I've commented there and on my blog. (Hey, I don't plug my blog often.)

Like any reasonable person, I agree with you here.

One quibble: I don't believe using any word is in and of itself racist -- it's the context in which a word is used that determines its racist nature. Rob basically said blacks are dumb, violent, shiftless and lazy and that's why they're such failures at life in the U.S. It's a repugnant sentiment, mildly tolerable in private, but unacceptable in polite and public forums.

What's really scary is his commenters who agree with him. I've heard this, "I'm just speaking the truth shit" for a long time ... when in fact they're talking out their ass.

FWIW.

Not much of a quibble. ;-)

I was looking at that sentence and maybe I should have said the using the N-bomb is usually a good indicator that one is a racist.

The reason I posted on this further was because of his "defenders". Some of those people are nuts.

You said it. Scary. Hey, I thought there was a "New South" :)

(There, that ought to stir up some trouble.)

You are spot on Rosemary. In my profession where our lives depend on one another, there is no room for the type of attitude Acidman portrayed. Because of that, I agree with you whole heartedly, its racism plain and simple.

On another note, I'm glad things are looking up for you and Dean. How's the dog? I'm chomping at the bit (pun intended) for an update.

I certainly agree with you that the post was incredibly hateful. But does being ugly and rude make you a racist? I definitely got the impression that he's angry and trying to push buttons. But, does he think blacks are inferior just because he's mad at them? I'm not so sure on that one. I got the impression that he's angry not because they're inferior, but because they're capable (and in his view squandering opportunities). I don't think being hatefully bitterly wrong necessarily makes you a racist.

And I SO didn't read the comments. He has (or used to have) some SERIOUSLY disturbed commenters. Its the most depressing site I've ever been too.

Sgt. Hook,

We'll be posting an update on the dog soon. But I will say he is doing a little better.

Lucy,

I think you are being incredibly generous. I'm not inclined to split hairs on it. He may be angry but he believes what he is saying to be a truth.

I've commented on a couple of other blogs and on Acidman's own to decry what he did.

Let me add this here: It's not enough to cry "racist" and move on. Sure, he's racist. He admitted that and expects it. You're going to effect no change unless you take it beyond that. You have to show that not only are his statements racist but that they are WRONG.

Considering his blanket assertions, I don't think that's too hard to do. Heck, pulling up DOJ statistics and comparing them to census figures about the number of blacks in America should go a long way towards proving him wrong.

But yelling "racist" and leaving it at that does nothing.

Take a deeper look into calling out that someone is a racist. He is ranting I suppose but underneath the whole of it? Look deeper when you are judging if you are inclined to judge.

Those are of course only my thoughts.

I'm not sure its "generous" so much as pity for anyone trapped in a life like his, but I certainly appreciate "generous" instead of "stupid, naive, spineless, french, weak" :)

Anyone could have the richest coutry in the world with unlimited opportunities for all if one can get millions of people to wok for them for free (no labor cost) for 300 years; and then blame the enslaved for not taking advantage of the enslavers'"opportunities". My congrats on superior critical thinking skills rosemary.

Might be a case her for supporting Reparations? Thanks loads.

I still disagree with the "racist" label, though.

But that may just be the way I read through the rant. I suspect very strongly, for instance, that the "them" and "you" referred to refer precisely, utterly, and only to those guilty of the sins mentioned; certainly Rob's comments about black people in Haiti vs. Jamaica don't make me think that he believes that dark skin makes someone a savage.

It appears utterly obvious to me that he's talking only about a subset of black people in the US; those who belong to and encourage a failed subculture, rather than those who do "make a go of life" without becoming a complete fuckup.

I still suspect people see a "hateful racist rant" in large part because he's a Southern White Man Who Said The Vile N Word. (The other reason, that I have much more sympathy for, is that the rant isn't nearly as clear about teh specificness of the target as I'd like.

Hell, I could be *wrong* entirely!

