing but the color of my skin might have afforded me the privilege of not being hassled.

Josh said...


Why is it so outlandish that someone might not view all minorities as victims, and all whites as instantly privileged, lest they be trolling?

Is it really that unbelievable?

I assure you I'm not trolling. I used to post here frequently a while ago, finding this blog through Malcolm's. Though like him, I haven't been around the blogosphere in quite some time.


I love studies, and I will most certainly give it a look-see. However, if it's anything like those rape statistics studies which use self-reporting for sexual assaults (but not for UFO abductions or Elvis sightings), I'll be giving it a good what-for in the near future and crossing my fingers that Shaw puts the comment through. lol

But what does it mean to "perceive discrimination"? I mean, if the standard is "I feel I was discriminated against," how does one control for that? It may well be every bit as likely that people believe they're discriminated against due to the Jon Stewarts of the world as because of the racists of the world.

As I've said multiple times here already: I don't deny that white privilege exists, nor that racism exists. I take issue with the viewpoint that the majority of whites are privileged and every single minority is discriminated against.

People can be slighted in the world and have it be nothing to do with their race. Doesn't mean it wasn't; doesn't mean it won't sometimes be; but it doesn't mean it was.

After a first quick glance at the study, I'll definitely have to read more into it. At this point, I don't see where researchers measured for chance, job openings vs. position wanted, criteria vs. specific job, industry A vs. B-X, or how "similar" the qualifications actually were. It seems to be basically an extended abstract explaining the study without the actual details of the study. But I'll definitely look into it. Thanks.

Craig said...

I take issue with the viewpoint that the majority of whites are privileged and every single minority is discriminated against.

I don't think anyone here is saying that. I'm certainly not. Maybe we're operating from different understandings of 'privilege'. Maybe a better term would be 'social injustice'. You can quibble all you want with the methodology of the studies I cited but it doesn't change the fact that they all point to the fact that the color of your skin is a major determinant in what kind of opportunities you will have. I've yet to see one that refutes this.

Like I said, I don't doubt your list of slights. Can you admit that at least some of those were "perceived" by you? If not, I would like to see documentation or sworn affidavits from all parties to verify this pattern of discrimination.

In the example I gave, the electrician might not have perceived his treatment at the gate at discrimination. It came out in conversation and he wasn't complaining. He had no idea I wasn't asked for a work order or anything to verify who I was and I didn't tell him. It could be that some black guy had stolen a plumbers van and sacked a house in Bear Path before. I don't know. The simplest explanation is he's black, I'm white. I'd bet a dollar he has faced the kind of subtle bigotry he got at the gate a lot more than I have.

You a I have had obstacles in our lives but one of them isn't race. You can look at disparites in wealth and see something is going on here. Some of the blogs I've (and all other libtards) been banned from would say it's because blacks are mostly lazy, shiftless, moochers dependent on the welfare state, trapped on the liberal plantation. Or, something like that. I would say, based on our history and the preponderance of empirical evidence, it has to do with how we've been conditioned to perceive race.

Like it or not, white is the social "norm". That's not to say all whites are racist and all blacks are victims. I carry my own prejudices and biases. Perceptions take a long time to change. Josh, you're an intelligent, civil guy. Your point is taken that not every case is due to racism or discrimination. You can nitpick each one and every study but I think you're missing the forest. I'm not really sure what or why you're arguing.

Shaw's post is about disparity in treatment by the police. Maybe these 2 cases aren't apples to apples. What can't be denied is if you are a black teenager, you are 21 times more likely to be shot by police than if you are white. We should damn well be taking to the streets.

Josh said...

Okay. So blacks are 21x more likely to be shot by the police. Though, as I asked initially, how much more likely, if at all, are cops to be shot by blacks? Or how much more often are cops arriving for a black suspect vs. a suspect of another race?

These things matter to the 21x number; it doesn't get to exist on its own island or in a vacuum. People who drive more are more likely to crash. That isn't to say it's always their fault; there are some pretty shitty drivers on the road. But being on the roadways more puts one at more risk.

And I really don't think "quibble" is the right word for my issues with the study. I see legitimate gaping holes.

Just off the top of my head, there are a few questions I have about the study.

For instance, did they send resumes out to only white-owned or white-managed businesses? If not, did they measure the callback rate for black-owned/black-managed businesses + black-sounding resumes vs. other variables? The distinction is very important because who's to say company #109 who didn't offer a callback actually had a black person in charge of hiring practices?

