“Once considered a progressive attitude, color-blindness is now seen as backwards—a cheap surrender in the face of racism, at best; or a cover for deeply held racist beliefs, at worst.”
——————————————————
By far the most obnoxious part of the “color-blindness” discussion is when leftists, quite dishonestly, pretend the concept is illegit…
“Once considered a progressive attitude, color-blindness is now seen as backwards—a cheap surrender in the face of racism, at best; or a cover for deeply held racist beliefs, at worst.”
——————————————————
By far the most obnoxious part of the “color-blindness” discussion is when leftists, quite dishonestly, pretend the concept is illegitimate because you aren’t aCkShUalLy color blind.
Obviously, unless you are a leftist trying to manipulate and confuse people in order to gain a position of dominance, it just means you do, in fact, see color but your job is to not care about it.
I’m sure there’s some evolutionary mechanism, which is probably greatly dissipated at this point, where everyone is naturally drawn to people who somewhat look like them because there were tribes competing for resources or whatever and you could more safely approach people from your particular tribal region.
But we never get to that part of the discussion because we get bogged down by leftists lobbing grenades at you about how you aren’t *literally* color blind so now you’re being a liar and trying to hide your racism.
The point is that it’s really easy to not care about skin color so everyone should just focus on that and get back to work and stop trying to parlay this insignificant factor into another chance to try communism.
“ At the very same time that America refused to give the Negro any land, through an act of Congress, our government was giving away millions of acres of land in the West and the mid-West, which meant that it was willing to undergird its white peasants from Europe with an economic floor.
“But not only did they give the land, they built land grant colleges with government money to teach them how to farm. Not only that, they provided county agents to further their expertise in farming. Not only that, they provided low interest rates in order that they could mechanize their farms. Not only that, today many of these people are receiving millions of dollars in federal subsidies not to farm.
“And they are the very people telling the black man that he ought to lift himself by his own bootstraps. And this is what we are faced with. Now this is the reality. Now when we come to Washington, in this campaign, we are coming to get our check.”
By the 1960s, Japanese-Americans were already successful in American society.
In World War II, Japanese-Americans were interned in various camps and typically lost everything. Yet, by the middle 1960s, they were more successful than whites in America. Back then, racism towards Japanese-Americans wasn’t hypothetical or limited to the internment camps. See “ALIEN LAND LAWS IN CALIFORNIA (1913 & 1920)” (https://immigrationhistory.org/item/alien-land-laws-in-california-1913-1920/).
It should be noted that the Japanese-Americans in question were hardly elite. They were brought to America as farm laborers. However, even after the Word War II camps, they were highly successful. See “"Success Story, Japanese-American Style” (New York Times (1923-Current File); Jan 9, 1966)
Regarding people naturally being drawn to other people who look like them, there was a featurette I saw about the making of the original Planet of The Apes movie. One of the funniest and most memorable parts of it was someone talking about how everyone would go to lunch in their makeup, dressed as apes. Some of the actors knew each other from other projects, and some of them had only met, but regardless, within a very short time, previous relationships ceased to matter. Very quickly without realizing it was happening and regardless of who already knew each other, the actors sorted themselves by what kind of ape they were. Gorillas ate with gorillas, orangutans ate with orangutans, and chimpanzees ate with chimpanzees. It could have been just that actors dressed the same all acted in the same scenes, but the person who pointed this out was pretty sure that the reason was human nature. I’m not sure how meaningful it is, but I thought the story was interesting.
I never said they aren't. Children are born barbarians. We have to civilize them to not be. Took us the last 10,000 years to work on that and only really made any progress in the last 300.
That is an interesting story and I don't doubt it is true. I have often wondered if being tribal and this part of our human nature is not rooted, at least somewhat, in insecurity. People seem to feel more comfortable with their thoughts and ideas when they are validated by others. As well people seem emboldened to act and speak out when they feel the tribe is behind them. The tribe also often hesitates to disagree with one of their members.
This entire phenomenon seems out of control right now. I think a return to open-mindedness, respectful debate and independent thinking is sorely needed.
They've done multiple experiments that prove this is inherent in human nature. One involved having young children in a classroom setting consistently wear one of two colors of t-shirts; although supposedly nothing was said by the adults, the children themselves favored those wearing the same color of shirt.
And who can forget Dr. Suess's Sneetches, with their constant attempts to gain or remove a belly star in order to gain access to the "more desirable" group (which ended up constantly changing). Mr. Geisel was very good at capturing the realities of human nature.
