I didn't start this one, though.

A common tactic in the public debate is to try to anger the opposition. The idea is, he who loses his temper first is cast as undisciplined and therefore undependable. I don't like the tactic because it interferes with education, but I have used it on occasion to set up an incorrigible fool for the benefit of others. Fortunately for most, my standard for incorrigibility is rather high.

I mention this because if you check the thread you're going to have to wade through a whole bunch of tactics.

And it looks to me like Eric has taken my approach to analysis as a tactic called "hold their feet to the fire"…he would not be the first.

The thread is/was the nonsense challenge to Black civil rights organizations to rear up in defense of the honor of Dr. C. Rice over some cartoons.

Racism is racism regardless of the political orientation of those involved: one does not somehow "deserve racism" by choosing to be a conservative, does one? Are black Republicans less "black" than their Democratic counterparts? If so, why? If not, why the deafening silence from the civil rights establishment?

Eric chose to use Project 21 as his stalking horse. Bad choice. Mac Diva (a skilled proponent of the 'piss you off' tactic) immediately started poking all holes in Project 21's organizational Blackness.

For myself, my initial response to Eric's

So I guess that means overt racism is okay as long as it's directed against conservatives and/or Republicans.

was:

So how do you tell if it's racist symbolism or simple characature?

You want the truth, she's simply not on my side. I don't defend everything every Black person does, nor do I leap to the defense of those who work against my interest. I'm moral, not stupid.

to which Mac added (tactic excluded):

It looks like I must be more explicit to get my point across:

African-Americans are not criticizing Ted Rall. Most of the politically aware would agree with what he said. The bought and paid for RATs of Project 21 are -- supposedly* -- Rall's critics. The racism in this situation is coming from the handlers of the handerchief heads at Project 21. They are trying to use their Negroes to discredit liberal commentators, both black and white. That is bigotry because it perceives blacks as tools to be used by whites. Supposedly? The words may be issuing from dark faces, but the thoughts are not. They are coming from the white people who actually run Project 21.

followed again by me.

More to the point, the people who are questioning the civil rights organizations' "silence" are the very ones that want them to shut up on every other topic.

They have no credibility, and in fact besmirch those causes they associate with by their presence.

Eric's feet-to-the-fire response:

Let me see if I get all of this straight: racism is fine as long as the object of the racism is "not on your side," which I assume is determined by political position.

Project 21 has "no credibility" because there are white people involved at some level, or because it is a conservative organization? Weren't white people involved in the founding of the NAACP?

Who determines legitimacy? And who determines who is and who isn't "politically aware"?

And when is "simple caricature" that includes "racist symbolism" okay? Is that also determined by political position?

…which, of course, is NOT straight. This is why I say he's using a tactic…when I hold someone to their own statements it's their own statements I hold them to, not the most compatible spin I can think of.

And it's this statement that engenders the long post here. It targets my response, but I didn't go into it in depth at Blogcritics because the tactics were already louder than the data.