Conservatives outraged as Obama racistly acknowledges that racism still exists

[Lief 🗽]

Obama delivered a great speech about race yesterday. Unfortunately, as we all know, whenever a black man talks about racism, he is in fact being racist himself. And American conservatives refused to stand for it.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatesthis/obama-accused-of-dividing-america-with-racist-speech-about-g

By failing to understand that the only racism that still exists in this country is that directed against whites, B. Hussein Obama has fired the opening shots in the coming race war and further balkanized this country. Disgusting.

[All Along The Watchtower]

lol white people

[Marokai Backbeat]

lol white people

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

I loved the irony of a conservative page on Facebook with a Reagan avatar accusing Obama of being a race-baiter.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

lol white people

[Zioneer]

lol white people

[RedSLC]

lol white people

[Person Man]

lol white people

[The Free North]

'nom sayin OP?

[krazen1211]

America knows who the killers are.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/01/02/us/chicago-killings.html

[BluegrassBlueVote]

That speech gave me a reason to be proud of Obama at a time where there haven't been many opportunities to.

[bballrox4717]

People are mad because they think Obama is calling them racist but they are missing the point: George Zimmermann is almost definitely not racist yet he racially profiled Martin. He didn't do it because he thinks blacks are lesser than whites. Zimmermann has likely had numerous encounters with African-Americans and thought absolutely nothing of their skin color. Obama's statement was meant to show others the view of this world from the African-American because the media is so saturated with black crime that people just can't help but to subconsciously profile people when it comes to crime.

The people who are screaming at Obama for bringing up real racial issues that exist and try to refute his point by saying they don't exist because they aren't racists are likely the most insecure when it comes to racial issues. They want to deny these feelings exist, but we can't fix this racial problem until we admit that most of us subconsciously racially profile.

[DrScholl]

Only an African-American man can feel the caliber of this whole issue, it goes way beyond anything that conservatives can see. The President himself has suffered racial animosity, including being called a thug, even those his clothes are as dignified as can be, he's well educated and well accomplished. It all comes down to the fact that if you are a black man, at some point or another, somebody is going to misjudge you, because they only see stereotypes and misconceptions.

[homelycooking]

America knows who the killers are.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/01/02/us/chicago-killings.html

That is an appallingly racist thing to say, and I think you should be thoroughly ashamed of having said it.

[barfbag]

Obama delivered a great speech about race yesterday. Unfortunately, as we all know, whenever a black man talks about racism, he is in fact being racist himself. And American conservatives refused to stand for it.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatesthis/obama-accused-of-dividing-america-with-racist-speech-about-g

By failing to understand that the only racism that still exists in this country is that directed against whites, B. Hussein Obama has fired the opening shots in the coming race war and further balkanized this country. Disgusting.

Right because blacks are always right about race right? I saw it. I saw him talking about how he could've been Treyvon Martin. It was about the most racist thing I've ever heard. You ore me could've been Treyvon Martin but all Obama saw was the color of Martin's skin. This is what Democrats do. They cry about racism unless they're the ones using it as a political tool. He went on to mention about a woman covering her purse in an elevator when a black male gets in with her and how she holds her breath. Since when is it the president's job to butt into our court cases? I know Democrats freaked out when George W. Bush got involved with the Terry Schiavo case and called for her to live. Now it's ok for the president to get involved with courts because Obama is a Democrat and supporting a liberal cause. Notice the hypocrisy. I'd be disappointed in my party if they didn't call Obama out on his bias.

[The Free North]

America knows who the killers are.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/01/02/us/chicago-killings.html

That is an appallingly racist thing to say, and I think you should be thoroughly ashamed of having said it.

Its not racist if its true. Why are some people so afraid to admit simple things? African Americans, statistically, commit more crimes than whites and asians. Why does that trigger so many people to throw the word racist around?

Its not like i'm claiming that EVERY black person is a thug/murder/etc

This is what political correctness does, facts hide when the r word flies

[jaichind]

I guess my response to Obama would be: I think there is nothing wrong with any individual using racial profiling to help in making decisions.  I actually do not approve of Zimmerman's actions.  While I agree that he had a right to use racial profiling methods to help him to identify someone as a possible criminal, that would be a reason for him to contact the police, not for him to risk his own life and the life of this possible criminal by provoking a conflict.  As for the abstract point on racial profiling, I think using data about people based on various categories like race, gender, dress, age etc etc are excellent ways to set default values on what our assumptions of what this persons is like or is likely to do.  Of course as we learn more information about said person we can then override our default values with real observable data.  In the absence of such data I think it is totally reasonable to use information we derived via correlation analysis.