Geisel was great. The t-shirt experiment you report reflects what I observe - people meeting each other seem to sort out less by skin tone and more by things like who has full body tattoos, who has purple hair, who looks "clean cut", who has hip facial hair, who looks country, who looks urban - OK I am making up the categories but you get the idea. I think it also has much to do with who you grow up around. Wasn't there a study done on ducks and the little ducks grew up to hang out with whatever kind of duck they were put with as ducklings?
If they were, we wouldn't be seeing all the interracial harmony that exists and has to be ignored and argued away by the woke mob. What people are, though, is naturally inclined to stereotype by conspicuous characteristics and race is one of those. This goes in both favorable and unfavorable directions. Beyond that is something I actually did argue, which is that we also naturally sort ourselves and make boundaries of trust and mistrust. This does affect race relations, too, among other things. Humans have many problematic characteristics. We also get the flu but we don't make a political program out of that the way we do with identity. I like to remind people of the fact that what facilitated Hitler's success was identity politics....
I am delighted by this thread here because it's critical to understand how inescapable and baked into the animal brain this is because it CC conferred evolutionary advantage to favor in-group and reject outgroup. Now apply this to the commentariat here assembled, which is no different from the leftist in-groups I used to be part of. We make ourselves and each other feel good by dumping on the benighted. It would, for instance, be interesting to see how many people here understand that legacy admissions are as unjust as racial preference admissions. John Roberts would fight getting rid of those tooth and nail, I'm sure, although I agree with his stance on race. Please don't lecture me on the legal and constitutional difference because I understand that. This is here only a question of what's fair. We can't help herding, and so beliefs come in packages. Nothing you can do except try to bias control yourself as best you can.
If it’s a real thing, and I was speculating wildly, then it would not give evolutionary advantage to “favored in-groups”. It would have given a marginal survival advantage to *all* humans thousands of years ago when humans lived in small tribes.
And leftists are the out-group here, generally speaking, which is totally fine because it is not based on immutable characteristics. It is based on leftists having creepy ideas.
QED. Every group, Left or Right, has people who drag the conversation to a level at which they know how to operate. In this instance, start with "explaining" what everyone knows, like evolution works on everybody. Then follow that up with a slur.
I only explained evolution because you just said that it favored in-groups.
Saying that leftists have creepy *ideas* is not a slur.
Both sides of everything have flaws so that’s just a weird thing to say, unless you are trying to position yourself as separate and above the groups with flaws.
I did enjoy the old internet cliche where you claim that something that totally didn’t prove your point “proves my point”.
Legacy admissions are absolutely unjust. They are the "old boys' club" in action.
I think the only people who would object to getting rid of legacy admissions are those who benefit from the pride and prestige associated with multiple generations attending the same school.
Correct, so you have W Bush with an average IQ getting a degree from Yale. Nevertheless, we have a centrist position here and most on the Right would find a way to justify it.
Uwe, I have looked into this in some detail. W. Bush apparently was not a 'Legacy Admit'. He was pretty typical for Yale in the year he was admitted. Later (decades after Harvard) Yale switched to a more merit based system (which would have excluded W. Bush). However, he was admitted under the old system. See http://archives.yalealumnimagazine.com/issues/99_12/admissions.html for some details.
Thank You for this! Very interesting, I'll read the whole piece a bit later. Clearly, though, W was a typical case for the privileged guys who had no business at Yale. Now we have to make up for it by admitting other people who have no business there, apparently...
I don't know where legacy admissions stand but it appears to me that these days you get into Harvard and Yale by writing the most "Woke" admissions essays - or by being "Jazz Jennings" (abused as a boy), etc. And, the Obama children & Chelsea Clinton went to Harvard and Standford - probably not based on brains.
Legacy admissions are a big deal for these high-end colleges. But nobody talks about that because the wealthy and powerful whose children benefit most from the policy do not want to draw attention to it, lest someone point out that legacy students are taking admission spots away from students who are more deserving (whether by merit or race).
I have seen the exact reverse argument made. Namely, that high-end ivies use "diversity" to protect ALDS (Athletes, Legacies, Donors, and Staff) admissions. The phrase used is 'woke-washing'.
only one way to get in , merit . Legacy or race based admissions are both wrong . Ad i hate that word deserving , nobody deserves shit they worked for it
Why? Why would people on the Right want to justify it if they don't personally benefit from it? That's the same kind of biased statement as accusing all Republicans of being "White Supremacists."
