Is Obama hurting the Democratic Party by not joining forces with Hilla

[Jester]

If the point of the discussion is to show who is the more obtuse, then I agree, you've won.

Thanks!

To explain very clearly so that you don't miss the connections... In my last post I cited James Cone, one of Jeremiah Wrights mentors, and an inspiration for his theology.

Right. And all the Lutherans in the world are flaming antisemites, because Luther was. And anyone who would quote MLK Jr.? Socialists. It's not reasonable to just cite the words of Wright's theological sources as if they were his own. No dice, Kandrathe. Give me something *Wright* said, wrote, did. If he's so enamoured of Cone that he must take as gospel truth everything he ever said, then *surely* there must be some sermon, some book, some article somewhere where he said these things, that blacks are superior to whites, that violence is the answer, that the government must be overthrown by force, anything like that. If he genuinely deserves to be listed next to Adolf Hitler (!?!?!) in the list of history's greatest racist crazies, then surely there must be *one* thing you can point me to?

But, of course, if there was, you would have just provided it, rather than a) insisting you don't have to,B)quoting other people rather than him, and c) putting him in the "racist's lineup" so that you can use their image rather than his.

I would grant you that the primary theme of Rev. Wright is black oppression, and not as much on the solution which are more clearly expounded upon within the philosophy of Liberation Theology.

And I would invite you, and have invited you, to point me to any point where he advocates a "solution" of violence. Could it possibly be that Rev. Wright rejects the violent aspects of the firey 1960s liberation theology? That he really believes, as he says over and over again, that god is a god of love? Liberation theology is a changing, practiced theology, and not some monolithic text handed down on stone tablets from Sinai.

Here is some Rev. Wright sermon text for you to mull over, and sugar coat to your taste.

With the exception of the AIDS conspiracy theories, which I have said are crazy, much of this is true, or at least hints at truth. Racism is real, and it is still around. America is not the no. 1 killer, but the number of atrocities that have been commited with american weapons, by american allies, with american support is appalling. American armed intervention in Cambodia, Nicaragua and Iraq were disasters that did lead to the deaths of millions. America has supported Israel against Palestine, etc... etc...

Many of his points are exaggerated, certainly less nuanced than I would want them. As I said earlier, I'm not really a fan of everything he says. But this is hardly text that scares my socks off from a preacher.

I don't believe you will be objective and see the connections, and I doubt you have a reflective bone in your body. I'm wasting my time on you.

Always nice how you put yourself on the horse, looming above your opponents, deigning to spend your precious time on their worthless selves. It's a very attractive and very reasonable way of debating people. Really, it wins friends, trust me and keep at it.

-Jester

Afterthought: I've been looking further into James Cone, trying to figure him out beyond the incendiary soundbyte. I am familiar with Liberation Theology from the Latin American experience, but less so with the Black American variant, and it's been interesting seeing the differences, especially in metaphors. Cone seems to be a confusing (and possibly confused) person to listen to, but I don't think the "obvious" interpretation of his comments does him justice. He appears to be very fond of moving into metaphorical ideas of what "whiteness" and "blackness" are, and while I find that to be playing with fire, it seems to be the way he talks.

Interesting quote form the end of one interview:

This means that I cannot be free until all men are free. And if in some distant future I am no longer oppressed because of blackness, then I must take upon myself whatever form of human oppression exists in the society, affirming my identity with the victims. The identity must be made with the victims not because of sympathy, but because my own humanity is involved in my brother’s degradation.

... which sounds more like MLK than Hitler. (Cue Occhi about the Cult of the Victim. Cone's religion, not mine.) At the very least, Cone is a more complex character than you have been portraying.

Another interview, with Bill Moyers: http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/11232007/watch.html

Choice quote from there:

It ought to encourage us to connect. Blacks and whites. It oughta encourage us that-- to remind us we don't have the community that we oughta have. And so, instead of it, you know, separating us from each other, it should bring us together. And generally speaking, there were whites in all of the marches in Jena, at Columbia. There are always whites there. That's hope. That's a sign of hope.

Cone explains his "white enemy" talk as referring to the institutions of oppression that supported racism, and not to individual white people, who can become "black" by coming to grips by self-identifying with the suffering of the oppressed. Seems like a very strange way to make that point to me, but it's certainly not the kind of thing Hitler was saying, where one race was destined to exercise its superiority, defined by blood purity.

