Trump supporters: Tell me why the President *isn’t* super-racist.

[Fuzzy Bear]

As someone who is from South Florida, I can say with good authority that Parkland kids have tended to be the most preppy, arrogant, nasty, and pampered pack of kids I’ve ever encountered. Barring Boca kids at least. Up until last week my friends and I used to joke about them. My brother even bemoaned starting his job at the Jimmy Johns there because he didn’t want to work with them. The collective reputation of Parkland - and my experiences with Parkland kids - doesn’t change in spite of what happened. They in no way deserved this but I’ll be damned if a group of kids too scared to go down to MLK Blvd in Pompano to protest the regular killings of black youth due to crime/police/etc end up impacting this country’s two hundred year tradition of protecting the sanctity of our rights to bare arms.

They want to pimp out their friend’s deaths and make a statement? Well then we the people have the right to answer them. The ultimate victory of the NRA this time around will be an important life lesson for them anyway: you can’t always get what you want.

I found the post in five (5) minutes of searching.  That's because more diligent, and more intellectually honest  than the crowd that, truthfully, were afraid (and rightly so) that the post would be found and accurately discussed.  I try not to blow my own horn, but this is a situation that calls for it just a bit.

It's the same sorry crew that provided the character assasination.  Invisible Obama.  ProudModerate2.  Arch.  They should be spokepeople for GEICO; have them ranting falsehoods about people, while the announcer says, "When you're ProudModerate2, you mischaracterize your opponents and smear their character undeservedly.  It's what you do."  It would be a great ad, worthy of a Super Bowl Timespot.

What my friend, Sanchez, did, was express a sentiment that I agree with as far as that entire crowd of Parkland protesters, and especially their self-appointed leader, David Hogg, are concerned.  I don't wish them harm,either.  I note that Sanchez is speaking from experience when he talks of Parkland; perhaps he knows more about what the scene was/is there more than the bulk of Atlas. More importantly, they entered the political arena and took a controversial stand, advocating the scaling back of an enumerated Constitutional right, using the deaths of their peers to make an emotional argument that, IMO is not factually based.  Are they milking the deaths of students for the cause?  Of course they are, Sanchez is right about that.  Is that wrong?  That's all in the eye of the beholder, but what is NOT right is the assertion that people are wrong in providing the verbal response to these kids, and their adult sponsors.  

Politics and Public Advocacy aren't games; they are "for keeps" things.  I was a snot-nosed 18 year old Democratic activist who received his share of pushback; that I can take it as well as give it out is because I learned early of my opponents' right to dish it out.  In that respect, I sympathize with the Parkland kids, and I don't deny their life-and-death experience.  But people can take the wrong lessons from life-and-death experiences, and I believe many of them are.  Sanchez called them on this.  Good for him.  Three posters discredited him unfairly.  Shame on them all.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Oh dear, a notoriously aggressive and easily triggered resident white supremacist hijacked my thread.

I'm tempted to lock it, but eh.

Let’s be honest...you were asking for a train wreck with the thread title.

[Fuzzy Bear]

As someone who is from South Florida, I can say with good authority that Parkland kids have tended to be the most preppy, arrogant, nasty, and pampered pack of kids I’ve ever encountered. Barring Boca kids at least. Up until last week my friends and I used to joke about them. My brother even bemoaned starting his job at the Jimmy Johns there because he didn’t want to work with them. The collective reputation of Parkland - and my experiences with Parkland kids - doesn’t change in spite of what happened. They in no way deserved this but I’ll be damned if a group of kids too scared to go down to MLK Blvd in Pompano to protest the regular killings of black youth due to crime/police/etc end up impacting this country’s two hundred year tradition of protecting the sanctity of our rights to bare arms.

They want to pimp out their friend’s deaths and make a statement? Well then we the people have the right to answer them. The ultimate victory of the NRA this time around will be an important life lesson for them anyway: you can’t always get what you want.

I found the post in five (5) minutes of searching.  That's because more diligent, and more intellectually honest  than the crowd that, truthfully, were afraid (and rightly so) that the post would be found and accurately discussed.  I try not to blow my own horn, but this is a situation that calls for it just a bit.