On average, Celia, not everyone on the Right. I'm commenting on biases that are common to all groups. It's hard to really appreciate that it's true for all groups. I'm not even accusing a sizeable minority of Republicans of being White supremacists.
Humans are naturally tribal. It's baked into our brains to affiliate with people that are the most similar to us. For some people, that's race. But it doesn't have to be this way: we can form tribes based on political views, sports fandoms, etc. I hope one day humans can move past race (while still acknowledging history), and form friendships based on the people that make us happy.
I think many of us never focused on skin pigment - particularly since humans come in all shades of brown basically everywhere in this country and even in many immediate blood families. Like all mammals, humans have a distinct binary of sex. Ova or Gonads and the binary secondary sex characteristics that go along with one or the other. However, humans aren’t like orcas - we don’t have distinct races / sub species. There are no secondary racial characteristics (despite the comedians insistence). There is no way biologically to segregate modern humans into distinct races biologically.
I was born in 1982 and shared experiences form bonds for me, not shared looks or beliefs. I can see, but I didn’t even know my now husband was of Cuban decent until we’d been dating 6 months. It never occurred to me to ask. We were in undergrad. We were mostly focused on having fun. I have blonde hair and blue eyes so the attraction is not likeness of looks - I just didn’t/ don’t think about it unless it comes up as part of a unique human story (which I find fascinating most of the time). Until recently I thought I was like most people in this approached life that really didn’t put much thought into skin tone aspects of appearance.
I fear all this focus on race is going to result in a return to racists approaches to life that feel grossly wrong to me. Twenty years ago I thought it impossible that would happen in this country. Clearly I was wrong. Hopefully we turn back from this dark path of judging others based on skin pigment. It’s not healthy for any human soul.
Also, Jesus was color-blind. Jesus taught all humans are of one body.
“aCkShUalLy” always a straw man used my someone unable to support their point of view otherwise. Used to mischaracterize someone else’s opinion is a juvenile way.
Why not instead be honest about your opinions and let others have theirs? Easier to mock and hate people.
Yes but it isn’t their actual opinion. As I described, it is a dishonest argument where they suggest you’re stupid, and also probably a liar and secret racist, because you used a metaphor.
I’m not mocking people with different opinions. I’m mocking manipulative dishonest shysters.
You should add, "a snappy, spurious remark" designed to not address the subject but to divert away from the subject. If you don't believe me just read any of comprof's or R T's snappy retorts.
If you want to debate, stick to the subject and debate with on subject facts, not BS.
Leftists love to debate things that no one said, because they know what you really mean. See, it's all "dog whistles" and "coded language." That alleviates all need to make any logical points.
Leftists cite the concept of nuance itself as an argument in their favor. "Your argument is too black-and-white; reality has shades of grey!" It's their get-out-of-jail-free card when losing an argument.
It's hogwash. If there's actually a nuance that's missing from the argument against you, the onus is on you to explain what it is and how it undermines the opposing argument. You don't get to cite "vagueness" itself and just declare victory (and if you could, it would work against the Left as much as for it).
This is the first time I disagree with you. Give me one example where a leftist on this BBS has, "they are just introducing nuance and context so as to have a robust dialogue."
I have not seen one instance where a leftist on this BBS wanted a robust debate. Far from it, if you give a logical historically accurate statement that is irrefutable, they respond with some grade school playground, rather stupid response designed to divert from your point.
An example of this is comprof's standard retort, "That happened a long time ago." as if history is irrelevant. He won't discuss the racist Democrats presidents of the 20th century or the racism of the Obamas' but the hypocrite will bring up Barry Goldwater which was 50 years ago, "along time ago".
The left cannot defend their ideas or policies, therefore irrelevant snappy responses. They cannot defend the disgusting PC or Woke movement so once again "snappy responses".
Oh..., so now the past (history) is NOT irrelevant? Interesting, because that's never been your position before. Yes, "That happened a long time ago" is always your answer to everything. Now you have a problem with it?
So, let me ask you this since you suddenly have such a sudden, newfound appreciation for the power of past history and how it effects the present. What year did the U.S. become a legitimate democracy?
Don't blame me/get all emotional about the GOP running on an anti-civil rights/pro-segregation platform with Barry Goldwater who voted against/called the 1964 Civil Rights Act "unconstitutional."