[Quark]

Adding on to what Jester said:

I'd say one of Wright's themes is oppression in general. Why else would he be mentioning cases that clearly have nothing to do with blacks? Wright's biggest flaw is that he admitted America has changed for the better, while saying he doesn't believe America can change for the better.

But this is hardly text that scares my socks off from a preacher.

When I'm reading down his sermon and thinking to myself "that's true, that's true, exaggerated but true, okay you're wrong here, that's true, that's true, exaggerated but true ..." I'm more scared at what those truths mean then him saying them.

At least the complete barrage I've been holding back re: kandrathe's unwillingness to bring forth evidence can be sated, it's just too bad his evidence doesn't really show what he's trying to prove.

[Occhidiangela]

America is not the no. 1 killer, but the number of atrocities that have been commited with american weapons, by american allies, with american support is appalling.

Cry me a river, comrade.

Your "but" construction cannot cover up your standard America bashing noise.

Do you think that you are engaging in some sort of original thinking here?

You offer us the same sh__, different decade, of recycled trash I've been hearing and reading since I was in my teens. That blood spilled is the cost of doing business in a world peopled by human beings. You have no idea how much more could have been spilled had America wished to.

I mean just last week.

Deal with it. The killings will continue, today, tomorrow, and next year, despite strenuous efforts to keep it down to a dull roar. If a thousand die, you'll say it was nine hundred too many. If a hundred die, you'll way it was ninety too many. If ten die, you'll say it was nine too many.

There is no pleasing some people. You abuse the gift of an open society.

Hey, Jester, what up in Tibet? What, you don't know? Hell, neither do I, the Chinese are cracking down on foreign media coverage.

Note how that mutes the criticism? Clever, aren't they?

As to Wright, the great hullabaloo over him (and IMO it is a smoke screen, at the end of the day) has everything to do with the core of his mentality: his UCC is a racialist organization, but that isn't completely negative in effect, nor in intent. Indeed, it originates in a positive intent.

The intent is to empower, or at least spread a mindset of empowerment versus the despair of the streets, which is all too common a theme, all to common an excuse for failure. His success is obvious. Not that many preachers have congregations of 8500. His church is a hub of community activism, much of it positive.

He says "God Damn America."

That is his right. How he'll confront his Lord and Savior over that taking of God's name in vain I'll leave up to him to handle. He knows people in that business, I imagine he'll weather that storm.

I say, "Screw you, Rev Wright, and the ugly mule you rode into town on"

"I am glad you are retired, Rev. Perhaps your parishoner, the famous one who does not have all of your baggage and hatred of Whitey, and Whtey's America, since he's been to Whitey's world and succeeded in it, will dispose of your baggage as you rot in the dust bin of haters in history."

EDIT: In his defense, maybe it's not that he loved Whitey less, but he loved his black brothers and sisters more.

Occhi

[Jester]

Cry me a river, comrade. Your "but" construction cannot cover up your standard America bashing noise. Do you think that you are engaging in some sort of original thinking here?

Do you think you are? Decrying someone's arguments as mere America Bashing ™ was invented about 3 seconds after the first criticism of America. What does any of us say that is original? I am looking for things that are true, not things that are novel.

Hey, Jester, what up in Tibet? What, you don't know? Hell, neither do I, the Chinese are cracking down on foreign media coverage.

Hey, Occhi, what's up with changing the subject randomly? What, you don't know that Tibet has exactly nothing to do with this thread? I ignored this the first time because it was wildly off topic. I'm going to do the same now. If you're really burningly interested in my opinion on Tibet/China relations, why not start a new thread?

-Jester

[Occhidiangela]

Do you think you are? Decrying someone's arguments as mere America Bashing ™ was invented about 3 seconds after the first criticism of America. What does any of us say that is original? I am looking for things that are true, not things that are novel.
Hey, Occhi, what's up with changing the subject randomly? What, you don't know that Tibet has exactly nothing to do with this thread? I ignored this the first time because it was wildly off topic. I'm going to do the same now. If you're really burningly interested in my opinion on Tibet/China relations, why not start a new thread?

-Jester

Missing the point again, it seems.

Familiarity breeds contempt. Not original thought. Something true. That, you claim, is what you seek.

Happy now?

Occhi

[Jester]

Missing the point again, it seems.

Familiarity breeds contempt. Not original thought. Something true. That, you claim, is what you seek.

