|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On February 01 2022 11:52 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2022 11:49 Doc.Rivers wrote:On February 01 2022 10:57 StasisField wrote:
Yeah no, that is a horrible tweet and I'm not surprised people are calling it racist. If you don't want to sound racist, don't pair a word like lesser with a race or ethnicity. It's really quite simple. I'm actually struggling to think of a worse way to sound racist in that tweet without overtly being racist. It's just so obviously bad. Just don't mention an entire race and gender and describe them as "lesser". If that's too difficult for you to do and you don't see how that could easily be seen as a racist statement, you might want to reflect on your beliefs about equality, race, and gender for a little bit.
"... so we'll get someone less qualified instead." Is a far better way to end that statement if you don't want to sound like a grifting racist trying to drum up outrage and media attention. That revised ending clearly makes the point the author is trying to get across without any "accidental" jabs thrown at an entire group of people. It seems as though you're not arguing that the tweet's meaning was actually racist, but instead that the three successive words "lesser black woman," when viewed in isolation, "sound racist." On February 01 2022 11:13 Sermokala wrote:
I don't know how you take "we'll get lesser black woman" as anything but a fireable statement to make.
They weren't comparing their "best candidate" to a "lesser candidate" they were placing their candidate was better than "lesser black woman", not "lesser black woman candidate" but "lesser black woman". They didn't give an example of a lesser candidate they explicitly qualified the race would be lesser on the candidate they thought would be chosen. I think he was clearly comparing his supposed "objectively best candidate" to a lesser candidate. If one person who is Indian-American is the objectively best candidate, it follows that all candidates who are not Indian-American are lesser. That, anyway, is the meaning of what he said. It says a lot that you instantly trust that this person is right without even knowing who was picked. Are you an expert on what it takes to be a judge? And can some one objectly be way better? This Republican senator apparently disagrees as do many. https://www.politico.com/news/2022/01/30/lindsey-graham-south-carolina-childs-scotus-seat-00003476
One can certainly take issue with the notion that there is an "objectively best" candidate. I do personally disagree with that notion, and I think it's annoying when people use the word "objectively" to state their subjective opinion strongly. But it's still true that, if one starts with the premise that a certain person is objectively the best, it follows that others are lesser and so it's not necessarily racist to state that second part of the argument.
|
On February 01 2022 12:23 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2022 12:17 NewSunshine wrote:On February 01 2022 12:00 BlackJack wrote:On February 01 2022 11:13 Sermokala wrote:
I don't know how you take "we'll get lesser black woman" as anything but a fireable statement to make.
They weren't comparing their "best candidate" to a "lesser candidate" they were placing their candidate was better than "lesser black woman", not "lesser black woman candidate" but "lesser black woman". They didn't give an example of a lesser candidate they explicitly qualified the race would be lesser on the candidate they thought would be chosen. It's already been determined that all the candidates will be black woman so "lesser black woman candidate" is just redundant and I'm not sure how that would make it less racist or "sound" less racist. If you want to sound less racist, maybe don't say "lesser black woman". And then, maybe don't also imply that "lesser black woman" is redundant? Like, holy shit dude. I said that "lesser black woman candidate" is redundant in the context of a group of candidates that is exclusively black woman. You conveniently deleted the "candidate" out of my quote. I'm going to assume you did this accidentally. For clarity: Sermokala implied that the tweet was racist because he said "lesser black woman," and not "lesser black woman candidate." My point was that adding the "candidate" changes nothing because we already know all the candidates are black women.
"Candidate" is not in the original quote, so therefore it can't be redundant to say "lesser black woman". So no, I didn't include the word "candidate" in my post. If you have to add a word to the quote post-hoc in order to defend it, maybe don't choose that hill to die on. Splitting these hairs is not a good look. Nor is the original quote, which absolutely deserves every bit of shit it gets.
|
On February 01 2022 12:33 Doc.Rivers wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2022 11:52 JimmiC wrote:On February 01 2022 11:49 Doc.Rivers wrote:On February 01 2022 10:57 StasisField wrote:
Yeah no, that is a horrible tweet and I'm not surprised people are calling it racist. If you don't want to sound racist, don't pair a word like lesser with a race or ethnicity. It's really quite simple. I'm actually struggling to think of a worse way to sound racist in that tweet without overtly being racist. It's just so obviously bad. Just don't mention an entire race and gender and describe them as "lesser". If that's too difficult for you to do and you don't see how that could easily be seen as a racist statement, you might want to reflect on your beliefs about equality, race, and gender for a little bit.