Obama publicly lied about the death of the thug Michael Brown and the innocence of Darren Wilson. Pure racism. Obama had Al Sharpton (the 'hero' of the Tawana Brawley case) over to the White House dozens of times. Pure racism.
"The death of Michael Brown is heartbreaking, and Michelle and I send our deepest condolences to his family and his community at this very difficult time. As Attorney General Holder has indicated, the Department of Justice is investigating the situation along with local officials, and they will continue to direct resources to the case as needed. I know the events of the past few days have prompted strong passions, but as details unfold, I urge everyone in Ferguson, Missouri, and across the country, to remember this young man through reflection and understanding. We should comfort each other and talk with one another in a way that heals, not in a way that wounds. Along with our prayers, that’s what Michael and his family, and our broader American community, deserve."
No, I am referring to the following racist lie by Obama.
"First and foremost, we are a nation built on the rule of law. And so we need to accept that this decision was the grand jury’s to make. "
He could have said
"My own attorney general (who is black) looked into this case in detail and found that Michael Brown was a violent thug and Darren Wilson was/is entirely innocent'.
Instead, Obama lied and the 'press' let him get away with it
If you doubt any of this, go read Holder's report.
Of course the lies go on. Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren are still lying about what happened in Ferguson.
Y'know what....we've gone around and around. I've asked you a couple of questions re: your Singapore /Haiti stuff, that you refuse to answer - and we both know why :)
"He could have said"......lol.....well, I'm sure there's something else besides "thug" you would have preferred, too.
If you want to qualify a statement about a grand jury statement as a "racist lie" you have some deeper-seated issues than what can be addressed here. So, let's just leave it at that.
Obama also said "There are Americans who are deeply disappointed, even angry. It’s an understandable reaction"
He never even hinted that Darren Wilson was entirely innocent and Michael Brown was entirely guilty. He lied to the American people and (quite predictably) got away with it. He never even hinted that his own justice department had investigated the case and found Wilson innocent and Brown guilty. He never even hinted that "hands up - don't shoot" was a lie.
You claim to have questions about Singapore and Haiti. I would be glad to try to answer them.
Lol. Considering Darren Wilson wasn't indicted you seem REALLY angry about this. You act like he's in prison. Would you have preferred there be no investigation? Because you do know that there is always an investigation after a cop shoots someone, right? Or should there be an investigation when only certain types of people are shot?
"There are Americans who are deeply disappointed, even angry. It’s an understandable reaction"
- So? People have a right to feel however they want.
"He never even hinted that Darren Wilson was entirely innocent."
- DOJ decision made that clear - that's why he wasn't indicted. Are you stuck on the phrase "entirely innocent?" - because that's not going to be the legal determination. Actually, it never is -it's "Not guilty" or not indicted. I'm sorry, are you arguing for some special legal standard for white people? Think we already had that. Y'know, there was kind of a whole "system" in place that covered everything.
He lied to the American people and (quite predictably) got away with it.
-Yeah....still not seeing a lie. A lie would be something like, "Darren Wilson has been indicted."
"He never even hinted that his own justice department had investigated the case."
- Uh....that's what the whole thing was. A DOJ investigation under his administration, so of course that goes without saying. Did you think Costco was doing it?
Nah. We've settled your CA nonsense, your Canada "VeRY DiFFerENT HisTORIES" nonsense. No, actually, don't have any questions about Singapore/Haiti. I already know the answer. Just waiting on YOU to tell me what you think it is?
“Once considered a progressive attitude, color-blindness is now seen as backwards—a cheap surrender in the face of racism, at best; or a cover for deeply held racist beliefs, at worst.”
——————————————————
By far the most obnoxious part of the “color-blindness” discussion is when leftists, quite dishonestly, pretend the concept is illegitimate because you aren’t aCkShUalLy color blind.
Obviously, unless you are a leftist trying to manipulate and confuse people in order to gain a position of dominance, it just means you do, in fact, see color but your job is to not care about it.
I’m sure there’s some evolutionary mechanism, which is probably greatly dissipated at this point, where everyone is naturally drawn to people who somewhat look like them because there were tribes competing for resources or whatever and you could more safely approach people from your particular tribal region.
But we never get to that part of the discussion because we get bogged down by leftists lobbing grenades at you about how you aren’t *literally* color blind so now you’re being a liar and trying to hide your racism.