Happy now?

Occhi

Happy? Are you happy? You sure don't seem it.

What does that gnomic little statement mean? That things you are familiar with are untrue? That things you are not contemptuous of are true? I can't parse anything out of it that isn't an obvious fallacy or a meaningless statement. Care to elaborate?

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Adding on to what Jester said:

I'd say one of Wright's themes is oppression in general. Why else would he be mentioning cases that clearly have nothing to do with blacks? Wright's biggest flaw is that he admitted America has changed for the better, while saying he doesn't believe America can change for the better.
When I'm reading down his sermon and thinking to myself "that's true, that's true, exaggerated but true, okay you're wrong here, that's true, that's true, exaggerated but true ..." I'm more scared at what those truths mean then him saying them.

At least the complete barrage I've been holding back re: kandrathe's unwillingness to bring forth evidence can be sated, it's just too bad his evidence doesn't really show what he's trying to prove.

I'm actually not trying to prove anything, I'm asking questions about connections and wondering about the consequences of rhetoric. I don't have the entire spoken transcripts of Rev. Wright and my disposal, so I've offered what snippets I can find that are different than the pieces taken out of context by Fox News and right wing conspiracy nuts. The connections are a Barrack who has attended this Church for 20 years, this church that is mostly surrounding a cult of personality of a Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the same guy who associates with Farrakhan, teaches Black Liberation Theology and bases his beliefs and sermons on some outrageous stuff written by the likes of James Cone. This same Rev. Wright whose diatribes if reversed in color would make us all cringe at their overt racism and bigotry, and whose condemnation of America is more reminiscent of Hugo Chavez or the late Fidel Castro. Again, I'm no more comfortable with the devotees of black power, than I am of those promoting white power. I wouldn't think unity could be achieved through discrimination in either direction.

[kandrathe]

Always nice how you put yourself on the horse, looming above your opponents, deigning to spend your precious time on their worthless selves. It's a very attractive and very reasonable way of debating people. Really, it wins friends, trust me and keep at it.

As are your pithy and arrogant replies such as "Nice try."

[Jester]

As are your pithy and arrogant replies such as "Nice try."

You tried to worm your way out of an obvious Godwin with the feeble excuse that occasionally, people invoke it too often, and that yours was an appropriate comparison with Hitler.

Even the most cursory glance at their respective philosophies (let alone biographies) shows that to be a completely inappropriate comparison. You want to compare him to Farrakhan? Fine. But Hitler is just way beyond the bounds of reasonable.

And what do we call it when people drag Hitler into a conversation as an exaggerated comparison? A Godwin!

Hence, nice try. What else am I supposed to say? "Yes, Kandrathe, comparing a moderately controversial Chicago preacher to one of the most evil men in history in a totally reasonable and fair comparison?"

-Jester

[Jester]

I'm actually not trying to prove anything, I'm asking questions about connections and wondering about the consequences of rhetoric.

You have made the following statements. They are assertions, not questions. In no particular order:

That Jeremiah Wright is a hate-monger, a bigot, and a purveyor of bigoted speech. He inspires and promotes a violent separatist world view whose goal is black supremacy. He has called for the destruction of the "white enemy." He would never mention the part of MLK's "I have a dream" that mentions equality.

These are the things you outright assert. With leading questions, you then connect him to murders, race riots, drive-by shootings, Adolf Hitler, Hugo Chavez, and on and on. But we don't even have to bother with those. I'd be satisfied with a halfway decent example of the above statements. The unique quote you have given from Rev. Wright in this thread is mostly a critique of American foreign policy, and contains nothing about separatism, black supremacy, destruction of whites, etc...

Have you thought about the consequences of your rhetoric? Because here you are on a public forum accusing a man of being the black equivalent of the Klan, which is a very serious accusation indeed.

This same Rev. Wright whose diatribes if reversed in color would make us all cringe at their overt racism and bigotry...

They also would not make any sense if they were reversed in colour. Liberation Theology is explicitly about oppression and community, and if you just free-form flip oppressor with oppressed, then you wind up with nonsense. If you made the claim that, in the USA, black people held white people in slavery for hundreds of years, legally defined as inferior or non-human, that they were kept out of their churches, kept away from power and wealth, and made to feel inferior for the colour of their skin, then you wouldn't be racist so much as just wrong. Wright's statement (suitably reversed) that "No white man will ever be considered for president" is senseless in the face of forty-two consecutive pale males in the White House. (Sadly, there is still altogether too much truth in his statement about women, regardless of race.) These are not racist statements yearning for black supremacy. They are fire-and-brimstone critiques of existing racism.

