|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On November 01 2016 07:30 KwarK wrote:
If she was still with CNN she should be fired. She's not so whatever. Same as anyone else who leaks work related information in violation of their obligation to their employer. Assuming no specific laws have been broken at least.
I think, more bizarrely, is that she must have had some detailed informants in other news networks. Because she had the questions before CNN itself did.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
a lasting impact of the bernie situation is the split between the activist left and the democratic party.
the left flank was sort of a cold war in more tranquil times, but the pressure's been building. going deeper into how the revolutionary left sees the world, it is not really about party politics but social change, specifically changing a system that is viewed as dominated by wealth and power. this sort of 'society is composed of adversarial groups at cross interests' view is classically revolutionary, not just marxist. on the left, more and more has been subjected to this transformation from politics to class struggle. this is a change from a policy centric view to a class centric view.
now, everyone has policy ideas and everyone thinks certain people are really bad. to give meaning to policy centric and class centric, i should refine the definitions so that the former focus on specific policy problems when trying to explain why bad things happen, while the latter blames someone. policy based thinking in politics is a functionalist sort, agents are effects of rules, even morally culpable 'bad actors' are a problem to be controlled. the more personal sort of view of this second group is that a group of evil force exists, and that is something the people should fight against. undeniably, behind every bad policy is a political opponent whom we might call bad, but this group is defined in terms of class based properties like wealth and line of work, the demonization is a bit too rough edged and deal in large groups like wall street, billionaires, politicians.
we might call it populism, but it is really about a view of society as composed of adversarial and conflicting group level entities. this class based view is hungry for the rhetoric of class struggle constantly drummed up by sanders. his appeal is purely one of willingness to engage in this sort of crass, group conflict rhetoric that a lot of people believe in. this is also why people think bernie has all the policies, because their idea of policy is defined by their group conflict view of society, instead of how the process actually works. when sanders is talking about corporations, wall street, that to people are the issues and the policy.
this transformation from "fixing the system" to "revolution" is not captured by the general description of the sanders phenomenon, that of a dissatisfied electorate. the framing shift from an american sense of "politics" as collective decisionmaking to the revolutionary model of class conflict, more than behavioralist description of wellbeing, is more instructive.
this is why the democrats who look at politics as a collection of policy and rules are so caught off guard by the fever swamp hatred for HRC. policy-wise, she is certainly acutely aware of the problems that people have about inequality and stagnant wages. the focus on equality is there.
a lot of people have all identified why she is susceptible. the enthusiasm for war against the evil forces is underestimated. viewed as opportunistic and power hungry, traits that looks especially stark and vile on a woman, negative associations just stick better on HRC. but few have pointed out the continuity between the type of attack used against her in the primaries and by trump, ones invoking wall street, elites and insiderness. the clear commonality is that there is real bloodthirst for revolution in a large part of the country due to political radicalization on both sides, so that guilt by association is just a fact.
the center, defined as recognizing stability and sustainability in function as necessary conditions, is not something with a lot of advocates. certainly not on the activist left which is responsible for producing a lot of social media propagated propaganda material. that hose has been turned against HRC this cycle, hence her low positive rating, which is a combination between left and right radicals.
it's not a permanent thing of course. a lot of people harbor resentments and they pass when personal circumstances improve or their perception of how things are going improve. it's just that HRC is uniquely vulnerable to indulgence of this resentment, and the other side was extremely willing to exploit it while being naive about the harms, not only to general election but to general quality of politics.
why is the activist left important? because they produce a lot of influence content, and you need that stuff to generate enthusiasm. it is also important because political energy and the wielder of that energy need each other. blind revolutionary zeal will be disastrous, and inattentive leadership is also disastrous, mostly in producing the former. this relationship needs to function well, and it is the difference between ending up in a nordic system or in venezuela.
|
On November 01 2016 07:41 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2016 07:30 KwarK wrote:
If she was still with CNN she should be fired. She's not so whatever. Same as anyone else who leaks work related information in violation of their obligation to their employer. Assuming no specific laws have been broken at least. I think, more bizarrely, is that she must have had some detailed informants in other news networks. Because she had the questions before CNN itself did.
