Is this season of big brother actually big racism?

[simonsez]

The author is extremely liberal (I expect liberal considering the subject matter, but not to the author's extreme) and describes Obama as "right of center" on his policies.

Yes?  That sounds correct though, not extremely liberal.

Obama was right wing on military action, immigration, cut funding to NASA, extended most of the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy, and nationwide implemented the right wing solution to public health care that was developed by Republicans.  He flip-flopped on gay rights (eventually supporting gay marriage), did nothing at all related to gun control, .  He was moderately left on the environment and provided modest legislation to regulate financial institutions (although not as substantial as Glass-Steagle).

So, in all . . . slightly right of center sounds correct based on his actions in office.

Relative to the average american voter's political views at the time of his election (and reelection, though both his views and the views of the voters had moved a bit to the left in those four years) Obama was moderately left of center.

Relative to the political views in non-US western democracies (e.g. western/central Europe + Canada, Australia, and New Zealand) at the time of their elections every single US president in my lifetime has been right of center, whether moderately so or extremely so.

This is an argument that can go on for long and fruitless threads. But for discussing US political debates, I'd argue the center defined by US voters is more important than the center defined by people in a narrowly defined segment of the rest of the world.

Relative to temperature expectations for where where I live, my guess is your daily temperature is almost always below average. Yet, my asserting your daily temperatures are below average without context is not useful information and certainly not a compelling argument against the existence of global warming.

Fair, but I think Steve's point is that the author saying that Obama is slightly right of center is a totally fair statement to make. The author isn't ridiculous for making that totally reasonable, defensible statement, and pp seems to be citing it as something that discredits the author somehow.

It's fine if the author is perceived as far more left wing than pp is can relate to, and if he doesn't subscribe to those beliefs, but specifically, calling Obama "right of center" could reasonably be said by literally anyone on the political spectrum in the right context. Even a staunch, right wing American could reasonably say that if they were objectively talking about global world leaders.

I didn't mean to use 'right of center' to discredit the author, but as a way to give context to his political leaning.  While the first portion of the book is objective, the remainder is very subjective, and I think its important to know where the author is coming from.

Can you expand on this political leaning context?  Is the assumption that a person on an extreme end of the political spectrum would label most other people (including those that the majority would say are near the person in question) as on the other side of the political aisle because of how extreme they are, and thus, would rarely be able to label someone as similar?  Therefore, you contend that calling Obama, an elected Democrat which normally means left, as someone who is slightly right of center means that the author has to be extreme left?

If that's your assumption, I guess that's one way to theorize.  I would have to disagree as it purposely lacks nuance and ignores the fact that individuals are not monoliths perfectly aligned with the public's perception of left vs. right and the associated political party.  For instance, I thought it was common knowledge that on a position/policy report card, Obama is not very left, if at all.  Bernie would've been noticeably left of Obama, and I say that thinking that my own political beliefs do not cloud my judgment to an extent that I can't tell the philosophical differences between one Democrat from another, or any political person anywhere on the aisle for that matter. 

If an author made a claim and then backed up their reasoning with some well laid out arguments, I don't think that implies the author's political leaning nor my own after reading the material.  Is their argument legit or not would seem to be more relevant.  After reading that passage and the author's reasons, you found yourself disagreeing to such a point or you felt like you couldn't identify with these "extreme views" where you felt it was only appropriate to dismiss the latter part of the book?  And this opinion that set you off down this path was a contention that Obama was right of center?  Mileage definitely varies.

[maizefolk]

Fair, but I think Steve's point is that the author saying that Obama is slightly right of center is a totally fair statement to make. The author isn't ridiculous for making that totally reasonable, defensible statement, and pp seems to be citing it as something that discredits the author somehow.

It's fine if the author is perceived as far more left wing than pp is can relate to, and if he doesn't subscribe to those beliefs, but specifically, calling Obama "right of center" could reasonably be said by literally anyone on the political spectrum in the right context. Even a staunch, right wing American could reasonably say that if they were objectively talking about global world leaders.

I guess you and I may be reading uniwelder's original post modestly differently. I didn't read it as "the author is objectively wrong about this so they are obviously wrong about everything else" but "the type of people living in the USA who perceive and describe Obama as right of center tend to be extremely liberal themselves, so this is a good indicator of the author's own political views."

[uniwelder]

I didn't mean to use 'right of center' to discredit the author, but as a way to give context to his political leaning.  While the first portion of the book is objective, the remainder is very subjective, and I think its important to know where the author is coming from.

Can you expand on this political leaning context?  Is the assumption that a person on an extreme end of the political spectrum would label most other people (including those that the majority would say are near the person in question) as on the other side of the political aisle because of how extreme they are, and thus, would rarely be able to label someone as similar?  Therefore, you contend that calling Obama, an elected Democrat which normally means left, as someone who is slightly right of center means that the author has to be extreme left?

