So everything you type is just random verbiage with no relationship to how you think, feel and act?

In addition, when did racists become such delicate, hot house flowers?

No, this is patently false and with a little reading about government legislation with respect to banks you might figure out why.

Actually I was replying specifically to your post so there wasn't anything to discuss there except you calling me a racist for no reason. The discussion part was attempted elsewhere.

Ok, so tell me why you think I am a racist. Give a number of examples as to why you think that. Overwhelm me with your evidence please.

Then point me in the right direction, chief, because I am quite well read on the topic.

Yes, the Jerry Springer show you enjoy is not tolerated in SMP and that's a good thing.

I mean guys, there's a bear. A big racist bear that's sitting outside this cave and it wants to eat us. It's really obvious to most of it. We can see the bear, we know people the bear ate, we know people who starved because they couldn't leave the cave for fear the bear would eat them. The bear's existence is an inarguable fact.

Yet there's this group of people here who keep trying to pretend the bear doesn't exist, and it's awfully hard to imagine a reason why they'd do that if they're not in league with the bear.

If you're trying to argue a thing anybody with a lick of common ****ing sense knows exists (and dammit- "racism exists" is not group think in the way you're defining it, it's just a ****ing 100% obvious fact that anybody who bothers to pay attention to the world around them should be able to admit) people are going to make some pretty damn reasonable assumptions as to why you're fighting against reality.

Didn't someone call some people cockroaches playing clown music in SMP? Or was was limp wristed homosexuals?

Sure, and discussions do happen about the merits of the individual proposals, but I think the racial issues do infect all the proposals listed to varying degrees. That people don't want to talk about that is understandable, but it's necessary

And I do not disagree. But what seems to happen (here at least) is that some posters lurk and wait for any little thing that they can quote that they can infer as racist and then they pounce, throw out the label, and that is the end of any reasonable proposal discussion etc because the labeled person is forced to explain why what they said is not racist and on and on it goes.

I am fine with talking about racism and the issues that are present. Its the quick to label someone a racist with little to no evidence of actual racism that I have an issue with.

Just lol at claiming moderation here is bad and stifles discussion while saying if we went to their forum we'd be banned because they don't like how we post.

Again, point to me where I argue in any post that racism does not exist. You can't. I have never said that. I know the bear is there and he is big and hungry. But the bear is not the sole reason why people can't leave the cave. Maybe that is where we disagree.

I agree with you. Let's avoid labels. It's call it as it is. People who aren't minorities pushing proposals that just coincidentally harm minorities but do so without purposeful intent, because that's racist, instead perhaps just plain neglect of minorities, is that a good description?

Call it as it is, hmmmm. I don't think the above removes the label given your description because it makes an assumption about the agenda of the group pushing certain legislation that very well could be totally inaccurate.

Ding ding ding.

Well yes we never have access to people's interior states of mind so we must always guess what people's true motivations are.

It's not the eliminating voter fraud part that is controversial. It's the making it more difficult for minorities to vote part that is controversial.

But let's say someone wants to pass a law that will reduce voter fraud by 0.00001%, but this person doesn't care that it makes voting twice as difficult for the average African-American voter. Why is it unfair to categorize that position as racist?

I wonder what the acceptable ratio of fraudulent votes eliminated to legal voters unnecessarily burdened is?

Well, as long as they're all blacks who cares how high the ratio goes?

Amirite??

OK. So I guess my next question is why is the guess almost always "he/she must be racist"? Don't you think there could be other intentions at least some of the time?

Of course that would be fair to categorize the above as racist. But that still doesn't mean that the idea of making elections clean is a bad idea nor those who want to make them clean all want to do so because they are racist.

Using the article to show wage growth under two different presidents was all I was doing

Good, I'm tired of the economy being blamed on Bush and the recovery credited to BO

Too bad more people don't share this view

I didn’t say they shouldn’t discuss race or racism in schools; just less emphasis on using the education system as a means of churning out social justice activists and more emphasis on providing necessary skills and knowledge.
McFly and BruceZ might have teaching certificates.

Intention would be one reason: “The act is not culpable unless the mind is guilty.”

You're on a familiar treadmill. Maybe eventually we have to get off and just start ignoring the abuse. There's no requirement to attempt to entangle the abuse from the content in abuse heavy posts - there's plenty more content about.

So on voter ID? Everyone is against voter fraud (let's take that as read) so which real issues separate those in favour of the proposals from those against?

The against arguments afaics are that it doesn't reduce voter fraud significantly and that it effectively disenfranchises already disadvantaged and discriminated against groups. That sounds very plausible to me, what's the counter argument?