Once again, I'd like to see some words. What has Wright said that is so objectionable when swapped by race? Can you provide any passage, any statement, sermon, or article which, when reversed white-to-black, is cringeworthily racist without being entirely nonsensical?

-Jester

[kandrathe]

You have made the following statements. They are assertions, not questions. In no particular order: That Jeremiah Wright is a hate-monger, a bigot, and a purveyor of bigoted speech. He inspires and promotes a violent separatist world view whose goal is black supremacy. He has called for the destruction of the "white enemy." He would never mention the part of MLK's "I have a dream" that mentions equality.

Ok, how about this statement from a Wright sermon, "Black men turning on black men- That is fighting the wrong enemy." or any number of other leading statements that all but call for the solution. If we spend our time railing against "the enemy", and define that enemy as rich white men, and America, then the natural next question is "What should I do about it?" Sure, yes, social action through non-violent political activism might be one solution many choose. It is the path that Mr. Obama chose, but that still does not resolve to me that others might become frustrated with the lack of progress after 300 years of slavery and act out in more extreme ways.

These are the things you outright assert. With leading questions, you then connect him to murders, race riots, drive-by shootings, Adolf Hitler, Hugo Chavez, and on and on. But we don't even have to bother with those. I'd be satisfied with a halfway decent example of the above statements.

I discussed those things, but it is clear that you didn't understand them in the context I presented them.

I connect fiery rhetoric which attributes heinous acts against blacks by their government, and rich white men to a possibility that some might use that as license for retribution. I connected the fiery rhetoric of one man who was in a position for inspiring a world war and massive genocide as an example of how horrible bigotry and racism can be. You claim that Blacks form a minority so it is silly to consider their bigotry. But, I would ask you to consider that about 15% of the US population is Black, and in some areas of the south and in northern urban areas they represent the majority of their ward, or county populations.

You must admit that the twisted conspiratorial anti-American railings of Wright do sound just like Hugo Chavez, or Fidel Castro.

If you understand Black Liberation theology, then you would understand that MLK would have disavowed it. Wright, Cone, Hopkins might cite and praise some of MLK's words, but I don't believe they would ever embrace MLK's vision or theology. In fact, they have overtly rejected it. Just as MLK would have rejected them, and their heretical views if he were alive today.

And, you refuse to connect UCC, Black Liberation Theology, Wright and the rhetoric together.

[kandrathe]

You tried to worm your way out of an obvious Godwin with the feeble excuse that occasionally, people invoke it too often, and that yours was an appropriate comparison with Hitler.

Even the most cursory glance at their respective philosophies (let alone biographies) shows that to be a completely inappropriate comparison. You want to compare him to Farrakhan? Fine. But Hitler is just way beyond the bounds of reasonable.

And what do we call it when people drag Hitler into a conversation as an exaggerated comparison? A Godwin!

Hence, nice try. What else am I supposed to say? "Yes, Kandrathe, comparing a moderately controversial Chicago preacher to one of the most evil men in history in a totally reasonable and fair comparison?"

-Jester

Your characterization of the context in which I was writing is entirely wrong. I asked you, "Would you have condemned Hitler after he wrote "Mein Kampf", but before he acted out his sick manifesto? ". This was an attempt to see if YOU had the capacity to understand the consequences of fiery rhetoric, not an idiotic tit-for-tat comparison of Wright to Hitler. I could also draw parallels between Nietzsche as a moral compass for the social movement of the oppressed and defeated Germans, versus Cone, Wright, or Hopkins as moral compass for the oppressed and enslaved blacks. But then again, I ask myself why I bother to even attempt to discuss these things, since you are either that obtuse that you miss my points, or you are being intentionally intellectually dishonest or perhaps merely seeking to "win points" by trying to be clever.

[Jester]

Ok, how about this statement from a Wright sermon, "Black men turning on black men- That is fighting the wrong enemy." or any number of other leading statements that all but call for the solution. If we spend our time railing against "the enemy", and define that enemy as rich white men, and America, then the natural next question is "What should I do about it?" Sure, yes, social action through non-violent political activism might be one solution many choose. It is the path that Mr. Obama chose, but that still does not resolve to me that others might become frustrated with the lack of progress after 300 years of slavery and act out in more extreme ways.