Debate death penalty questions probably all sound the same. And HRC used her pre-canned death penalty response that many staffers worked on for days. The emails even show that the staffers think the pre-canned answer isn't very good. Scandal! Rigged!
|
On November 01 2016 07:38 LegalLord wrote:
So... where is this elusive sexism in your long Hillary-defending diatribe? I feel that it is important to remind you that that is what we really were talking about here.
You mean people getting mad at a successful woman candidate for trumped up reasons they can't prove is not sexism to you?
|
I'd have thought any regular thread follower by now could put together a list of solid weaknesses/flaws for Hillary; or valid criticisms against. Sure, there might not be many when you clear away the chaff, but there's certainly a few.
magpie, surely you can identify 1-2 issues with Hillary that you believe are sound?
|
On November 01 2016 07:58 zlefin wrote:
I'd have thought any regular thread follower by now could put together a list of solid weaknesses/flaws for Hillary; or valid criticisms against. Sure, there might not be many when you clear away the chaff, but there's certainly a few.
I mean this is what i was asking about the other day; it seems like 90% of people are perfectly content to repeat the refrain "Hillary is corrupt" but when you ask for details they just say "don't be dense, everybody knows it."
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On November 01 2016 07:54 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2016 07:38 LegalLord wrote:
So... where is this elusive sexism in your long Hillary-defending diatribe? I feel that it is important to remind you that that is what we really were talking about here. You mean people getting mad at a successful woman candidate for trumped up reasons they can't prove is not sexism to you?
Um... no? Even if that were a fair characterization the answer would still be no.
|
On November 01 2016 08:03 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2016 07:54 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 01 2016 07:38 LegalLord wrote:
So... where is this elusive sexism in your long Hillary-defending diatribe? I feel that it is important to remind you that that is what we really were talking about here. You mean people getting mad at a successful woman candidate for trumped up reasons they can't prove is not sexism to you? Um... no? Even if that were a fair characterization the answer would still be no.
What about her in-authenticity?
How about how she just isn't charismatic enough?
And why didn't she stand up to Bill when he was a cheater? (she probably couldn't please her man, just like Huma)
What about her bizarrely close relationship with Huma?
Why doesn't she smile enough?
Have you ever laughed at one of her jokes?
She doesn't look presidential to you, does she?
Why is she so easily bought by donors?
|
On November 01 2016 07:58 zlefin wrote:
I'd have thought any regular thread follower by now could put together a list of solid weaknesses/flaws for Hillary; or valid criticisms against. Sure, there might not be many when you clear away the chaff, but there's certainly a few.
Part of the problem is she dragged a significant chunk of the party with her. So the campaign finance, lies, nepotism, hawkishness, hubris, technical incompetence, increased fracking, questionable trade positions, etc... are things Democrats defend as not being accurate descriptions or as favorable positions.
I'm sure plenty could come up with other lists, but I doubt anyone was thinking it worth the time.
Her approval was around ~25% among men, so sure there's plenty of sexism wrapped up in that, but she's got plenty of problems not based on her gender (though I'm sure they get some extra fuel as a result, and a few get put out).
|
On November 01 2016 08:01 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2016 07:58 zlefin wrote:
I'd have thought any regular thread follower by now could put together a list of solid weaknesses/flaws for Hillary; or valid criticisms against. Sure, there might not be many when you clear away the chaff, but there's certainly a few. I mean this is what i was asking about the other day; it seems like 90% of people are perfectly content to repeat the refrain "Hillary is corrupt" but when you ask for details they just say "don't be dense, everybody knows it."
it is a problem; mostly though it's that they present evidence which they consider to be adequate, and others do not.
And it's well documented that most people have poor judgment in general, unsurprisingly of course, judging things well is hard.
it's a bit harder of course here, because many issues have been gone over so thoroughly previously, that there's more of a presumption that the issue has been covered.
I'm assuming you didn't have any more specific question of me christian.
|
LegalLord has long established that he has his own well formed reasons why he doesn't like Clinton. But that's not the sort of criticisms people are talking about here. There are people getting a lot more ground out of vague innuendo and shallow arguments than you would otherwise expect.
|
On November 01 2016 08:08 CannonsNCarriers wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2016 08:03 LegalLord wrote:On November 01 2016 07:54 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 01 2016 07:38 LegalLord wrote:
So... where is this elusive sexism in your long Hillary-defending diatribe? I feel that it is important to remind you that that is what we really were talking about here. You mean people getting mad at a successful woman candidate for trumped up reasons they can't prove is not sexism to you? Um... no? Even if that were a fair characterization the answer would still be no. What about her in-authenticity? How about how she just isn't charismatic enough? And why didn't she stand up to Bill when he was a cheater? (she probably couldn't please her man, just like Huma) What about her bizarrely close relationship with Huma? Why doesn't she smile enough? Have you ever laughed at one of her jokes? She doesn't look presidential to you, does she? Why is she so easily bought by donors?
