Political Cartoons You wish to share

Robert Dear was adjudicated as incompetent to stand trial. His ideas about salvation are inconsistent with any denomination of Christianity I am aware of. So, his anti-abortion stance can hardly be laid at the feet of any recognized conservative group.

Eric Rudolph was diagnosed as schizophrenia and used a variety of mind altering drugs. He believed in all manner of conspiracy theories both from the left and the right.

Dylan Roof and Wade Page are more comparable to racist KKK members. Members of that group were exclusively part of the Democrat party after the Civil War. Or the National Socialists offshoot of socialism. Hardly stallwart right wingers. But they are accepted as terrorists.

The rest are acknowledged terrorists. No one is arguing they are simply nut jobs.

What I asked for was examples of a comparable preference for not using the term terrorist when it fit on the part of the right.

The disenfranchised people are supporting Trump, and still clinging to their guns and Bibles



Poker

PeterZ wrote:Robert Dear was adjudicated as incompetent to stand trial. His ideas about salvation are inconsistent with any denomination of Christianity I am aware of. So, his anti-abortion stance can hardly be laid at the feet of any recognized conservative group.

Eric Rudolph was diagnosed as schizophrenia and used a variety of mind altering drugs. He believed in all manner of conspiracy theories both from the left and the right.

Dylan Roof and Wade Page are more comparable to racist KKK members. Members of that group were exclusively part of the Democrat party after the Civil War.

Until the GOP adopted the Southern Strategy under Nixon and recruited them all into that party instead when they got all pissed off at the Democrats for pushing the Civil Rights Act...

Or the National Socialists offshoot of socialism.

For. Fucks. Sake.

"National Socialism" has NOTHING TO DO with Socialism. The Nazi's were an ANTI-SOCIALIST party trying to redefine the term in order to undermine it... not an "offshoot" of socialism. The first people they threw in the camps were socialists and communists.

How many times does this need to be covered? The Nazis were hard right Fascists.

National Socialists were as much Socialists as the Democratic People's Republic of North Korea is a democratic republic.

gcomeau wrote:

PeterZ wrote:Robert Dear was adjudicated as incompetent to stand trial. His ideas about salvation are inconsistent with any denomination of Christianity I am aware of. So, his anti-abortion stance can hardly be laid at the feet of any recognized conservative group.

Eric Rudolph was diagnosed as schizophrenia and used a variety of mind altering drugs. He believed in all manner of conspiracy theories both from the left and the right.

Dylan Roof and Wade Page are more comparable to racist KKK members. Members of that group were exclusively part of the Democrat party after the Civil War.

Until the GOP adopted the Southern Strategy under Nixon and recruited them all into that party instead when they got all pissed off at the Democrats for pushing the Civil Rights Act...

Or the National Socialists offshoot of socialism.

For. Fucks. Sake.

"National Socialism" has NOTHING TO DO with Socialism. The Nazi's were an ANTI-SOCIALIST party trying to redefine the term in order to undermine it... not an "offshoot" of socialism. The first people they threw in the camps were socialists and communists.

How many times does this need to be covered? The Nazis were hard right Fascists.

National Socialists were as much Socialists as the Democratic People's Republic of North Korea is a democratic republic.

The E and I discussed this. We both agree that both ideologies are socialist. The principal difference is that National Socialists do subordinate socialism to serve nationalist goals.

As for the Southern Strategy, you are right. That weasel Nixon got way to close to the Democrat's embrace of racism. The Dems embraced the KKK as their return to power. They base their policies on race. Affirmative Action anyone? Granted Democrats try to make things better for the races they deem require assistance to realize any sort of equity. The degree that those policies succeed is debatable.

Making decision based on race is just not cool.

PeterZ wrote:

gcomeau wrote:
For. Fucks. Sake.

"National Socialism" has NOTHING TO DO with Socialism. The Nazi's were an ANTI-SOCIALIST party trying to redefine the term in order to undermine it... not an "offshoot" of socialism. The first people they threw in the camps were socialists and communists.

How many times does this need to be covered? The Nazis were hard right Fascists.

National Socialists were as much Socialists as the Democratic People's Republic of North Korea is a democratic republic.

The E and I discussed this. We both agree that both ideologies are socialist. The principal difference is that National Socialists do subordinate socialism to serve nationalist goals.

Only in the vaguest sense of the word if you attempt to redefine socialism to be any kind of collectivism whatsoever.

As for the Southern Strategy, you are right. That weasel Nixon got way to close to the Democrat's embrace of racism. The Dems embraced the KKK as their return to power. They base their policies on race. Affirmative Action anyone? Granted Democrats try to make things better for the races they deem require assistance to realize any sort of equity. The degree that those policies succeed is debatable.

Making decision based on race is just not cool.

The point being affirmative action is not "basing decisions on race" but rather basing decisions on a recognition that PREVIOUS decisions were based on race, had a very destructive long term effect on society and those racial groups that were discriminated against, and correcting that damage requires an acknowledgement of the reality of what happened rather than pretending that the second you officially declared that the discrimination had *legally* stopped suddenly all decisions become color blind and there would be no need to actively ensure equal treatment or redress imbalances that had taken deep root in society.

gcomeau wrote:
The point being affirmative action is not "basing decisions on race" but rather basing decisions on a recognition that PREVIOUS decisions were based on race, had a very destructive long term effect on society and those racial groups that were discriminated against, and correcting that damage requires an acknowledgement of the reality of what happened rather than pretending that the second you officially declared that the discrimination had *legally* stopped suddenly all decisions become color blind and there would be no need to actively ensure equal treatment or redress imbalances that had taken deep root in society.

