Subscribe via RSS Feed

Today In GOP Minority Outreach

[ 84 ] January 25, 2014 |

It’s a “joke,” but it reflects the very real belief that the only problem with race in America is white people being falsely accused of racism.

Comments (84)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. aimai says:

    Well, it is kind of funny–especially if you realize that the left half of the picture perfectly captures the reality of every kind of accusation of bad behavior on the far right. The key issue is “do I like him” or not. They could very easily rewrite the chart so the chart reads

    Is he on My Side or Their Side
    | |
    Innocent Guilty

    This is true for basically everything.

    Chris Christie
    / \
    My Side? Their Side
    | |
    Not Guilty Guilty

    • aimai says:

      Hey, I labored over the spacing so I could produce a chart like image. Damn you lack of edit button.

      • OldBean says:

        Don’t worry, we get it. It would be hard not to get it…

        Matt Drudge tweeted that the indictments against D’Souza and former Republican Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell are evidence that Attorney General Eric Holder is “unleashing the dogs” on “Obama critics.”

        Like clockwork…

        • Matt says:

          If it wasn’t so utterly reprehensible, this kind of squealing from the same people who brought us the outright politicization of the US Attorneys’ offices would be hilarious.

          • Brandon says:

            They assume that everyone else behaves just as shitty as they do.

            • efgoldman says:

              They assume that everyone else behaves just as shitty as they do.

              This, exactly.
              And OTOH, we tend to believe that most people (including the opposition) are rational actors with a reasonable end result in mind. Which was part of the problem through 2010-11, and contributes to green lanternism.

            • CD says:

              indeed, this.

              It’s true quite generally. People who don’t act on principle themselves believe nobody else does, and so interpret all appeals to principle as bad-faith rationalizations of someone else’s interest.

        • Hogan says:

          First they charged the Socialists with campaign finance violations, and I did not speak out, because I was not a Socialist.

        • Hogan says:

          Thing is, a federal indictment is about the best thing that could have happened to D’Souza. When is the last time he had this much attention?

          • MAJeff says:

            When is the last time he had this much attention?

            When he resigned the presidency of a conservative “college” for fucking a woman not his wife?

            He gets a certain kind of publicity….

            • ChrisTS says:

              Now, now, they were just economizing by sharing a hotel room.

            • CD says:

              But it’s hard to get publicity for that stunt more than once.

              Speaking of which, is it possible the cheated-on wife ratted him out? She was one of his fronts, as was the “fiancee.”

        • Shakezula says:

          Not to worry. McDonnell has already started and D’Souza will no doubt follow his lead, and adopt the “Bitch(es) set me up,” defense.

          Then Sludge and the rest of the clown parade will settle down to a satisfying bout of misogynistic tut-tuttery.

          • ChrisTS says:

            Wait: Who is McDonnell blaming for his corruption victimization?

            • aimai says:

              His wife, of course! He would like to blame the Virginia Corruption laws which forced them to channel gifts through his wife and daughter but, oops, they violated those too!

              • efgoldman says:

                He would like to blame the Virginia Corruption laws…

                I doubt that the state, even with a new Dem AG, would have indicted them.

              • ChrisTS says:

                Isn’t that a dumb move (apart from the dickishness)? Is she really going to take a fall for him?

                • Shakezula says:

                  When he first blamed her (back in the summer, I think), he quickly shifted to blaming her staff, so my guess – No.

                  But if she refuses to confess that she was the one who orchestrated the whole thing to feed her onquenchable lust for cee-gars Oscar De la Renta dresses, that will only show that she’s the real sexist.

                • ChrisTS says:

                  @Shake: AH. They certainly seemed very cozy yesterday. So glad there are some little people they can throw under the bus.

                • aimai says:

                  He already refused a deal which would have let her off the hook and he’d have accepted some jail time. So I’m guessing she’s already pretty damned pissed off. I think they also have separate lawyers.

                  Maybe its sexist of me but the two of them are in a fairly conventional marriage and he has the status political job–I see her as basically working hard, like any good wife, to support him and get him the style he wanted to become accustomed to. She wasn’t in politics but political office and the search for higher political office were the family business. E.G. she wouldn’t have engaged in any of these corrupt practices but for his demands for his political life style. Not vice versa.

                • ChrisTS says:


                  Good grief. why does she hold hands with him in public? Christ, what an asshole.

            • Lee Rudolph says:

              Possibly (in a double-reverse whammy sort of way) his wife?

              Trying to get into the mind of such a man is not an exercise that is likely to be edifying.

        • Slocum says:

          Yeah nothing fires up the anti-Obama crowd like a Dinesh D’Souza speaking appearance.

      • Warren Terra says:

        The commenting system doesn’t respect spaces: two, three, , or several spaces count as only one space when the text is displayed.

      • DrDick says:

        I think this is just another translation of IOKIYAR.

    • merl says:

      They could have at least tried to make it funny if it’s a joke.

