theprof00 said:
I never said they were a part of the protests, and I never agreed with Garofolo at all, but instead said that maybe only 20% of those people are actually racist.

Ok, but 20% of what group of people?  If you're not saying the people who were part of the protest then what people?

And this is what I mean by racist. If any decision is made, in a negative way, based on a person's skin color. Imagine you are a manager hiring new applicants and you have 4 qualified people's resumes on your desk; 2 are white 2 are black (people). Say you still need to cut at least one more person from the list due to standard practices. If you cut a black person because you think that either a) they get enough help already from AA or b) hiring a black person will not help their stature in life due to... "wealth". Then you have just decided something using a racist bias.

I agree, actually...which from this means you are agreeing that AA is racism.  Because by this scenario we simply replace the black man for the white man and pass him up because of the "advantages" he gets...So under AA you've just decided something using a racist bias.  If skipping over a black man because you think he, as a black man, has gotten unfair advantage from AA is racism (which I agree it is in a subtle form) than so too is skipping over a white man because you think he gets unfair advantage from being white.

I want to be clear though, I'm not even arguing whether a white man gets advantages..I think it is immaterial.  The simple fact is that if a white man gets an advantage it is due to the racism of others and I fail to see how being racist towards white people  (ie implementing AA) balances that.  Why should racism cancel racism?  Its still racism, and in fact it increases the amount of racism in the world.

I was merely saying that at least 20% of those people were like that, and might possibly also carry a problem with a black person in an authority position. The mind is a tricky thing, and just thoughts like, "black people are poor because they do not come from old money", can subtely become reasons for dissent.

First, it's very hard for either of us to speek with any kind of authority on a specific crowd on a specific day.  But I actually have something to back my claim up..even if it is anecdotal.  Do you have anything other than pure conjecture to support the claim that this specific crowd from this specific day was made up 20% of people who exhibit the kind of racism you're referring to?  And if so can you show how that is any different from any crowd of people? 

I was arguing against a point that less than 1% of people are racist, which simply isn't true.

This point is fairly vague, so...  If you think that more than 1% of these crowds were overtly racist than I think you're out of your damn mind.  If you're saying that more than 1% were subconsiously racist then I would say we (neither of us) have any real clue about that and it doesn't matter anyways.

Here is why it doesn't matter:  Dissent either has merit or it doesn't.  If you think this dissent lacks a legitimate point then it should be easy to dismantle that point and the point shouldn't resonate with people.  The problem is that polling suggests that more than 50% of americans view the tea parties favorably which suggests that this movement is resonating. Additionally I have yet to see a single position or argument being supported by the movement that is even accused of being racist, racially motivated, etc... So where is the beef of the proposition that this movement is racist?  If you don't think the movement is racist then why is the discussion in reference to Tea Parties?  If you're making a general point then why specify these tea parties? Does your position have any more merit than labeling any random protest about any random thing as 2-% formed by racists?

Are you trying to say that simply because a black man is included in the group of people they are upset with that they are automatically being racist?  If you can't support an argument for why you think this group of people is made up of even one quarter subconsciously racists individuals then why do you think it is legitimate to marganlize their views and their dissent by labeling them racist? 

To be honest I think this entire discussion is disengenuine and that the entire point of bringing up racism is to take time away from the discussion of their ideas and instead focus it on whether or not they are racist...despite a massive lack of evidence or support for that idea and in fact the counterevidence of at least one instance where overt racism was shouted down by the crowd.

Do you recognize that labeling a specific person or a specific group of people as racists is dangerous?  Do you understand that you should be absolutely sure and that you should be able to back it up? Because I have yet to see anything suggesting that this crowd of people is racist, at best I've seen from news clips is that 1 or 2 people were racists out of four hundred thousand.  You would need another three thousand nine-hunderd and ninety-eight before you could claim that 1% were being racist and even then it would be grossly irresponsible to label the group as racist.

If I'm mistating or missing your point in any way please be as explicit as possible and restate it in such a way as I will be unable to mistake it again.