Is Dick Tator racist?

I have not thought of this dude in ages. But just now I was watching this discussion of Tea Party racism and got to thinking of the ornery southerner.

he's obsessed with the topic.. either because he knows its a hot button issue and his tinderbox like nature feels it's a good way to get attention or he genuinely feels very strongly about it and believes in stereotypes. I for one subsribe to the latter hypothesis in this circumstance.

I find it very hypocritical that Truth Teller gets lambasted for his Lara Logan obsession but DT gets a free pass over his obsession with Ron Paul.

Yes, he's a racist.

It was odd to me to learn that he is part black himself. Like, he even argues the Klan was formed to protect southerners from the war criminals of the north. Or something, I honestly can't remember what his position was outside of some apologetic argument for the Klan not being racist. I can't tell if he believes that to be true but kind of doubt it. Trolls gonna troll, etc.

The only unusual thing about DT is that he enjoys flaunting his racism, as if it were something scandalous and cool and important. However, most people are racist to some extent and for the most part it's completely inconsequential, like other personal feelings and aesthetic prejudices. Nobody cares what "Dick Tator" writes on some stupid internet forum.

When it comes to bigotry, nobody at DA can compare to GanjaFreebird who is a genuine hardcore bigot. It's just that nobody (other than me) really notices because bigotry against Arabs (and specifically Muslims) is perfectly acceptable in our society. I don't see Dick Tator yapping about millions of people being "savages" and "animals" and "barbarians" who deserve to be exterminated, deported, expelled, etc. until they "join the human race," and more importantly, what GanjaFreebird represents (proudly) is not just a peculiar but commonly held feeling or prejudice, but an actual, all too real historical phenomenon -- the systematic, relentless, brutal and sadistic persecution of millions of people based on their ethnicity in the Middle East. In other words, unlike DT's views, GanjaFreebird's bigotry, insofar as it expresses or reflects the actual use of government-sponsored violent force in pursuit of policies now being implemented by very powerful interests, is not only offensive to decent people, but very dangerous.

knave wrote:It's just that nobody (other than me) really notices because bigotry against Arabs (and specifically Muslims) is perfectly acceptable in our society.

Very true.



I've (willfully) forgotten, is Ganja part of the Zionist lunatic fringe?

I will add this:

The most pernicious aspect of GFB's bigotry (which is strikingly similar to the kind of rhetoric you find on VNNforum.com -- it's too blatant for stormfront, which is more demur) is that it's all expressed and argued in the name of "liberalism."

Dick Tator is a racist but he doesn't claim to be a "liberal," whereas GFB does, and in so doing, degrades and debases liberalism and everything real liberals stand for (or used to, when they still existed). Today's liberals (like Obama) don't see any problem at all with aligning themselves with a far-right wing militant government ruled by racists, busy enacting laws specifically intended to persecute minorities based on their ethnicity, which is one reason why I don't consider myself a "liberal" anymore.

As for GFB being on the lunatic fringe, his attitude is pretty mainstream (although right of center) in today's Israel as demonstrated by the fact that Avigdor Lieberman's political party is perhaps the most popular party in Israel now. The Israeli mainstream is now comparable to the far right in Europe as represented by LePen in France, Haider in Austria, the British National Party and many others whose names I don't even know. This is all inherent in the very concept of Zionism as an ideology of ethnic nationalism. GFB is smart enough to understand this, I think, but he's a profoundly dishonest person.

I seriously doubt Dick Tator is part black, or whatever the fuck it is that he claims. He's really just constantly trolling - not that there's anything wrong with that.

:

Here's the "liberal" GanjaFreebird defending Obama's decision to defy a Congressionally-mandated ban on military aid for four countries that use child soldiers. I posted this item to demonstrate the fraudulence of Obama's alleged liberalism.

Guido: The four countries that will continue to receive military assistance despite the use of child soldiers in their armed forces include Chad, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Yemen and the newly independent nation of South Sudan, according to a memo released by the White House late Tuesday.

GanjaFreebird: I support South Sudan 100%!! They are victims of Arab Muslim imperialism and slavery, you asshole...OF COURSE even their children will be fighting their oppressors and rapists, what other fuckin' choice do they have?

http://www.discussanything.com/forums/showthread.php/143299-So-how-many-muslims-do-you-genocidal-maniacs-need-to-kill-to-call-it-a-century

There are two explanations for this viewpoint:

1. Loyalty to a sleazy lying politician (Obama) is more important than loyalty to an exceedingly clear and obvious priniciple of liberalism, or really of humanity as such -- children should not be conscripted to fight in adult wars.