"... so we'll get someone less qualified instead." Is a far better way to end that statement if you don't want to sound like a grifting racist trying to drum up outrage and media attention. That revised ending clearly makes the point the author is trying to get across without any "accidental" jabs thrown at an entire group of people. It seems as though you're not arguing that the tweet's meaning was actually racist, but instead that the three successive words "lesser black woman," when viewed in isolation, "sound racist." On February 01 2022 11:13 Sermokala wrote:
I don't know how you take "we'll get lesser black woman" as anything but a fireable statement to make.
They weren't comparing their "best candidate" to a "lesser candidate" they were placing their candidate was better than "lesser black woman", not "lesser black woman candidate" but "lesser black woman". They didn't give an example of a lesser candidate they explicitly qualified the race would be lesser on the candidate they thought would be chosen. I think he was clearly comparing his supposed "objectively best candidate" to a lesser candidate. If one person who is Indian-American is the objectively best candidate, it follows that all candidates who are not Indian-American are lesser. That, anyway, is the meaning of what he said. It says a lot that you instantly trust that this person is right without even knowing who was picked. Are you an expert on what it takes to be a judge? And can some one objectly be way better? This Republican senator apparently disagrees as do many. https://www.politico.com/news/2022/01/30/lindsey-graham-south-carolina-childs-scotus-seat-00003476 One can certainly take issue with the notion that there is an "objectively best" candidate. I do personally disagree with that notion, and I think it's annoying when people use the word "objectively" to state their subjective opinion strongly. But it's still true that, if one starts with the premise that a certain person is objectively the best, it follows that others are lesser and so it's not necessarily racist to state that second part of the argument.
I could hold the notion that gravity works upward. If I then try to claim that all of our understanding of physics and gravity is backwards as a result, do you try to play games of mental Twister to understand my framing? Or do you call me out as a fucking moron, because that's actually not how it works?
Look, I'm not trying to disparage the idea that whoever Biden plans to nominate, there could be someone better. Personally, I'm on board with proposing that we get as progressive a candidate as possible, and thus Biden is absolutely open to criticism along that line if he chooses performatively. But there are simply ways that you absolutely do not levy those criticisms. This crossed a line, plain and simple.
|
On February 01 2022 12:23 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2022 12:17 NewSunshine wrote:On February 01 2022 12:00 BlackJack wrote:On February 01 2022 11:13 Sermokala wrote:
I don't know how you take "we'll get lesser black woman" as anything but a fireable statement to make.
They weren't comparing their "best candidate" to a "lesser candidate" they were placing their candidate was better than "lesser black woman", not "lesser black woman candidate" but "lesser black woman". They didn't give an example of a lesser candidate they explicitly qualified the race would be lesser on the candidate they thought would be chosen. It's already been determined that all the candidates will be black woman so "lesser black woman candidate" is just redundant and I'm not sure how that would make it less racist or "sound" less racist. If you want to sound less racist, maybe don't say "lesser black woman". And then, maybe don't also imply that "lesser black woman" is redundant? Like, holy shit dude. I said that "lesser black woman candidate" is redundant in the context of a group of candidates that is exclusively black woman. You conveniently deleted the "candidate" out of my quote. I'm going to assume you did this accidentally. For clarity: Sermokala implied that the tweet was racist because he said "lesser black woman," and not "lesser black woman candidate." My point was that adding the "candidate" changes nothing because we already know all the candidates are black women.
