|
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. |
United States44283 Posts
If it makes you any happier I think there are plenty of racists to go around. There are conservative racists and liberal racists. Black racists and white racists. Old racists and young racists. It's a country built on slavery. We're 20 years from interracial marriage being 50/50 approve/disapprove. There are living African Americans whose government did medical testing on them without their consent. Over 25% of African American adults in Kentucky don't have the vote. The war on drugs had bipartisan support.
The racist boogeyman isn't wearing a white hood, it's just an average person brought up in a society where it's ingrained from a young age that black people are not as worthy of respect as white people. The best cure for that is probably just going to be time.
Consider the inverse of my view, the idea that someone could grow up in the 1960s and not pick up any kind of racial bias. A child would be observing examples of disparate treatment, respect, prejudices and assumptions on racial grounds all around them. They would have to have some kind of amazing superpower moral clarity to fail to learn the normal lesson "this is how we treat different people" and instead learn "society is super racist".
|
On August 30 2017 02:23 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 02:05 KwarK wrote:On August 30 2017 01:50 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 00:07 KwarK wrote:On August 29 2017 23:59 Danglars wrote:A week ago I expressed the hope that President Donald Trump's lamentable performance after the Charlottesville protests would hurt his standing in the polls. This didn't happen. If there was a blip, it was in the other direction. I'd be pleased if Trump's regrettable decision to pardon former sheriff Joe Arpaio dented his popularity, too, but I'm not holding my breath.
Trump's supporters are loyal. What is one to make of this?
There are two main theories of Trump's support. One is that a large minority of Americans -- 40 percent, give or take -- are racist idiots. This theory is at least tacitly endorsed by the Democratic Party and the mainstream liberal media. The other is that a large majority of this large minority are good citizens with intelligible and legitimate opinions, who so resent being regarded as racist idiots that they'll back Trump almost regardless. They may not admire the man, but he's on their side, he vents their frustration, he afflicts the people who think so little of them -- and that's good enough.
It's disappointing that Charlottesville hasn't changed their minds -- but then it hasn't changed my mind either. I still think the first theory is absurd and the second theory basically correct.
The first theory, if it were true, would be an argument against democracy. If tens of millions of Americans are racist idiots, how do you defend the popular franchise? That isn't a sliver of reprehensible people who'll be safely overwhelmed when elections come around. And there's plainly nothing, according to the first theory, you can say to change their minds. Why even go through the motions of talking and listening to those people?
This sense that democratic politics is futile if not downright dangerous now infuses the worldview of the country's cultural and intellectual establishment. Trump is routinely accused of being authoritarian and anti-democratic, despite the fact that he won the election and, so far, has been checked at every point and has achieved almost nothing in policy terms. (He might wish he were an authoritarian, but he sure hasn't been allowed to function as one.) Many of his critics, on the other hand, are anti-democratic in a deeper sense: They appear to believe that a little less than half the country doesn't deserve the vote. BloombergI'm usually in the disapprove category, but think this kind of interplay is prevalent. It doesn't have good outcomes. That article presents two possible explanations. Theory A Trump supporters support racist policies because they are racist. Clearly this is untrue because clearly racism couldn't be that popular in America because... After all, it's been 20 years since interracial marriage disapproval passed below the 50% mark. Ancient history. Theory B Trump supporters are so tired of being called racist that they support racist policies because the racist at the top doesn't call them a racist. This proves they're not racist because they're only doing the racist thing to get back at people for calling them racist and that makes sense somehow. Because if you're okay with supporting racism but only to get back at people for calling you a racist then clearly that wouldn't imply that you're a racist. Additional ad hominem. If liberals think half the country can be racist then clearly they hate democracy because... Here's the thing. Right and wrong don't change just because someone on the other side called you a name and hurt your feelings. If there is an injustice and someone who wants to change that injustice calls you a mean name, that doesn't mean it's excusable to fight to maintain that injustice. The Bloomberg article defends Trump supporters by saying that they're not really racists, they just have so little