It's the same sorry crew that provided the character assasination.  Invisible Obama.  ProudModerate2.  Arch.  They should be spokepeople for GEICO; have them ranting falsehoods about people, while the announcer says, "When you're ProudModerate2, you mischaracterize your opponents and smear their character undeservedly.  It's what you do."  It would be a great ad, worthy of a Super Bowl Timespot.

1) It took me less than five minutes once I looked up how to do it with Google. Nobody was afraid, and I posted it above the moment I found it. For someone coming in with righteous condescension about character assassination, you come off as quite the hypocrite.

2) No. The implication is palpable and real, and that was already addressed in the original thread; you can go read Peenie's posts there.

3) He did not call them out on their "anti-death" positions. He put their culpability as mass shooting victims into question by mis-assigning part of the fault of the disaster on the victims. It is a kind of gas lighting, and I won't legitimize that as a position worth addressing beyond that, when it's clearly not the case.

Perhaps if you say it enough, others will be driven to strong drink, after enough of which, your viewpoint on this issue might make sense.

I recommend sobriety.

You, Arch, and ProudModerate2, and Invisible Obama, have attached my character repeatedly, over and over again, by calling me various names, by playing the "Everyone I don't like is Hitler!" game, calling me a hypocrite whenever I provide a little pushback, and repeating your points when disproven, never manifesting a spirit of actual discussion, of being willing to see other viewpoints, let alone advocating a coherent viewpoint of your own.  That's fine, too; you get to do that.  But I'm going to push back, and I'm going to call you three out every time you pull your schtick.

And I'm going to ask my friends here to do that as well.  You three are the worst in this way.  Since it's not against the ToS to do so, I'm fine with asking for backup.  But if it doesn't come, I'm willing to stand alone. 

What you three pulled with Sanchez is "low within the rules". 

[Fuzzy Bear]

As someone who is from South Florida, I can say with good authority that Parkland kids have tended to be the most preppy, arrogant, nasty, and pampered pack of kids I’ve ever encountered. Barring Boca kids at least. Up until last week my friends and I used to joke about them. My brother even bemoaned starting his job at the Jimmy Johns there because he didn’t want to work with them. The collective reputation of Parkland - and my experiences with Parkland kids - doesn’t change in spite of what happened. They in no way deserved this but I’ll be damned if a group of kids too scared to go down to MLK Blvd in Pompano to protest the regular killings of black youth due to crime/police/etc end up impacting this country’s two hundred year tradition of protecting the sanctity of our rights to bare arms.

They want to pimp out their friend’s deaths and make a statement? Well then we the people have the right to answer them. The ultimate victory of the NRA this time around will be an important life lesson for them anyway: you can’t always get what you want.

I found the post in five (5) minutes of searching.  That's because more diligent, and more intellectually honest  than the crowd that, truthfully, were afraid (and rightly so) that the post would be found and accurately discussed.  I try not to blow my own horn, but this is a situation that calls for it just a bit.

You can stop pumping your chest, because that Sanchez quote was already posted, and has already been discussed.
If you took the time to read all the posts in this thread, you would know this.
So go back into your "bubble world" with your foot in your mouth.

Stop looking in the mirror.  I'm over here!

[Fuzzy Bear]

As someone who is from South Florida, I can say with good authority that Parkland kids have tended to be the most preppy, arrogant, nasty, and pampered pack of kids I’ve ever encountered. Barring Boca kids at least. Up until last week my friends and I used to joke about them. My brother even bemoaned starting his job at the Jimmy Johns there because he didn’t want to work with them. The collective reputation of Parkland - and my experiences with Parkland kids - doesn’t change in spite of what happened. They in no way deserved this but I’ll be damned if a group of kids too scared to go down to MLK Blvd in Pompano to protest the regular killings of black youth due to crime/police/etc end up impacting this country’s two hundred year tradition of protecting the sanctity of our rights to bare arms.

They want to pimp out their friend’s deaths and make a statement? Well then we the people have the right to answer them. The ultimate victory of the NRA this time around will be an important life lesson for them anyway: you can’t always get what you want.