      • Matt T. in New Orleans says:

        That’s the thing with me. “It’s just a joke” doesn’t fly when the joke’s that goddamn dull. It’s like the flap about jokes involving rapes a few month back. If your only humor comes out of shock and horror, and not because the joke’s actually funny, you are the “danger to free speech”.

  2. Wapiti says:

    They could rewrite their flowchart to end with “do you think this chart is amusing?” (Y)> “You might be a racist”.

    • aimai says:

      I think they should end it 1001 ways to amuse an idiot =>Turn Over.

      • Slocum says:

        Well, it could be “how to empty this boot of piss ==> Turn over for instructions on bottom of heel” and they would still fuck it up.

    • DocAmazing says:

      Please don’t encourage them to keep reusing old Jeff Foxworthy punchlines. They do enough of that now.

    • Anonymous says:

      It’s a false dichotomy anyway. I don’t find it funny or particularly racist. It is dismissive of legitimate grievances against a privileged class with a large fraction of assholes.

      You could effortlessly apply the same basic template to dismiss allegations against any similar group, gun nuts, 1%ers, sexists, homophobes, tea partiers, etc. e.g., a gun nut is just any gun owner one doesn’t like, a homophobe is just a straight person you don’t like, etc.

      That’s why the basic construction isn’t just a racist construction, it’s a broader form of that right wing kiss up kick down dickishness they think passes for humor.

  3. MAJeff says:

    So, JenBob’s business is communications consulting for the Iowa GOP.

  4. MAJeff says:

    This week, I used the Pager/Western/Bonikowski article about low-wage job discrimination to illustrate an attempt to perform an experiment under real world conditions.

    It’s really fascinating. In short, they sent out job testers with fake resumes to test combined impact of race/drug conviction on job applicants. Key takeaway:

    1) White applicants: positive responses change from 33% w/o drug conviction to 17% with drug conviction.
    2) Latino applicants: similar change from 25% to 15%.
    3) African-American applicans: Similar change from 15% to 13%.

    Yes, white applicants with a drug conviction did better than black applicants without. This is not an anomalous result.

    As the Iowa GOP understands, though, the real problem of racism is unpopular, unliked whites being unfairly accused.

    • DocAmazing says:

      The fact that you broke down the applicants into racial categories means you’re the real racist, or something. I can’t read the cue card from here.

    • Tom Servo says:

      Funny-African Americans suffered the lowest drop (still significant). So a white applicant with a drug conviction is more likely to get a job that an African American with no drug history. And a Latino with a drug conviction is as likely as an African American without.

      So, basically, this shows that if you’re African American, drug convictions don’t matter that much-you’re already screwed, because people don’t want to hire you anyway. That’s depressing as fuck.

      • Tom Servo says:

        So, being black is as bad or worse to some people as/than drugs? Or do people assume all black people do drugs anyway? For some reason I thought there would be a sharper drop.

        • MAJeff says:

          The authors hypothesize that the effect of drug war stereotypes is sort of built in to the lower initial positive responses for African Americans. (one of those “more research is needed” things)

          • Tom Servo says:

            Christ that’s horrible

            • MAJeff says:

              Honestly, it shouldn’t be surprising, even though it’s horrifying. It’s basically the ongoing institutionalization of white supremacy. Michelle Alexander makes a highly compelling point when she refers to the “war on drugs” as the most recent version of systemic white supremacist domination.

              • aimai says:

                I’m kind of curious about the kinds of jobs people were being considered for in the study. I’d like to see the financial/social/skills breakdown for the actual job. Because I think there are probably lots of jobs where a drug conviction or two doesn’t count against you because they are so low paying and so difficult to fill that the employer prefers a damaged resume, like some employers prefer an illegal worker, because they will be easier to control. My feeling is that the anti black racism is so high that people are basically being pre-rejected for most ordinary jobs and that leaves only a tiny reservoir of bad jobs that will even consider that 17-13 percent and that the drug conviction simply isn’t dispositive for those jobs because everyone they want to employ has a conviction anyway.

                • Hogan says:

                  For both teams, we sampled employers from job listings for entry-level positions, defined as jobs requiring little previous experience and no more than a high school degree. Job titles included restaurant jobs, retail sales, warehouse workers, couriers, telemarketers, customer service positions, clerical workers, stockers, movers, delivery drivers, and a wide range of other low-wage positions. Each week, we randomly drew job listings from the classified sections of the New York Times, Daily News, New York Post, Village Voice, and the online service Craigslist. . . .

                  Employers appear to have strong views about what kind of person is appropriate for what kind of job, based either on their own assumptions of worker competence or assumptions about what their clients expect or prefer in the appearance of those serving them. Consistent with the testers’ field notes, employers appear to apply more stringent hiring criteria to minority workers, preferring whites for jobs that require greater skill or responsibility. In addition, minorities are disproportionately channeled out of customer service positions, consistent with other research in which employers view minority applicants as lacking communication skills or otherwise as discomfiting for customers. Although our testers presented highly effective styles of interpersonal communication, the cursory review process for these jobs often leaves group membership more salient than any individuating characteristics.