If that's your assumption, I guess that's one way to theorize.  I would have to disagree as it purposely lacks nuance and ignores the fact that individuals are not monoliths perfectly aligned with the public's perception of left vs. right and the associated political party.  For instance, I thought it was common knowledge that on a position/policy report card, Obama is not very left, if at all.  Bernie would've been noticeably left of Obama, and I say that thinking that my own political beliefs do not cloud my judgment to an extent that I can't tell the philosophical differences between one Democrat from another, or any political person anywhere on the aisle for that matter. 

If an author made a claim and then backed up their reasoning with some well laid out arguments, I don't think that implies the author's political leaning nor my own after reading the material.  Is their argument legit or not would seem to be more relevant.  After reading that passage and the author's reasons, you found yourself disagreeing to such a point or you felt like you couldn't identify with these "extreme views" where you felt it was only appropriate to dismiss the latter part of the book?  And this opinion that set you off down this path was a contention that Obama was right of center?  Mileage definitely varies.

I don't think I'm making assumptions about the author's political leaning.  He self describes as a former Marxist.  Overall, I was really hoping comments to my posting about the book might have been about the content, rather than a single misinterpreted phrase.

The author makes well reasoned arguments to support his case, but as I showed with two examples from the book, I disagree with some conclusions.  In particular cases, like those I quoted, he's really grabbing at straws to find ways to fit answers to the narrative.  This has nothing to do with political inclination, and no mention of Obama was made until much later in the book.

Fair, but I think Steve's point is that the author saying that Obama is slightly right of center is a totally fair statement to make. The author isn't ridiculous for making that totally reasonable, defensible statement, and pp seems to be citing it as something that discredits the author somehow.

It's fine if the author is perceived as far more left wing than pp is can relate to, and if he doesn't subscribe to those beliefs, but specifically, calling Obama "right of center" could reasonably be said by literally anyone on the political spectrum in the right context. Even a staunch, right wing American could reasonably say that if they were objectively talking about global world leaders.

I guess you and I may be reading uniwelder's original post modestly differently. I didn't read it as "the author is objectively wrong about this so they are obviously wrong about everything else" but "the type of people living in the USA who perceive and describe Obama as right of center tend to be extremely liberal themselves, so this is a good indicator of the author's own political views."

Thank you.  This is what was intended.  I had already clarified it earlier, but this lays it out very plainly.

[maizefolk]

Yup, I made the mistake of clicking "new" and thinking the last post on the 2nd page of the thread was the most recent post in the discussion. Didn't realize it'd spilled onto a 3rd page already.

[DarkandStormy]

I’m pretty sure I read somewhere that some guy wanted his kids judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

I wonder how that guy would react to the current trend of “hey let’s assign victim points to people based on the color of their skin?” 

But what do I know.

Another white dude invoking MLK lmao

I’d love to hear a nuanced argument why MLM was wrong instead of “lol white people”.

Jesus Christ...I wasn't saying MLK was wrong.  I'm saying a bunch of uncomfortable white people quote him - specifically his I Have a Dream speech - to make themselves more comfortable with their subtle racism.

Do you understand he said he had a dream?  That it wasn't reality, but the utopia he hoped for his children?

Let's check in on previous parts of that speech:

Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand today, signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Negro slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of their captivity.

But 100 years later, the Negro still is not free. One hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred years later, the Negro is still languished in the corners of American society and finds himself in exile in his own land. And so we've come here today to dramatize a shameful condition. In a sense we've come to our nation's capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men - yes, black men as well as white men - would be guaranteed the unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check, a check which has come back marked insufficient funds.

This is the same speech from which was quoted.

Dr. King saw colorblindness as the goal, not the method, to racial reconciliation.  In order to get to the utopian colorblindness, we have to go through race first.

Anyway, Xavier won this season by a unanimous 9-0 vote.  Back-to-back seasons where a physically dominant (in the competitions) man won 9-0.  Very little variety in that regard anymore.

None of the non-black contestants have brought up any issue with the alliance and many praised them, calling it a smart move.  The only people upset are white people not playing the game (of course).

[Roland of Gilead]

None of the non-black contestants have brought up any issue with the alliance and many praised them, calling it a smart move.  The only people upset are white people not playing the game (of course).

Well it is not really a place where they could bring up an issue about race because they would be afraid of getting crucified on public media.   You could sort of see this a few episodes back when they were discussing the possibility there was an all black alliance in the house...Derek X would not even say the words lol.  He sort of said "oh! you mean....ah I get it".   People are really afraid of looking bad when discussing racial issues.

But hey, a athletic good looking lawyer won, so its all good!