I found the post in five (5) minutes of searching.  That's because more diligent, and more intellectually honest  than the crowd that, truthfully, were afraid (and rightly so) that the post would be found and accurately discussed.  I try not to blow my own horn, but this is a situation that calls for it just a bit.

It's the same sorry crew that provided the character assasination.  Invisible Obama.  ProudModerate2.  Arch.  They should be spokepeople for GEICO; have them ranting falsehoods about people, while the announcer says, "When you're ProudModerate2, you mischaracterize your opponents and smear their character undeservedly.  It's what you do."  It would be a great ad, worthy of a Super Bowl Timespot.

1) It took me less than five minutes once I looked up how to do it with Google. Nobody was afraid, and I posted it above the moment I found it. For someone coming in with righteous condescension about character assassination, you come off as quite the hypocrite.

2) No. The implication is palpable and real, and that was already addressed in the original thread; you can go read Peenie's posts there.

3) He did not call them out on their "anti-death" positions. He put their culpability as mass shooting victims into question by mis-assigning part of the fault of the disaster on the victims. It is a kind of gas lighting, and I won't legitimize that as a position worth addressing beyond that, when it's clearly not the case.

You, Arch, and ProudModerate2, and Invisible Obama, have attached my character repeatedly, over and over again, by calling me various names, by playing the "Everyone I don't like is Hitler!" game, calling me a hypocrite whenever I provide a little pushback, and repeating your points when disproven, never manifesting a spirit of actual discussion, of being willing to see other viewpoints, let alone advocating a coherent viewpoint of your own.  That's fine, too; you get to do that.  But I'm going to push back, and I'm going to call you three out every time you pull your schtick.

And I'm going to ask my friends here to do that as well.  You three are the worst in this way.  Since it's not against the ToS to do so, I'm fine with asking for backup.  But if it doesn't come, I'm willing to stand alone. 

What you three pulled with Sanchez is "low within the rules". 

1) I called you a hypocrite because you acted like one. You didn't care to read the posts above and then proceeded to pat yourself on the back for something that wasn't represented even remotely well.

I don't think I've ever "attached [sic]" your character any other time beyond nominal disagreements, ever. I know you feel cornered, and you want to swing in an arc, but we are all very different posters who agree in this conversation. Did I call you Hitler or anything of that sort? No. Stop. You're making a fool out of yourself.

When I brought out the points about semantics versus pragmatics, it was ignored, and I specifically indicated that Sanchez was rubber banding to avoid addressing anything of substance. In fact, nothing I said was really disproven.

2) And you're defending Sanchez now that he prefaced the conversation saying he didn't owe us "any civility" (note even the mod called him out on this) and that we weren't worth arguing with. He doesn't act in good faith; he doesn't argue in good faith; his politics are not executed in good faith. Yet, you're here crying wolf because you feel attacked because I, rightly so, called you out.

You, Invisible Obama, ProudModerate2.

As for the mod, I'd like to see where the lack of civility from ProudModerate2 and Invisible Obama has been addressed.  They don't necessarily declare their intentios; they just deliver it.

I've read it all.  You got caught lame.  It happens to the best of folks at times, but it happens to the chronically lame as well.  Which of these you are is your choice, but I'll allow the objective readers of all of this to consider which is which.

And I'll say this again and again, over and over:  I don't feel bad when the David Hoggs and his band of Parklanders get flak for their positions.  I don't care when their motivations are questioned.  I don't care when folks call out Khizir Khan for his remarks at the DNC.  It's not that I don't care what these people have been through, but when you enter the political arena (as they have), all of your statements are scrutinized, all of your motives are questioned.  That's the price of advocacy.  I get it.  Sanchez gets it.  It's up to you, ProudModerate2, Invisible Obama, and a few others if you want to be slow learners on First Amendment 101.  You can assert you're right all night long, but you won't here me agreeing here.  I'll listen to non-hackish feedback.

[Fuzzy Bear]

You, Invisible Obama, ProudModerate2.

As for the mod, I'd like to see where the lack of civility from ProudModerate2 and Invisible Obama has been addressed.  They don't necessarily declare their intentios; they just deliver it.