moral courage that they're happy supporting racism if it means that the other side loses. And it somehow thinks that's better. Honestly I have less contempt for a member of the KKK than I do for the author of that article. If that's your understanding of the arguments, perhaps he should've included that the other side isn't willing to read or listen. Absurd pretense at understanding. You might as well have said, "Let me use this pretext of generic right wing article to give my thoughts on moral cowards." If you vote for Trump because you're angry about being called a racist then you're a racist who lacks the moral courage of the members of the KKK. I do not believe that the American right support racism as a way of hitting back at those who called them racist. Apparently that means I think more of the American right than the author of that article does. I think they support it because they've entangled systematic white privilege with the status quo and confuse attempts to fix racist issues with attacks on them. However I have far more respect for the KKK member who will argue that it's important that blacks not be allowed to vote because their brains are less developed than the Bloomberg author who'll vote to support efforts to suppress African Americans to get back at the people who called him racist. The KKK guy is wrong, but I get why he's doing it, the conclusion is a natural extension of his incorrect starting premises. The Bloomberg author, he knows what he's doing is wrong, he's just too petty to care. Now you raise an interesting question. What do you do with the Kwarks of the world that think most of the GOP is racists, and thinks the solution is they need to be taught to be less racist? Now, I know similarly deranged Trump supporters that think all the Democrats think they're racist and sit secure in their coastal bubbles. They rely on the NYT and WaPo to bring them bulletins at how the racists are getting along in the Midwest. I try to tell them ... these people aren't the majority! There's kind, good-hearted Democrats that won't smear first and ask questions later. Maybe they think you're less compassionate, or don't think you read enough of inner city struggles ... but they don't actually think their neighbor with the Trump sign voted for him because he supports racists. Now, granted, you're a vocal minority. You were shocked that Trump had a chance and you should be allowed some years to get over the initial surprise you were not well equipped for. Of course that guttural reaction of "all dem Trump voters are racists or are fine supporting racists" will be the first one. You have my pity if that's your last thought on the matter. Sincerely. Later, as time goes on and hopefully the violent protests subside, you might recognize that Trump only got in the 30s of support in the primaries. He was opposed by the majority, but it was a packed field. The GOP was(is) struggling with conservative betrayers that act differently in office, and the bombastic reality TV businessman looked like a cure for sleazy politicians. There was a lot of Jen Bush reactionary fervor, and Trump gained from being first hammering him. The media thought this was a sure win and did 24/7 televised speeches starting when the podium was still empty. Kwark deserves some respect for being brave enough to figuratively take out the map of the US and write "racists here" over the big GOP strongholds. Disgusting, but unapologetic. Racists need to be taught by their moral betters and admit their white privilege to be accepted into the cozy cosmopolitan circles. It's a tight philosophy. Disgusting, but tight.
No at no point did Trump look like 'a cure for the sleazy politicians'. During the entire primary he was the guy who said it like it is. And it was racism, misogyny and bigotry the entire way.
Yeah he didn't have the support of the majority of Republicans during the primary, but that didn't stop them from voting for him.
And now look at his approval numbers. So ok, not all of the Republicans are racists or racist enablers. Its 'only' 78% of them. (his approval among Republicans accord to the latest Gallup numbers I could find).
At what point do voters become responsible for the people they vote into office?
|
Can we just have an entire day when all the left leaning posters bitch about liberal racists? Or half assed liberals that want extra credit for being “not racist”. Like the participation trophy for civil rights or something. It would be so cathartic for the conservatives to see its equal treatment for everyone.
|
On August 30 2017 01:53 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 00:18 Doodsmack wrote:
If things really go south during Trump's term, which is entirely conceivable, the non-racist/non-birther portion of his voters will very much regret their choice. At that point, the "liberal attitudes are offensive" argument falls apart as a defensible position. They took too large of a risk on competence - on a fake tanned, hair dyed and veneer-teethed showbiz personality, no less. Still missing the point. They'd regret being forced into that choice, but still no closer to supporting the party that hated their guts and will slander them to make political points. Binary choices, remember.