2. Racism and bigotry: According to GFB, providing material support for child soldiering in Sudan is OK because the kids are fighting "Arab Muslim imperialism" and as long as you're fighting Arabs and Muslims, everything is OK. (He doesn't comment on child soldiering in Yemen, Congo or Chad, because the whole thing isn't really important in any event. Who cares?)

Ugh, to be compassionate, sensible, and not racist is to be in the minority at DA. Sometimes I swear that they have to say the things they do only to be smug and contrary, because if they actually, in their hearts, believe the things that come out of their mouths-- well, that makes me very despondent.

Dick Tator is a racist. Half black or not half black. It doesn't much matter.

It seems like quite a bit of time and space are devoted to whether so and so (like Dr. Laura, Ron Paul, the Teabaggers, etc.) are racist.

I tend to think that there are two kinds of racism, one of which matters and the other doesn't.

The racism that doesn't matter is the racism we often can't really be certain about -- that is, how someone really feels about a particular ethnic group in general. Because it is a matter of feeling, specifically, aesthetic feeling. Everybody feels kind of repulsed or uncomfortable by certain things, for example, certain foods, certain styles ("tacky"), certain kinds of music or art, and so on. Sometimes a person expresses his/her distaste and then we know how that person feels. More often, we have to guess. But for the most part, these kinds of aesthetic preference are not consequential and therefore not very important from a political perspective.

Take Ron Paul, for instance. I don't know a lot about Paul, and I'm not a Ron Paul supporter. But lots of people accuse him of being a racist and it seems that quite a few racists are Ron Paul supporters, and Paul hasn't repudiated those supporters. But I've never heard of Ron Paul ever saying anything racist, never heard of him supporting racist legislation or policies. (I could be wrong about this, but I doubt it.) Therefore, it remains speculation, but more importantly, who cares? Why does it matter if Ron Paul feels some kind of distaste for black people or Mexicans or Chinese, or whatever?

Even if Ron Paul is in fact a racist, that doesn't affect even slightly the validity (or invalidity) of his policy positions. So what's the point of arguing about it -- other than to engage in character assassination? (Character assassination is perfectly acceptable when it comes to Ron Paul, for other reasons, namely, because he doesn't conform to the conventional wisdom.)

Which brings me to the kind of racism that actually does matter -- the kind that has serious often lethal consequences in the real world. For example: it seems to me that America's foreign policy is racist. Our government is constantly engaged in political violence (war, invasions, occupations, drone strikes, assassinations) for reasons that are entirely cynical -- to further the careers of military generals, to enrich military contractors, to get politicians elected, to unify the rabble and divert their attention from domestic issues, to fulfill the dreams of grandeur of civilian bureaucrats, and so on. And it's unthinkable that this sort of political violence would be accepted if it were directed at white Europeans (like us) as opposed to dark-skinned poor people in third world countries. In other words, the targets of our more or less frivilous wrath are chosen based, at least in part, on ethnic and demographic criteria. They are brown and poor and basically defenseless. It doesn't matter if the policy is not based on racial hatred, if the intention is to wipe out an ethnic group or if the policy makers have racist feelings, because the fact is: American foreign policy is deeply racist.

Similarly, both houses of Congress, every US President, the media and most Americans are unified in their unconditional support of a country (Israel) that is overtly based on the principle of ethnic nationalism, the idea that people of one ethnic group have a "right" to rule over people who are not included in that ethnic group. That is as racist as you can get, in the way that really matters.

You can accuse Ron Paul of being a racist in the first sense (that doesn't matter), but you can't accuse Ron Paul of supporting America's racism in the second sense (that does matter).

Finally, wouldn't all the worry about whether so and so is a racist be better directed toward the kind of racism that actually kills people and destroys lives? But that we require that we actually care about racism, as opposed to just talking about.

knave wrote:It seems like quite a bit of time and space are devoted to whether so and so (like Dr. Laura, Ron Paul, the Teabaggers, etc.) are racist.

I tend to think that there are two kinds of racism, one of which matters and the other doesn't.

