Jimmy Carter: Wilson comments 'based on racism'

[Admiral Yi]

It's frustrating.  Michael Tomasky writes about this.  No-one uses plain racist phrases any more because it will get them crushed, but they still use the sentiments in less explicit ways.  Then when someone notices and picks them up on it it's them who are accused of playing the race card which is, strictly speaking, true in that they're the first to explicitly mention it.

Tell me, how does one distinguish between racist sentiments expressed in a less explicit way and simple hostility?

[Caliga]

If you hate Obama, you must be racist.  He's done absolutely nothing to alienate anyone since taking office. 

[Berkut]

It's frustrating.  Michael Tomasky writes about this.  No-one uses plain racist phrases any more because it will get them crushed, but they still use the sentiments in less explicit ways.  Then when someone notices and picks them up on it it's them who are accused of playing the race card which is, strictly speaking, true in that they're the first to explicitly mention it.

How can you tell they are using racist sentiments in "less explicit ways"?

Can you define this for me, in a manner that one can be certain someone is being racist?

[Martinus]

If you hate Obama, you must be racist.  He's done absolutely nothing to alienate anyone since taking office. 

Yup. Obama is to racism what Israel is to antisemitism.

[DontSayBanana]

How can you tell they are using racist sentiments in "less explicit ways"?

Can you define this for me, in a manner that one can be certain someone is being racist?

If the person isn't making racial slurs, you can't really say with 100% certainty, but you can make an educated guess if the guy fawns all over whites and then is a total dick to everybody else or just blacks or whatever. In Wilson's case, there's no pattern of connected behavior to fall back on; we just have Carter and Seedy's sixth sense for when someone's keepin' a brother down to rely on.

[Neil]

This isn't true.  When I first started posting on EUOT all the Americans thought Carter was the model former President.  It's only in the last 5 years or so that that's changed.

Carter was easier to like when he was wasting his time on useless projects like eradicating diseases in Africa.  When he starts going on about dismantling Israel, the encouragement of communism in Latin America and when he talks shit about the UK (Larouche-style) he becomes less likable.

[Caliga]

Carter was easier to like when he was wasting his time on useless projects like eradicating diseases in Africa.  When he starts going on about dismantling Israel, the encouragement of communism in Latin America and when he talks shit about the UK (Larouche-style) he becomes less likable.

I actually don't especially dislike Carter, and I think he means well, but I was posting from the perspective of a President, or at least how I think successive POTUSes have prolly viewed him.  When you're the Head of State, the last thing you want or need is someone else acting like Head of State emeritus.  OTOH Nixon did that some after he left office and IIRC Reagan actually appreciated it.

[Admiral Yi]

If the person isn't making racial slurs, you can't really say with 100% certainty, but you can make an educated guess if the guy fawns all over whites and then is a total dick to everybody else or just blacks or whatever. In Wilson's case, there's no pattern of connected behavior to fall back on; we just have Carter and Seedy's sixth sense for when someone's keepin' a brother down to rely on.

Exactly.  You *can* construct a racism argument based on a pattern of previous behavior and speech, or on the use of loaded (though less explicit) terms.  But there's nothing racially loaded about calling someone a liar.

The moment I thought Jimmy C. jumped said shark was when he was on TV saying the overwhelming majority of Americans were in favor of rebuilding New Orleans.  Then came his free-fall into explaining Hamas was just joking when they said mean things and only meant the nice things.

[Neil]

How can you tell they are using racist sentiments in "less explicit ways"?

Can you define this for me, in a manner that one can be certain someone is being racist?

If the person isn't making racial slurs, you can't really say with 100% certainty, but you can make an educated guess if the guy fawns all over whites and then is a total dick to everybody else or just blacks or whatever. In Wilson's case, there's no pattern of connected behavior to fall back on; we just have Carter and Seedy's sixth sense for when someone's keepin' a brother down to rely on.

Use an educated guess:  Am I a racist?

[derspiess]

OTOH Nixon did that some after he left office and IIRC Reagan actually appreciated it.

Difference is Nixon was trying to help his country and as we all know, Carter is a traitor.

[The Minsky Moment]

It's frustrating.  Michael Tomasky writes about this.  No-one uses plain racist phrases any more because it will get them crushed, but they still use the sentiments in less explicit ways.  Then when someone notices and picks them up on it it's them who are accused of playing the race card which is, strictly speaking, true in that they're the first to explicitly mention it.

Tell me, how does one distinguish between racist sentiments expressed in a less explicit way and simple hostility?

That is shelf's point I think.  Externally it is very difficult and thus a reasonably clever racist can easily conceal their true agenda by just being a little careful with language.

[Berkut]

It's frustrating.  Michael Tomasky writes about this.  No-one uses plain racist phrases any more because it will get them crushed, but they still use the sentiments in less explicit ways.  Then when someone notices and picks them up on it it's them who are accused of playing the race card which is, strictly speaking, true in that they're the first to explicitly mention it.

Tell me, how does one distinguish between racist sentiments expressed in a less explicit way and simple hostility?

That is shelf's point I think.  Externally it is very difficult and thus a reasonably clever racist can easily conceal their true agenda by just being a little careful with language.

Except that is BS - a full blown racist saying "Obama is a liar" and a completely non-racist saying "Obama is a liar" are the same thing, insofar as the words are concerned. Accusing either of them of racism is an obvious ad hom - whether they are racist or not has nothing to do with whether or not Obama is actually a liar or not.

"Obama is a liar" is not a racist comment, even when it comes from a racist. "You only say that because he is black!" is however a clearly racist comment, when it is clear that the comment in question has nothing to do with race.

The problem here is not with the people attacking Obama, it is with the people defending Obama by accusing those who attack him of racism without grounds to do so, and then defending themselves by saying "Oh, well we all know what they REALLY mean!"

[Faeelin]

[Admiral Yi]

That is shelf's point I think.  Externally it is very difficult and thus a reasonably clever racist can easily conceal their true agenda by just being a little careful with language.

The second half of his point is that someone can notice them doing it.  Which leads back to my question: how does one notice it?  Either Carter and Seedy have a technique, rules of evidence, that they use, and which can be explained and elaborated, or we are expected to trust their intuition.  Or I suppose in Seedy's case accept his premise that all white southerners are racist.

[Malthus]

It's frustrating.  Michael Tomasky writes about this.  No-one uses plain racist phrases any more because it will get them crushed, but they still use the sentiments in less explicit ways.  Then when someone notices and picks them up on it it's them who are accused of playing the race card which is, strictly speaking, true in that they're the first to explicitly mention it.

Tell me, how does one distinguish between racist sentiments expressed in a less explicit way and simple hostility?

That is shelf's point I think.  Externally it is very difficult and thus a reasonably clever racist can easily conceal their true agenda by just being a little careful with language.

This is true. You can never tell what motivates a person. Could very well be racism.

Does it really matter? Unless someone provides obvious clues, you can never tell what motivates anyone. Opposition to healthcare could be based on racism, blind partisanship, philosophic opposition to creeping socialism, or even dislike of the proposal's merits; if the opponent is a "clever" person, you will never know whether the opposition was based on credible motives or not. Same of course goes for proponents.