The result of the incompetence would be too great, meaning that in this case, voting for the opposing party would have been a better result for them. In other words, they made the wrong choice in the binary choice. But your obligatory claims of people missing the point are pretty funny when you are just wrong on that.
|
On August 30 2017 02:39 Plansix wrote:
Can we just have an entire day when all the left leaning posters bitch about liberal racists? Or half assed liberals that want extra credit for being “not racist”. Like the participation trophy for civil rights or something. It would be so cathartic for the conservatives to see its equal treatment for everyone.
sure, you go first
|
On August 30 2017 01:51 Nevuk wrote:
This seems like a stupid move
I tend to like this move honestly (with some caveats). Comedians and other artists should stand by their work, even if they think they cross the line like own your work your job is to push the boundaries and lines.
That said claiming something is not offensive or not over the line is not owning it either and just as bad as apologizing for it really. So instead of calling the controversy BS is kind of a cop out still.
|
On August 30 2017 02:54 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 02:39 Plansix wrote:
Can we just have an entire day when all the left leaning posters bitch about liberal racists? Or half assed liberals that want extra credit for being “not racist”. Like the participation trophy for civil rights or something. It would be so cathartic for the conservatives to see its equal treatment for everyone. sure, you go first
I need examples of half assed progressives/liberals. I’m nothing without motivation. This is GH’s moment, to be honest.
+ Show Spoiler +https://twitter.com/Fobwashed/status/898437911611285504
Though this is the highest level shade I have for weak ass liberal protest to real racism.
|
Hey look, Arpaio's deleted emails were all demonstrable evidence of real racism. And of course DJT/Apraio were lying about the Judge. When you spin for Trump, you spin for this.
|
On August 30 2017 02:35 KwarK wrote:
If it makes you any happier I think there are plenty of racists to go around. There are conservative racists and liberal racists. Black racists and white racists. Old racists and young racists. It's a country built on slavery. We're 20 years from interracial marriage being 50/50 approve/disapprove. There are living African Americans whose government did medical testing on them without their consent. Over 25% of African American adults in Kentucky don't have the vote. The war on drugs had bipartisan support.
The racist boogeyman isn't wearing a white hood, it's just an average person brought up in a society where it's ingrained from a young age that black people are not as worthy of respect as white people. The best cure for that is probably just going to be time.
Consider the inverse of my view, the idea that someone could grow up in the 1960s and not pick up any kind of racial bias. A child would be observing examples of disparate treatment, respect, prejudices and assumptions on racial grounds all around them. They would have to have some kind of amazing superpower moral clarity to fail to learn the normal lesson "this is how we treat different people" and instead learn "society is super racist".
Hey, you made a strong statement about the moral character of people described by a pejorative by a political party (who should still vote them into office for the good of the country, of course), and I have similar feelings for the kind of person that insults and defends the insult like he was describing their affinity for different sports. I find broad similarities between you and actual haters based on skin color. I don't care that you label more than just Trump voters racist; your definition of "black people are not as worthy of respect as white people" will suffice. And the article does address the implications of this deplorable attitude.
|
On August 30 2017 02:44 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 01:53 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 00:18 Doodsmack wrote:
If things really go south during Trump's term, which is entirely conceivable, the non-racist/non-birther portion of his voters will very much regret their choice. At that point, the "liberal attitudes are offensive" argument falls apart as a defensible position. They took too large of a risk on competence - on a fake tanned, hair dyed and veneer-teethed showbiz personality, no less. Still missing the point. They'd regret being forced into that choice, but still no closer to supporting the party that hated their guts and will slander them to make political points. Binary choices, remember. The result of the incompetence would be too great, meaning that in this case, voting for the opposing party would have been a better result for them. In other words, they made the wrong choice in the binary choice. But your obligatory claims of people missing the point are pretty funny when you are just wrong on that.