The racism that doesn't matter is the racism we often can't really be certain about -- that is, how someone really feels about a particular ethnic group in general. Because it is a matter of feeling, specifically, aesthetic feeling. Everybody feels kind of repulsed or uncomfortable by certain things, for example, certain foods, certain styles ("tacky"), certain kinds of music or art, and so on. Sometimes a person expresses his/her distaste and then we know how that person feels. More often, we have to guess. But for the most part, these kinds of aesthetic preference are not consequential and therefore not very important from a political perspective.

Oh, I totally agree with this. I mean going back to the original topic of discussion, I agree. No one cares what "Dick Tator" of retardville.com thinks about...anything. Nor does it seem likely he will rise to an office of power where he is really positioned to do damage with his ignorance stupidity.

With that said, there are obviously certain things you can't help but notice are incredibly racist and, accordingly, find at least somewhat offensive. (This goes back to what Rogan was talking about in that podcast...allowing yourself to waste energy getting offended over stupid things posted by an imbecile on an internet message board).

There are other things I want to say about Dick (and others like him), going beyond stupidity and touching on cowardice, etc., but that would be cheating on my mental diet and be exactly the waste of energy I want to avoid. :

knave wrote:Take Ron Paul, for instance. I don't know a lot about Paul, and I'm not a Ron Paul supporter. But lots of people accuse him of being a racist and it seems that quite a few racists are Ron Paul supporters, and Paul hasn't repudiated those supporters. But I've never heard of Ron Paul ever saying anything racist, never heard of him supporting racist legislation or policies. (I could be wrong about this, but I doubt it.) Therefore, it remains speculation, but more importantly, who cares? Why does it matter if Ron Paul feels some kind of distaste for black people or Mexicans or Chinese, or whatever?

I don't know for sure what the deal is with Paul. And like so many other things in life I know little about, mine too is a willful ignorance. I do know he used to publish some tiny political 'zine back in the day where something racist/offensive was published. He didn't write whatever thing it was (don't know, don't care to even google it) but people infer bigotry since he was the editor or publisher; whatever.

knave wrote:Even if Ron Paul is in fact a racist, that doesn't affect even slightly the validity (or invalidity) of his policy positions. So what's the point of arguing about it -- other than to engage in character assassination? (Character assassination is perfectly acceptable when it comes to Ron Paul, for other reasons, namely, because he doesn't conform to the conventional wisdom.)

Which brings me to the kind of racism that actually does matter -- the kind that has serious often lethal consequences in the real world. For example: it seems to me that America's foreign policy is racist. Our government is constantly engaged in political violence (war, invasions, occupations, drone strikes, assassinations) for reasons that are entirely cynical -- to further the careers of military generals, to enrich military contractors, to get politicians elected, to unify the rabble and divert their attention from domestic issues, to fulfill the dreams of grandeur of civilian bureaucrats, and so on. And it's unthinkable that this sort of political violence would be accepted if it were directed at white Europeans (like us) as opposed to dark-skinned poor people in third world countries. In other words, the targets of our more or less frivilous wrath are chosen based, at least in part, on ethnic and demographic criteria. They are brown and poor and basically defenseless. It doesn't matter if the policy is not based on racial hatred, if the intention is to wipe out an ethnic group or if the policy makers have racist feelings, because the fact is: American foreign policy is deeply racist.

Similarly, both houses of Congress, every US President, the media and most Americans are unified in their unconditional support of a country (Israel) that is overtly based on the principle of ethnic nationalism, the idea that people of one ethnic group have a "right" to rule over people who are not included in that ethnic group. That is as racist as you can get, in the way that really matters.

You can accuse Ron Paul of being a racist in the first sense (that doesn't matter), but you can't accuse Ron Paul of supporting America's racism in the second sense (that does matter).

Finally, wouldn't all the worry about whether so and so is a racist be better directed toward the kind of racism that actually kills people and destroys lives? But that we require that we actually care about racism, as opposed to just talking about.

Very well said. I agree completely with everything, especially US support of Israel. Another good example of enabling egregious abuse of power and injustice would be the US support of the Indonesian annexation of East Timor, supported and enabled by the US military. Callous indifference to the death and great suffering of hundreds of thousands of innocent East Timorese civilians is a perfect example of effective racism.