...that was a bad analogy, counselor, parried with this one:
It really wasn't and here's the objective truth about why: for many, many years of our nation's life black people were denied simple, basic human rights. They were denied these by the holders of a social status quo. Liberals weren't in that group. Even after being granted basic human right blacks were denied equal status under the law for a very long time, also by the holders of that same social status quo. The holders of status quo during that time were and have always tended to be, politically conservative.
But it doesn't mean that all or even most conservatives are racist in our time, or that racism is an inevitable or inherent part of conservative thinking. I don't believe it is. In fact, I think it's contrary to rational conservative political thinking. But racists aren't rational, they're just angry and in need of some vestige of power. Given that a great deal of tradition is wrapped in conservative thinking, it's no real shock that racists would find other common ground to advance their agenda as best they can.
All leftists are not racists. But most racists are leftists...
See, that's just counter factual as observations go (supra).
No one can reliably quantify which group is more racist than any other
Sure we can. It's not even all that difficult if you know how to put together a valid survey. But ideology itself will give you indicators from the outside of it, given liberal philosophy tends to be progressive and empowering of the other (which is part of the reason conservatives dislike liberals so intensely) while conservatism tends to hold on tightly to tradition and the cultural status quo (which is why liberals tend to dislike conservatives so intensely).
-- everyone can cite evidence that any group (even their own) has the worst racist tendencies, or the least worst.
Anecdotal information is a fine way to illustrate a point, but a horrible way to make it. I'm sure there are racists of any stripe. But the question of where one would find a more traditional home isn't hard to answer. It's especially easy in the South, where most racists abandoned a life long party affiliation when their old adversary became a surer bulwark of that status quo and resistance.
It's meaningless to bring it up in this context and you know we of TOL are too sharp to let that red herring fly because this isn't about race. It's about Islam.
I didn't offer a red herring and I didn't say this was about race. I illustrated a problem with your stereotypical thinking. I do think race feeds some of the irrationality involved in response to this nothing of a story, but I think it's mostly and for most responding about a stereotypical reaction over Islam. Or, if this kid is a Christian the response here would be very, very different.
To that end, we CAN reliably quantify which particular grouping has the most members worldwide that engage in terrorism in the name of that grouping. And we're stupid if we don't.
According to the FBI, between 1980 and 2005, the overwhelming number of terrorist attacks here were committed by non-Muslims. Not even close. How many Islamic terrorist attacks have their been since, here?
Here's an article from the New York Times, June of this year.
"Since Sept. 11, 2001, nearly twice as many people have been killed by white supremacists, antigovernment fanatics and other non-Muslim extremists than by radical Muslims...
A survey to be published this week asked 382 police and sheriff’s departments nationwide to rank the three biggest threats from violent extremism in their jurisdiction. About 74 percent listed antigovernment violence, while 39 percent listed “Al Qaeda-inspired” violence, according to the researchers, Charles Kurzman of the University of North Carolina and David Schanzer of Duke University."
Mere racists tend not to slaughter people.
When it's in their interests not to. When it wasn't they dumped shiploads of sick into the Atlantic or executed them for social offense, like being impolite or reading. It didn't even go so well for blacks who bucked the system here when racists weren't supposed to have the power. People were murdered over the right to vote, by way of example.
We're talking two totally different levels of iniquity here. I would also direct you to the new poll that says 51% of Muslims in the U.S. would support sharia law. If they ever get their way, you're out of a job lest you convert.
That's not exactly what the Brierbart (however spelled) piece said and the small distinction you're leaving out is important: 51% said MUSLIMS should be able to choose if THEY want to be under Sharia law. Muslims, not me, not you and not their Hindu neighbor. Most Muslims don't believe non Muslims should be under it.
It's also interesting to note that Muslims who have lived under systems where a fairly rigid adoption of Sharia law was in play aren't as enthusiastic about it and there is a large divide in Islam about what Sharia law should be exercised, with a growing number objecting to the more punitive aspects of criminal punishment. So even within that marginally better than half (meaning about half said, "No, thank you.") there's division.
And I suspect that the Sharia half is largely comprised of immigrants suffering culture shock, conservative Muslims, if you will.
Who, me? All I said was, he did not invent a clock. Does that make me a racist?
Who said saying he didn't make the clock made anyone a racist? What I said was simpler:
"There are all sorts of facts in life. One of them involves fully grown people doing their darndest to make a fourteen year old boy the subject of ridicule and contempt."
