Hawaii verifies Obama birth records to Arizona

[Admiral Yi]

What sort of evidence would you consider compelling enough to accept that it's the case? What sort of evidence would you accept to not immediately discard the hypothesis?

Why are you asking me this question instead of asking Seedy & Friends why they think the way they do?

[Valmy]

Your opinion certainly does not require evidence.

You can believe whatever you like, for whatever ridiculous reasons you like. Just like birthers believe whatever they like despite no real evidence that their beliefs are anything but idiocy.

All I am saying is that their position looks like a racist view to me based on the reasons I have listed before.

I don't think I understand your point though. This is a discussion board where we discuss things. You have every right to believe in things you have no valid reason to believe in, and I have every right to speak my opinion about that as well.

There is no real point.  The question was raised if I think the birthers are racists.  Yeah it looks like it.

Of course not. My entire motivation for engaging in this debate could be based on my belief that if I do not, the Black Panthers will come and kill me.

That is entirely possible.

Should YOU believe that to be the case, despite me never once saying anything about Black Panthers? Probably not.

Something being possible in theory is not a good reason to believe it is true.

And something being possible in theory is certainly not a good reason to run around accusing millions of people of racism.

You CAN do it of course.

Ok if somebody engages in actions that appear idiotic to you, you accuse them of idiocy.  I see them engaging in actions that appear racist to me, I accuse them of racism (well not really we are just stating our opinion on message boards not going door to door calling out birthers).  We are both aware of the same evidence that apparently is sufficient to label them as idiots but not as racists.

One of those cases where you are choosing to believe something is true despite the complete and total lack of evidence that it is true just because it is possible, therefore it is true?

I have already stated my reasons for thinking so.  I do not think there is a complete and total lack of evidence I do get that you do not find it convincing.  I am not sure exactly what sort of evidence you would find convincing.

This particular strategy is being used because there is some question, no matter how silly, of where he was born. Every conpiracy theory hsa some little shred of basis to hang itself on. Why would you just assume that race has something to do with it?

For reasons I have already stated. 

Do you really think that if Obama was an identical person, except white, there would not be "birthers" out there claiming he is not American? Of course there would, just like there were people claiming ridiculous things about Clinton, and Bush, and Reagan, and every other not black politician.

Well we have to agree to disagree on that one.  I can think of no parallel.

Of course - and one could claim that those attacks are racist with the exact same level of actual evidence you've provided that THESE attacks against him are racist: None at all, beyond "gut feeling".

Again I gave my reasons and you dismissed them.  I am not sure why that is "none at all".  Just that you do not find them convincing.

Birther attacks - RACIST! We see it over and over and over again. Everytime someone on Languish attacks Obama, the race card is promptly and consistently played by the usual suspects. I call them on it, and we have 20 pages about what an asshole Berkut is for not seeing the obvious...and yet we still have zero evidence that any of this is significantly motivated by racism.

I don't think you are an asshole.  I just think the Birther stuff is racist.  If I thought you were an asshole I would not be writing this post.

Right - but the only evidence given that this one appears to be is that Obama is different, that he is black. WHY does this appear to be racism, but the same types of attacks against Romnery is NOT racism?

Answer: Because Obama is black.

So what does that leave us with: The reason these attacks appear racist is because Obama is black.

The fact that Obama is black is a context in which these attacks are being made and why, IMO, they have significant traction.  Of course there is more than that, the xenophobic angle and such.  It scratches several bigoted itches.

Note that there is nothing in that statement that has any relevance to the attacks themselves - and hence the claim is just as logically valid (not at all) when leveled against any other attack on Obama.

Well I disagree.  He has an "other" type name and he is black so this particular strategy works...on certain people.

I was not calling you out specifically, just using you as an example of how this works. You and Tamas have both bought into the "birthers are racists!" dogma, and based on no evidence or logical argument beyond what amounts to "Birthers are dumbasses, Obama is black, so they are probably fucking racists!" Which is emotionally appealing, granted, but devoid of reason or logic.

Why would seeing my countrymen behaving badly be logically appealing?  I find it pretty depressing actually.

I don't know what it achieves other than the basic and ongoiing attempt to polarize political discourse in the US into the "Us vs. Them" the extremists in each camp are so fond of.

More generally though, I just find race baiting contemptible, so comment on it when I see it.

Well I find racism contemptible and sad as well.  So I try to be honest with myself when i see it come up.

Because there is good evidence they are idiots - anyone who can look at the evidence in regards to Obama's elgibility to be President and still conclude that there is any issue there at all is not operating with reason and rationality. They probalby aren't literally idiots, so much as they just don't care about the truth, and are willing to just ignore evidence that doesn't fit what they want to be true. "Idiot" is as useful a shorthand as any for those types, on both sides of the political spectrum.