The point is that it’s really easy to not care about skin color so everyone should just focus on that and get back to work and stop trying to parlay this insignificant factor into another chance to try communism.
Democrats continue to be the worst.
Martin Luther King was the worst.
“ At the very same time that America refused to give the Negro any land, through an act of Congress, our government was giving away millions of acres of land in the West and the mid-West, which meant that it was willing to undergird its white peasants from Europe with an economic floor.
“But not only did they give the land, they built land grant colleges with government money to teach them how to farm. Not only that, they provided county agents to further their expertise in farming. Not only that, they provided low interest rates in order that they could mechanize their farms. Not only that, today many of these people are receiving millions of dollars in federal subsidies not to farm.
“And they are the very people telling the black man that he ought to lift himself by his own bootstraps. And this is what we are faced with. Now this is the reality. Now when we come to Washington, in this campaign, we are coming to get our check.”
By the 1960s, Japanese-Americans were already successful in American society.
In World War II, Japanese-Americans were interned in various camps and typically lost everything. Yet, by the middle 1960s, they were more successful than whites in America. Back then, racism towards Japanese-Americans wasn’t hypothetical or limited to the internment camps. See “ALIEN LAND LAWS IN CALIFORNIA (1913 & 1920)” (https://immigrationhistory.org/item/alien-land-laws-in-california-1913-1920/).
It should be noted that the Japanese-Americans in question were hardly elite. They were brought to America as farm laborers. However, even after the Word War II camps, they were highly successful. See “"Success Story, Japanese-American Style” (New York Times (1923-Current File); Jan 9, 1966)
So the Japanese did not waste the reparation money given to them. Why is it that you believe that Black people will? Do you think Japanese are better?
I never commented on the reparations paid to Japanese-Americans one way or the other. You are confusing me with someone else.
Sorry then I confused you with someone else.
Why would you suppose that mechanism is dissipated?
Regarding people naturally being drawn to other people who look like them, there was a featurette I saw about the making of the original Planet of The Apes movie. One of the funniest and most memorable parts of it was someone talking about how everyone would go to lunch in their makeup, dressed as apes. Some of the actors knew each other from other projects, and some of them had only met, but regardless, within a very short time, previous relationships ceased to matter. Very quickly without realizing it was happening and regardless of who already knew each other, the actors sorted themselves by what kind of ape they were. Gorillas ate with gorillas, orangutans ate with orangutans, and chimpanzees ate with chimpanzees. It could have been just that actors dressed the same all acted in the same scenes, but the person who pointed this out was pretty sure that the reason was human nature. I’m not sure how meaningful it is, but I thought the story was interesting.
Wow....seems that argues that people are naturally racist.
I never said they aren't. Children are born barbarians. We have to civilize them to not be. Took us the last 10,000 years to work on that and only really made any progress in the last 300.
That is an interesting story and I don't doubt it is true. I have often wondered if being tribal and this part of our human nature is not rooted, at least somewhat, in insecurity. People seem to feel more comfortable with their thoughts and ideas when they are validated by others. As well people seem emboldened to act and speak out when they feel the tribe is behind them. The tribe also often hesitates to disagree with one of their members.
This entire phenomenon seems out of control right now. I think a return to open-mindedness, respectful debate and independent thinking is sorely needed.
They've done multiple experiments that prove this is inherent in human nature. One involved having young children in a classroom setting consistently wear one of two colors of t-shirts; although supposedly nothing was said by the adults, the children themselves favored those wearing the same color of shirt.
And who can forget Dr. Suess's Sneetches, with their constant attempts to gain or remove a belly star in order to gain access to the "more desirable" group (which ended up constantly changing). Mr. Geisel was very good at capturing the realities of human nature.
Geisel was great. The t-shirt experiment you report reflects what I observe - people meeting each other seem to sort out less by skin tone and more by things like who has full body tattoos, who has purple hair, who looks "clean cut", who has hip facial hair, who looks country, who looks urban - OK I am making up the categories but you get the idea. I think it also has much to do with who you grow up around. Wasn't there a study done on ducks and the little ducks grew up to hang out with whatever kind of duck they were put with as ducklings?
Wow....seems like you just argued people are naturally racist.
