|
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 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.
The sarcastic "even has identity politics benefit" is already loaded enough to make it a bad tweet for a public figure. The phrase "a lesser black woman" contrasted to his choice is just terrible wording to express a simple opinion.
|
Again, only if you're crazy. He says that the best candidate is an Asian woman - which also has the benefit (in his eyes) that it adds diversity.
You guys are as rational as the Spanish inquisition.
|
On February 01 2022 17:39 EnDeR_ wrote:
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.
He did delete it and apologized for the bad wording
|
On February 01 2022 17:50 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2022 17:39 EnDeR_ wrote:
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. He did delete it and apologized for the bad wording
Then what exactly are we discussing here? The author of the tweet thinks it was poorly worded. What is there to discuss?
|
On February 01 2022 18:14 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2022 17:50 BlackJack wrote:On February 01 2022 17:39 EnDeR_ wrote:
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. He did delete it and apologized for the bad wording Then what exactly are we discussing here? The author of the tweet thinks it was poorly worded. What is there to discuss?
Or he just said anything to not lose his job and become ostracized.
|
On February 01 2022 18:14 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2022 17:50 BlackJack wrote:On February 01 2022 17:39 EnDeR_ wrote:
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. He did delete it and apologized for the bad wording Then what exactly are we discussing here? The author of the tweet thinks it was poorly worded. What is there to discuss?
Good question...
|
On February 01 2022 15:57 justanothertownie wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2022 13:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: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.
Agreed, and apparently even Shapiro agrees too, so I wonder why Doc brought him up in the first place.
|
On February 01 2022 18:16 Elroi wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2022 18:14 EnDeR_ wrote:On February 01 2022 17:50 BlackJack wrote:On February 01 2022 17:39 EnDeR_ wrote:
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. He did delete it and apologized for the bad wording Then what exactly are we discussing here? The author of the tweet thinks it was poorly worded. What is there to discuss? Or he just said anything to not lose his job and become ostracized.
Yes, it is so terrible having to re-phrase a poorly worded tweet, I don't know how he can bear the shame.
Think it through, he'd never lose his job over this, there's too much plausible deniability. At worst he might be asked to undergo a 1-hour 'sensitivity training' course because his spidey sense didn't tingle when he wrote the words 'lesser black woman' in a sequence.
If he had stood by the poor phrasing after it was pointed out to him how it was problematic, then we would be having a very different conversation.
|
How them midterms lookin' ya feel
|
On February 01 2022 18:58 Zambrah wrote:
How them midterms lookin' ya feel
Meh. I don't know about the House, but assuming the House stays in control of the Dems, the Dems would still need to pick up 2-3 Senate seats to pass any of the more liberal proposals, and that's going to be tough. I think Republicans are defending more seats than Dems (20 to 14?), but I don't know which seats are likely to flip from one side to the other. So... I don't know about the Senate, either >.>
|
I think the only viable flippable seats are going to be Raphael Warnock in GA, Ron Johnson in WI, and Pat Toomey in PA, given the way Biden's time as president is playing out I imagine Warnock loses, Ron Johnson may lose as well, too. Mark Kelly in AZ feels safe-ish, but also wouldn't be hugely surprising to see him lose.
I don't think Democrats come out with more than 51 seats in their reasonable-best case scenario, realistically if things progress much the same as they are and nothing outweighs the inflation everyone is seeing (and all of those stupid fucking Biden "I did that!" stickers I keep seeing plastered every-fucking-where) then I think its likeliest we see Democrats lose the Senate.
I kind of imagine midterms are going to be surprisingly low energy for Democrat turnout, and I think that'll probably be the killer for Democrats if they lose out big.
|
Without Trump as the boogieman to drive up turnout, I'm expecting the party of 'not-Trump, honest!' is going to struggle these midterms.
|
Yeah, Democrats need turnout and I cant point to anything they've done that will drive turnout, several things I can point to that will depress it, however. Not a great situation for them.
|
Bidens track record is honestly not that bad. If they could somehow fix the messaging/narrative.
People mainly cry about stuff Biden barely has any control over.
|
Bidens not up for an election in 2022 though, the Democrats in the Senate and House are, and the Senate in particular looks really incompetent for the Democrats right now, and Biden's track record isn't nearly enough to buoy their chances.
|
|
|
|
|
Biden can drop student loans at any time during the campaign and I expect that the dems will roll out what they want to give if they win the Senate from the Republicans. I don't expect to see any legislation done in Biden's term though so my hopes arnt up.
|
On February 01 2022 18:14 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2022 17:50 BlackJack wrote:On February 01 2022 17:39 EnDeR_ wrote:
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. He did delete it and apologized for the bad wording Then what exactly are we discussing here? The author of the tweet thinks it was poorly worded. What is there to discuss?
It's a mini controversy because Shapiro was put on leave pending an investigation, and many are calling for him to be fired.
|
Northern Ireland27381 Posts
On February 01 2022 13:44 StasisField 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. 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 feel bad for this guy/gal (not sure what gender Ilya refers to) i they’ve made a genuine boo boo here, as that was very much my instant reaction as well,
As much as there’s also some hysterical overreaction to things in some other quarters, so there is a deliberate stoking of ‘you can’t say x anymore without being accused of being racist, even though it is obviously racist dogwhistling’.
Wouldn’t surprise me if the only people saying this person’s employment was at risk of termination were that very same sphere of folks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
