A rope leash wrote:
I was reasonably sure that SPACEBROTHER forum entity would throw the race card on my statements about Ron Paul's admiralty.
But to say that questioning Obama's place of birth or his actual religious orientation is "racism" is going overboard. It's like saying that a person who questions the integrity of anyone that is not their own race is a racist.
It does not matter to me about Obama's lineage. The birth certificate he released is a reproduction based on Hawaiian medical records, not the actual birth certificate. There is room for question there.
As for his Muslimness...he lived most of his childhood in Jakarta, which is in Indonesia, which is mostly populated by Muslims. http://friendsofindonesia.org/indonesia ... indonesia/
So, there is room for question there, too.
It doesn't matter to me if he is a Muslim, but if I think he is, how does that make me racist?
SPACEBROTHER forum entity's party-line talking point responses are like certain trains.
They are never late.
Though it's not likely to be read, I'll try to point out a couple things.
For at least eleven years and probably longer, I have noticed a rush to judgement by people that is due to what I call associative or even correlative fallacies.
Associations are made or correlations are made by people all over between ideas, facts, objects, people, institutions etc. that are not supportable by the facts and established methods of proof.
For example, you say, half of Indonesia is Muslim in their faith [true]and that Obama 'lived most of his childhood in Indonesia' [also true]. Therefore, you say, it is reasonable to ask questions about Obama's self-avowed faith in Christianity. But this is an inferred fallacy and not a correlative truth. I'll show you how.
"More than half of the US population are women [true], women have vaginas [also true], so therefore you 'rope leash' as a US'er - and I guess, Obama too - must be questioned as to whether you are actual US males. "
Silly right? It's the same associative fallacy thing. A good way out of this conundrum used to be called using common sense. But they don't teach that and parents often don't have it either so ... kids go out in the rain or cold without a jacket and get a cold. And then sneeze it all over everyone close by.
'Not having a [legitimate] birth-certificate' is a more complex, yet also more compelling way to say, '
"[So-and-so] Ain't from around here."
"What was he, born in a barn? HAHAHA"
"Maybe his momma wasn't so proud of that one"
"If his origin is in question - no matter how preposterous - then it becomes simple to claim, that live birth is not part of our tribe."
"If he ain't one of us then he must be against us."
"He must be one of THEM."
See how easy this is? Certain associations are made, false or true, then certain kinds of speculation are encouraged, again, false or true. Then the most spectacular forms of the results of these speculations are ... embiggened ... and spread all over by certain forms of media ... and within a day or two, everybody says,
"Can you believe what they're sayin on the teevee?..."
I'll never forget when I heard that just after the '09 inauguration Rush Limbaugh called Obama 'a boy
, unfit to be the ruler of the free world'. It was in the first fifty days of his first term. Rush knows how many people listen to him and he excels at this sort of associative/correlative fallacy and the speculation that goes on ahead of and behind his little fallacial offerings.
Why would a master of the airwaves and his brand of innuendo stoop to such a racially charged epithet?
Because he knows it will give his audience what he knows they want to hear. Like any showman.
You want more associative fallacies based on speculation?
"Saddam Hussein is involved with 9-11"
"We will be greeted as liberators."
"Don't want a smoking gun to become a mushroom cloud"
"Most black, hispanic people want to do harm to white people, as a rule, for reparations."
"The economic pie is only so big..."
"Your household budget is just like the national budget."
"Cutting budgets in every scenario improves our economic standing."
"Watch this woman act like she wants to give federal dollars to this fake pimp and prostitute."
"ACORN steals elections."
"This video proves black people hate white people."
"This video proves the black panthers want to take away the votes of law-abiding white people."
"Government is the problem, not the business of the private sector!"
"Fannie and Freddie caused the housing crisis and then the economic meltdown."
"Moochers take what you create."
"The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."
Of course there are many more and many more are made up every day.
In my travels, I have found many people who don't want to know the details. They don't want to read the fine print, they don't want to find out the history of it all for themselves. They want someone to tell them what to do or 'what side' to believe in. I understand they feel beset by too much already. They have enough on their plate in life already. Strangely, they want their news- food pre-digested for them, too. "Just tell me what I need to know. If it's a controversy, tell me the two sides and I'll figure out where I stand."
Reality unfortunately is not so black-and-white, not so simplified and pre-digested. The problem is made much worse when based on cherry-picked evidence and then coupled with associative and correlative fallacies and fantasies. Michelle Bachmann, Allen West, Ted Cruz, Sarah Palin, Glen Beck, all excel at these sorts of things.
Sadly, this is not enough. In all the cases I alluded to above, the big picture has been withheld from the broad national conversation of these topics.
Same with the deal for drones. Same with the deal for whistleblowers. Same with the reach of the US Patriot Act. Same with the deal for acts of domestic terrorism. Same with the fallout from the tsunami in 2011. Same with the oil spill in the Gulf, in Mayflower Arkansas, in Houston and the earthquakes due to fracking. Same with the credit market crash in 2008, the loss and bailout of the banks, the auto industry failing, real estate markets failing, the consequent other bailouts and the fallout from all that. Same with the fantasies about gun regulation.
And the lack of demonstrable evidence or thoughtful logic and common sense tactics pushed by some, breeds more baseless conjecture and speculation for some. Some of the things they've been coming up with for years has allowed many to study this behavior, and others to copy it.
The behavior is showing a willingness to dis/associate things, ideas, people that do not follow logically. Like 'the smell test'. What does that even mean if it is not tribal, aiming to discount what they cannot or will not understand?
On the one hand it's fine that, for example, Michelle Bachmann is free to believe in the successes of 'praying away the gay'. Where she errs is when she wants to make that law. It's fine on the one hand if people are afraid that the boogie man will get their children asleep in their beds. Where they err is leaving the gun they bought 'for protection' out of the cabinet or mistakenly reveal where the key is hidden. Because children mimic the behavior of adults and are naturally curious. And are not old enough to make value judgements about when to use the gun or how. And there are examples of this very kind of tragedy that have happened this week.
The bumper sticker that says, 'A fetus with a gun will not be aborted' is a perfect example of a number of associative AND correlative fallacies. And also perfectly illustrates the lack of common sense that is necessary for these sorts of fake conclusions to be sold and even, 'believed'.
Racism as an american phenomenon is a product and generator of a great number of these sorts of associative and correlative fallacies.
The reason? Fear of the unknown, mostly.