Though I don't think so, from reading his praise of black entrepreneurs in Jamaica, who he praises precisely because they're taking action to improve their lives, in direct contrast to the rioters he mentions in the US.

(And why describe rioters as 'going African'? Well, I think it's a horrible word choice, precisely because it implies what I think Rob didn't mean (and what I vehemently disagree with him about if he did, if only because "African" and "Black" are so commonly conflated. Rwanda, Zimbabwe, and South Africa are all "African", and all "violent", but that doesn't mean the locution is helpful or a good idea) - that "African" means "vicious savagery" ... but how many black leaders excuse black violence by claiming 'oppression made them do it', or the like? Maybe not many, but they're very loud and influential about it. Paging Mr. Sharpton?)

Addendum: Now that I think about it, "Be a nigger if you want to, but don't criticize me for calling you one when you act that way." is precisely a refutation of "racism".

Why? Because you can't choose race.

If one can "choose" to be The N Word, then The N Word cannot refer to the color of skin, primarily or purely. Which was my entire point in the previous post's comments; "the N-word" refers to behaviour, not skin color.

Sigivald: The fact that he describes the behavior of a select few and then attributes it to an entire race is precisely why it is racism. The definition of prejudice is "Irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race, or religion." In this case, Acidman may be commenting solely on a subset of black Americans, but he attributes their anger, laziness, and violence to the entirety of the black race, or at least most blacks. I'm sure he'd say that Bill Cosby is not a ni**er, but walking down the street, he'd assume that most of the black people he sees share thost negative characteristics. That's racism.

JayTee,

Are you suffering from some kind of confusion?

Or are you in agreement with the vile hateful things that I quoted from Acidman?

Good post, once again, Sigivald. You did a good job expressing what appears utterly obvious to you. Just so.

Rosemary - same to you? You would repeat what you have in quotes back to Acidman? Feel free to ignore my question if you see it as being silly. Why would you want to say that? Isn't what he said in the first place what raised your ire? I wouldn't say that to anyone, ever. If I did, I'd feel like I said something racist.

Amy -

I am not arguing with your definition of racism.

That method also happens to be how I know to stay away from caged birds. My feelings were generated by a small subset and I attribute all of the things I don't like about caged birds to the entirety of all caged birds I see. Walking into a pet shop, yes, I would assume that all of the caged birds shared the negative characteristics that I don't like.

Were I to be put into a situation where I had the opportunity to find out whether or not a particular caged bird actually had those characteristics, I would come into it thinking that the caged bird would have them. Then, if it didn't, I would learn otherwise. I would still not like caged birds. In my experience, whether it is true or not matters not at all, caged birds are nasty, noisy, prone to pecking you and/or crapping on you.

I realize my example is not a very good one and more than likely cannot be used in comparison against what you said. Maybe it is ok to use that method of thinking with anything other than people. I can't say. I do not know.

All we have to go on is our own experience. I thought it was called learning as you go.

Maybe I am a racist, someone who thinks that they are not but actually are. I don't know. I hope not. I truly believe every person is equal and anyone has as much to offer as anyone else no matter what the colour of their skin.

But I know I don't like caged birds.

Brett,

Perhaps I was sloppy in my phrasing. He ended his screed - if you are gonna act like [x ] don't criticize [me] for pointing it out.

I was turning it on him. If he's gonna act the racist then he shouldn't cricize those that call him one.

I thought it seemed obvious that I was doing that but maybe not.

You're probably right in that it was obvious Rosemary. I have tunnel vision (if I had said 'same to you' I'd have meant the exact same) sometimes. Thank you for clarifying. I couldn't reconcile what I was thinking and thought I must be mixing it up somehow.

Brett,

No, thank you. I read it again and decided that I could have been more clear. So I fixed it. I don't want anyone to misread my intent.

Rosemary, that was very responsible. Since you insist, you're welcome!