Why did they only test black-sounding names vs. typical white-sounding names? Wouldn't it be a lot more thorough and subsequently cover more bases to actually test names altogether? E.g. Becky vs. Billy Bob. Carlton vs. Daryl Ray, etc. It seems like there are two problems on the face of only testing black-sounding vs. white-sounding names.

1)They apparently started out by wanting to test only the possibility that blacks specifically were being discriminated against in favor of whites, rather than measuring for discrimination in general; e.g. any potential typecasting or fewer opportunities for those whose names have a certain stereotypical appeal about them, black, white and-or otherwise.

Not all whites are named "Becky." lol

2)There seems to be a starting assumption that “business” is just this monolithic thing that is the same, regardless of company or position, and that all needed to show potential black-specific discrimination was a callback rate, without testing for any variable specific to the businesses which received resumes.

I have no inbuilt issue with such studies, but many appear to be purely slanted toward the outcome before the study is even carried out. That is to say, they seem to be set up for little more than confirmation bias. I'm not saying this is the case with this particular study; but it's highly suspect the narrow scope with which this was approached.


Finally, about some of my slights perhaps being perceived as discrimination: That's exactly my point!! lol ... Some strange, insulting things have happened to me over the course of my 34 years, and the point I was trying to make is that if you just switch my race, and it's happening to a black person, it suddenly becomes racial discrimination, no questions asked. But when it happens to me, well, it's "not about" me. You're the only one to sorta-kinda catch that in a roundabout, reversed way.

Dave Miller said...

Josh... you're new here so maybe you don't know me... I don't think I've ever called someone on a blog a racist. Their views maybe, but them? Seldom, if ever. So you'll have no worries there from me.

The written form is so hard to express nuance, as we've seen on my blogs.

It does not take long before names are being attached to people and the attacks begin.

It is indeed hard to carry on a civil discussion with folks online.

All of that being said, I think, in response to your priviledge/racism question, I am just more practical.

How do those things play out in real life.

Here's the facts for me.

While some might argue that the playing field has been mostly leveled regarding race in our country over the last 60 years, that is only part of the problem.

The vestiges of white privilege, in many cases rooted in racism, are still being felt.

Many African Americans, not all by any means, are still stuck in poverty. A frequent conservative meme is that they are lazy, dependent on government types who lie, cheat and steal.

Seldom is the fact that for many, property ownership, a huge factor in wealth, education and upward mobility is ever discussed.

Many Africans Americans were denied the right to own property for many years, effectively dooming their families to poverty.

So it works like this... while we are all running the same race, some runners have quite a large head start. And then they look back and wonder why the others, all running on a level track, are not farther along.

Is that racism or privilege? To answer your question?


Privilege because they have a head start, and racism because they refuse, or fail to recognize the reality of the unfairness of the race they are running.

At least in my opinion...

Kid said...

White Sovereign Citizen In Full Body Armor Arrested Without Being Shot

Josh said...


Conservatives say a lot of stupid things. However, some conservatives have fairly intelligent things to say on the issue of black poverty, but are instantly pooh-poohed as Fox cronies and Uncle Toms and house negros (if they're black, of course; e.g. Ben Carson, Thomas Sowell).

Speaking of memes, though, I'm reminded of that old meme of the Marxist race.

500 Joes are racing 100 Tims. The top places go to the Joes, and have went to the Joes for some years. So, to institute "fairness," the Tims are given a head start. Even still, the Joes manage to win. There are simply too many Joes! What now? Time to hamstring some of the Joes. Lo and behold, having the numbers, the Joes still win. So this race must be biased against the Tims! What other reason could there possibly be, scream the race organizers.

So, an entirely new shorter, easier course is created just for the Tims. Despite a head start, hamstringing a few Joes, and even creating a new course, a Joe still wins. $%*&!! What to do now? When is the race "fair"?

When the Tims win and the Joes lose.

Dave Miller said...

Josh... here's part of the issue with the conservative side of things... and no one, I mean no one, has stepped up to try and respond, or answer it.

I truly believe there are plenty of great conservatives. People who genuinely believe in limited government, but also know we cannot be draconian. Jack Kemp was a guy like that.

He looked for ways to give the disadvantaged a way to get on the ladder.

But in the present, as opposed to his day, we have a certain class of conservatives that does everything it can to make fun of, insult, and even deny Americanism to many.

Now, the question becomes this... why don't those principled conservatives step up and condemn those types of remarks?

We've been told for years by members of the GOP that failure by moderate Muslims to condemn the remarks and actions by the extremists, shows support for those views.