The full quote is: "Black men turning on black men- That is fighting the wrong enemy. You both are the primary targets in an oppressive society that sees both of you as a dangerous threat." The enemy is the oppressive society, not Whitey. It's the same target he's always had: institutional racism, no surprises there. Turn it around, and the quote is nonsensical; you don't hear about appalling levels of white-on-white violence, and nobody worries that the neighborhood they moved into is "too white" and therefore too violent.

How one's religious leaders channel outrage is part of their job. How does Jeremiah Wright channel it? Through social activism, helping people, and community organization. He doesn't run around with a paramilitary like Farrakhan, or the Black Panthers. What does he do about his percieved AIDS conspiracy? He arranges for HIV testing in his church. I'm not going to defend him on these beliefs (the US knew about Pearl Harbour? Yeah, I'm sure.) but they hardly put him in the same class as Hitler. As I said before, your musings about violence are not founded in what he has actually said.

I connect fiery rhetoric which attributes heinous acts against blacks by their government, and rich white men to a possibility that some might use that as license for retribution.

Okay. So, what if tomorrow, incensed by your words, someone went out and killed Jeremiah Wright. After all, he is (in your view) a crazy hatemongering bigot for whom the Hitler comparison is appropriate, and who has possibly (though who knows) inspired at least one drive-by shooting, and maybe a riot or two. I know I'd kill Hitler if given the chance to go back, so why not Wright?

Would that then be your fault? Of course not. Wright's church has dozens of clear, nonviolent, social activist ways in which one can change the government, or society directly. Obviously, democracy and the support for Obama is one of them, but there are other, less political ways, through church charity. What he's saying *could* be interpreted as a reason for violence, but the same was true of MLK, of Gandhi, of anyone; it could theoretically be true of what you've said here, without even having to twist your words beyond their obvious meaning.

However, not all of Rev. Wright's examples of heinous acts by the government against blacks are as crazy as his AIDS beliefs. He is not joking about a government that, historically, has enforced through violene systems of slavery, segregation, jim crow, racial medical experiments, internments, and so on. There are still people alive who perpetuated many of these things, and even today, as James Cone never stops pointing out, the noose is brought out from time to time by racist whites for impact. Does Wright not have the right to speak out against these things?

I connected the fiery rhetoric of one man who was in a position for inspiring a world war and massive genocide as an example of how horrible bigotry and racism can be. You claim that Blacks form a minority so it is silly to consider their bigotry. But, I would ask you to consider that about 15% of the US population is Black, and in some areas of the south and in northern urban areas they represent the majority of their ward, or county populations.

Is that how you are construing my argument? That I am exclusively considering numerical superiority? This is about oppression, not statistics. South Africa never had a white majority, and yet a white elite imposed Apartheid. Are you asking us to believe that this did not matter because whites were never a numerical majority? What a silly argument. Forty-two white men have been president, with not even a woman among them, let alone a black person. This is not just a trivial matter of numbers.

I also did not use the word "minority" at all, to avoid being interpreted as you just did.

You must admit that the twisted conspiratorial anti-American railings of Wright do sound just like Hugo Chavez, or Fidel Castro.

No argument there. He certainly has Mr. Chavez' flair for heated exaggeration when it comes to the US. He is also willing to believe some things that are dangerously contrary to established facts. Again, I do not support him in these beliefs, I think he is led by his perspective in criticising establishment racism (in which he is correct) to being uncritical of things that would support his position (a very bad idea). But I think he is wrong, not that he's bigoted, hateful and violent. Perhaps I am wrong, but you have not shown me differently.

If you understand Black Liberation theology, then you would understand that MLK would have disavowed it. Wright, Cone, Hopkins might cite and praise some of MLK's words, but I don't believe they would ever embrance MLK's vision or theology. In fact, they have overtly rejected it. Just as MLK would have rejected them, and their heretical views if he were alive today.