One extreme thought exercise on this topic would be this: Say you leave our house/apartment to walk to your car and you find between yourself and your car a grizzly bear.  Would you go around the bear to get to your car.  Of course.  But what assumptions have you made to make that decision.  You might have watched on TV certain grizzly bears act in dangerous way, or your might have hear stories or statements from your parents on how dangerous grizzly bears are.   None of that information is necessary fair to apply to THAT grizzly bear in your parking lot who might turn out to be a very peaceful and non-aggressive bear.  But it is totally reasonable to make the assumption that this grizzly bear might be dangerous especially if you never interacted with grizzly bears before in that context (like beyond looking at one at a safe distance in a zoo.)  

[barfbag]

I guess my response to Obama would be: I think there is nothing wrong with any individual using racial profiling to help in making decisions.  I actually do not approve of Zimmerman's actions.  While I agree that he had a right to use racial profiling methods to help him to identify someone as a possible criminal, that would be a reason for him to contact the police, not for him to risk his own life and the life of this possible criminal by provoking a conflict.  As for the abstract point on racial profiling, I think using data about people based on various categories like race, gender, dress, age etc etc are excellent ways to set default values on what our assumptions of what this persons is like or is likely to do.  Of course as we learn more information about said person we can then override our default values with real observable data.  In the absence of such data I think it is totally reasonable to use information we derived via correlation analysis.

One extreme thought exercise on this topic would be this: Say you leave our house/apartment to walk to your car and you find between yourself and your car a grizzly bear.  Would you go around the bear to get to your car.  Of course.  But what assumptions have you made to make that decision.  You might have watched on TV certain grizzly bears act in dangerous way, or your might have hear stories or statements from your parents on how dangerous grizzly bears are.   None of that information is necessary fair to apply to THAT grizzly bear in your parking lot who might turn out to be a very peaceful and non-aggressive bear.  But it is totally reasonable to make the assumption that this grizzly bear might be dangerous especially if you never interacted with grizzly bear before in that context (like not looking a one a safe distance in a zoo.)  

The forms play a big part in this too. We have the form chair because the object at participates in the form of chairness. What applies to one chair however, may not apply to another. One chair may be soft and another may be a reclining chair for example. The best we can conclude is that we are a universe of particulars. An object is no longer the form chair, but the form of this chair. We are in other words a universe of this's and that's. Having said this, Zimmerman only had slight knowledge of the forms and not the particulars or particular forms. For one to be wise, they must have a knowledge of all the forms. Simply because Treyvon Martin was black because he participated in the form of blackness, doesn't mean he is identical to every single form which participates in blackness. Heck, color applies to the living and non-living so why go from statistics. Before acting, one must break through the immediacy and get to know the forms in their particulars. This, Zimmerman failed to do. I like your grizzly bear analysis. 

[Sbane]

So every black person must live under the assumption that they are a criminal? What about Hispanics? Or did the Zimmerman trial absolve them from their sin of having brown skin?

[Cory]

Right because blacks are always right about race right? I saw it. I saw him talking about how he could've been Treyvon Martin. It was about the most racist thing I've ever heard. You ore me could've been Treyvon Martin but all Obama saw was the color of Martin's skin. This is what Democrats do. They cry about racism unless they're the ones using it as a political tool. He went on to mention about a woman covering her purse in an elevator when a black male gets in with her and how she holds her breath. Since when is it the president's job to butt into our court cases? I know Democrats freaked out when George W. Bush got involved with the Terry Schiavo case and called for her to live. Now it's ok for the president to get involved with courts because Obama is a Democrat and supporting a liberal cause. Notice the hypocrisy. I'd be disappointed in my party if they didn't call Obama out on his bias.

I frankly doubt that.

[homelycooking]

America knows who the killers are.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/01/02/us/chicago-killings.html

That is an appallingly racist thing to say, and I think you should be thoroughly ashamed of having said it.

Its not racist if its true. Why are some people so afraid to admit simple things? African Americans, statistically, commit more crimes than whites and asians. Why does that trigger so many people to throw the word racist around?

Its not like i'm claiming that EVERY black person is a thug/murder/etc

This is what political correctness does, facts hide when the r word flies

It can be quite racist if it's true!

Krazen's comment counterposes a white America ("America knows...") to a population of virile, violent, undisciplined, uncivilized blacks living in urban ghettoes. He is using the fact of the high incidence of murder in those ghettoes to make a clearly implicit comment about and characterization of the nature of the so-called black or African race. He did not say, as you did, that "America knows among which group the incidence of murder is comparatively highest" - his words are: "America knows who the killers are".

I put it to you that Krazen's analysis is not quantitative but qualitative - and a very poor one at that. He is rendering a very incendiary and insulting stereotype of blacks by suggesting that they are killers and, through his link to the NY Times graphic, that white America knows where they live. Given this nation's history of racial violence that has sprung from very similar prejudices and sentiments, I found that comment to be in poor taste and suggested that Krazen show some shame for having posted it.