If they were, we wouldn't be seeing all the interracial harmony that exists and has to be ignored and argued away by the woke mob. What people are, though, is naturally inclined to stereotype by conspicuous characteristics and race is one of those. This goes in both favorable and unfavorable directions. Beyond that is something I actually did argue, which is that we also naturally sort ourselves and make boundaries of trust and mistrust. This does affect race relations, too, among other things. Humans have many problematic characteristics. We also get the flu but we don't make a political program out of that the way we do with identity. I like to remind people of the fact that what facilitated Hitler's success was identity politics....
I am delighted by this thread here because it's critical to understand how inescapable and baked into the animal brain this is because it CC conferred evolutionary advantage to favor in-group and reject outgroup. Now apply this to the commentariat here assembled, which is no different from the leftist in-groups I used to be part of. We make ourselves and each other feel good by dumping on the benighted. It would, for instance, be interesting to see how many people here understand that legacy admissions are as unjust as racial preference admissions. John Roberts would fight getting rid of those tooth and nail, I'm sure, although I agree with his stance on race. Please don't lecture me on the legal and constitutional difference because I understand that. This is here only a question of what's fair. We can't help herding, and so beliefs come in packages. Nothing you can do except try to bias control yourself as best you can.
I think you are selling yourself and others short.
Very kind! We wish, we try...
If it’s a real thing, and I was speculating wildly, then it would not give evolutionary advantage to “favored in-groups”. It would have given a marginal survival advantage to *all* humans thousands of years ago when humans lived in small tribes.
And leftists are the out-group here, generally speaking, which is totally fine because it is not based on immutable characteristics. It is based on leftists having creepy ideas.
QED. Every group, Left or Right, has people who drag the conversation to a level at which they know how to operate. In this instance, start with "explaining" what everyone knows, like evolution works on everybody. Then follow that up with a slur.
I only explained evolution because you just said that it favored in-groups.
Saying that leftists have creepy *ideas* is not a slur.
Both sides of everything have flaws so that’s just a weird thing to say, unless you are trying to position yourself as separate and above the groups with flaws.
I did enjoy the old internet cliche where you claim that something that totally didn’t prove your point “proves my point”.
Legacy admissions are absolutely unjust. They are the "old boys' club" in action.
I think the only people who would object to getting rid of legacy admissions are those who benefit from the pride and prestige associated with multiple generations attending the same school.
Correct, so you have W Bush with an average IQ getting a degree from Yale. Nevertheless, we have a centrist position here and most on the Right would find a way to justify it.
So do those on the Left. I give you Stanford, Yale, and Columbia.
wrong I'm on the right and no way would I justify that . Get by on your grades or out the door you go
Uwe, I have looked into this in some detail. W. Bush apparently was not a 'Legacy Admit'. He was pretty typical for Yale in the year he was admitted. Later (decades after Harvard) Yale switched to a more merit based system (which would have excluded W. Bush). However, he was admitted under the old system. See http://archives.yalealumnimagazine.com/issues/99_12/admissions.html for some details.
Thank You for this! Very interesting, I'll read the whole piece a bit later. Clearly, though, W was a typical case for the privileged guys who had no business at Yale. Now we have to make up for it by admitting other people who have no business there, apparently...
I don't know where legacy admissions stand but it appears to me that these days you get into Harvard and Yale by writing the most "Woke" admissions essays - or by being "Jazz Jennings" (abused as a boy), etc. And, the Obama children & Chelsea Clinton went to Harvard and Standford - probably not based on brains.
Legacy admissions are a big deal for these high-end colleges. But nobody talks about that because the wealthy and powerful whose children benefit most from the policy do not want to draw attention to it, lest someone point out that legacy students are taking admission spots away from students who are more deserving (whether by merit or race).
I have seen the exact reverse argument made. Namely, that high-end ivies use "diversity" to protect ALDS (Athletes, Legacies, Donors, and Staff) admissions. The phrase used is 'woke-washing'.
only one way to get in , merit . Legacy or race based admissions are both wrong . Ad i hate that word deserving , nobody deserves shit they worked for it
Why? Why would people on the Right want to justify it if they don't personally benefit from it? That's the same kind of biased statement as accusing all Republicans of being "White Supremacists."
On average, Celia, not everyone on the Right. I'm commenting on biases that are common to all groups. It's hard to really appreciate that it's true for all groups. I'm not even accusing a sizeable minority of Republicans of being White supremacists.
Humans are naturally tribal. It's baked into our brains to affiliate with people that are the most similar to us. For some people, that's race. But it doesn't have to be this way: we can form tribes based on political views, sports fandoms, etc. I hope one day humans can move past race (while still acknowledging history), and form friendships based on the people that make us happy.