No, you whitewash Hillary in the aftermath of her loss. A liar that rewards her friends, lights fires in North Africa, and deletes emails she doesn't want the FBI to get their mitts on can be seen as a worse result. We deserve better management of corruption? She also thinks you're deplorable, and probably doesn't do much thinking of your situation if you aren't a woman or a minority.
|
On August 30 2017 03:20 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 02:44 Doodsmack wrote:On August 30 2017 01:53 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 00:18 Doodsmack wrote:
If things really go south during Trump's term, which is entirely conceivable, the non-racist/non-birther portion of his voters will very much regret their choice. At that point, the "liberal attitudes are offensive" argument falls apart as a defensible position. They took too large of a risk on competence - on a fake tanned, hair dyed and veneer-teethed showbiz personality, no less. Still missing the point. They'd regret being forced into that choice, but still no closer to supporting the party that hated their guts and will slander them to make political points. Binary choices, remember. The result of the incompetence would be too great, meaning that in this case, voting for the opposing party would have been a better result for them. In other words, they made the wrong choice in the binary choice. But your obligatory claims of people missing the point are pretty funny when you are just wrong on that. No, you whitewash Hillary in the aftermath of her loss. A liar that rewards her friends, lights fires in North Africa, and deletes emails she doesn't want the FBI to get their mitts on can be seen as a worse result. We deserve better management of corruption? She also thinks you're deplorable, and probably doesn't do much thinking of your situation if you aren't a woman or a minority.
So basically Trump in almost every way? The guy you voted for and continue to whitewash.
|
On August 30 2017 03:20 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 02:44 Doodsmack wrote:On August 30 2017 01:53 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 00:18 Doodsmack wrote:
If things really go south during Trump's term, which is entirely conceivable, the non-racist/non-birther portion of his voters will very much regret their choice. At that point, the "liberal attitudes are offensive" argument falls apart as a defensible position. They took too large of a risk on competence - on a fake tanned, hair dyed and veneer-teethed showbiz personality, no less. Still missing the point. They'd regret being forced into that choice, but still no closer to supporting the party that hated their guts and will slander them to make political points. Binary choices, remember. The result of the incompetence would be too great, meaning that in this case, voting for the opposing party would have been a better result for them. In other words, they made the wrong choice in the binary choice. But your obligatory claims of people missing the point are pretty funny when you are just wrong on that. No, you whitewash Hillary in the aftermath of her loss. A liar that rewards her friends, lights fires in North Africa, and deletes emails she doesn't want the FBI to get their mitts on can be seen as a worse result. We deserve better management of corruption? She also thinks you're deplorable, and probably doesn't do much thinking of your situation if you aren't a woman or a minority.
Lights fires in north africa? I've never heard this one before
|
|
|
On August 30 2017 03:24 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 03:20 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 02:44 Doodsmack wrote:On August 30 2017 01:53 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 00:18 Doodsmack wrote:
If things really go south during Trump's term, which is entirely conceivable, the non-racist/non-birther portion of his voters will very much regret their choice. At that point, the "liberal attitudes are offensive" argument falls apart as a defensible position. They took too large of a risk on competence - on a fake tanned, hair dyed and veneer-teethed showbiz personality, no less. Still missing the point. They'd regret being forced into that choice, but still no closer to supporting the party that hated their guts and will slander them to make political points. Binary choices, remember. The result of the incompetence would be too great, meaning that in this case, voting for the opposing party would have been a better result for them. In other words, they made the wrong choice in the binary choice. But your obligatory claims of people missing the point are pretty funny when you are just wrong on that. No, you whitewash Hillary in the aftermath of her loss. A liar that rewards her friends, lights fires in North Africa, and deletes emails she doesn't want the FBI to get their mitts on can be seen as a worse result. We deserve better management of corruption? She also thinks you're deplorable, and probably doesn't do much thinking of your situation if you aren't a woman or a minority. So basically Trump in almost every way? The guy you voted for and continue to whitewash.