Martin Luther King would have almost certainly rejected James Cone's belief that violence (in resistance) was clearly an acceptable option in light of violence through oppression. Now, whether violence in resistance to oppression is a reasonable thing or not is another question. I'm with Dr. King in that I see violence as fundamentally unacceptable, and that hope is more transformative than guns. But it's hardly off-the-handle-crazy to say that you can be violent in self-defense, or to overthrow oppression. The USA was founded on those principles. And while Cone may be famous for saying violence is acceptable, his point is not about how wonderful it would be if Blacks up and killed the White folk, but rather how persistent racism leads to violence on both sides, and how violence towards freedom is more justifiable than violence to maintain racism. Cone sees violence as the tool of the white-controlled government, and that support for that government, even through neutrality, is akin to perpetuating racism. These days, that seems over the top, but back in the late 60s, enforced segregation was not long in the past, and some people have justifiable trouble leaving that image behind as their idea of what the USA stands for.

However, I don't think you understand Dr. King, the radical implications of his message, not just of hope, but also in condemnation of injustice. What MLK said forty years ago about Vietnam, and the fundamentally violent nature of American imperialism, Jeremiah Wright is saying today about Iraq, and if it's not a perfect copy, it's very close. Neither is pulling their punches about criticising US policy, US history, or "white" society, still lingering in racism. For both, the obstacle is institutional violence, the political and economic oppression that held people down because they were black, poor, gay, or otherwise unacceptable to the rich and powerful. Both are clear that the only way forward is nonviolence, and that the goal is a racism-free world.

As best I can tell, Jeremiah Wright fundamentally shares Martin Luther King's dream of equality, and not the nightmare of hatred and racism you impute to him. The 1960s radicalism that emphasized the "violence is sometimes okay" elements of Cone and Black Liberation Theology do not seem to be present in Rev. Wright's sermons or beliefs, although I am of course open to any such evidence. He is certainly provocative and controversial, and holds some beliefs that are shamefully wrong.

But don't mistake Dr. King either. He was not pussyfooting around about racism and inequality, and considered the problems of racism to be inextricably bound to economic inequality and militarism, and was not shy about condemning America and white people (although not all white people) for perpetuating them. He did not believe his Dream was a reality, and as his life dragged on, he became increasingly discouraged at how far away it seemed. Were he alive today, my bet is that he would be at Trinity United delivering exactly those same kinds of speeches, condemning the US government for its violence, for its racism, for its persistent inability, over 40 years later, to progress towards his Dream. And if he might not have believed things like the AIDS conspiracy theory, I cannot imagine that Iraq would strike him as much different from Vietnam, that that the racism of today is so very different from the racism of yesterday.

Dr. King on Foreign Policy: http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/m...reaksilence.htm

On inequality and black pride: http://www.indiana.edu/~ivieweb/mlkwhere.html

-Jester

(Edit: MLK was, of course, dead by the time Richard Nixon was president, so a straight Bush-Nixon comparison is meaningless in that context, and a sentence to that effect has been removed.)

[Jester]

Your characterization of the context in which I was writing is entirely wrong. I asked you, "Would you have condemned Hitler after he wrote "Mein Kampf", but before he acted out his sick manifesto? ". This was an attempt to see if YOU had the capacity to understand the consequences of fiery rhetoric, not an idiotic tit-for-tat comparison of Wright to Hitler.

My challenge was whether Wright incited violence either by calling for it or by people commiting it in his name. Let's see how hard it is to pass that challenge with Mein Kampf, by either method.

The greatness of every mighty organization embodying an idea in this world lies in the religious fanaticism and intolerance with which, fanatically convinced of its own right, it intolerantly imposes its will against all others.

Or maybe...

Only in the steady and constant application of force lies the very first prerequisite for success. This persistence, however, can always and only arise from a definite spiritual conviction. Any violence which does not spring from a firm, spiritual base, will be wavering and uncertain.

There are only about a million more, in Mein Kampf and elsewhere. (Try here: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mein_Kampf ) Hitler, to nobody's surprise, passes the challenge with flying colours. He thinks greatness comes from fanaticism, intolerance and violence. If that's not an obvious incitement to violence, I have no idea what is, but I'm sure it wouldn't be tough to find, seeing as he's Adolf freaking Hitler.

Do I really have to put Hitler through the paces? It's the easiest case in the world. If you'd rather deeds than words, that's also not really difficult. The Beer Hall Putsch was in 1921, prior to Mein Kampf. He tried to overthrow the governemnt at gunpoint. Do I need to go on?

Now, where's your case for Wright? Where's his "Mein Kampf" where he condones, and not condems, racism? Where he writes that violence is the answer, or that fanaticism and intolerance are the keys to greatness? Where is Wright's Beer Hall Putsch? Or anything even remotely, in the most distant possible way, analogous?

