I have read the Court’s decision. Three people are not a “mob.” A mob is defined as a “large crowd.” So there was no “mob action” because there was no mob. Second, the Supreme Court specifically said the Sheriff and his deputy and a local policeman acted “under color of law.” Which means they had legal authority.

“Color of law” means that Hall’s lynchers held themselves out as having lawful authority for their actions, when in fact they did not. How stupid does Lord have to be to misuse a term like this after being ridiculed for misusing vocabulary?

“No one denies that blacks are capable of racism.”

If that is the case, then do you believe that societal norms, the political system, and the media should condone, accept, or tolerate black racism?

“I did not use the race card.”

If you believe that to be so, then why did you enter this discussion by making an unsupported accusation of racism? That would certainly qualify as the use of the race card.

“Saying to Blacks that they should be proud about being black, creating TV channels for Blacks, etc only creates ghettos.”

An entirely valid point. Yet as Sherrod’s husband and many others around here illustrate, suggesting that is also something that is likely to get you branded…well…a racist.

No one denies that blacks are capable of racism. I´m just pointing out that saying that Blacks are racist when someone points out to racism from white is at best childish.

“2. Do you believe that the pervasive and abusive use of the “race card” in our political system is constructive to the open and meaningful discussion of policy? If so, what is gained from it? And if not, why do you yourself indulge it?”

I did not use the race card. I just pointed out that usually racists that points out to racism of other people when they are pointed about racism of their own ethnic group. Go to a White Suprematist forum: they will inevitably talk about Black or Jewish racism.

“3. In what sense are blacks “separated” from middle class whites in today’s society, save for their overwhelmingly monolithic affiliation with the Democratic Party?”

There are whole cities in the United States with almost no whites or Hispanics, only Blacks. Compare that to countries in Latin American with high Black population. There is no “Black Belt” in Brazil. There is not even a separated accent for Blacks. Almost all of the Blacks here in Brazil that I know are married to white people.

Saying to Blacks that they should be proud about being black, creating TV channels for Blacks, etc only creates ghettos. Blacks should forget that they are Blacks.

1. Are you denying that black people are capable of racism? If not, do you believe that societal norms, the political system, and the media should condone, accept, or tolerate black racism?

2. Do you believe that the pervasive and abusive use of the “race card” in our political system is constructive to the open and meaningful discussion of policy? If so, what is gained from it? And if not, why do you yourself indulge it?

3. In what sense are blacks “separated” from middle class whites in today’s society, save for their overwhelmingly monolithic affiliation with the Democratic Party?

The point of “Black Racism” provides a good discussion, specially because it´s bad for *Blacks*. Isolating Blacks from Middle Class Whites is very bad for Blacks. But people like PW and Breitbart aren´t worried about that, but only about using the so called Black Racism to justify their own racism.

Thank you.

There really was no meat to it at all. The south had been naturally realigning for decades already, and for many reasons other than race. One could make a reasonable argument that the first cracks in the solid south “New Deal Coalition” began to show way back in 1940 when FDR sought a third term and shunned his conservative southern Veep John Nance Garner for the far left socialist Henry Wallace. Sure, it didn’t throw electoral votes to the Republicans and WWII obscured most domestic policy issues at the time, but the south was nowhere near as comfortable with the FDR Democrat guard as it had been before Garner left. The cracks grew larger in every subsequent election. The Texas Regular movement in 44. The Dixiecrats in 48. The Eisenhower Democrats in 56. Sometimes it was racial as with the Dixiecrats. Other times it was anything but, as with Eisenhower – hardly a champion of segregation. A constant underlying theme though was the south’s regional conservatism juxtaposed against a growing federal government and coupled with a large southward economic shift away from the union-choked rust belt. The old guard racists lingered for a while and the Civil Rights turmoil of the 60′s is better interpreted as their dying final hurrah than their peak as is often the case, but time and economic growth eventually overtook them too.

A few sentences in I decided it might be best to walk away from temptation and get a little fresh air before going any further. Another few hours later I’m back from walking the dog, and it appears I made the right choice;
while I was cooling off, Radley stepped in, succinctly and effectively covering the very the same things I’d been stewing about. Thanks for that, dude. It’s always nice to see somebody else say what I’m thinking, nicer still when they save me some time by saying it better than I would have.

In order to avoid what’s shaping up to be a 100% content free post, I will just make the general observation that many on the right have recently seemed unusually driven to find instances of black racism, and some of what is being thrown out there is just vile. Whatever my opinion of the NAACP’s stands on various issues, I’m beyond tired of hearing how its very name, its very existence, is clearly a manifestation of anti-white racism. Are you fucking kidding me, people? Can we please consider the time and place in which the organization was founded, and perhaps agree on two things:
1. “Colored” was the word of choice at the time, and while it has fallen out of favor since, the NAACP retains its original name,due no doubt in part to stress the organization’s history and continuity. None of that makes it hilarious for white people to use the word “colored” or to make moronic observations about how hard it is to understand why “they” get upset hearing you say the word, etc. Use whatever words you like, just stop pretending your intent is anything other than small minded provocation.