More competent in her corruption and administration, greater corruption and abuse of power.
|
On August 30 2017 03:20 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 02:44 Doodsmack wrote:On August 30 2017 01:53 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 00:18 Doodsmack wrote:
If things really go south during Trump's term, which is entirely conceivable, the non-racist/non-birther portion of his voters will very much regret their choice. At that point, the "liberal attitudes are offensive" argument falls apart as a defensible position. They took too large of a risk on competence - on a fake tanned, hair dyed and veneer-teethed showbiz personality, no less. Still missing the point. They'd regret being forced into that choice, but still no closer to supporting the party that hated their guts and will slander them to make political points. Binary choices, remember. The result of the incompetence would be too great, meaning that in this case, voting for the opposing party would have been a better result for them. In other words, they made the wrong choice in the binary choice. But your obligatory claims of people missing the point are pretty funny when you are just wrong on that. No, you whitewash Hillary in the aftermath of her loss. A liar that rewards her friends, lights fires in North Africa, and deletes emails she doesn't want the FBI to get their mitts on can be seen as a worse result. We deserve better management of corruption? She also thinks you're deplorable, and probably doesn't do much thinking of your situation if you aren't a woman or a minority.
I think you need to actually compare the two on corruption and greed. It would seem that you have not done so yet.
|
On August 30 2017 03:37 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 03:24 Plansix wrote:On August 30 2017 03:20 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 02:44 Doodsmack wrote:On August 30 2017 01:53 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 00:18 Doodsmack wrote:
If things really go south during Trump's term, which is entirely conceivable, the non-racist/non-birther portion of his voters will very much regret their choice. At that point, the "liberal attitudes are offensive" argument falls apart as a defensible position. They took too large of a risk on competence - on a fake tanned, hair dyed and veneer-teethed showbiz personality, no less. Still missing the point. They'd regret being forced into that choice, but still no closer to supporting the party that hated their guts and will slander them to make political points. Binary choices, remember. The result of the incompetence would be too great, meaning that in this case, voting for the opposing party would have been a better result for them. In other words, they made the wrong choice in the binary choice. But your obligatory claims of people missing the point are pretty funny when you are just wrong on that. No, you whitewash Hillary in the aftermath of her loss. A liar that rewards her friends, lights fires in North Africa, and deletes emails she doesn't want the FBI to get their mitts on can be seen as a worse result. We deserve better management of corruption? She also thinks you're deplorable, and probably doesn't do much thinking of your situation if you aren't a woman or a minority. So basically Trump in almost every way? The guy you voted for and continue to whitewash. More competent in her corruption and administration, greater corruption and abuse of power.
So you voted for an incompetent and racist version of the same thing?
|
On August 30 2017 03:41 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 03:37 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 03:24 Plansix wrote:On August 30 2017 03:20 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 02:44 Doodsmack wrote:On August 30 2017 01:53 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 00:18 Doodsmack wrote:
If things really go south during Trump's term, which is entirely conceivable, the non-racist/non-birther portion of his voters will very much regret their choice. At that point, the "liberal attitudes are offensive" argument falls apart as a defensible position. They took too large of a risk on competence - on a fake tanned, hair dyed and veneer-teethed showbiz personality, no less. Still missing the point. They'd regret being forced into that choice, but still no closer to supporting the party that hated their guts and will slander them to make political points. Binary choices, remember. The result of the incompetence would be too great, meaning that in this case, voting for the opposing party would have been a better result for them. In other words, they made the wrong choice in the binary choice. But your obligatory claims of people missing the point are pretty funny when you are just wrong on that. No, you whitewash Hillary in the aftermath of her loss. A liar that rewards her friends, lights fires in North Africa, and deletes emails she doesn't want the FBI to get their mitts on can be seen as a worse result. We deserve better management of corruption? She also thinks you're deplorable, and probably doesn't do much thinking of your situation if you aren't a woman or a minority. So basically Trump in almost every way? The guy you voted for and continue to whitewash. More competent in her corruption and administration, greater corruption and abuse of power. So you voted for an incompetent and racist version of the same thing?