You said that, but the issue is with the original quote from Ilya Shapiro, not your own quote where you added in "candidate" to make it redundant. Yes, if we already know we're only selecting from a pool of Black individuals, saying "Black candidate" is redundant since "candidate" would already imply Black. However, the sketchy phrase was "lesser Black woman"; there's no redundancy there, among those three words, unless being Black or being a woman already makes them "lesser". I don't think that's a position you hold, and seeing as how Ilya Shapiro said it and not you, I don't think that's a position you even need to defend. We could just agree that Ilya Shapiro's statement was messed up.
|
On February 01 2022 12:37 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2022 12:33 Doc.Rivers wrote:On February 01 2022 11:52 JimmiC wrote:On February 01 2022 11:49 Doc.Rivers wrote:On February 01 2022 10:57 StasisField wrote:
Yeah no, that is a horrible tweet and I'm not surprised people are calling it racist. If you don't want to sound racist, don't pair a word like lesser with a race or ethnicity. It's really quite simple. I'm actually struggling to think of a worse way to sound racist in that tweet without overtly being racist. It's just so obviously bad. Just don't mention an entire race and gender and describe them as "lesser". If that's too difficult for you to do and you don't see how that could easily be seen as a racist statement, you might want to reflect on your beliefs about equality, race, and gender for a little bit.
"... so we'll get someone less qualified instead." Is a far better way to end that statement if you don't want to sound like a grifting racist trying to drum up outrage and media attention. That revised ending clearly makes the point the author is trying to get across without any "accidental" jabs thrown at an entire group of people. It seems as though you're not arguing that the tweet's meaning was actually racist, but instead that the three successive words "lesser black woman," when viewed in isolation, "sound racist." On February 01 2022 11:13 Sermokala wrote:
I don't know how you take "we'll get lesser black woman" as anything but a fireable statement to make.
They weren't comparing their "best candidate" to a "lesser candidate" they were placing their candidate was better than "lesser black woman", not "lesser black woman candidate" but "lesser black woman". They didn't give an example of a lesser candidate they explicitly qualified the race would be lesser on the candidate they thought would be chosen. I think he was clearly comparing his supposed "objectively best candidate" to a lesser candidate. If one person who is Indian-American is the objectively best candidate, it follows that all candidates who are not Indian-American are lesser. That, anyway, is the meaning of what he said. It says a lot that you instantly trust that this person is right without even knowing who was picked. Are you an expert on what it takes to be a judge? And can some one objectly be way better? This Republican senator apparently disagrees as do many. https://www.politico.com/news/2022/01/30/lindsey-graham-south-carolina-childs-scotus-seat-00003476 One can certainly take issue with the notion that there is an "objectively best" candidate. I do personally disagree with that notion, and I think it's annoying when people use the word "objectively" to state their subjective opinion strongly. But it's still true that, if one starts with the premise that a certain person is objectively the best, it follows that others are lesser and so it's not necessarily racist to state that second part of the argument. I could hold the notion that gravity works upward. If I then try to claim that all of our understanding of physics and gravity is backwards as a result, do you try to play games of mental Twister to understand my framing? Or do you call me out as a fucking moron, because that's actually not how it works? Look, I'm not trying to disparage the idea that whoever Biden plans to nominate, there could be someone better. Personally, I'm on board with proposing that we get as progressive a candidate as possible, and thus Biden is absolutely open to criticism along that line if he chooses performatively. But there are simply ways that you absolutely do not levy those criticisms. This crossed a line, plain and simple.
To say that Shapiro is a "fucking moron" for advancing the notion that there is an objectively best candidate is very different from saying that Shapiro's overall tweet was racist. It seems to me that everyone stating the tweet was problematic are considering the three words "lesser black woman" in isolation.
Consider this hypothetical statement: "Black women have much to offer, and it is right and just for Biden to limit his selection to black women. Black woman X did not go to law school, and black woman Y has thirty years of appellate judicial experience. Therefore, person X is a lesser black woman than person Y in terms of her Supreme Court qualifications."
