2008 Presidential election about race?

Tom Littleton wrote:
"Ken Fortenberry" wrote:
Bull**** is fine, racist bull**** is not. I try to be careful and
call the bull**** racist, not the people.

and calling an alternative opinion, or reading of statistics, racist is
wrong. Repeating it, endlessly, at nearly everyone who questions your
statistical analysis, is loony.

Assuming that most or a significant number of black voters are
black racists is racist bull****.

It doesn't have a goddamn thing to do with "statistical analysis".
There's nothing wrong with calling racist bull**** exactly what
it is. And I fully intend to do just that.

YMMV

--
Ken Fortenberry

On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 19:26:58 -0600, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

Tom Littleton wrote:
"Ken Fortenberry" wrote:
Bull**** is fine, racist bull**** is not. I try to be careful and
call the bull**** racist, not the people.

and calling an alternative opinion, or reading of statistics, racist is
wrong. Repeating it, endlessly, at nearly everyone who questions your
statistical analysis, is loony.

Assuming that most or a significant number of black voters are
black racists is racist bull****.

Well, you've called me racist, the entire South racist, etc., etc.,
etc., and yet, I've not said, nor have I seen it said, that "a
significant number of black voters are black racists..." However,
depending on how you define "significant," I will say it right now: if
"significant" means more than 10% and less than 50%, a "significant"
number of black voters (and non-voters) are black racists. Just like
about the same number of white voters (non-voters) are white racists.
But that's not important in the data set under discussion. If you
define "significant" as "meaningful to the result(s) in question, what's
important is that a _significant_ number of non-white voters were
encouraged to vote skin color and did so. It just so happens that in
this case, using the latter definition, "significant" in import is
pretty small in relative numbers. And it doesn't say they are "racist"
in the traditional sense, it merely confirms the well-established - that
people tend to vote, associate, etc., with people they perceive as being
most like themselves...which also explains why so much white trash
support the Clintons...

It doesn't have a goddamn thing to do with "statistical analysis".
There's nothing wrong with calling racist bull**** exactly what
it is. And I fully intend to do just that.

Ken, I like you, but you are one of, if not _the_ most blindly racist
people on ROFF. I will assume, in your favor, that you have a blind
spot and aren't able to see just how racist you really are. Black folks
don't need or want some guilty white liberal defending them like some
benevolent better with some starry-eyed view of "his brothas in da
conflict." And it does no good, and it fact it does harm, to scream
"RACISM!!" anytime anyone treats "black" just like any other
demographic.

TC,
R

YMMV