Tell me why, when the moderates do not speak up against the extremists in their party, we should not follow their own lead, and assign those beliefs to the silent ones?

Anonymous said...

Maybe because those silent "conservatives" secretly agree with the extremists?

Anonymous said...

"As a private citizen President Obama has been mistaken for a valet and waiter. The president also discussed his inability to get a taxi to pick him up. None of the Obamas’ stories are surprising to African-Americans in this country. Racial prejudice is a fact of life. African-Americans, along with every non-white male group, face prejudice every single day. Often the prejudice is slight, but it is there. It doesn’t matter how rich or how powerful a person becomes. Prejudice never completely goes away.

Racial and gender prejudice is a part of American culture. Republicans have successfully used racial prejudice as a weapon against President Obama for years. The sad thing is that it was easy for the president’s political critics to do. No one in this country would have mistaken Hillary Clinton or Laura Bush for a Target employee when they each were First Lady, but this is the sort of prejudice that the Obama has had to deal with daily since they moved into the White House.

No one is completely immune from prejudice, not even, Barack and Michelle Obama."

Josh said...


If you're asking me to offer a valid explanation of the political mind, then like the bad guy in Taken, I can only offer you a "Good luck."

All I know is that I never see anyone eating their own. Ever. The regular Christians aren't calling out the crazy Christians. The decent, freedom-loving liberals aren't calling out the whackadoodle totalitarian progressives. The moderate, easygoing feminists aren't calling out the man-hating, nutty freakazoids stomping around and foaming at the mouth trying to get everything banned for the word "bossy" to video games. The level-headed black leaders don't call out the radicals who keep pushing their "the man" narrative.

Why? Beats me. Do they all really secretly agree? Perhaps. Or maybe they're scared; maybe it falls under that old "enemy of my enemy" axiom. Maybe they have bigger fish to fry, a political interest in keeping the fringe's base closer to home, or it could be that moderates of a same side don't view "extremism" to be so extreme if it's on their side.

Example: How many people who identify themselves as feminists really think someone like Anita Sarkeesian takes things too far? Whereas folks who aren't in that circle at all are shouting, "Damn, woman! Leave muh games alone, staahp!!"

Shaw Kenawe said...

Hmmmm. Interesting, Josh, how you've identified "whackadoodle totalitarian progressives," "the man-hating, nutty freakazoid" feminists, and the blacks "who keep pushing their 'the man' narrative." And there's only one nutty right wing group who merits your inclusion in the crazies, "crazy Christians." Nowhere do you mention the "whackadoodles" like Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee, Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, Donald Trump, Glenn Beck, Alex Jones, etc., and the new group of "whackadoodles" voted into the House this past November. I'm wondering why there's no mention of the GOP governors, for example, who will withhold tax-payer funds from a program unless that program is affiliated with a religious organization. I'm wondering why you didn't mention a GOP governor who wanted to pass legislation that enforced state-rape (unnecessary and nonmedical required probes in girls' and women's vaginas), GOP politicians who want to impose Christianity as the state religion. But that may be because of your "tribal" affiliations?

Also, I'm wondering who the "totalitarian progressives" are that you refer to.

totalitarian: "...of or relating to a system of government that is centralized and dictatorial and requires complete subservience to the state."

There are certain "tribes" out there in right wing blogland that refer to governments they don't like as "totalitarian," and to President Obama as a "dictator," (who at the same time is weak and has no respect). I'm wondering if you're part of that tribe.

Where I stand is clear. Just look at the name of my blog.

Progressivism has its extremes, no doubt, but the crazies on the right, since November 2008, have outnumbered the crazies on the left by magnitudes. To pretend this is not so is to not see what is in front of your nose.

Josh said...

To which totalitarians am I referring? Oh, I dunno -- how about the insane folks who want to ban words, who want to completely change games; the butthurt feel-feel crowd whose idea of implementing social justice is to ban, change and rearrange everything that's part of the supposed white male patriarchy.

As for my not including enough right-wing examples to make you happy specifically, let me offer up my sincerest apologies. You see, I thought Dave pretty much had the right covered with his comment, and all I was seeking to do was add deeper context and juxtaposition with opposite examples, which worked to illustrate my point that I don't understand the political mind.

And I really don't. Like, for instance, someone's beef with my comment being that I didn't name enough right-wing examples for their personal tastes. Not quite sure I get that. But that's probably just me. I was under the mistaken impression that I didn't have to list every single example I could think of to make a point.

Maybe that means I secretly agree. I'm sure I'll be told what my political persuasion is; it'll be given to me, despite my actual leanings.