For the record: I also think that what was written was done so with racist intent and was written very poorly in terms of clarity. All of my comments on this issue spring from the knowledge that I have certain thoughts that run contrary to popular opinion and I am keen on fostering critical awareness of sensitive issues toward further delving into how we (all of us) can debate more intelligently.

Sometimes Rob makes a good point in his posts.

But it's been months, maybe a year since I read him regularly, mostly because he gets so damned stupid about some crap.

If interpreted generously, as Sigivald and Brett seem to be doing, Rob does have one good (well-buried) point/question: Why is there such a large subset of blacks who act like animals at the slightest provocation?

The... *grunt* The 'biological father' of my nephew is an idiot, a druggie, and a violent asshole.

Most of his relatives are the same way, and only his grandfather sees ANYTHING goddamn wrong with it.

It's disgusting, there's no excuse for it, and if I'm ever in my sister's house and he comes in high and looking for a fight, I don't know if I could keep from killing him to protect my sister and nephew.

And yet, I know - I KNOW - from those I've known in my own life, especially, that most blacks aren't that way.

But damn, why the hell are the ones we see the most on TV, the ones who buy into the Jesse Jackson/Al Sharpton/whoever-heads-the-NAACP's depiction of 'It's the White Man's fault when you do something crazy and hurtful! You can't help it!'?

Why are entire neighborhoods - heck, entire quarters of cities - full of people, black and white, who think that lawlessness, rioting, violence for its own sake are all fine so long as they're the ones doing it?

This has migrated from my point, obviously. But that's my stream of consciousness here: 1) Rob goes over the line too often for me to enjoy his site regularly anymore, 2) I've known people as thoughtlessly ready to go bugfuck crazy as those he uses as an example, and 3) Even though I know they're the exception, it's damned frustrating that the loudest examples outside of the blogosphere, the ones that stick with you, are the bad ones. Oh, and 4) What the hell will it take for all people of all races to figure out that they have a goddamn choice about how they act?

Prediction: At least one person, probably more, will skim what I've read, and assume that A) I support Rob fully, B) that I'm excusing his over-the-top comments, and C) that I'm a racist. None of which, if my full comment is read, is true.

Dave,

I hope your prediction is not true. I understand and agree with much of what you are saying.

Rob went WAY over the line and that blurred anything he said that had any merit. That is the reason I posted about it.

You can use certain words (like the n-word) and not be racist (like when you're quoting someone), and you can not use it and be just as hateful and racist. The same thing with profanity. Certain times it is not that offensive and vulgar. There are also times where someone can be offensive and vulgar without using any profanity.

Sigivald: please. The n-word refers to a person's race, nothing more. If Acidhole associates the word with bad behavior, it's because he associates black people with bad behavior.

I delinked quite a while back. He seems to be in some sort of a destructive phase that was just too painful to watch.

I loved when he was introspective and would lay off the invective.

It's sad, really.

I had the acidman linked for a long time on our blog, but, finally had to delink him. His hatred got to be just too much.

Saddened me though, at times he has had some wonderful insight into things and his honesty has been refreshing.

I wonder if something happened to him during his Jamaca trip? He really seemed to change after that.

I would submit that I got tired of Mr. Smith when he refered to one woman blogger that I highly respect as a 'bloodless cunt'. Since then I've not been surprised when I've seen other people upset with him.
My only question is why folks get all surprised when a self-described cracker acts like one.
Yes, there is a a significant subset of Black America that is destructive of both themselves and their surroundings. Um, I've noticed a similar subset in White America. That would, it seems to me, take race out of the running as for the cause. Perhaps we could be more productive looking for that cause, until then all we can do is lock too many people up.

Dave -

I read your full comment. Spot on. Good analogy. Good questions.

"I shouldn't have looked back/ man, I'll always regret it/ Something's going on/ and I'll probably never get it."

A simple, staid, verse plucked from She's Crafty - Beastie Boys - that sums up my feelings about those who try to explain behaviour in terms of race.