What?
Someone must have pissed in your coffee this morning.
The mods are reading this and laughing at you. Stop making a mockery of yourself.
There is nothing here that is outside of just classic, everyday Atlas discussion.
You are completely off-your-rocker today. Go to bed and say goodnight.

I've always thought of you as passive-aggressive.

[Fuzzy Bear]

You, Arch, and ProudModerate2, and Invisible Obama, have attached my character repeatedly, over and over again, by calling me various names, by playing the "Everyone I don't like is Hitler!" game, calling me a hypocrite whenever I provide a little pushback, and repeating your points when disproven, never manifesting a spirit of actual discussion, of being willing to see other viewpoints, let alone advocating a coherent viewpoint of your own.  That's fine, too; you get to do that.  But I'm going to push back, and I'm going to call you three out every time you pull your schtick.

How can we take you seriously on this point when you regularly play the "anyone who disagrees with me hates Christians!" card?

That's not my main argument when people disagree with me.  Lots of folks disagree with me for all sorts of reasons.  But anti-Christian bigotry runs fairly unchecked on Atlas, and you're part of it.

WTF?

I mean, I guess you just proved my point and all so yay, but that kinda hurts. I'm pretty well established to be a Christian.

I had actually deleted that, as I could not remember specific examples of you doing that.  I'll own that one, as far as you're concerned.  That was wrong of me.

I won't apologize for citing anti-Christian bigotry on Atlas in general; it's something lots of folks are OK with, however, particularly anti-Evangelical Christian bigotry.  Constant references to charlatans, pedophiles, etc.  You know what I'm talking about, and if you've pointed it out, I can't remember, although you well may have.  While I would probably view you in Scriptural error if I talked theology, I do have an obligation to treat a professing Christian as a brother or sister in the Lord, and if I fail, that's on me.

There have been bad actors in Christianity, but the anti-Christian bigotry is aimed at normal, everyday Evangelical Christians who don't share the world view of many folks here, but who work hard, are honest, and do more for the less fortunate than they get credit for in many circles.  The depiction of ordinary Christians as Roy Moores and Elmer Gantrys is no less bigoted then stereotypical versions of blacks attributed to blacks as a whole.  And lots of liberal minded people are OK with this.  Even people who say they are "Christians" have expressed being OK with this.  I'm willing to recognize a brother as a brother, even if my brother may be in Scriptural error, but I will note that this seems to be a one way street.

So I am sorry, and I'll take your word for it that you're not part of that particular problem.  I will also remember your profession and that makes you a Brother in the Lord, which is a big deal.

[Fuzzy Bear]

You, Invisible Obama, ProudModerate2.

As for the mod, I'd like to see where the lack of civility from ProudModerate2 and Invisible Obama has been addressed.  They don't necessarily declare their intentios; they just deliver it.

What?
Someone must have pissed in your coffee this morning.
The mods are reading this and laughing at you. Stop making a mockery of yourself.
There is nothing here that is outside of just classic, everyday Atlas discussion.
You are completely off-your-rocker today. Go to bed and say goodnight.

I've always thought of you as passive-aggressive.

Fuzzy, you are totally out of control.
That is why I said that.
You have gone from Dr Jekyll to Godzilla the Monster.
What is wrong with you today?

I've just decided to confront falsehoods.  To be a bit more relentless.

Isn't that amazing?  

I decided today to defend a fellow poster who was (and is) being wrongfully attacked by you and two others who, quite frankly, are all snark and no attempt to have honest discussion.  I decided that today was the day I'd stand up for a friend here who was taking flak whom I believe to be right on the issue he was posting about.

Why this should provide shock and horror is beyond me.  You folks cheer your candidates of choice when they relentlessly counterpunch, not letting an unfounded attack stand.  Folks like you chastise Dukakis for being too passive (and rightfully so; it was bad strategy).  Here's a guy, Sanchez, who's been unfairly attacked, and is defending himself alone.  Defending himself well, I might add.

If you want Dr. Jekyll, I'm still here.  I'm always ready to honestly discuss issues with people, and seek common ground.  I have a reputation for that (I think) and I care (to a point) what folks think of me.  But the folks attacking Sanchez (you, Arch, Invisible Obama) are in the "unreachable" category.  All you three seem to know how to do is throw snark and talking points, and repeat yourselves.  