That statement included the three successive words "lesser black woman," but was it racist?
|
Once again, I'm not the one that added the word "candidate." Sermokala added the word candidate and implied the professor's post would have been less racist if the professor included that word. My point was this word changes nothing. So the idea that I'm trying to add in the word "candidate" to help the professor sounds less racist is not only untrue but it's also the exact opposite of the point I was making.
|
On February 01 2022 12:58 Doc.Rivers wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2022 12:37 NewSunshine wrote:On February 01 2022 12:33 Doc.Rivers wrote:On February 01 2022 11:52 JimmiC wrote:On February 01 2022 11:49 Doc.Rivers wrote:On February 01 2022 10:57 StasisField wrote:
Yeah no, that is a horrible tweet and I'm not surprised people are calling it racist. If you don't want to sound racist, don't pair a word like lesser with a race or ethnicity. It's really quite simple. I'm actually struggling to think of a worse way to sound racist in that tweet without overtly being racist. It's just so obviously bad. Just don't mention an entire race and gender and describe them as "lesser". If that's too difficult for you to do and you don't see how that could easily be seen as a racist statement, you might want to reflect on your beliefs about equality, race, and gender for a little bit.
"... so we'll get someone less qualified instead." Is a far better way to end that statement if you don't want to sound like a grifting racist trying to drum up outrage and media attention. That revised ending clearly makes the point the author is trying to get across without any "accidental" jabs thrown at an entire group of people. It seems as though you're not arguing that the tweet's meaning was actually racist, but instead that the three successive words "lesser black woman," when viewed in isolation, "sound racist." On February 01 2022 11:13 Sermokala wrote:
I don't know how you take "we'll get lesser black woman" as anything but a fireable statement to make.
They weren't comparing their "best candidate" to a "lesser candidate" they were placing their candidate was better than "lesser black woman", not "lesser black woman candidate" but "lesser black woman". They didn't give an example of a lesser candidate they explicitly qualified the race would be lesser on the candidate they thought would be chosen. I think he was clearly comparing his supposed "objectively best candidate" to a lesser candidate. If one person who is Indian-American is the objectively best candidate, it follows that all candidates who are not Indian-American are lesser. That, anyway, is the meaning of what he said. It says a lot that you instantly trust that this person is right without even knowing who was picked. Are you an expert on what it takes to be a judge? And can some one objectly be way better? This Republican senator apparently disagrees as do many. https://www.politico.com/news/2022/01/30/lindsey-graham-south-carolina-childs-scotus-seat-00003476 One can certainly take issue with the notion that there is an "objectively best" candidate. I do personally disagree with that notion, and I think it's annoying when people use the word "objectively" to state their subjective opinion strongly. But it's still true that, if one starts with the premise that a certain person is objectively the best, it follows that others are lesser and so it's not necessarily racist to state that second part of the argument. I could hold the notion that gravity works upward. If I then try to claim that all of our understanding of physics and gravity is backwards as a result, do you try to play games of mental Twister to understand my framing? Or do you call me out as a fucking moron, because that's actually not how it works? Look, I'm not trying to disparage the idea that whoever Biden plans to nominate, there could be someone better. Personally, I'm on board with proposing that we get as progressive a candidate as possible, and thus Biden is absolutely open to criticism along that line if he chooses performatively. But there are simply ways that you absolutely do not levy those criticisms. This crossed a line, plain and simple. To say that Shapiro is a "fucking moron" for advancing the notion that there is an objectively best candidate is very different from saying that Shapiro's overall tweet was racist. It seems to me that everyone stating the tweet was problematic are considering the three words "lesser black woman" in isolation. Consider this hypothetical statement: "Black women have much to offer, and it is right and just for Biden to limit his selection to black women. Black woman X did not go to law school, and black woman Y has thirty years of appellate judicial experience. Therefore, person X is a lesser black woman in terms of her Supreme Court qualifications." That statement included the three successive words "lesser black woman," but was it racist?
That's not the same context at all, because in your example, they're both already Black women. That's different from making a comment about how Black women are lesser than someone else who isn't Black. Context matters.
|
On February 01 2022 13:03 BlackJack wrote:
Once again, I'm not the one that added the word "candidate." Sermokala added the word candidate and implied the professor's post would have been less racist if the professor included that word. My point was this word changes nothing. So the idea that I'm trying to add in the word "candidate" to help the professor sounds less racist is not only untrue but it's also the exact opposite of the point I was making.
