I'd like to have a civil discussion about what people think is and isn't racist, the various levels of racism, and how we should treat others with whom we agree and disagree on both. I have a chart in mind I will post later.

Rules are nobody gets to post in here but me. If you would like to join the discussion, simply PM me your post. I will edit out the personal attacks and instances of the name "Bruce" and send it back to you. You review and update to make sure the post is still accurate, and send it back to me. I will edit out the personal attacks and instances of the name "Bruce" and send it back to you. This iterative process will continue until the post qualifies as "civil" by my definition which is roughly stated, "be respectful to others."



JJ: I'll be deleting posts ITT at FoldnDark's request.

To start this off, many have called out the terms "race hustler" and "race baiter" as inherently racist. Their argument is that it is demeaning to black people who ought to know how they think and feel, so claims they are being manipulated are only made by racists who think black folks are inferior.

While it may be true that racists do such things for the reasons they suspect, I dispute it's true that the term is always used that way. For example, the audience need not be black, or any particular race at all to be manipulated by someone distorting the picture injecting race as a cause for injury (play the race card). So, while in all cases the term is somewhat demeaning, in that it assumes people don't always think for themselves and can easily be mislead, race is not a determining factor. Calling it racist is begging the question.

Many terms like these are tossed out as "dog whistles" or something that a racist would say, and dismissed without addressing the arguments that follow. While I think people who use these terms are often wrong, and sometimes they are racist, often they are not racist at all and there is nothing inherently wrong with their arguments.

For example, it's common for someone who is pro-law enforcement to say that anyone who publicly claims, "we have an epidemic of cops killing black kids," is just a race baiter. They will point out about 400 people are killed by cops in the US each year, and they aren't all black. In a country of over 300 million where it's easier get a gun than a driver's license, it's a wonder this number isn't higher. So where is this epidemic? I think that's a good point, and the statement should be revised. "There is an epidemic of cops abusing black people," is more difficult to argue against, and more likely true.

It's not begging the question if one doesn't look at the denotation but instead looks at the historical connotation. You'll find little to no Conservative writers who use 'race hustler' to ever mean white people. Why is that? Because Conservatives don't see issues that mainly appeal to whites as racial, they see them as 'normal'. Part of this is the purposeful obfuscation by Republicans as part of the Southern strategy and part of it is the idea that 'white' is the normal.

- Lee Atwater

Notice you'll never hear a Conservative writers who talk about welfare moochers as 'race baiting', nor will you hear anyone who advocates like 'tax cuts for the rich and reduction in services for the poor' as race hustlers, BUT you will hear a person who points out that those things disproportionately hurt minorities as a race hustler. Pointing out racial impacts becomes racism as if the original topics were clean cut objective topics.

Again, I'm not saying it's not used that way, as a political method to appeal to racists like Atwater describes, but that it can often be a real complaint, and the arguments matter. You can't just dismiss everything used in political gamesmanship, or we'll have nothing left to say. Similarly, one could argue people often described as race hustlers are playing the same game Atwater describes when they incorrectly inject race into a discussion, like in the murderous cops example.

Your specific example appeals to racists, true, but also to a lot of conservatives who fundamentally oppose expanding welfare for all people, black, white and whatever, and many of them are not concerned with race. They actually believe everyone is better off without being enabled by government hand outs. You can try and convince them they're wrong ideologically, even point out they are perhaps unintentionally hurting blacks at a greater proportion than whites (assuming you can convince them they are hurting anyone), or you can call them racist and they will laugh at you and assume you're fooled by race baiters yourself.

Well that you admit that the Southern strategy poisoned the well for any kind of 'objective' meaning for 'race hustlers' or 'race baiter' is all I care about. It's obvious the terms were heavily used by whites to pilfer black and minority activists and trying to parce it out or resuscitate it is pointless. It's just a matter of pointing out that Conservatives 'race hustled' and 'race baited' infinity more times than blacks did and probably ever will.

Best to admit that race hustler and race baiter are just anachronistic terms of a bygone era like carpetbagger and scallywag and move onto describing the problems as they come individually

Well, the problem I see, and maybe you can correct me, is tons of people use those terms, and I don't believe they are being racist at all, regardless of some savvy political strategist's intention. They simply see an instance where they think the race card was played incorrectly, like the cop example, and then decide to stop thinking about the subject further because they assume it's just an instance of overtly-racial politicization, much like you do when you hear the term race hustler. So the result is a diminishing of discussion on the issues, everyone goes to their own corner and declares everyone else must be crazy/racist, and nothing gets solved.

No, tons of people don't use those terms. Tons of conservates do. So why not use it for policies that favor whites over minorities when you have Republican consultants expressly saying they are doing it for racial reasons? Because 'race hustlers' and 'race baiters' are already internalized to be 'blacks getting uppity'.

You're not giving Hue nearly enough benefit of the doubt. Look at the voter ID threads. They are chockablock with people popping in and saying "What could possibly be so racist about asking for ID? I have an ID myself!" Hue, I, and the rest of us actually bother to explain. There exactly one instance where the asker concluded, "Gee, that actually is pretty racist." Everyone else ends up thinking that we're a bunch of race hustlers. By the time the 15th person comes around with the same shtick, no one is terribly enthusiastic about going through the whole rigamarole again, esp. when the questioner doesn't show enough intellectual curiosity to read the first few pages of the thread.