So, for whatever purposes (boredom, too much coffee, not really into my wife's "America's Got Talent" on the tube), I decided that this was the time to push back at such attacks.  I don't need a permission slip outside of the 1st Amendment.  And I'll keep it within the ToS; I'm a rules guy.  But Sanchez is right on the point he was making, and I'll second it, and, in this case, I hope others third it and fourth it, because it involves the issue of give and take.  The Parklanders aren't exempt from critical feedback; they entered the political fray, and blowback comes with that.  Senchez didn't wish them ill; neither do I.  Sanchez isn't particularly impressed with them or their argument; neither am I beyond the degree to which I think it's a good thing for teens to be politically aware.

How you react to this will tell me whether or not you are capable of any introspection whatsoever.  I hope you are.

[Fuzzy Bear]

You, Invisible Obama, ProudModerate2.

As for the mod, I'd like to see where the lack of civility from ProudModerate2 and Invisible Obama has been addressed.  They don't necessarily declare their intentios; they just deliver it.

What?
Someone must have pissed in your coffee this morning.
The mods are reading this and laughing at you. Stop making a mockery of yourself.
There is nothing here that is outside of just classic, everyday Atlas discussion.
You are completely off-your-rocker today. Go to bed and say goodnight.

I've always thought of you as passive-aggressive.

Fuzzy, you are totally out of control.
That is why I said that.
You have gone from Dr Jekyll to Godzilla the Monster.
What is wrong with you today?

If you want Dr. Jekyll, I'm still here.  I'm always ready to honestly discuss issues with people, and seek common ground.  I have a reputation for that (I think) and I care (to a point) what folks think of me.  But the folks attacking Sanchez (you, Arch, Invisible Obama) are in the "unreachable" category.  All you three seem to know how to do is throw snark and talking points, and repeat yourselves.  


But Sanchez is right on the point he was making, and I'll second it, and, in this case, I hope others third it and fourth it, because it involves the issue of give and take.  The Parklanders aren't exempt from critical feedback; they entered the political fray, and blowback comes with that.  Senchez didn't wish them ill; neither do I.  Sanchez isn't particularly impressed with them or their argument; neither am I beyond the degree to which I think it's a good thing for teens to be politically aware.

Are you kidding me? I've spent quite some time typing up my points, numbering them for you, bringing up quotes, clarifying what I'm actually talking about, and all you say is that I'm "throwing snark and talking points"?

In the post above, I made CLEAR that what you were talking about I agreed with, but what I was talking about was NOT that, and you ignored it and started saying the same thing again.

You accused me of the Hitler excuse, when I never used it; you brought up anti-Christian talking points, when that's not even the point of the thread or had I made mention of it before then, and you hurled ad hominems left and right (calling me lame, slow, lazy, etc. without any real substantiation), and I still tried to stick to the conversation, only calling you a hypocrite when it was warranted (once).

I'll be frank with you. You are the probably unaware of the type of poster you are. I rarely write this much because my main purpose in this forum is to stay informed, but when I seriously engage, I engage entirely. Just because you type lots of paragraphs all the time doesn't mean that what you're saying makes sense or is even worth reading. That's what you do a fair bit of the time here, almost like a monologue where you try to convince yourself by drawing yourself into logical loops.

You like to think you're smart, yeah? Act like it, and stop flailing around (the anti-Christian rant out of nowhere to 2,868) and projecting (accusing me of what you're actually doing). It's unsightly. You can defend whomever you want, but pick your fights wisely. You found yourself cornered almost immediately after you started defending him, and you lost your composure alongside your ability to make any reasonable points (hence you started defending something else he said that we weren't even talking about (first amendment rights and political discussions at large) and refused to address what's been reiterated to you several times at this point--to no avail.

You said to leave it to others to judge whether your observations are as good as you think they are, and you've seen the responses above. Own it.

I've owned all I'm going to own.  For me to own it, I'd have to buy it, and for me to buy from you, Invisible Obama, and ProudModerate2 on this subject, I'd be making a bad investment.

So, no, I'm not going to own it.  You and Bush 41 can have your Ownershop Society on this one.

