catsmate
No longer the 1
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2007
- Messages
- 34,767
Well Trump did it, it's not really fair to expect Trumpettes do do any different.
Inauguration Day 20 Jan 2021
- Thread starter Vixen
- Start date
catsmate
No longer the 1
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2007
- Messages
- 34,767
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2005
- Messages
- 96,955
ChrisBFRPKY
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2012
- Messages
- 4,449
Understatement
Definition:
"This literary device refers to the practice of drawing attention to a fact that is already obvious and noticeable. Understating a fact is usually done by way of sarcasm, irony, wryness or any other form of dry humor. Understating something is akin to exaggerating its obviousness as a means of humor."
One should first learn how to understand a post, then intelligently debate the content if able. This speaks directly to my earlier assessment of your intentions.
I do not actually "wonder" whether Biden's actions of appointing positions based on race are racist. Obviously they are, if they were not, race would not have been a factor in the choice for the position.
ChrisBFRPKY
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2012
- Messages
- 4,449
Point of education*
If skin color is a factor in choosing someone for a job, THAT is racist.
We can tell ourselves all kinds of stories to make racism more acceptable and some frequently do, but at the end of the day racism is racism and it's wrong.
If you were aiming for sarcasm, irony, wryness, or any other form of dry humor, you missed the mark. Bigly.
Be better next time.
What if the person of color is better qualified to do the job because they are a person of color? Is that racist in your book, too?
It's funny, I can think of lots os situations where a person of color would be better at a job than someone who was not. But I have a hard time thinking of jobs where a person of color would be worse at the job because of their skin color. Maybe I'm just not creative enough.
Regnad Kcin
Penultimate Amazing
Last edited:
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
Even if there is reason for a choice of words, the Constitution has a word for what happened on January 20. There is a period during which the validity of a election can be contested, but if it is confirmed, then there is no option in who will take office.
Of course there's always some slack in language, but the word "appointed" at least implies that a choice is available to someone in charge. That is not the case in an election unless the election is overridden and someone who did not win the election is appointed as T**** apparently hoped would happen. Otherwise there is, I think, a good reason why the word "inaugurated" and not "appointed" is specified for the event.
Of course there's always some slack in language, but the word "appointed" at least implies that a choice is available to someone in charge. That is not the case in an election unless the election is overridden and someone who did not win the election is appointed as T**** apparently hoped would happen. Otherwise there is, I think, a good reason why the word "inaugurated" and not "appointed" is specified for the event.
Regnad Kcin
Penultimate Amazing
Now, let me see if I have this right.
My wife and I, both white, have decided to adopt. Because we wish to give a helping hand to someone we perceive to be at some disadvantage, we're considering either a Hispanic child from Peru, or a Vietnamese orphan, or a black baby who was apparently left in a dumpster to die. We could choose a white kid, but we both want to help bring about a more multi-ethnic world, so we sign the papers for a little Asian girl.
So. Am I racist? My wife? At the end of the day?
Last edited:
Mader Levap
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2012
- Messages
- 1,576
You want to eat cake and have it too.
If someone is better at some job because of certain color of skin, it implies that someone else with different color of skin would be worse at the job.
Positive racism is certainly more tolerable, but it is still racism.
Gord_in_Toronto
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2006
- Messages
- 26,507
But he was not rich before he became VP. He was not rich while he was VP. He became rich through book deals and speaking engagements afterwards.
As you may be about to find, it could be argued that, yes, you are. This is ISF after all.
I guess so. The thing is that there are jobs where having a POC would be a benefit, such as efforts to communicate with or create credibility within their community. But the reverse is not really true. Tiger Woods can sell just as many golf clubs as Phil Mickelson, even if most of the buyers are white. But Vanilla Ice is never going to sell as much product as Ice-T, if most of the target audience are POC.
It is a matter of trust. For hundreds of years the powers that be in the United States have told POC that they can not trust white people. And they have learned that lesson. And when they haven't, we have punished them harshly.
Therefore, after creating this huge inequality in trust it is to be expected that we will need to lean on POC to rebuild that trust.
The inequality exists and if your company wants to bridge that inequality to market and sell its services or products it will need POC inside those efforts to be successful. There are books to be written about old white men trying to influence markets they don't understand, and most of them will be quite funny.
I'd say the same is true of youth. If you want to have a credible presence on social media you better not have an old white guy running that effort without meaningful input from young people.
Steve
Penultimate Amazing
Really I do not think it is possible to find an adult person that is not racist under some definition of the word. No functional person is completely blind to superficial "racial" features.
Spektator
Is that right?
We all have racist impulses, but the better of us do not by word or deed act on them.
If that were true, it would be called Appointment day.
https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-ove...competitive-hiring/#url=Types-of-Appointments
turingtest
Mistral, mistral wind...
Seeing what there is to see is only racist by a definition of the word that's so broad as to make it meaningless; acting as if what you see is some automatic key for judging what's underneath is what the word is meant to convey. Racists don't get to get out from under a burden they've assumed by hairsplitting whatabouts that they can use to pretend everyone carries the same load.
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
Of course if you define racism as noticing race, we're all likely guilty of it, just as we're presumably sexist if we notice whether we're in the presence of a man or a woman. But clearly there are times when such a distinction is apt and when it is not. Because it's sexist to deny a job to a woman, is it sexist to base your marital choices on it? We don't, these days, consider it permissible to discriminate against left handed people, but it's not generally considered outré to make left handed golf clubs.
I think some people are arguing this wrong. There are circumstances where distinction requires certain actions in order to make the ultimate goal of equality work better. In the case of race, there is such a backlog of discriminatory actions and consequences that to advocate sudden colorblindness does not actually correct what needs to be corrected, but simply insures that the dominant, default situation continues uncorrected.
To suggest that this is racism, in the pejorative sense, is a bit like saying that since skidding is wrong, you shouldn't steer into a skid when it happens, or if you tilt too far to one side you shouldn't tilt the other way to keep from falling over.
To speak of correction as racism is to deny the deep seated damage and continued bias that we need to remedy.
I think some people are arguing this wrong. There are circumstances where distinction requires certain actions in order to make the ultimate goal of equality work better. In the case of race, there is such a backlog of discriminatory actions and consequences that to advocate sudden colorblindness does not actually correct what needs to be corrected, but simply insures that the dominant, default situation continues uncorrected.
To suggest that this is racism, in the pejorative sense, is a bit like saying that since skidding is wrong, you shouldn't steer into a skid when it happens, or if you tilt too far to one side you shouldn't tilt the other way to keep from falling over.
To speak of correction as racism is to deny the deep seated damage and continued bias that we need to remedy.