Okay, who the fuck is this Huma? like, I can wiki her, and see she is a Clinton staffer, but how did she become relevant that people actually talk about her?
(Hope my question does not come off as too lazy, but I would rather avoid combing through the the_donald bs screen and try to judge about someone I never heard before... when I can ask here where I have some understanding of where most posters come from.)
|
On November 01 2016 08:15 Evotroid wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2016 08:08 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On November 01 2016 08:03 LegalLord wrote:On November 01 2016 07:54 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 01 2016 07:38 LegalLord wrote:
So... where is this elusive sexism in your long Hillary-defending diatribe? I feel that it is important to remind you that that is what we really were talking about here. You mean people getting mad at a successful woman candidate for trumped up reasons they can't prove is not sexism to you? Um... no? Even if that were a fair characterization the answer would still be no. What about her in-authenticity? How about how she just isn't charismatic enough? And why didn't she stand up to Bill when he was a cheater? (she probably couldn't please her man, just like Huma) What about her bizarrely close relationship with Huma? Why doesn't she smile enough? Have you ever laughed at one of her jokes? She doesn't look presidential to you, does she? Why is she so easily bought by donors? Okay, who the fuck is this Huma? like, I can wiki her, and see she is a Clinton staffer, but how did she become relevant that people actually talk about her? (Hope my question does not come off as too lazy, but I would rather avoid combing through the the_donald bs screen and try to judge about someone I never heard before... when I can ask here where I have some understanding of where most posters come from.)
Your question goes straight to my point. Huma is effectively HRC's body woman who follows her around and does most of HRC's fixing and staffer wrongling (and probably desktop email drafting). Huma happens to the subject of a large number of lesbian rumors about HRC**. The lesbian angle, combined with Huma's reticence to talk to the press feed a sort media fixation. Oh, and Huma married Anthony Wiener and they have a kid. The recent round of news is all about Wiener's laptop and the finding of Huma's emails on that laptop. Huma probably remotely logged into outlook via web client and the web client pulled down every every she ever wrote on the local drive.
** http://www.morningnewsusa.com/proof-hillary-clinton-huma-abedin-lesbian-affair-23117688.html
|
On November 01 2016 08:15 Evotroid wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2016 08:08 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On November 01 2016 08:03 LegalLord wrote:On November 01 2016 07:54 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 01 2016 07:38 LegalLord wrote:
So... where is this elusive sexism in your long Hillary-defending diatribe? I feel that it is important to remind you that that is what we really were talking about here. You mean people getting mad at a successful woman candidate for trumped up reasons they can't prove is not sexism to you? Um... no? Even if that were a fair characterization the answer would still be no. What about her in-authenticity? How about how she just isn't charismatic enough? And why didn't she stand up to Bill when he was a cheater? (she probably couldn't please her man, just like Huma) What about her bizarrely close relationship with Huma? Why doesn't she smile enough? Have you ever laughed at one of her jokes? She doesn't look presidential to you, does she? Why is she so easily bought by donors? Okay, who the fuck is this Huma? like, I can wiki her, and see she is a Clinton staffer, but how did she become relevant that people actually talk about her? (Hope my question does not come off as too lazy, but I would rather avoid combing through the the_donald bs screen and try to judge about someone I never heard before... when I can ask here where I have some understanding of where most posters come from.)
She is Clinton's super-staffer. Been there for years and influences who gets access and also is a body man for Hillary. Basically, she is Alfred+Robin.
|
On November 01 2016 07:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Her criticism boils down to being called a warhawk for voting for Iraq and apologizing for it, being called corrupt for having employees who email each other with nothing corrupt in the emails, and for being payed to make speeches like lots of other famous people do all around the world.