Incompetence instead of competence in destruction. And I voted for a white man for president; so basically he was a racist by the metric of some here. I'm hardly joking, it's a pejorative and understood as one, but by definition it really had joined fascist for actual meaning.
|
On August 30 2017 03:49 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 03:41 Plansix wrote:On August 30 2017 03:37 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 03:24 Plansix wrote:On August 30 2017 03:20 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 02:44 Doodsmack wrote:On August 30 2017 01:53 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 00:18 Doodsmack wrote:
If things really go south during Trump's term, which is entirely conceivable, the non-racist/non-birther portion of his voters will very much regret their choice. At that point, the "liberal attitudes are offensive" argument falls apart as a defensible position. They took too large of a risk on competence - on a fake tanned, hair dyed and veneer-teethed showbiz personality, no less. Still missing the point. They'd regret being forced into that choice, but still no closer to supporting the party that hated their guts and will slander them to make political points. Binary choices, remember. The result of the incompetence would be too great, meaning that in this case, voting for the opposing party would have been a better result for them. In other words, they made the wrong choice in the binary choice. But your obligatory claims of people missing the point are pretty funny when you are just wrong on that. No, you whitewash Hillary in the aftermath of her loss. A liar that rewards her friends, lights fires in North Africa, and deletes emails she doesn't want the FBI to get their mitts on can be seen as a worse result. We deserve better management of corruption? She also thinks you're deplorable, and probably doesn't do much thinking of your situation if you aren't a woman or a minority. So basically Trump in almost every way? The guy you voted for and continue to whitewash. More competent in her corruption and administration, greater corruption and abuse of power. So you voted for an incompetent and racist version of the same thing? Incompetence instead of competence in destruction. And I voted for a white man for president; so basically he was a racist by the metric of some here. I'm hardly joking, it's a pejorative and understood as one, but by definition it really had joined fascist for actual meaning.
“definition it really had joined fascist” Can you rephrase that please? I’m have a hard time parsing what you are trying to say.
|
Hillary the warmonger, while Trump is trying to get the US into a war with NK and Iran and putting more bodies into Afghanistan.
Hillary the corrupt, while Trump reward every position around him to incompetent people who payed him. While he resides for his own property while the government pays for it.
Emails. Which are completely devoid of anything. Meanwhile the Meuller investigation keeps turning up shit after shit.
I don't know. Somehow the cries of "But Hillary" keep sounding weaker and weaker.
|
On August 30 2017 03:49 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 03:41 Plansix wrote:On August 30 2017 03:37 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 03:24 Plansix wrote:On August 30 2017 03:20 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 02:44 Doodsmack wrote:On August 30 2017 01:53 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 00:18 Doodsmack wrote:
If things really go south during Trump's term, which is entirely conceivable, the non-racist/non-birther portion of his voters will very much regret their choice. At that point, the "liberal attitudes are offensive" argument falls apart as a defensible position. They took too large of a risk on competence - on a fake tanned, hair dyed and veneer-teethed showbiz personality, no less. Still missing the point. They'd regret being forced into that choice, but still no closer to supporting the party that hated their guts and will slander them to make political points. Binary choices, remember. The result of the incompetence would be too great, meaning that in this case, voting for the opposing party would have been a better result for them. In other words, they made the wrong choice in the binary choice. But your obligatory claims of people missing the point are pretty funny when you are just wrong on that. No, you whitewash Hillary in the aftermath of her loss. A liar that rewards her friends, lights fires in North Africa, and deletes emails she doesn't want the FBI to get their mitts on can be seen as a worse result. We deserve better management of corruption? She also thinks you're deplorable, and probably doesn't do much thinking of your situation if you aren't a woman or a minority. So basically Trump in almost every way? The guy you voted for and continue to whitewash. More competent in her corruption and administration, greater corruption and abuse of power. So you voted for an incompetent and racist version of the same thing? Incompetence instead of competence in destruction. And I voted for a white man for president; so basically he was a racist by the metric of some here. I'm hardly joking, it's a pejorative and understood as one, but by definition it really had joined fascist for actual meaning.
You know good and well there's like a dozen reasons people have brought up for Trump and racism that amounts to a lot more than he's a white male. You can dismiss it as circumstantial or not substantial enough, but it's silly to pretend that people don't have cause to see him that way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