I guess the extra coffee has worn off.  Gotta go to work tomorrow.  Wonder who else has to do the same.

[Fuzzy Bear]

With a title like this and 5 pages of posts, I came in here knowing it was going to be a train wreck - and boy did it deliver.

All I’ll say is that I read all the exchanges between the folks here with Sanchez, Sanchez’s older posts about Parkland, and, honestly, I have to side with Sanchez. He wasn’t saying those students in any way deserved this; I think folks like Arch (who I like) read into what he said what they interpreted him as saying, rather than what was actually being said. Sanchez did engage in a bit of victim blaming, but not in an entirely unjustified way. Yes, the victims of the shooter were the ultimate victims; a gun was involved and they very likely wouldn’t have died, at least not in such numbers, without a gun being used; but, also, bullying is a factor here. Those students had been bullying the shooter for god knows how long prior to that event; they were throwing fuel on an unstable fire. If he didn’t have easy access to guns, but did have easy access to mental healthcare, then we likely wouldn’t be discussing this. But, bullying does play a role here and it’s a factor those Parkland students, their parents, and others like them tend to avoid, because that would implicate those who experienced a severe trauma. But, bullying can be traumatic as well for kids, so there does need to be a bit of understanding for the shooter as well, which is what I think Sanchez was trying to articulate (but I’ll let him speak for himself).

Freedom Post.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I get that honest conversations about racism are virtually impossible these days, but wow... this thread was a *fun* read. I think this thread was doomed from the start though, since I really don't think Democrats are convincing anyone to join their side with accusations of racism, or trying to catch people in the act of racism. Now, I do personally think that Trump is racist. What I'm saying is that trying to prove that he is isn't going to turn people who support him away from him. Either they're convinced that he isn't, and nothing is going to change their mind, or they don't care (as Santander pointed out.)

This is a bone I have to pick with the "pro-diversity/multiculturalism" ideology of the Democratic Party. I'm saying that as a left-winger who likes diversity and thinks multiculturalism is not only a wonderful thing, but necessary in the world of today. Unfortunately, I think too many liberals only promote being "multi-cultural" or "anti-racist" for the sake of their image, claiming moral superiority, and enjoy chewing people out as racists. Calling someone out as a racist is hardly ever helpful, even if it's accurate.

Democrats have to do a better job of selling multiculturalism (often through the form of immigration) as something positive, and not coming across as wanting to label everyone as a racist. It's going to be tough, because accepting other cultures and understanding people with very different backgrounds is most often not easy. Speaking as someone who's lived in another country before, coming into direct contact with other cultures can be very uncomfortable at times, even if you think you're the most forward-thinking progressive on the planet. I think we need to understand that a lot of Americans are not immediately going to be in love with the idea of a multicultural America, and instead of denouncing anyone uncomfortable with that idea as a racist, we need to sell the idea to them, and understand their hesitation to get behind it.

Some Democrats want to reach out to Americans who have been turned off by the left recently, others want to double down on being pro-immigration and multicultural. I want to do both.

One of the best posts in Atlas history.  Seriously.

If this sentiment could get through to the Democratic Party, they just might have a trifecta in 2020. 

[Fuzzy Bear]

F-ck, your country is going down in flames. What a sorry state of things, judging by the values of people like Sanchez and Fuzzy. #thoughtsandprayers

I liked you better when you were in the closet.

I liked you better when you weren’t constantly a giant f-ckhole just because you can be, but, alas, it wasn’t meant to be. Maybe one day you will come out of the closet too.

I'm guessing Gays for Trump is still a lot more fun than whichever SJW cult you're a member of.

I love how Hagrid's reaction is "lol you're a fag." That's rich!

I wonder if his deployment of multiple F-bombs isn't a "cry for help".

[Fuzzy Bear]

I get that honest conversations about racism are virtually impossible these days, but wow... this thread was a *fun* read. I think this thread was doomed from the start though, since I really don't think Democrats are convincing anyone to join their side with accusations of racism, or trying to catch people in the act of racism. Now, I do personally think that Trump is racist. What I'm saying is that trying to prove that he is isn't going to turn people who support him away from him. Either they're convinced that he isn't, and nothing is going to change their mind, or they don't care (as Santander pointed out.)