Is she perfect? Of course she isn't. But it amazes me how much vitriol she gets on this thread from people who literally are unable to present evidence for their accusations. Is she possibly corrupt? Sure, I'm certain all politicians are corrupt if they're good at what they do. But do we have evidence of it? What about her supposed control of the election rigging? Do we have evidence of it? What about her being a warhawk--what's the evidence of it that we have? A vote she made that she regrets doing ~15 years ago? Being the SoS during Obama's term? Do we blame Powell for Iraq? Is no president at fault for any war or conflict? Only the SoS?
The arguments used on her are, for the most part, inconsistent and are not evidence based. Purely speculatory--which is something only crazy people and conspiracy theorists do.
In regards to Syria:
Hillary Clinton said on 4th of June 2013:
How do intervene -- my view was you intervene as covertly as is possible for Americans to intervene. We used to be much better at this than we are now. Now, you know, everybody can't help themselves. They have to go out and tell their friendly reporters and somebody else: Look what we're doing and I want credit for it, and all the rest of it. So we're not as good as we used to be, but we still -- we can still deliver, and we should have in my view been trying to do that [..]
In regards to Iran and nuclear weapons:
Hillary Clinton said on 4th of June 2013:
Well, you up the pain that they have to endure by not in any way occupying or invading them but by bombing their facilities. I mean, that is the option. It is not as, we like to say these days, boots on the ground.
When asked if that would be effective because the Nazis didn't manage to bomb the people's will out of existence in London during World War 2:
Hillary Clinton said on 4th of June 2013:
No. It didn't work to break the spirit of the people of London, but London was a democracy. London was a free country.
London was united in their opposition to Nazi Germany and was willing to bear what was a terrible price for so long with the blitz and the bombings. [..] I mean, the calculation is exactly as you described it. It's a very hard one, which is why when people just pontificate that, you know, we have no choice. We have to bomb the facilities.
Can I add these things to my complaints about her hawkishness or is that condemning her for no good reason or believing in conspiracy theories? Of course, who knows, maybe she is expressing her public opinions here and privately she believes something else entirely.
|
On November 01 2016 08:08 CannonsNCarriers wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2016 08:03 LegalLord wrote:On November 01 2016 07:54 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 01 2016 07:38 LegalLord wrote:
So... where is this elusive sexism in your long Hillary-defending diatribe? I feel that it is important to remind you that that is what we really were talking about here. You mean people getting mad at a successful woman candidate for trumped up reasons they can't prove is not sexism to you? Um... no? Even if that were a fair characterization the answer would still be no. What about her in-authenticity? How about how she just isn't charismatic enough? And why didn't she stand up to Bill when he was a cheater? (she probably couldn't please her man, just like Huma) What about her bizarrely close relationship with Huma? Why doesn't she smile enough? Have you ever laughed at one of her jokes? She doesn't look presidential to you, does she? Why is she so easily bought by donors?
I can't tell if this is serious or in jest
|
On November 01 2016 08:12 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2016 08:01 ChristianS wrote:On November 01 2016 07:58 zlefin wrote:
I'd have thought any regular thread follower by now could put together a list of solid weaknesses/flaws for Hillary; or valid criticisms against. Sure, there might not be many when you clear away the chaff, but there's certainly a few. I mean this is what i was asking about the other day; it seems like 90% of people are perfectly content to repeat the refrain "Hillary is corrupt" but when you ask for details they just say "don't be dense, everybody knows it." it is a problem; mostly though it's that they present evidence which they consider to be adequate, and others do not. And it's well documented that most people have poor judgment in general, unsurprisingly of course, judging things well is hard. it's a bit harder of course here, because many issues have been gone over so thoroughly previously, that there's more of a presumption that the issue has been covered. I'm assuming you didn't have any more specific question of me christian.
Nah, I'm mostly just confused by the fact that even the people in the thread most critical of Hillary aren't more eager to discuss the particulars of her various faults and scandals. Surely a discussion trying to pin down exactly how corrupt she is and exactly what she's guilty of would be a welcome conversation if you don't like her.