Do you agree that Shapiro's comment was messed up?
|
On February 01 2022 10:57 StasisField wrote:
Yeah no, that is a horrible tweet and I'm not surprised people are calling it racist. If you don't want to sound racist, don't pair a word like lesser with a race or ethnicity. It's really quite simple. I'm actually struggling to think of a worse way to sound racist in that tweet without overtly being racist. It's just so obviously bad. Just don't mention an entire race and gender and describe them as "lesser". If that's too difficult for you to do and you don't see how that could easily be seen as a racist statement, you might want to reflect on your beliefs about equality, race, and gender for a little bit.
"... so we'll get someone less qualified instead." Is a far better way to end that statement if you don't want to sound like a grifting racist trying to drum up outrage and media attention. That revised ending clearly makes the point the author is trying to get across without any "accidental" jabs thrown at an entire group of people.
It was definitely a very poor choice of words but I do not think the intention was racist.
Clearly he meant that the best pick in this case was a person who was not a black woman, and so limiting the choice to black women would make for a lesser candidate.
Regardless of whether you agree with his ideal pick he clearly did not mean to categorise black women as inherently lesser.
I really think nowadays too many people both on the right and the left cherry pick things to get outraged at for the dopamine rush.
|
On February 01 2022 13:09 gobbledydook wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2022 10:57 StasisField wrote:
Yeah no, that is a horrible tweet and I'm not surprised people are calling it racist. If you don't want to sound racist, don't pair a word like lesser with a race or ethnicity. It's really quite simple. I'm actually struggling to think of a worse way to sound racist in that tweet without overtly being racist. It's just so obviously bad. Just don't mention an entire race and gender and describe them as "lesser". If that's too difficult for you to do and you don't see how that could easily be seen as a racist statement, you might want to reflect on your beliefs about equality, race, and gender for a little bit.
"... so we'll get someone less qualified instead." Is a far better way to end that statement if you don't want to sound like a grifting racist trying to drum up outrage and media attention. That revised ending clearly makes the point the author is trying to get across without any "accidental" jabs thrown at an entire group of people. It was definitely a very poor choice of words but I do not think the intention was racist. Clearly he meant that the best pick in this case was a person who was not a black woman, and so limiting the choice to black women would make for a lesser candidate. Regardless of whether you agree with his ideal pick he clearly did not mean to categorise black women as inherently lesser. I really think nowadays too many people both on the right and the left cherry pick things to get outraged at for the dopamine rush.
I think you bring up an interesting point about whether it's the intent that matters more, or the effect that matters more. Shapiro may not have meant it maliciously, but sometimes that doesn't matter as much as the effect a statement or action actually has on others.
|
On February 01 2022 13:08 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2022 13:03 BlackJack wrote:
Once again, I'm not the one that added the word "candidate." Sermokala added the word candidate and implied the professor's post would have been less racist if the professor included that word. My point was this word changes nothing. So the idea that I'm trying to add in the word "candidate" to help the professor sounds less racist is not only untrue but it's also the exact opposite of the point I was making. Do you agree that Shapiro's comment was messed up?
I think logically there is nothing wrong with it but it "sounds" bad. I think he could have worded it better but it's my understanding that Twitter caps the number of characters you can use in a tweet so I don't make it a habit to try to judge someone over something they tweeted. I'd ask him to clarify.
|
God I can't wait for the confirmation hearings for whichever person gets chosen.
Republicans: "Your previous sins have been well documented and presented here, what say you? Whore."
Democrats: Mrs. Angel, innumerable are your holy names, my colleagues on the other aisle have blasphemed against you, and I just want to say how saddened I am to hear that. Can I list your great accomplishments and charitable acts?"