This is a bone I have to pick with the "pro-diversity/multiculturalism" ideology of the Democratic Party. I'm saying that as a left-winger who likes diversity and thinks multiculturalism is not only a wonderful thing, but necessary in the world of today. Unfortunately, I think too many liberals only promote being "multi-cultural" or "anti-racist" for the sake of their image, claiming moral superiority, and enjoy chewing people out as racists. Calling someone out as a racist is hardly ever helpful, even if it's accurate.

Democrats have to do a better job of selling multiculturalism (often through the form of immigration) as something positive, and not coming across as wanting to label everyone as a racist. It's going to be tough, because accepting other cultures and understanding people with very different backgrounds is most often not easy. Speaking as someone who's lived in another country before, coming into direct contact with other cultures can be very uncomfortable at times, even if you think you're the most forward-thinking progressive on the planet. I think we need to understand that a lot of Americans are not immediately going to be in love with the idea of a multicultural America, and instead of denouncing anyone uncomfortable with that idea as a racist, we need to sell the idea to them, and understand their hesitation to get behind it.

Some Democrats want to reach out to Americans who have been turned off by the left recently, others want to double down on being pro-immigration and multicultural. I want to do both.

One of the best posts in Atlas history.  Seriously.

If this sentiment could get through to the Democratic Party, they just might have a trifecta in 2020.  

No offense, Fuzzy, but I have a really hard time believing that you (and many others on this board) will accept any argument in favor of multiculturalism. And I don't mean that as a way of saying you are a racist. I just think that 1) any argument in favor of multiculturalism is going to activate identities (both political and racial) that will make certain people much less receptive and 2) I don't think multiculturalism is as compatible with your value system as its opposite.

So, as thoughtful as that post is, I don't fully agree with it. It seems to suggest that people can be persuaded that multiculturalism is good, but the right argument hasn't been found yet. I don't think there is a right argument for many, many people in this country.

I understand what you're saying here.  The response to this would be in how one defines "multiculturalism".

If by "multiculturalism" one is speaking of "pluralism", that's one thing.  The idea of persons from diverse backgrounds contributing to a common culture, making that common culture richer and more varied, is a good thing.  I have lived most of my life in multicultural environments; Greater New York, Tampa Bay, and now the East Coast of Florida.  I don't live in the part of Florida that is the rural South, but I have lived in parts of Florida where the old and the new intersect.  This kind of multiculturalism is a good thing, in that it brings into a common culture a variety of traditions, while making an area diverse.  And while I believe that everyone emigrating to America needs to learn English, I'm not bent out of shape by the degree everyday business offers the option of dealing with Spanish-Speaking (or even Creole-Speaking) persons.  

If, however, one is speaking about multiculturalism as a concept with no common culture, that is another issue.  This strain of multiculturalism is what is in Europe, where Muslims are poorly assimilated into their nations.  The outcome has not been good over there, and such a multiculturalism over here is the sort of thing that nurtures long-term racial and ethnic resentments and keeps centuries-old grudges alive.  My reasons for despising this brand of "multiculturalism" are many, but the main reason is that its development would preclude the basis of a common culture by which our leaders can appeal to all Americans AS Americans.  We have a complicated history as a nation, but out of a complicated history came, I believe, a GREAT and a GOOD nation, and that principle is an indispensable ingredient in any American common culture that can be a basis for the national unity of a diverse people.  This type of "multiculturalism" will permanently block any kind of national consensus to move to solve even the most important issues.

I'm very much for the former.  Not the latter.

[Fuzzy Bear]

There really isn't a relevant discussion to be had on this, PR knew exactly what he was doing when he made this thread and worded the subject as he did.  

Let's dispel with this fiction that I don't know what I'm doing. I know exactly what I'm doing.

Purposely picking a fight over an intentionally inflammatory issue isn't particularly brave.

And you know about picking fights with people.

Do you smell your own farts too?

Very clever for a third-grader.

I'm just noting how smug you are. Nothing low-brow intended.

Well you're pretty smug too, so maybe we can meet in the middle.

Ah, the spirit of compromise permeates Atlas!