A lot of us have...
I think many of us never focused on skin pigment - particularly since humans come in all shades of brown basically everywhere in this country and even in many immediate blood families. Like all mammals, humans have a distinct binary of sex. Ova or Gonads and the binary secondary sex characteristics that go along with one or the other. However, humans aren’t like orcas - we don’t have distinct races / sub species. There are no secondary racial characteristics (despite the comedians insistence). There is no way biologically to segregate modern humans into distinct races biologically.
I was born in 1982 and shared experiences form bonds for me, not shared looks or beliefs. I can see, but I didn’t even know my now husband was of Cuban decent until we’d been dating 6 months. It never occurred to me to ask. We were in undergrad. We were mostly focused on having fun. I have blonde hair and blue eyes so the attraction is not likeness of looks - I just didn’t/ don’t think about it unless it comes up as part of a unique human story (which I find fascinating most of the time). Until recently I thought I was like most people in this approached life that really didn’t put much thought into skin tone aspects of appearance.
I fear all this focus on race is going to result in a return to racists approaches to life that feel grossly wrong to me. Twenty years ago I thought it impossible that would happen in this country. Clearly I was wrong. Hopefully we turn back from this dark path of judging others based on skin pigment. It’s not healthy for any human soul.
Also, Jesus was color-blind. Jesus taught all humans are of one body.
It takes an Enlightenment to overcome this tendency. We regress into forms of tribalism at our mutual peril.
aCkShUalLy
Brilliant. The first marker of progressive stupidity. Usually the beginning of "snappy retort."
“aCkShUalLy” always a straw man used my someone unable to support their point of view otherwise. Used to mischaracterize someone else’s opinion is a juvenile way.
Why not instead be honest about your opinions and let others have theirs? Easier to mock and hate people.
Yes but it isn’t their actual opinion. As I described, it is a dishonest argument where they suggest you’re stupid, and also probably a liar and secret racist, because you used a metaphor.
I’m not mocking people with different opinions. I’m mocking manipulative dishonest shysters.
You should add, "a snappy, spurious remark" designed to not address the subject but to divert away from the subject. If you don't believe me just read any of comprof's or R T's snappy retorts.
If you want to debate, stick to the subject and debate with on subject facts, not BS.
Logic, like mathematics must be racist.
I know I was joking hence the clown emojis. Their goal is generally to cloud the issue with emotional manipulation.
I also particularly love the arguments that begin "So you're saying that..." which completely twist what you plainly said
Leftists love to debate things that no one said, because they know what you really mean. See, it's all "dog whistles" and "coded language." That alleviates all need to make any logical points.
Master of the "dog whistle."
https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/exclusive-lee-atwaters-infamous-1981-interview-southern-strategy/
No because they aren’t trying to manipulate and dominate you they are just introducing nuance and context so as to have a robust dialogue.
🤡🤡🤡🤡
Leftists cite the concept of nuance itself as an argument in their favor. "Your argument is too black-and-white; reality has shades of grey!" It's their get-out-of-jail-free card when losing an argument.
It's hogwash. If there's actually a nuance that's missing from the argument against you, the onus is on you to explain what it is and how it undermines the opposing argument. You don't get to cite "vagueness" itself and just declare victory (and if you could, it would work against the Left as much as for it).
This is the first time I disagree with you. Give me one example where a leftist on this BBS has, "they are just introducing nuance and context so as to have a robust dialogue."
I have not seen one instance where a leftist on this BBS wanted a robust debate. Far from it, if you give a logical historically accurate statement that is irrefutable, they respond with some grade school playground, rather stupid response designed to divert from your point.
An example of this is comprof's standard retort, "That happened a long time ago." as if history is irrelevant. He won't discuss the racist Democrats presidents of the 20th century or the racism of the Obamas' but the hypocrite will bring up Barry Goldwater which was 50 years ago, "along time ago".
The left cannot defend their ideas or policies, therefore irrelevant snappy responses. They cannot defend the disgusting PC or Woke movement so once again "snappy responses".
A snappy response is not robust debate.
Oh..., so now the past (history) is NOT irrelevant? Interesting, because that's never been your position before. Yes, "That happened a long time ago" is always your answer to everything. Now you have a problem with it?
So, let me ask you this since you suddenly have such a sudden, newfound appreciation for the power of past history and how it effects the present. What year did the U.S. become a legitimate democracy?