Peter - what you said (last sentence).

Thomas Sowell observed that cultures vary and differences have consequences. Multicultis are forever going on about how black culture differs from that of the evil ice people.
So, given the difference, how on earth can there not be a consequence, a different result in behavior?
And is there any guarantee that the difference would be favorable or benign?
Jared Taylor wrote a book called "Paved with Good Intentions, one of whose themes was that interracial tensions are actually worsened by official and social sanctions against noticing certain aspects of reality.
However, Taylor was instantly labled a racist in order to discredit the message which the lable made it unnecessary to address.
Thus proving on himself that he was right.

Rosemary, that was fucking brilliant. The whole post (now edited for clarity) was spot on.

I cannot fathom how people can actually believe that there was nothing racist about that load of tripe.

I got my Irish up and almost went totally Viking when I read that racist post. As I said, it's not just the "N-bomb" that I saw as racist, but the IDEAS he expressed. Actually, if he had omitted the "N-bomb" and expressed those same ideas in academic language (as I've seen done many times, e.g., the Pioneer Foundation, founded by a Nazi and which funds racist "studies"), it would have been much more pernicious.

Maybe he was just having a bad day. OK. I have my bad days, too.

The reason I came down on him so harshly was that I believe that I must oppose racist ideas wherever they appear, I must deny them my moral sanction. I must oppose and refuse to give my moral sanction to racism, anti-Semitism, anti-homosexualism, and Communism, to all forms of collectivism, wherever they appear and in whatever guise. They are percicious, destructive IDEAS.

In the United States, the battle against racism (except, of course, of the anti-Dead White European Male variety) has basically been won -- legally, politically, and culturally. I aim to keep it that way.

In the United States (though, sadly, not in the rest of Europe), the battle against anti-Semitism has largely been won -- legally, politically, and culturally. I aim to keep it that way.

In the United States, the battle against anti-homosexualism is still being fought -- legally, politically, and culturally. We have only extremely recently abolished totalitarian "sodomy" laws -- and the Supreme Court is hated for that and relentlessly attacked by the subversive element. We still must fight for the right of homosexual man and women to serve our country in the military. We are now fighting for the right of homosexual men and women to marry the ones they love. It is an uphill struggle. The Enemy is extremely well-funded, well-organized, vocal, articulate, and influential. They are the Masters of Deceit. After we have won legally and politically, we will still have to fight in the deeper cultural and spiritual realms against the denigration of homosexuality and of sexuality as such.

And the only way to win this ideological War is to refuse to give any moral sanction to mendacious and noxious ideas.

And them maybe we can get on to ending the destruction of those who prefer somewhat slightly different brain-states from the rest of the herd.

"I got my Irish up and almost went totally Viking when I read that" - Steven Malcom Anderson

Wouldn't going all Viking require getting your Scandahoovian up? Kinda like if I got all Bohunk and went Czeching? ;]

Is it ok for a white police officer to stand on an African American's back as he executes him? It happened in Connecticut.

I blog on many similar topics on FreeSpeech.com links can be found off of this post:

http://www.freespeech.com/archives/002172.html

Is it ok for a white police officer to stand on an African American's back as he executes him? It happened in Connecticut.

I blog on many similar topics on FreeSpeech.com links can be found off of this post:

http://www.freespeech.com/archives/002172.html

I have both Irish and Norweigian in me. As well as Scotch and French.

David Mercer wrote:
"And them maybe we can get on to ending the destruction of those who prefer somewhat slightly different brain-states from the rest of the herd."

If you're referring to the un-Constitutional "War on Drugs" I totally agree.

I also agree on the deeper, philosphical, level, i.e.: Dare to stand out from the herd and think for yourself. That is the key to all the issues I discussed. Herd-mentality, conformism, collectivism, is the root of racism, anti-Semitism, anti-homosexualism, and Communism.