I wonder if there would be a way to graph how approval rating of the candidates changes with information level of he person being polled. My guess would be that Trump's approval rating basically monotonically decreases with information level, while Hillary has something of an uncanny valley effect (i.e. on the surface she looks good, then she seems awful when you hear about a bunch of scandals, then when you actually learn the details of those scandals she doesn't look quite as bad anymore. But of course, my guess isn't worth much since I'm biased in one candidate's favor.
|
On November 01 2016 06:09 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2016 06:08 Rebs wrote:On November 01 2016 06:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 01 2016 06:00 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 01 2016 05:14 Sermokala wrote:On November 01 2016 04:59 GoTuNk! wrote:On November 01 2016 04:23 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Of course they're not but that's the point, the entire narrative is that the Government is bad and that privatization is the saving grace. Nothing should ever be able to change that narrative. You believe the government should get bigger and bigger? when does it stop? It stops when we're living in a world of milk and honey. You can't make an argument for stopping the expansion of government. You can make an argument for screwtinizeing the size of the expansions and for examining old expansions for their currnet value. Ie getting rid of some brewing laws beacuse technology is really good on that now. We can't live in a world of pre obamacare anymore beacuse it was literaly total shit. You can't justify insurance companies being able to kick off insurance anyone who gets "pre existing condidions" because thats total shit and we know that now. People that shield Hillarys clear problems as a candidate as "you're only saying that because shes a woman" piss me off. Shes gotten the same scrutiny as any man would. especially as one that clearly was in the national stage for as long as she has. You're literally ruining the conversation by calling everyone that disagrees with you as sexist off the bat. That doesn't work for any argument I can say that freeing the slaves after the civil war was the worst thing done to black people sense people decided to enslave them. That doesn't automatically make me a racist. I think that it was the worst thing done because there wasn't an effort made to integrate them into the economy and they were automatically ushered into the poor class of the nation at a level worse then immigrants. A.) Show me what she's done wrong that is somehow worse than what everyone else has done? So far its emails other people send, a husband whose sexual escapades are popular, and a record of siding mostly with the status quo of democrats. Where in that is physical evidence of her doing something scandalous? What would you call attacking someone's legitimacy without evidence against them? How many people have attacked other politicians they had no evidence against? How many politicians have you publicly attacked on a forum who has done nothing wrong? If the answer is none but Hillary then there is a distinct possibility we know the reasons you're attacking her. Its the same with Obama. B.) Reparations is actually something the government has actively not payed off since the freeing of the slaves. I can promise you that if we pay back reparations to all african americans in a grossed up lump sum that takes into account inflation--majority of blacks will be quickly taken out of poverty. They are only still poor not because they were freed, but because they were gypped by a government thinking too small supported by a people who has (for too long) been too white. I'm not even going near the "it's because she's a woman" thing, but I'd point out "gypped" is a racist slur (albeit one of the most commonly accepted ones) so we probably should try not to use it here. How is gypped a racist slur ? Serious question, this is new to me. Is this like a Roma gypsy thing ? Show nested quote +Explained Jake Bowers, editor of Travellers Times, to British newspaper the Telegraph: “Gypped is an offensive word, it’s derived from Gypsy and it’s being used in the same context as a person might once have said they ‘jewed’ somebody if they did an underhand business transaction.” Just grabbed a quick explanation.
Wow I didn't even know this. I never have seen it written and assumed it was spelled jipped and did not see the connection.
|
On November 01 2016 08:28 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2016 08:12 zlefin wrote:On November 01 2016 08:01 ChristianS wrote:On November 01 2016 07:58 zlefin wrote:
I'd have thought any regular thread follower by now could put together a list of solid weaknesses/flaws for Hillary; or valid criticisms against. Sure, there might not be many when you clear away the chaff, but there's certainly a few. I mean this is what i was asking about the other day; it seems like 90% of people are perfectly content to repeat the refrain "Hillary is corrupt" but when you ask for details they just say "don't be dense, everybody knows it." it is a problem; mostly though it's that they present evidence which they consider to be adequate, and others do not. And it's well documented that most people have poor judgment in general, unsurprisingly of course, judging things well is hard. it's a bit harder of course here, because many issues have been gone over so thoroughly previously, that there's more of a presumption that the issue has been covered. I'm assuming you didn't have any more specific question of me christian. Nah, I'm mostly just confused by the fact that even the people in the thread most critical of Hillary aren't more eager to discuss the particulars of her various faults and scandals. Surely a discussion trying to pin down exactly how corrupt she is and exactly what she's guilty of would be a welcome conversation if you don't like her. I wonder if there would be a way to graph how approval rating of the candidates changes with information level of he person being polled. My guess would be that Trump's approval rating basically monotonically decreases with information level, while Hillary has something of an uncanny valley effect (i.e. on the surface she looks good, then she seems awful when you hear about a bunch of scandals, then when you actually learn the details of those scandals she doesn't look quite as bad anymore. But of course, my guess isn't worth much since I'm biased in one candidate's favor.
well, based on your postings, style, assessments, and presentation; I'd say it's pretty clear that if one of the people who thinks hillary is corrupt went over everything with you in great detail, it wouldn't suffice to change your mind.