Don't blame me/get all emotional about the GOP running on an anti-civil rights/pro-segregation platform with Barry Goldwater who voted against/called the 1964 Civil Rights Act "unconstitutional."
And please elaborate on the racism of the Obamas'
Obama publicly lied about the death of the thug Michael Brown and the innocence of Darren Wilson. Pure racism. Obama had Al Sharpton (the 'hero' of the Tawana Brawley case) over to the White House dozens of times. Pure racism.
Is this the one?
"The death of Michael Brown is heartbreaking, and Michelle and I send our deepest condolences to his family and his community at this very difficult time. As Attorney General Holder has indicated, the Department of Justice is investigating the situation along with local officials, and they will continue to direct resources to the case as needed. I know the events of the past few days have prompted strong passions, but as details unfold, I urge everyone in Ferguson, Missouri, and across the country, to remember this young man through reflection and understanding. We should comfort each other and talk with one another in a way that heals, not in a way that wounds. Along with our prayers, that’s what Michael and his family, and our broader American community, deserve."
No, I am referring to the following racist lie by Obama.
"First and foremost, we are a nation built on the rule of law. And so we need to accept that this decision was the grand jury’s to make. "
He could have said
"My own attorney general (who is black) looked into this case in detail and found that Michael Brown was a violent thug and Darren Wilson was/is entirely innocent'.
Instead, Obama lied and the 'press' let him get away with it
If you doubt any of this, go read Holder's report.
Of course the lies go on. Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren are still lying about what happened in Ferguson.
Y'know what....we've gone around and around. I've asked you a couple of questions re: your Singapore /Haiti stuff, that you refuse to answer - and we both know why :)
"He could have said"......lol.....well, I'm sure there's something else besides "thug" you would have preferred, too.
If you want to qualify a statement about a grand jury statement as a "racist lie" you have some deeper-seated issues than what can be addressed here. So, let's just leave it at that.
Obama also said "There are Americans who are deeply disappointed, even angry. It’s an understandable reaction"
He never even hinted that Darren Wilson was entirely innocent and Michael Brown was entirely guilty. He lied to the American people and (quite predictably) got away with it. He never even hinted that his own justice department had investigated the case and found Wilson innocent and Brown guilty. He never even hinted that "hands up - don't shoot" was a lie.
You claim to have questions about Singapore and Haiti. I would be glad to try to answer them.
Lol. Considering Darren Wilson wasn't indicted you seem REALLY angry about this. You act like he's in prison. Would you have preferred there be no investigation? Because you do know that there is always an investigation after a cop shoots someone, right? Or should there be an investigation when only certain types of people are shot?
"There are Americans who are deeply disappointed, even angry. It’s an understandable reaction"
- So? People have a right to feel however they want.
"He never even hinted that Darren Wilson was entirely innocent."
- DOJ decision made that clear - that's why he wasn't indicted. Are you stuck on the phrase "entirely innocent?" - because that's not going to be the legal determination. Actually, it never is -it's "Not guilty" or not indicted. I'm sorry, are you arguing for some special legal standard for white people? Think we already had that. Y'know, there was kind of a whole "system" in place that covered everything.
He lied to the American people and (quite predictably) got away with it.
-Yeah....still not seeing a lie. A lie would be something like, "Darren Wilson has been indicted."
"He never even hinted that his own justice department had investigated the case."
- Uh....that's what the whole thing was. A DOJ investigation under his administration, so of course that goes without saying. Did you think Costco was doing it?
Nah. We've settled your CA nonsense, your Canada "VeRY DiFFerENT HisTORIES" nonsense. No, actually, don't have any questions about Singapore/Haiti. I already know the answer. Just waiting on YOU to tell me what you think it is?
Had enough?
A progressive’s idea of robust dialogue is slandering the republican party while hoping you forget the question asked. “Look—something shiny.”
*insert sarcasm sign*
Wow. You believe that?
Sarcasm confirmed.
It is hard sometimes to convey sarcasm with the written word. There is no vocal facial expression or body language nuance.
Uh that’s what the clown faces were about….
Watch for the clown emoticons.
He did use some emoticons.
Ha no. Sarcasm is Kevin’s native language.
It’s me I swear!!
Then why is there a question mark next to your name? Seems you're unsure.
Okay fine it’s not me. Or it’s not him. Or he is not it. I am me. Not him. Hope that clarifies.
😂😂
I thought so. This explains everything..