 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 15-7-2009 20:27, Neeum Zawan wrote:
> On 07/15/09 13:22, Neeum Zawan wrote:
>> I saw this a while ago, and I suspect it may shed some light (I forget
>> the details):
>>
>> http://www.ted.com/talks/nate_silver_on_race_and_politics.html
>
> Looking at it again, it only discusses white racism influencing
> their votes, and not black...
>
Yes, I noticed. Apparently the white people are the real problem ;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> Yes, I noticed. Apparently the white people are the real problem ;)
My favorite news quote of the whole election: "I don't want to sound racist,
but I don't want a black man in the white house."
Guess what, redneck? You're racist! You're *so* racist you can't even keep
from sounding racist if you don't want to!
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
> andrel wrote:
> > Yes, I noticed. Apparently the white people are the real problem ;)
> My favorite news quote of the whole election: "I don't want to sound racist,
> but I don't want a black man in the white house."
> Guess what, redneck? You're racist! You're *so* racist you can't even keep
> from sounding racist if you don't want to!
Without knowing the motives for not wanting a black man as president,
it's impossible to say whether those motives are racist in nature or not.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 07/15/09 17:54, Warp wrote:
> Darren New<dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> andrel wrote:
>>> Yes, I noticed. Apparently the white people are the real problem ;)
>
>> My favorite news quote of the whole election: "I don't want to sound racist,
>> but I don't want a black man in the white house."
>
>> Guess what, redneck? You're racist! You're *so* racist you can't even keep
>> from sounding racist if you don't want to!
>
> Without knowing the motives for not wanting a black man as president,
> it's impossible to say whether those motives are racist in nature or not.
It's unambiguously racist. Whether it is _bad_ or morally wrong is
another story.
--
I couldn't repair your brakes, so I made your horn louder.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Without knowing the motives for not wanting a black man as president,
> it's impossible to say whether those motives are racist in nature or not.
If your reason for not wanting someone as president is *because* he's black,
that's racist. Now, if he'd said "I don't want the black candidate in
office", he might have just been using a poorly-chosen adjective. But then
he would have stopped and picked another adjective, rather than disclaim the
inherent racism.
It's like when people write "no pun intended" and actually mean "I intended
that pun, and I'm pointing it out in case you missed it."
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > Without knowing the motives for not wanting a black man as president,
> > it's impossible to say whether those motives are racist in nature or not.
> If your reason for not wanting someone as president is *because* he's black,
> that's racist.
But it might not be that this person is prejudiced against black people or
has any ideology against them. In other words, it's not necessarily because
he opposes a black person being the president per se.
What else could it be, you may ask? Maybe he doesn't oppose a black
president per se, but he fears he will get sick and tired of all the
racist boasting around the country if it happens, ie. that many people
will celebrate that a black person was finally elected president (as if
skin color was all that important), and other people would oppose him
vocally for racist reasons.
Maybe what he meant was that a black president would be ok the day when
there is *no* racism whatsoever in the country, in which case skin color of
the president is exactly as unimportant as eye color or hair color. Before
that a black president might only cause furor, both pro and con.
(No, I don't know the motives this person had to say that, but I'm just
saying that it could be *plausible* that he is not being a racist.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> What else could it be, you may ask? Maybe he doesn't oppose a black
> president per se, but he fears he will get sick and tired of all the
> racist boasting around the country if it happens,
I'll grant you that.
But, trust me, it wasn't that. :-)
The people around him, for example, were carrying signs reading "It's the
*white* house!"
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> The people around him, for example, were carrying signs reading "It's the
> *white* house!"
Curious. In Finland you would get arrested for such an open display of
racism (one of the few situations where that law is used *correctly*,
I suppose). I'm surprised it's not the same in the US.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> The people around him, for example, were carrying signs reading "It's the
>> *white* house!"
>
> Curious. In Finland you would get arrested for such an open display of
> racism (one of the few situations where that law is used *correctly*,
> I suppose). I'm surprised it's not the same in the US.
50 years ago you weren't allowed to marry interracially, and you expect the
US to punish racists now? :-)
No, but seriously, one thing Americans do go on about is how obnoxious
they're allowed to be while speaking or writing, with that whole "First
Amendment" thing. I have to admit I agree with it, tho.
We punish people who do more than *say* racist things, mind. You can get
extra punishment if you beat someone up *because* you're a racist, for
example. But talk? Talk is easy.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> We punish people who do more than *say* racist things, mind. You can get
> extra punishment if you beat someone up *because* you're a racist, for
> example. But talk? Talk is easy.
So if you publicly say racial slurs, and then later you beat a black guy,
you will get a extra punishment even though the reason for beating him might
not have been racist?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