By now, many of us also have a good sense of whether someone is convinceable or not, as we've seen enough new/intermittent people come into the thread and dealt with them.
|
On November 01 2016 08:37 Slaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2016 06:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 01 2016 06:08 Rebs wrote:On November 01 2016 06:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 01 2016 06:00 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 01 2016 05:14 Sermokala wrote:On November 01 2016 04:59 GoTuNk! wrote:On November 01 2016 04:23 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Of course they're not but that's the point, the entire narrative is that the Government is bad and that privatization is the saving grace. Nothing should ever be able to change that narrative. You believe the government should get bigger and bigger? when does it stop? It stops when we're living in a world of milk and honey. You can't make an argument for stopping the expansion of government. You can make an argument for screwtinizeing the size of the expansions and for examining old expansions for their currnet value. Ie getting rid of some brewing laws beacuse technology is really good on that now. We can't live in a world of pre obamacare anymore beacuse it was literaly total shit. You can't justify insurance companies being able to kick off insurance anyone who gets "pre existing condidions" because thats total shit and we know that now. People that shield Hillarys clear problems as a candidate as "you're only saying that because shes a woman" piss me off. Shes gotten the same scrutiny as any man would. especially as one that clearly was in the national stage for as long as she has. You're literally ruining the conversation by calling everyone that disagrees with you as sexist off the bat. That doesn't work for any argument I can say that freeing the slaves after the civil war was the worst thing done to black people sense people decided to enslave them. That doesn't automatically make me a racist. I think that it was the worst thing done because there wasn't an effort made to integrate them into the economy and they were automatically ushered into the poor class of the nation at a level worse then immigrants. A.) Show me what she's done wrong that is somehow worse than what everyone else has done? So far its emails other people send, a husband whose sexual escapades are popular, and a record of siding mostly with the status quo of democrats. Where in that is physical evidence of her doing something scandalous? What would you call attacking someone's legitimacy without evidence against them? How many people have attacked other politicians they had no evidence against? How many politicians have you publicly attacked on a forum who has done nothing wrong? If the answer is none but Hillary then there is a distinct possibility we know the reasons you're attacking her. Its the same with Obama. B.) Reparations is actually something the government has actively not payed off since the freeing of the slaves. I can promise you that if we pay back reparations to all african americans in a grossed up lump sum that takes into account inflation--majority of blacks will be quickly taken out of poverty. They are only still poor not because they were freed, but because they were gypped by a government thinking too small supported by a people who has (for too long) been too white. I'm not even going near the "it's because she's a woman" thing, but I'd point out "gypped" is a racist slur (albeit one of the most commonly accepted ones) so we probably should try not to use it here. How is gypped a racist slur ? Serious question, this is new to me. Is this like a Roma gypsy thing ? Explained Jake Bowers, editor of Travellers Times, to British newspaper the Telegraph: “Gypped is an offensive word, it’s derived from Gypsy and it’s being used in the same context as a person might once have said they ‘jewed’ somebody if they did an underhand business transaction.” Just grabbed a quick explanation. Wow I didn't even know this. I never have seen it written and assumed it was spelled jipped and did not see the connection.
Over here it is a very common slur, albeit in a little different meaning, but the idea is the same.
Sad thing is, sometimes even I use it, because I just can't think of another word that conveys the same negative meaning so well that I wish to express. Afterwards I'm always kind of ashamed, but, like in a minute I just forget about it, and the next time use it all the same...
Just now, I realize maybe the reason so many people are "racist" is just because they are lazy and/or too busy to not be if that makes sense....
Point is, it takes more effort to not be racist, than to be.
Maybe this is also part of the reason so many people fight for their right to be racists?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
