HOA says Thin Blue Line flag is racist

[Perd Hapley]

http://twitchy.com/dougp-3137/2017/03/25/insanity-what-this-homeowner-was-told-about-blue-lives-matter-flag-sends-heads-to-desks/

Sheesh. Time to move, or sue the HOA into dust.

“She called to ask why,” Gaddie said. “They told her they had received a complaint that it was considered racist, offensive and anti-Black Lives Matter,” he said.

So it's racist, and anti-racist at the same time, is it?

[Hawkmoon]

Personally, I would be offended because (a) it's a violation of the U.S. Flag Code; and (b) the concept of the "thin blue line" has come to stand for "good" cops refusing to hold bad cops accountable for conduct that brings discredit to police officers everywhere.

[HeroHog]

Personally, I would be offended because (a) it's a violation of the U.S. Flag Code; and (b) the concept of the "thin blue line" has come to stand for "good" cops refusing to hold bad cops accountable for conduct that brings discredit to police officers everywhere.

Yup!



 

[Perd Hapley]

That's nice and all, but it's also not a racist flag.

[Hawkmoon]

That's nice and all, but it's also not a racist flag.

But it's pro-cop, and all cops are racist, so therefore it's a racist flag.

Don'cha know nuttin'?

[dogmush]

I don't like that flag, nor am I a huge fan of the whole "Thin Blue Line/Blue Lives Matter" movement, for reasons others touched on above.

But at the level of hurt feelz taking over the US (seemingly) daily, I kinda hope the homeowner just says "*expletive deleted*ck Off, random complainers are not the final arbiter of what's racist, and it's not illegal to be racist anyway."

I will say that stories like these were a large part of why my wife and I consciously chose to find a non-HOA house when we bought our most recent abode.  We passed over several nicer and/or cheaper houses to do so, and in the 5 years we've lived there we haven't regretted that decision in the least.  HOA's in central Florida or like a nightmare conglomeration of the "If it pleases the crown" memes.

[Perd Hapley]

I don't like that flag, nor am I a huge fan of the whole "Thin Blue Line/Blue Lives Matter" movement, for reasons others touched on above.

But at the level of hurt feelz taking over the US (seemingly) daily, I kinda hope the homeowner just says "*expletive deleted*ck Off, random complainers are not the final arbiter of what's racist, and it's not illegal to be racist anyway."

This is how it strikes me, along with the aggravating irony that it's not "Blue Lives" that is a racist movement; it's "Black Lives."

[Hawkmoon]

This is how it strikes me, along with the aggravating irony that it's not "Blue Lives" that is a racist movement; it's "Black Lives."

True.

Except that, as we all know, only whites can be racists. But groups like Black Lives Matter, the United Negro College Fund, the NAACP, La Raza, CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations), etc, aren't racist even though they promote their race against and over whites because ... well, because ... BECAUSE!

[HankB]

The name, address, and phone number of the HOA official who determined that the flag must be removed ought to be publicized far and wide so that they receive the public ridicule and humiliation they so richly deserve.

[K Frame]

Guys! Wrong focus here!

Not the flag, not the accusation, not the racism...


What everyone should be screeching about is evil HOAS!

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

[Perd Hapley]

Guys! Wrong focus here!

Not the flag, not the accusation, not the racism...


What everyone should be screeching about is evil HOAS!

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

OK. Oh, those evil HOAs. How I hate them.

[Perd Hapley]

True.

Except that, as we all know, only whites can be racists. But groups like Black Lives Matter, the United Negro College Fund, the NAACP, La Raza, CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations), etc, aren't racist even though they promote their race against and over whites because ... well, because ... BECAUSE!

With the exception of La Raza, I'm not aware of the organizations you named being outright racist in the way Black Lives Matter is. BLM continues to stand behind criminals who arranged their own deaths, even after the facts have shown that the deceased was responsible.

[Hawkmoon]

With the exception of La Raza, I'm not aware of the organizations you named being outright racist in the way Black Lives Matter is. BLM continues to stand behind criminals who arranged their own deaths, even after the facts have shown that the deceased was responsible.

Perhaps not in the same way, but do you disagree that organizations like the United Negro College Fund and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People are inherently racist? Or, for that matter, the Congressional Black Caucus. Because, if they aren't inherently racist, there should be no objections to forming a United White College Fund, a National Association for the Advancement of White People, and a Congressional White Caucus.

[Perd Hapley]

Perhaps not in the same way, but do you disagree that organizations like the United Negro College Fund and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People are inherently racist? Or, for that matter, the Congressional Black Caucus. Because, if they aren't inherently racist, there should be no objections to forming a United White College Fund, a National Association for the Advancement of White People, and a Congressional White Caucus.

They're based on race, but that doesn't make them racist. There's nothing wrong with an historically disadvantaged minority forming associations for their own self-help. It is unseemly, however, for a group without the same inherited handicap to help its own, to the exclusion of such minorities.

[cordex]

They're based on race, but that doesn't make them racist. There's nothing wrong with an historically disadvantaged minority forming associations for their own self-help. It is unseemly, however, for a group without the same inherited handicap to help its own, to the exclusion of such minorities.

This rationalization assumes racial homogeneity and race-wide privilege that simply doesn't exist.

[Perd Hapley]

This rationalization assumes racial homogeneity and race-wide privilege that simply doesn't exist.

It does not so assume.