2. At the time the NAACP was founded black peoples’ lot in this country was in dire need of advancement, so the name is entirely and properly descriptive. It did not then, and does not now, mean “advancing at the expense of white people” or “kill whitey” or “we’re better than you.” So again, say anything you want, but you aren’t being honest or original by asserting that the NAACP is proof of black racism, you’re being a douchenozzle. In the unlikely event that you actually believe that, you’re probably too stupid to be left unattended with a computer. In the same vein, the faux-naive questions about well, “they” would say you were racist if you called yourself the NAAWP? For once, I agree, but only because it WOULD be racist. Context matters, remember? White people as a group are not in the position that blacks were in in 1909.

Sorry, but I’ve been hearing this same stupid shit for 25 or 30 years, maybe longer, and I’m tired of it, and also tired of how lately even libertarian boards are full of people ready to tar and feather anybody who asserts that white-on-black racism is still a fact of life in parts of the US. That is not the same calling people racists. It is not a refutation of libertarianism. It’s just me stating the obvious.

That is also why I declined to play. If it makes you feel better about yourself to declare victory over that scarecrow and insist you “took it to task,” it doesn’t so much as bother me as it does amuse me.

It still remains that Sherrod appears to have gotten personally wealthy through no actual work or earnings of her own, but rather by suing the government for a “wrong” she claims she incurred and therefore expects the taxpayers to compensate her for. It also appears that her claimed “wrong” was not any actual economic loss to herself through an act of the government, but rather because she believed that she deserved more unearned gains from the government than she received because she believed a farmer of a different race had also gotten those unearned gains. Chalk that up to “ideology” all you like, but most sensible people would call that what it is: scamming the welfare system. And it makes her a pretty horrible human being.

By all means, forward an explicit criteria that produces those specific results. I’m sure they’ll be much better than the ones your comments seemingly implied.

For my part, when someone opines how horrible someone is that they’ve never met and are not likely to meet, on what seems to be merely on the strength of ideological disagreement and some auxiliary whining about welfare, I take ‘em to task. If you think I’ve maligned you then by all means clarify, but from where I sit you seem to have a fixation on not liking this person you’ve never met for pretty silly reasons, and using that as an excuse to deflect from why this whole video kerfuffle is itself quite horrible (because of which, among other things, a person unjustly lost their job).

Lord’s article: RACIST!!!
Andrew Breitbart: RACIST!!!
Those who criticize Obama: RACIST!!!
Any white person who dares to disagree with me: RACIST!!!

Oh, and ain’t nobody better give me no negative karma, or you too are,
… wait for it …
RACIST!!!

In fact, upon reviewing my posts, I see that I did nothing more than list specific PARTICULAR traits of Sherrod that qualify her for horribleness, though nothing even remotely resembling a set of rules of what those traits may be.

It is thus a good time for me to point out that when you state you offered a set of criteria “that was better than [mine]” you are in error, as such a statement would first require me to offer a set of my own criteria, which I have not yet done, and may not do now anyway, if only to deprive you of a means to continue a line of discussion that I have found to be rather silly since you initiated it.

FWIW, all the counterexamples you posit require some harmful act to really become “horrible”, and hence are covered completely by my criteria:

1. A pimp who beats prostitutes and strings them out on drugs is a horrible person; a pimp who simply screens clients for their “escort service” isn’t necessarily horrible. A loan shark is merely a creditor providing a service until he threatens or exacts bodily harm from a debtor. Drug “lords” run the gamut from neighborhood weed peddler all the way up to mafioso.

2. Having racist impulses in some direction or other is nearly unavoidable as humans naturally put people and things into categories in order to organize the world around them; it is acting on those illegitimate categories by speech or deed that makes a person “horrible”.

3. Your bullet point the third is just stupid. Even if we were to grant that this is a measurable problem (and it almost certainly isn’t; the negative incentive for work from welfare is nearly non-existent in real terms), the idea that a desperate person would manipulate a system they have access to in order to survive is hardly loathsome.

Under your very own criteria, it would be inappropriate to deem somebody a “horrible person” for:

1. Working as a pimp, an unscrupulous loan shark, a con-artist, or a drug lord (they simply hold jobs that you don’t think should exist for ideological reasons)

2. Being a racist hate mongering bigot (they simply hold a belief that you believe to be radical and in the wrong direction)

3. abusing unemployment handouts and the welfare system to avoid having to find a job (they simply believe they are entitled to something by law)

I think most reasonable people would agree that all three examples are pretty horrible. Perhaps you don’t. Oh well, to each his own I guess.