Rinse and repeat for many days and then 24/7 cable news can chew on the fat and grease while they savor the small bits of meat.
|
On February 01 2022 13:09 gobbledydook wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2022 10:57 StasisField wrote:
Yeah no, that is a horrible tweet and I'm not surprised people are calling it racist. If you don't want to sound racist, don't pair a word like lesser with a race or ethnicity. It's really quite simple. I'm actually struggling to think of a worse way to sound racist in that tweet without overtly being racist. It's just so obviously bad. Just don't mention an entire race and gender and describe them as "lesser". If that's too difficult for you to do and you don't see how that could easily be seen as a racist statement, you might want to reflect on your beliefs about equality, race, and gender for a little bit.
"... so we'll get someone less qualified instead." Is a far better way to end that statement if you don't want to sound like a grifting racist trying to drum up outrage and media attention. That revised ending clearly makes the point the author is trying to get across without any "accidental" jabs thrown at an entire group of people. It was definitely a very poor choice of words but I do not think the intention was racist. Clearly he meant that the best pick in this case was a person who was not a black woman, and so limiting the choice to black women would make for a lesser candidate. Regardless of whether you agree with his ideal pick he clearly did not mean to categorise black women as inherently lesser. I really think nowadays too many people both on the right and the left cherry pick things to get outraged at for the dopamine rush.
At this point, my ability to give people the benefit of the doubt on things like this is running out. I've seen far far too many right wing grifters employ this same tactic to stoke the flames of the culture war and to drum up media coverage. Ben Shapiro, Milo Yianopolous, Baked Alaska, Sargon of Akkad/Carl Benjamin, Jordan Peterson, Steven Crowder, Candace Owens, all of the Trump family, and so many more in the right-wing culture war camp, both online personalities and traditional media/political personalities, regularly employ this tactic, and I'm done giving people who seem to be employing the same language a pass like this isn't page #1 in the right-wing grifter's playbook. If it quacks like a duck and looks like a duck, it's probably a duck.
|
I think some people are missing the fact that assuming confining consideration to only black women would mean a worse candidate is itself really awful. There are more than enough black women judges for us to assume there are multiple extremely good candidates. Same for every race of women. If Biden said "a black woman, who is into anime, but not too into anime, and who graduated with a 2.75 GPA, from nebraska", I would think that is too limiting and that the candidate is not likely to be S-tier caliber. But "black woman" still means an extremely large group of people. We have every reason to think many people who fit that description are excellent, suitable candidates for the supreme court.
|
On February 01 2022 13:22 Husyelt wrote:
God I can't wait for the confirmation hearings for whichever person gets chosen.
Republicans: "Your previous sins have been well documented and presented here, what say you? Whore."
Democrats: Mrs. Angel, innumerable are your holy names, my colleagues on the other aisle have blasphemed against you, and I just want to say how saddened I am to hear that. Can I list your great accomplishments and charitable acts?"
Rinse and repeat for many days and then 24/7 cable news can chew on the fat and grease while they savor the small bits of meat.
Bingo, absolutely correct. A nice show for everyone to partake in. And the mainstream corporate media and all their partisan fans will eat it up.
|
On February 01 2022 13:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2022 13:09 gobbledydook wrote:On February 01 2022 10:57 StasisField wrote:
Yeah no, that is a horrible tweet and I'm not surprised people are calling it racist. If you don't want to sound racist, don't pair a word like lesser with a race or ethnicity. It's really quite simple. I'm actually struggling to think of a worse way to sound racist in that tweet without overtly being racist. It's just so obviously bad. Just don't mention an entire race and gender and describe them as "lesser". If that's too difficult for you to do and you don't see how that could easily be seen as a racist statement, you might want to reflect on your beliefs about equality, race, and gender for a little bit.
"... so we'll get someone less qualified instead." Is a far better way to end that statement if you don't want to sound like a grifting racist trying to drum up outrage and media attention. That revised ending clearly makes the point the author is trying to get across without any "accidental" jabs thrown at an entire group of people. It was definitely a very poor choice of words but I do not think the intention was racist. Clearly he meant that the best pick in this case was a person who was not a black woman, and so limiting the choice to black women would make for a lesser candidate. Regardless of whether you agree with his ideal pick he clearly did not mean to categorise black women as inherently lesser. I really think nowadays too many people both on the right and the left cherry pick things to get outraged at for the dopamine rush. I think you bring up an interesting point about whether it's the intent that matters more, or the effect that matters more. Shapiro may not have meant it maliciously, but sometimes that doesn't matter as much as the effect a statement or action actually has on others.