I could also draw parallels between Nietzsche as a moral compass for the social movement of the oppressed and defeated Germans, versus Cone, Wright, or Hopkins as moral compass for the oppressed and enslaved blacks. But then again, I ask myself why I bother to even attempt to discuss these things, since you are either that obtuse that you miss my points, or you are being intentionally intellectually dishonest or perhaps merely seeking to "win points" by trying to be clever.

Speaking of obtuse vs. intellectually dishonest, why on earth did you even bother with this? Asking me to prove that Hitler was a violent crazy racist even as early as 1921, let alone by 1926, is almost painfully easy. Did you honestly expect me to fail that challenge? And if you knew it was painfully easy (and you must) were you just unable to read what I originally asked you for, some feeble measure of evidence for your claims? Because that's all I've done here.

This comparison is bogus. It makes no sense no matter how far you stretch it. It is a Godwin in the classic tradition of killing threads through ridiculous exaggeration.

-Jester

(Edit: Link fix.)

[Occhidiangela]

Happy? Are you happy? You sure don't seem it.

That would be correct.

What does that gnomic little statement mean?

Willful obtuse much? Is it what amuses you?

That things you are familiar with are untrue? That things you are not contemptuous of are true? I can't parse anything out of it that isn't an obvious fallacy or a meaningless statement. Care to elaborate?

That which you have a great amount of detail about you can examine in sufficient depth to hold in contempt, as it is low hanging fruit, and you need not do any work to get to where you can hold yourself aloft in some self congratulatory status of above x, y, or z. It's the game you continue playing. (I am beginning to think that you style yourself some sort of Skeptic, with a capital S.)

That which is more difficult to obtain info about you do not bother to examine in depth.

Hence the reference to Tibet, in contrast to the rut of America bashing (and specifically the trivially simple exercise of Bush bashing, one of the world's easiest targets ever) you have been in for some years.

Fallacy?

More pendantic tripe from our alleged philosopher, this self proclaimed seeker for truth. Go back into the cave and talk to the shadows, you'll be better off.

If, on the other hand, you are fool enough to attempt to find truth in politics, even the cave cannot help you.

You'd do just as well look up, into my nostrils, to find truth.

Occhi

[Jester]

I am skeptical, you're right. I am skeptical about claims made without sufficient evidence. I am skeptical about people getting furious over well-accepted definitions of plain english words like "torture." I am skeptical about topic changes which make no sense. I am skeptical about comparisons with Hitler. I am skeptical of people who think familiarity and contempt are related to truth. I am especially skeptical about people who fling ad hominem attacks around in lieu of evidence.

Skepticism is a virtue.

-Jester

[Occhidiangela]

I am skeptical, you're right. I am skeptical about claims made without sufficient evidence. I am skeptical about people getting furious over well-accepted definitions of plain english words like "torture." I am skeptical about topic changes which make no sense. I am skeptical about comparisons with Hitler. I am skeptical of people who think familiarity and contempt are related to truth. I am especially skeptical about people who fling ad hominem attacks around in lieu of evidence.

Skepticism is a virtue.

-Jester

Skepticism, as you are practicing it, is a conceit. Skepticism and its cousin critical thinking are tools, and in my view, damned good tools.

Attempting to package either as having inherent virtue is to mischaracterize their nature.

Who compared you to Hitler, if I may ask? Are you deliberately engaging is a bit of Godwin asshattery?

Occhi

[kandrathe]

I was mulling over today whether it was worth coining a new word for your approach, Jestrification. This would be where you can seemingly astutely grasp the finest nuances of complex ideas as long as they model your world view, but when asked to understand the simplest concept in contrast you regurgitate utter nonsense.

My challenge was whether Wright incited violence either by calling for it or by people commiting it in his name. Let's see how hard it is to pass that challenge with Mein Kampf, by either method.

Whoa, stop. You got it wrong again.

I did not equate Wright to Hitler. I did not compare Wright to Hitler. I did not link Wright to Hitler. I don't think Wright is like Hitler. I would actually enjoy debating Wright. I would attend Wright's church to see his sermons first hand. So, again, just to be very transparent, I did not compare Wright to Hitler. Are we clear on this now?