                • aimai says:

                  Thanks Hogan. I appreciate your pulling that up for me and not making fun of me for not using the google appropriately.

                • Hogan says:

                  No prob. It’s an interesting question, and the article is behind a paywall to which my job provides a key.

                  As far as felon-friendly employment goes, I doubt you can find it in the classifieds; the very bottom probably resembles the very top in that those jobs get filled through informal networks, equal opportunity be damned. That would be a very different kind of experiment.

                • MAJeff says:

                  As far as felon-friendly employment goes, I doubt you can find it in the classifieds; the very bottom probably resembles the very top in that those jobs get filled through informal networks, equal opportunity be damned.

                  There’s something to that. I’d love to see some research in that area. Teaching at a CC, a LOT of my students are former convicts, and many of them have spoken about either the importance of informal networks in connecting them to employment or of programs that specifically link ex-convicts to employment opportunities.

                  The issue I have is that those employment networks/opportunities are extremely limited, and that those limitations often drive folks back into the informal economy (OK, the drug trade).

                  There are a lot of processes involved, and I think the take-away from the literature is that the CJ system and mass incarceration may not cause increasing inequality, but that they definitely play a role in reproducing the same inequalities that influence them.

                  Poor, uneducated, people of color are the more likely to enter the system, and the system, as a whole, has a negative impact on their already limited life chances.

          • DrDick says:

            I would argue that the whole drug war (on some kinds of drugs used by some kinds of people) is a reflection of stereotypes about African Americans ( they are all out there getting high and robbing and raping white people). What this shows is the persistent power of discrimination against African Americans.

        • Hogan says:

          Or do people assume all black people do drugs anyway?

          That’s my guess. No conviction just means you haven’t been caught yet.

      • MAJeff says:

        But whites are the real victims of racism….that’s what we must remember in the current world, data be damned.

      • Barry says:

        “Funny-African Americans suffered the lowest drop (still significant).”

        Probably a floor effect.

  5. Mike Schilling says:

    It was an extremely successful GOP operation: it pissed off a bunch of liberals.

  6. Andrew says:

    Silly liberals.

    Everyone knows that the only legitimate accusations of racism are when conservatives accuse Obama of being anti-white.

  7. wengler says:

    The Iowa GOP. Are you a Republican in Iowa and not scared of black people?

    • efgoldman says:

      Are you a Republican in Iowa and not scared of black people?

      Hell, most of them have never even seen a ni[clang], except on the teevee or playing hoops or football as a scholarship ath-a-lete.

      • MAJeff says:

        You have no idea how much….

        My grandparents, in Sioux County, became fans of Iowa State because both my dad (DVM) and I (BA) went there. I still remember her saying, “I’m so glad they have numbers on the back of their uniforms because I can’t tell any of those darkies apart.”

        It was just one of those moments when you have no idea what the fuck to say.

        • efgoldman says:

          It was just one of those moments when you have no idea what the fuck to say.

          Yeah, if it’s just some random asshole,you can walk away. But your grandparents? Damn.
          At my daughter’s wedding rehearsal dinner, the groom’s grandfather (a bit older than I – mid 70s – and from NC) started telling a Polish joke. I just said “we don’t find that funny in our family.” Because I have a big mouth.
          We were cordial the rest of the weekend.
          [Son in law not like that at all, or daughter efgoldman would never have married him.]

          • Tom Servo says:

            You know what? Good for you. You don’t have a big mouth. I heard enough of that kind of shit growing up. It’s just not reasonable to grin and bear bullshit like that.

            The most irritating comeback to being called out on racism or any bigotry or just plain old obnoxiousness-”You have no sense of humor!” After years of putting up with that kind of shit from my father I finally snapped and let him have it. We didn’t speak for a month but it sure beat bottling it up. We’re ok now. Fuck people like that. If they think less of you or are cold to you because you don’t appreciate their racist joke, they can go to hell. I should’ve known better than to call my wife’s grandmother out. Now passed, back in 08 she said she wasn’t going to vote for el morenito. Why the fuck should I have to listen to that shit? It’s ugly, and it makes me angry. The woman hated me anyway, and now she’s dead. I would’ve regretted allowing her to speak that way to me without saying something more. And my mother in law was more pissed than my wife, who is the person who actually matters to me

            • Robbert says:

              Also, too about those kind of jokes; they’re just not funny. There’s never any actual humour there, they merely appear to be a way to say something crass whilst retaining plausible deniability (“i’m not a racist, I was just telling a joke.”) Which makes the “you have no sense of humour” quip doubly annoying, because not only are you well within your rights not to want to listen to that offensive crap, there’d be no reason to laugh even if it wouldn’t be offensive.

            • Origami Isopod says:


    • DrDick says:

      I think you could apply that to Republicans anywhere.

  8. Bitter Scribe says:

    They left out the box that says “YOU’RE the REEEEAL racist!!!!!”

Leave a Reply

If you want a picture to show with your comment, go get a Gravatar.

  • Switch to our mobile site