If it is not malicious (I have the suspicion that the wording is intentional though) it is still careless. Absolutely unnecessary for the point the person supposedly wanted to make. As someone else said - just say less qualified candidate and there is no problem with this statement. Even though I have no idea if the other candidate is good or the one Biden chooses isn't better. But that is subjective so there would be benefit of the doubt.
But you do not just say lesser black woman on accident without noticing how terrible that is.
|
lol that tweet isn't poorly worded at all. The guy clearly states who he thinks is the best candidate and laments the fact that a lesser candidate (in his view) is going to get the job because she's black. You have to be insane to think he says that the other candidate is weaker because of her skin color.
|
On February 01 2022 13:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2022 13:09 gobbledydook wrote:On February 01 2022 10:57 StasisField wrote:
Yeah no, that is a horrible tweet and I'm not surprised people are calling it racist. If you don't want to sound racist, don't pair a word like lesser with a race or ethnicity. It's really quite simple. I'm actually struggling to think of a worse way to sound racist in that tweet without overtly being racist. It's just so obviously bad. Just don't mention an entire race and gender and describe them as "lesser". If that's too difficult for you to do and you don't see how that could easily be seen as a racist statement, you might want to reflect on your beliefs about equality, race, and gender for a little bit.
"... so we'll get someone less qualified instead." Is a far better way to end that statement if you don't want to sound like a grifting racist trying to drum up outrage and media attention. That revised ending clearly makes the point the author is trying to get across without any "accidental" jabs thrown at an entire group of people. It was definitely a very poor choice of words but I do not think the intention was racist. Clearly he meant that the best pick in this case was a person who was not a black woman, and so limiting the choice to black women would make for a lesser candidate. Regardless of whether you agree with his ideal pick he clearly did not mean to categorise black women as inherently lesser. I really think nowadays too many people both on the right and the left cherry pick things to get outraged at for the dopamine rush. I think you bring up an interesting point about whether it's the intent that matters more, or the effect that matters more. Shapiro may not have meant it maliciously, but sometimes that doesn't matter as much as the effect a statement or action actually has on others.
What he meant definitely does not matter as much as how it made me feel. My feelings are the only thing that should matter here. Personally I feel like his tweet was full of microaggressions that seriously encroached on my safe space. Furthermore, I think it's a display toxic masculinity that he believes he can mansplain to us who is "objectively" the best candidate. He needs to check his privilege before he thinks he can gaslight me into believing his choice is better than Biden's eventual nominee. I'm left wondering if we can just normalize calling out problematic members of the patriarchy for their bullshit.
|
On February 01 2022 17:08 Elroi wrote:
lol that tweet isn't poorly worded at all. The guy clearly states who he thinks is the best candidate and laments the fact that a lesser candidate (in his view) is going to get the job because she's black. You have to be insane to think he says that the other candidate is weaker because of her skin color.
I'm not so sure you can say that. Through his word choice he is emphasizing that any black woman Biden may choose is a lesser candidate. If he had just said candidate, the empasis would have been on that Sri Srinivasan was the "objectively best" candidate, regardless of who else Biden chose. He could even have put the emphasis on Biden's bad choice to limit himself to black women with a call to action for Biden to drop his biased self-imposed limitation and pick the "objectively best" candidate. Instead, he is lamenting the fact that a black woman will make a lesser candidate. He quite carefully doesn't state it's because of her skin color. But as others before me have said, this tactic has been employed by every right wing pundit on Fox news, and we all know the dog whistle by now. He may not have said it... but he said it.
|
This isn't that hard. If it had been unintentional, he'd have deleted the tweet, said, 'ooops, bad wording, here's the tweet again'. Fair enough, you type something quickly and make a mistake but you know, you can just fix it if you unintentionally sounded racist. Again, not that difficult.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