I asked you that question because I want to know what you consider outrageous, and where you draw the line. Forget Nazi's past or present as examples of racists and bigots. It is seeming to derail your thinking.

You have told me that Wright, Cone, Farrakhan or I guess anyone can preach whatever they like first, because it is merely a fire and brimstone sermon, second, because they might have a screw loose so nobody listens, third, there is no proof their rhetoric is harming anyone, and fourth when faced with clearly antagonistic and bigoted statements you conveniently find the broadest interpretation to couch them as vague references to "oppressors" or "the system" rather than who he is clearly targeting.

So you are either very, very, very open minded to the freedom for anyone to spew whatever hate filled, bigoted, racist crap they desire, or you have a double standard when it comes to defending liberals, socialists, communists, progressives, and other people who even remotely share your world view.

My views are different; I condemn all bigoted and racist speech whether it be Martin Luther, Louis Farrakhan, Pat Robertson, James Cone, Jerry Falwell, or Jeremiah Wright.

[kandrathe]

The full quote is: "Black men turning on black men- That is fighting the wrong enemy. You both are the primary targets in an oppressive society that sees both of you as a dangerous threat." The enemy is the oppressive society, not Whitey. It's the same target he's always had: institutional racism, no surprises there.

Hmmm, oppressive society. Who is the oppressive society? Who is the oppressor, and how are they oppressing?

Turn it around, and the quote is nonsensical; you don't hear about appalling levels of white-on-white violence, and nobody worries that the neighborhood they moved into is "too white" and therefore too violent.

I wouldn't move into a neighborhood run by Hammerskins or Aryan Nation. So, yes, a neighborhood can be "too white" and too violent for my taste.

Okay. So, what if tomorrow, incensed by your words, someone went out and killed Jeremiah Wright.

I haven't called Wright an enemy, and I'm clearly not calling anyone to any action. You're the only person who seemingly can decipher the vague allusions of Cone, but can't grasp the connection between the bigotry of one group and another.

Would that then be your fault? Of course not. Wright's church has dozens of clear, nonviolent, social activist ways in which one can change the government, or society directly. Obviously, democracy and the support for Obama is one of them, but there are other, less political ways, through church charity. What he's saying *could* be interpreted as a reason for violence, but the same was true of MLK, of Gandhi, of anyone; it could theoretically be true of what you've said here, without even having to twist your words beyond their obvious meaning.

Yup, I call that Jestrification.

Does Wright not have the right to speak out against these things?

Certainly, as does David Duke. And, those of us who are offended by bigotry have the right to object.

Is that how you are construing my argument? That I am exclusively considering numerical superiority? This is about oppression, not statistics. South Africa never had a white majority, and yet a white elite imposed Apartheid. Are you asking us to believe that this did not matter because whites were never a numerical majority? What a silly argument. Forty-two white men have been president, with not even a woman among them, let alone a black person. This is not just a trivial matter of numbers. I also did not use the word "minority" at all, to avoid being interpreted as you just did.

Have you ever lived in a *crack* neighborhood, or ever been harassed by street thugs who view you as their prey? I have, and I know people who have. Have you ever been to South Africa, or known anyone whose relations were "necklaced" by a mob? I have, and I know people who have. I have good friends who were/are ANC, and also those who were on the police force. Have you ever hired, trained, or promoted any minority? I have. I work daily with people from all parts of this planet, and many who come from *real* oppression.

So again, I would ask what you mean by oppression, and who is doing it to them? I would ask you what you mean by power, and who is exerting it upon whom? You call me silly? I would say you don't have a clue.

However, I don't think you understand Dr. King, the radical implications of his message, not just of hope, but also in condemnation of injustice.

No, I understand it. :-) Thanks for checking.

Personally, I view injustice and slavery in a broader context that transcends race. Slavery is the ultimate denial of a person from decisions that mold their future, but also the fruits of their labor. In my view, this is what your world view of socialism is doing to us all. I see your movement as giving government more control over the running of my life, and taking more and more of the fruits of my labor from me and through deficit spending enslaving my children. Jester, you and your socialist friends are enslaving us all.

[Jester]

Who compared you to Hitler, if I may ask? Are you deliberately engaging is a bit of Godwin asshattery?

Occhi

Nobody. Have you been reading the rest of this thread? Kandrathe brought Hitler into it. That is what I am referring to, and if you've not been following along, I can see how that would have been confusing.

-Jester