There is a difference between being stupid and being racist though, and it is the history of racsim in this country that makes the distinction important and meaningful.

What is the distinction?  And how would it be made?  I see a guy who looks like "other" and has a name like "other" have a movement against him based on him being "other".  That looks like it conforms pretty well with the history of racism in this country.

[Admiral Yi]

Now, can you show that birtherism is more likely amongst racists?  Yeah, you can do that.  http://content.usatoday.com/communities/sciencefair/post/2011/04/social-scientists-look-at-racisms-role-in-birther-viewpoint/1#.T8ZiS1LCFOI Can I show that the GOP has pandered to racists voters in the past?  Yeah.  I've done that.  I actually had quotes from Republican strategists who said as much.  I've posted them before.

I suspect that birtherism also corelates well with church attendance, gun ownership, NASCAR, rural, and non-coastal residence.

[Valmy]

The part of racism that is relevant to our discussion is a dislike of Obama based solely on his skin color.  The question under consideration is whether the birther conspiracy is an effort to channel the socially unacceptable dislike of blacks into a more socially accetable skepticism about his place of birth.

Well there is another part to it as well and that is his name and the foreign origin of his father and the muslim thing.  The xenophobic thing.  The second part is that this is a strategy that has been used before by racists in this country.  That context is also a factor in my mind.

[Admiral Yi]

The second part is that this is a strategy that has been used before by racists in this country.

Please elaborate.

[Razgovory]

I never said he didn't.

Then why did you post the snopes link?

To demonstrate why someone might fixate on a person tripping over their tongue three years ago.

[Berkut]

The part of racism that is relevant to our discussion is a dislike of Obama based solely on his skin color.  The question under consideration is whether the birther conspiracy is an effort to channel the socially unacceptable dislike of blacks into a more socially accetable skepticism about his place of birth.

Well there is another part to it as well and that is his name and the foreign origin of his father and the muslim thing.  The xenophobic thing.  The second part is that this is a strategy that has been used before by racists in this country.  That context is also a factor in my mind.

That strategy has been used before by non-racists as well. Kennedy is an excellent example.

So once again, the "evidence" is not actually evidence at all.

[Razgovory]

Now, can you show that birtherism is more likely amongst racists?  Yeah, you can do that.  http://content.usatoday.com/communities/sciencefair/post/2011/04/social-scientists-look-at-racisms-role-in-birther-viewpoint/1#.T8ZiS1LCFOI Can I show that the GOP has pandered to racists voters in the past?  Yeah.  I've done that.  I actually had quotes from Republican strategists who said as much.  I've posted them before.

I suspect that birtherism also corelates well with church attendance, gun ownership, NASCAR, rural, and non-coastal residence.

I take you didn't read the article.  Or half my post considering your response to Valmy.

[Valmy]

Please elaborate.

Just as you state, actualy openly being a racist is politically untenable for awhile, so to mobilize those forces you have to grab ahold of some other cause.  I hesitate to start listing them because I do not want to get into long debates over each of these issues...do you get where I am coming from or do we need to get into this?

[Neil]

Hell, Seedy once accused the Shrubbery's wife of murdering her boyfriend when she was a teenager based on nothing more than the fact that she married a Republican.

I did not.
I accused her of vehicular manslaughter, based on nothing more than the fact that she committed a traffic device violation.

... and the fact that she married a Republican.

[Valmy]

That strategy has been used before by non-racists as well. Kennedy is an excellent example.

So once again, the "evidence" is not actually evidence at all.

No it is evidence and contexts that you do not find convincing.  It is still evidence and contexts though.

[Admiral Yi]

I take you didn't read the article.  Or half my post considering your response to Valmy.

I read your entire post.  I just read your link.  At least it's an attempt at reasoned argument.

Valmy: I suppose you're talking about Willie Horton?

[Jacob]

Why are you asking me this question instead of asking Seedy & Friends why they think the way they do?

Because I'm interested in your reasoning.

[CountDeMoney]

Hell, Seedy once accused the Shrubbery's wife of murdering her boyfriend when she was a teenager based on nothing more than the fact that she married a Republican.

I did not.
I accused her of vehicular manslaughter, based on nothing more than the fact that she committed a traffic device violation.

... and the fact that she married a Republican.

That doesn't make you a Republican, it just makes you a dirty filthy whore.

[DGuller]

... and the fact that she married a Republican.

That doesn't make you a Republican, it just makes you a dirty filthy whore.

I want to officially register my objection to this characterization of Laura Bush, and I want to point out that Seedy's views do not necessarily reflect the views of DGuller.