[makattak]

This rationalization assumes racial homogeneity and race-wide privilege that simply doesn't exist.

Actually, most black people in this country share a culture to a greater degree than most white people. (I.e. the cultural differences between two randomly selected white people are likely to be greater than the cultural differences between two randomly selected black people. The size of the respective populations guarantees that.)

I think, because of this, they need more organizations interested in improving their lot, by way of their culture. Most of the existing organizations, unfortunately, seem to be more along the lines of those complained about by Booker T. Washington:

“There is another class of coloured people* who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs – partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs.”

The problem is not the race (or culture) centered organizations themselves, but the focus of said organizations. Sadly, the Booker T. Washingtons of today are ignored and decried by the "grievance profiteers."




*I know he's HORRIBLY racist for using such a term when it should be "people of color", not colored people. COMPLETELY different things.

[Brad Johnson]

They're based on race, but that doesn't make them racist. There's nothing wrong with an historically disadvantaged minority forming associations for their own self-help. It is unseemly, however, for a group without the same inherited handicap to help its own, to the exclusion of such minorities.

If their mission, no matter how benevolent, uses race as a primary deciding factor then they are, by any objective measure, racist.

Brad

[Perd Hapley]

If their mission, no matter how benevolent, uses race as a primary deciding factor then they are, by any objective measure, racist.

Brad

Under a really broad definition of racism, in which it's racist to sell hair care products specifically for black people. Or to point out that sickle-cell anemia is more prevalant among blacks than whites.

Usually, when we say that something's racist, we're defining it more like this:

a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

Under the usual definition, there's nothing racist about noting that a minority group has faced certain disadvantages, and trying to help that specific group. Or to say, in the case of BET, that a certain kind of music is predominantly performed and consumed by, and associated with, that minority group.

[Hawkmoon]

They're based on race, but that doesn't make them racist. There's nothing wrong with an historically disadvantaged minority forming associations for their own self-help.

The fact that they are based on race and that their agenda is to advance/favor their race above other races by definition makes them racist. You might argue that such racism serves a positive purpose (and I might disagree with you) but it IS racism.

[Perd Hapley]

The fact that they are based on race and that their agenda is to advance/favor their race above other races by definition makes them racist. You might argue that such racism serves a positive purpose (and I might disagree with you) but it IS racism.

I've already clarified the sort of racism it is - not the kind that should bother anyone. So why does it bother you? Because you don't get to watch White Entertainment Television, or because there's no NAAWP to make you feel special about being white? What's the problem?

My problem with most of these race-based organizations isn't that they help their own race; it's that they mostly help themselves (their organization), while perpetuating leftism. That, plus the fact that we are reaching a point where racism against white people is actually more of a problem than any other kind.

[cordex]

It does not so assume.

I was specifically thinking of the following:

It is unseemly, however, for a group without the same inherited handicap to help its own, to the exclusion of such minorities.

There are plenty of black people in our country who lack any historical connection to the "inherited handicaps" claimed by the racially exclusive groups of which you approve.
There are plenty of white people in our country who have their own historical handicaps which you presume to deny as justification for racially exclusive support networks because of the color of their skin.  I'm thinking specifically of the devastatingly poor of Appalachia as a group I have some personal exposure to, but I'm sure there are others.

[Brad Johnson]

Under a really broad definition of racism, in which it's racist to sell hair care products specifically for black people. Or to point out that sickle-cell anemia is more prevalant among blacks than whites.

Those are objective criteria based on a physical trait prevalent in, and not under the control of, the target demographic. An entity providing, say, college funding based on the criteria of a specific ethnicity, and to the exclusion of all other ethnicity groups, is an entirely different scenario. An individual cannot determine their biological ethnicity or the physical traits inherent to that condition. They can, to a significant degree, control their economic status. Thus the exclusionary condition of funding meets the definition of racism no matter how benevolent the intent.

One scenario is racism, the other is not. Intent may be an emotional factor but it does not discount inherent racial inequality.

Brad

[zxcvbob]

So is racism inherently evil?  Or just when white people do it?     

[Perd Hapley]

I was specifically thinking of the following:There are plenty of black people in our country who lack any historical connection to the "inherited handicaps" claimed by the racially exclusive groups of which you approve.

There are plenty of white people in our country who have their own historical handicaps which you presume to deny as justification for racially exclusive support networks because of the color of their skin.  I'm thinking specifically of the devastatingly poor of Appalachia as a group I have some personal exposure to, but I'm sure there are others.

And these Appalachians are disadvantaged because they're white? Or is it because Appalachians faced certain problems as a group? (I'm guessing the latter. I know almost nothing about Appalachia.) A quick internet search turns up various foundations and scholarship programs for Appalachians (presumably for the people, not the mountains). This despite there being plenty of black Appalachian people in our country who don't suffer from the "inherited handicaps" claimed by the sociologically exclusive group of Appalachians of which you approve.

Like Appalachians, black Americans (or at least most of them) are a more-or-less distinct group that has faced certain challenges that cause some people to want to help them, specifically. In the same way, there are organizations that help specifically the deaf, but exclude those with other handicaps. When you say that some black people aren't "historically connected," I assume you're talking about those from more recent immigration. I'm going to assume that's a fairly small percentage of the people receiving help from these groups, so I don't see how it changes things.

Speaking specifically of scholarships, there are scholarships available for all sorts of very specific types of people.