Sometimes, RtO has to state the obvious, rather than just restating what other people have observed. This is one of those times.
You may recall that Trump started his extended ruminations about skin color by suggesting that some immigrants from Mexico "are good people." Not many but some.
What, do you suppose, would Trump define as "good people"? How about the Curiels?
I don't know anything about them, except that they left their home country, came into a strange place where they had to start new lives and had a son who was good enough to be confirmed by Congress as a district judge.
Not good enough for Trump, who impugns Judge Curiel's fairness because of his skin.
Trump is a racist and therefore everyone who supports him is a racist.
Therefore, everyone who supports Black Lives Matter is a racist.
ReplyDeleteRight?
No. Black Lives Matter is not racist.
ReplyDeleteNo. Black Lives Matter is not racist.
ReplyDeleteOh, yes it is.
And it is all about fairness of skin.
I have nothing good to say about Trump, but in his defense, Not good enough for Trump, who impugns Judge Curiel's fairness because of his skin. is a load of crap.
Maybe we can talk about wise Latinas?
BTW, speaking of loads: In fact, it is not noticeably worse than it was before Chavez.
Which begs the question: How much worse can it get?
Not noticeably worse:
ReplyDeletehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caracazo
I read that link through and through, and for the life of me I couldn't find anywhere where it even hints at "Venezuela is convulsing from hunger".
ReplyDeleteOh, and if you support affirmative action you are a racist.
ReplyDeleteActually, no. An egalitarian.
ReplyDeleteNot all rules are in the statute books, and the most powerful ones are never there.
Actually, no. An egalitarian.
ReplyDeleteActually, no, a racist because AA is all about race, and has heck all to do with egalitarianism.
You have demonstrated once again that your grasp on reason and word meaning is tenuous, at best.
About egalitarianism. The racism was the system that installed dull white boys in all the positions.
ReplyDeleteNot by law, by practice. Law can trump racism.
Even when the racists, like you, cannot understand why you are a racist.
Here's a clue: if your system ends up with 0 diversity (define however you want, not necessarily by skin color), then it's racist (or sexist, whatever).
About egalitarianism. The racism was the system that installed dull white boys in all the positions.
ReplyDeleteNot by law, by practice. Law can trump racism.
Even when the racists, like you, cannot understand why you are a racist.
Here's a clue: if your system ends up with 0 diversity (define however you want, not necessarily by skin color), then it's racist (or sexist, whatever).
The racism was the system that installed dull white boys in all the positions.
ReplyDeleteOkay, let's take that as read. Then what you are talking about isn't egalitarianism, it is compensatory racism.
Therefore, if you support affirmative action, you are a racist.
Here's a clue: if your system ends up with 0 diversity (define however you want, not necessarily by skin color), then it's racist (or sexist, whatever).
Then there is no such thing as a racist system, because there is no such thing as one without diversity, no matter how you define it.
Even when the racists, like you, cannot understand why you are a racist.
Please ...
'no such thing as one without diversity'
ReplyDeleteReally?
you mean like the state legislatures prior to the Voting Rights Acts that were all white? Is the Voting Rights Act racist? Do you line up with the rightwing racists who have been pressing to repeal it?
Dammit, Harry, it is easily bad enough that you are so promiscuous with nasty, defamatory smears.
ReplyDeleteMust you pile on with grammar abuse?
Here is what you said:
Here's a clue: if your system ends up with 0 diversity (define however you want, not necessarily by skin color), then it's racist (or sexist, whatever).
To aid the language impaired, I will expand the contraction: ... then it is racist ...
Your reply: [You] mean like the state legislatures prior to the Voting Rights Acts ...
You were a journalist and don't realize that "is" ≠ "prior". Amazing. No, wait. That's not the word I need ... hmmm ... got it: Appalling.
Do you line up with the rightwing racists who have been pressing to repeal it?
Two things:
First, link to who and why, because I'm completely disinterested in battling your straw army.
Second: what the **** is it with progs, why do you universally resort to first demonization, en route to ostracism? It is a massive, endlessly repeated, exercise in question begging.
Hmmm. Perhaps I've answered my own question. Given progs' oft demonstrated analytical deficiencies, comprehending logical fallacies is nowhere near your skill set.
Whatever that may be.
BTW, this post was based on false pretenses.
ReplyDeleteAny chance of an update, or is factual accuracy not a priority here?
So, is the Voting Rights Act racist? Do you oppose it?
ReplyDeleteDon't be so coy
Don't be so coy
ReplyDeleteComing from you, who never responds on point?
Tell you what. You explain that post based on false pretenses, then we can talk about how Here's a clue: if your system ends up with 0 diversity (define however you want, not necessarily by skin color), then it's racist (or sexist, whatever) is ears deep in nonsense.
Then, once that's done, we can talk about the VRA.
First things first. A concept so easy that even a prog should be able to take it on board.