Continuing to base decision on race because prior decisions were based on race simply legitimizes racism. Whether one uses race to uplift or denigrate, one still uses race to decide one's actions. If race is a distinguishing feature that one is justified in using to make decisions, than those decisions can go either way. If race is NOT an appropriate feature upon which to base decisions, then be consistent in both a positive and negative direction.

I find the belief that using race to uplift that particular race is tantamount to saying that race is incapable of uplifting themselves. That is as racist as believing some races were simply too debased to be equal. We are either equal or we are not. Equally capable or not. Equally human in both positive and negative characteristics or we are not. It cannot simply go in one direction.

PeterZ wrote:

gcomeau wrote:
The point being affirmative action is not "basing decisions on race" but rather basing decisions on a recognition that PREVIOUS decisions were based on race, had a very destructive long term effect on society and those racial groups that were discriminated against, and correcting that damage requires an acknowledgement of the reality of what happened rather than pretending that the second you officially declared that the discrimination had *legally* stopped suddenly all decisions become color blind and there would be no need to actively ensure equal treatment or redress imbalances that had taken deep root in society.

Continuing to base decision on race because prior decisions were based on race simply legitimizes racism.

Act I: Racial group A enslaves, beats down, exploits, and steals from racial group B... driving them into widespread poverty and other undesirable conditions while enriching themselves and bettering their position in society.


Act II: Ok, we're officially going to stop that now. Everyone is equal! But racial group A is keeping all the wealth and benefits and advantages they accrued during Act I... and a lot of holdouts are going to do everything they can to get around this declaration and continue discriminating to maintain their privileges.

Act III: "Hey hold on, something has to be done to try and remedy the damage done during Act I and keep those jholdouts in check. Group B needs a little help here to even the playing field again..."

"OMG Racism! There is no 'Group B' any more as far as our decision making processes are concerned!"





Umm... no. Sorry. That is not racism, that is repairing the damage long term institutional racism inflicted. The races may be equal, but the environment in which those races are competing is NOT. It was made very unequal over a very long period of time and that has not all gone away yet and pretending otherwise is simply denying reality.

Yes it is. Does Act III remedy the actual harm done? No. It does not. It harms those that never caused the initial harm.

How many Americans alive today actually owned slaves? Benefited from slavery? None. Yet it is the current population of Americans that are charged to offset inequities they never participated in by advataging people based on skin color. They are being charged to do so purely because of the color of their skin.

Those being aided have never been slaves. They benefit purely because their ancestors were enslaved and the current color of their skin.

That is pure racism.

gcomeau wrote:

PeterZ wrote:
Continuing to base decision on race because prior decisions were based on race simply legitimizes racism.

Act I: Racial group A enslaves, beats down, exploits, and steals from racial group B... driving them into widespread poverty and other undesirable conditions while enriching themselves and bettering their position in society.


Act II: Ok, we're officially going to stop that now. Everyone is equal! But racial group A is keeping all the wealth and benefits and advantages they accrued during Act I... and a lot of holdouts are going to do everything they can to get around this declaration and continue discriminating to maintain their privileges.

Act III: "Hey hold on, something has to be done to try and remedy the damage done during Act I and keep those jholdouts in check. Group B needs a little help here to even the playing field again..."

"OMG Racism! There is no 'Group B' any more as far as our decision making processes are concerned!"





Umm... no. Sorry. That is not racism, that is repairing the damage long term institutional racism inflicted. The races may be equal, but the environment in which those races are competing is NOT. It was made very unequal over a very long period of time and that has not all gone away yet and pretending otherwise is simply denying reality.

PeterZ wrote:Yes it is. Does Act III remedy the actual harm done? No. It does not.

It is practically the definition of remedying the harm done. What are you talking about "No it does not"?

It harms those that never caused the initial harm.

"When you are accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression."

How many Americans alive today actually owned slaves?

None.

Benefited from slavery? None.

LOTS OF THEM.

You think all that wealth accrued in the hands of white slaveowners... all that privilege and power they built up in the social order by means of controlling all positions of authority not just during slavery but during the decades upon decades of systematic discrimination that followed it... you think that all just magically disappeared? Or they took it to the grave with them when they passed away and then their children all started with some kind of clean slate?

If you think ANYONE born as a white American is not still enjoying systematic advantages over other racial minorities that are a direct result of that history that level of obliviousness is something afforded to you by the privileges you enjoy and don't even register.

gcomeau wrote:

Benefited from slavery? None.

LOTS OF THEM.

You think all that wealth accrued in the hands of white slaveowners... all that privilege and power they built up in the social order by means of controlling all positions of authority not just during slavery but during the decades upon decades of systematic discrimination that followed it... you think that all just magically disappeared? Or they took it to the grave with them when they passed away and then their children all started with some kind of clean slate?

If you think ANYONE born as a white American is not still enjoying systematic advantages over other racial minorities that are a direct result of that history that level of obliviousness is something afforded to you by the privileges you enjoy and don't even register.

Eff off sh**head! Was your great-great grandmother the first of her family born free? Would your grandmother have been designated as mulatto back in your Democrat dominated south? Were your parents treated as second class citizens because they were not dark enough? Did you face discrimination in college admittance because you had the misfortune of being born in an area designated as Asia? Have you had people ask your lovely blond haired blued eyed wife who her surrogate was for our dark haired curly haired daughter? Take your effing privilege and shove it up your posterior.

That sort of response from you is the very racism I speak to.

Btw, please do not cut and paste quotes out of context. What you cut was incomplete and illustrates a lack of desire to discuss and more a desire to play gotcha.