[jaichind]

It can be quite racist if it's true!

Krazen's comment counterposes a white America ("America knows...") to a population of virile, violent, undisciplined, uncivilized blacks living in urban ghettoes. He is using the fact of the high incidence of murder in those ghettoes to make a clearly implicit comment about and characterization of the nature of the so-called black or African race. He did not say, as you did, that "America knows among which group the incidence of murder is comparatively highest" - his words are: "America knows who the killers are".

I put it to you that Krazen's analysis is not quantitative but qualitative - and a very poor one at that. He is rendering a very incendiary and insulting stereotype of blacks by suggesting that they are killers and, through his link to the NY Times graphic, that white America knows where they live. Given this nation's history of racial violence that has sprung from very similar prejudices and sentiments, I found that comment to be in poor taste and suggested that Krazen show some shame for having posted it.

Well, lets start with the some more quantitative and look at homicide rates.  The homicide rate for Blacks which is about 25 per 100,000 and White which is about 3.3 per 100,000.  So a Black person is almost 8 times more likely to commit a homicide than a White.  We can debate until the cows come home why that is but the number is what it is.  Now that is out of the way, lets look at what was said "America knows who the killers are."  I am not sure I like the way it phrased either since it lacks clarity on exactly what he means.  I more clear version of the statement would be "America knows that killers are Blacks" if one were to infer his intentions.  While that statement is not all that accurate since the absolute number of Whites that committed homicides still slightly outnumber Blacks.  A better version which is more "quantitative" would be "America knows that Blacks are 8 times more likely than Whites to be killers."  Note that none of these statements comes close to the version I think you are projecting onto what is said which is "America knows that all Blacks are killers"  which would be grossly inaccurate.  But there is a big difference between "American knows that all killers are Blacks" and "American knows that all Blacks are killers."  The first might be incorrect but one might come to that false conclusion due to the fact that Blacks are 8 times more likely to be a commit a homicide.  The second is wild off the mark and someone saying that I think one can at least make the assumption that it is possible that the remark was made to be hurtful to the Black community and would show a person with an inability to process simple high school level logic.  My point is that Kazan seems to fall into the first camp and not the second.  You can still demand an apology if you want but lets be clear that you should demand he apologize for the error of the first type and not second since I, reading his comments, did not feel he made any sort of comment like the second type.

[homelycooking]

I don't think you acknowledged a difference between "America knows that all blacks are killers" and "America knows that blacks are killers". I think Krazen's statement is of the latter type, and, as an aside, I disagree with your strange statement that:

...one might come to that false conclusion [that all killers are blacks] due to the fact that Blacks are 8 times more likely to be a commit a homicide.

(If people do come to this conclusion, I think, credit will be due to their prejudice and/or ignorance and not their knowledge of statistics.)

I don't dispute that "blacks are killers", in the most superficial sense - that blacks do kill people. In this sense, given a large enough population size, all people, of any race or ethnicity, are killers. This meaning is, I believe, a great dilution of the emotional charge of Krazen's statement. I understand "blacks are killers" to have a much more...provocative affect, shall we say, than "blacks kill" or even "blacks kill at a statistically high rate".

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Remember when people got so butthurt about Lief and I talking about and pointing out how awful white people are? Well here's proof. So:

lol white people

[Beet]

Well, lets start with the some more quantitative and look at homicide rates.  The homicide rate for Blacks which is about 25 per 100,000 and White which is about 3.3 per 100,000.  So a Black person is almost 8 times more likely to commit a homicide than a White.  We can debate until the cows come home why that is but the number is what it is.  Now that is out of the way...

Just to respond to this, your selection of statistic is incomplete because you also have to look at homicide victimization rates. Blacks have a homicide victimization rate of 27.8 versus just 4.5 for whites (http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf). So what this tells us is that yes, blacks are more likely to kill-- other blacks. Most of this violence is gang-related, crime related, or violence between people who knew each other previously. It would be just as accurate to say that America knows who the victims are: blacks. In fact, if you wanted to get really incendiary from the opposite direction, you could argue that white opposition to gun control amounted to killing blacks, because a disproportionate number of urban blacks will get killed with those guns imported from suburban or rural America.

To take another example, suppose you were in an army camp during a war full of snipers. The people around you collectively have a very, very high 'homicide' rate -- probably close to  10,000-50,000 to 100,000. Astronomical. But are you scared? No, because you know that although they are killers, there is a method behind their madness and they only kill the enemy, they do not kill a national of your own country, since you are on the same side as them.

When you put the black homicide and black victimization rates together, a non black person encountering a black person, even a young black male at night, really doesn't have much more to fear than encountering a person of any other race.