I mean I get wanting to be able to describe overt politization along racial lines, but if that's the case just describe it. It's a good way to avoid all the excess baggage that comes with the other terms.

Yeah, DVaut put me in my place a little while back when I was talking about conservatives being in no way "fiscal conservatives" and in no way in favor of "small government." They aren't, of course, when one uses the plain meanings of small government and fiscal conservatism. But that's not the meaning that's being used.

It is the obligation of the writer/speaker to know the meanings (including connotations and baggage) of the words they are using.

It is nice if the reader/hearer of the communication to request clarification, but that isn't really their obligation.

Give me an example of what you mean.

I don't think you can expect everyone to pay much mind to what those who disagree with them politically think is wrong to say. Tons of people around here, in Missouri, use terms like that when the issue is brought up, and sure most of them are probably conservative. So what?

But a big problem is the issue doesn't get brought up much or for very long, and I have trouble engaging some folks because they just roll their eyes. I know they aren't bad or unreasonable people, they just don't understand what black people go through, and are not going to listen to a person who shouts at them they are racist when they know they got no beef with anyone because of race, especially when that person starts calling cops racist murderers. So what if they stop using "race hustler" and start calling him "race instigator" or "nice fellow who keeps misusing the race card," what does it matter how nice the name is they have for that guy, when their political opponents will eventually decide it's code for racist?*

*that goes to Brian's last comment too...I see I'm not going to be able to keep up with the traffic here.

It's not a term I'm very familiar with but it does rise a concern. Some, particularly politicians, will play any card they find useful and/or will accuse their foes of doing the same. Why is 'race baiter' (or race hustler) a fairly common term when 'poverty baiter', 'drug baiter' etc don't seem to get used?

From this side of the pond it does from look like an appeal to the racist elements, quite likely unintended by some but not very pc. Happy to be corrected.

I get that. People are lazy, and some are even stupid racists. Many are not though and just don't understand the facts. I'll bet more than one of them thanks to you has changed his view without admitting it publicly. You also have to understand many (especially perhaps those closest to it along the borders states) are going to be unsure if the studies that show voter fraud is not a real problem aren't just from some politicized think tank. We know voter fraud has occurred in this country in the past, and still happens in other countries, so it's not like it's a far-fetched concern.

Of course when ACORN ACORN ACORN are running (fake) voter registration drives, who wouldn't be worried about voter fraud? Btw if I were to look up ACORN pictures on Conservative sites, I'm willing to bet they'll be mostly black.

Well I'll let you take the wheel and drive here. Why would mostly Conservatives and not Democrats use terms like race hustler and race baiter when talking about blacks, but not the same terms when describing whites?

I think it's usually conservatives because liberals are not typically arguing against the "killer cop" statements. And a conservative is just as likely to call Al Franken a race baiter as Al Sharpton when either makes such a claim. And the audience of the "race baiter" doesn't matter either, it can be black, white or any mixture of races. If they are buying the "bad" argument from the politicized misuse of race, they are being "baited."

Edit: again, I'm not arguing the term doesn't resonate with racists, or that Republicans don't abuse that fact, just that it resonates with plenty of non-racists too.

How are Republicans abusing the terms?

They abuse it when they urge people to dismiss all arguments of someone they have accused of race baiting, despite many of those arguments having merit. This is similar to what Democrats do to discredit those they've labeled racist. It's all about getting voters to ignore the other side instead of seeing both sides.

Hey, vote for G Douche, not the racist. No vote for S. Sandwich, not the race baiter.

So you have mostly Conservatives who use the phrase and mostly vote Republican who abuse the phrase, a phrase that invites or appeals to racists, and you wonder why people roll their eyes at you? I mean you just explained why people don't take the word race baiting seriously but don't expect people to take account. Why not just say I think there are some instances where accusations of racism are thrown around when racism isn't a factor? Then go and name those specific instances and reasons. It works just fine.

I think we all can agree that this dude was a 'race hustler'. Hustler here meaning a dude who was personally lining his own pocket by spewing racism...

Anon allegedly hacked a WS site and found direct connections to you know who recently. A hustler is just in it for the money, The real deal racist deceives because of conviction. I say that's more likely a pic of a real deal than a just a hustler. The devil is in the details.

I thought that was what I was doing? Pointing out these particular terms aren't racist in and of themselves, lots of people who aren't racist use them to describe those people who toss around racism too loosely, and both sides abuse racial terms politically to win arguments and votes from lazy-minded people who don't want to spend time empathizing with each other and thinking things through. We should stop doing this, assuming everyone else is stupid and evil and instead try to understand and educate one another even if it's frustrating at times because otherwise we see what happens poop flies and nobody listens. Is this too kumbaya?

What an amazing double standard.

The people throwing around terms like "race hustlers" aren't doing that as a shorthand for something the other side doesn't understand. The people who use the term are liars, and they are usually the ones doing the race hustling. There is no argument from them which we need to understand deeper. They are making **** up in order to agitate and carouse the people on their own side.

In contrast, people who call things racist, you'll usually find extensive follow ups explaining why that thing is racist. Because they're actually racist.

Saying "race baiting" is meant to be dismissive though. Even if it is a correct charge, it is going to lead to at least a bit of crankiness.

Think of it as adding a solution of silver nitrate into a solution of sodium chloride.