+- Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise (http://thebengalsboard.com)
+-- Forum: Off Topic Forums (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Off-Topic-Forums)
+--- Forum: Politics & Religion 2.0 (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Politics-Religion-2-0)
+--- Thread: It's Kamala! (/Thread-It-s-Kamala)
RE: It's Kamala! - Belsnickel - 08-25-2020
(08-25-2020, 04:31 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Call it what you will, but deep down, you know I'm right.
Definitely not. I quite literally study political science, this is my wheelhouse. I know I am 100% correct on this, not even just my opinion. This is factual. You're just outright wrong and willfully so.
RE: It's Kamala! - Dill - 08-25-2020
(08-25-2020, 01:40 PM)PhilHos Wrote: So Jim Crow laws WEREN'T enacted by Democrats?
Also, didn't Biden specifically state he was going to exclude the white race from his pool of VP candidates? Yes, he did. So, this is complete bullshit, isn't it? Yes, it is.
It is the left and Democrats that care what one's race or gender or sexual orientation is.
Thanks for responding, PHilhos. Your post gives me some insight into how "the other side" thinks, which I am always hoping for in these dialogues.
Two of the issues you raise here I have already addressed above, namely the "leftism" of the Dems way back in the 19th century and the use/history of racial criteria of selection as opposed to merit. I'll address those again tomorrow.
Right now I'd just like to ask one question. Both you and I would agree that segregation was wrong, that excluding people from restaurants and schools and hotels because of their race was an evil we are glad to see eradicated.
Biden's determination to pick a female vp of color certainly introduced a racial criterion into that selection. I bet we agree there too.
My question is, do you view these uses of racial criteria as basically the same--one to EXCLUDE POC from equality and the other to INCLUDE them? Is your beef with the latter that the determination to choose a non-white, Biden's "exclusion of the white race," is like the exclusion of Blacks from southern lunch counters under segregation? Would it be fair to say that, in your view, if some racial criteria are invoked in the selection for any job or office instead of picking "the best person for the job," then a segregation analogy is appropriate? Do these Dem racial criteria work to the detriment of "the white race" while a criterion like "the best person" does not?
I agree that "the left" does care about race and gender, but I would say their "care" is about creating equality of opportunity, not inequality. I am wondering if you disagree with that.
Guess that's more than one question. Enough for now. I'm going to listen to Melania's speech and then hit the sack.
RE: It's Kamala! - PhilHos - 08-26-2020
(08-25-2020, 11:59 PM)Dill Wrote: My question is, do you view these uses of racial criteria as basically the same--one to EXCLUDE POC from equality and the other to INCLUDE them? Is your beef with the latter that the determination to choose a non-white, Biden's "exclusion of the white race," is like the exclusion of Blacks from southern lunch counters under segregation?
Of course, they're not the same. One was mandated by the government whereas the other is just being done by a singular individual. Now, just because they aren't bad to the same degree, they're still bad. Just like rape is bad, I think most people would say the raping of a child is far worse than that of a convicted felon in prison.
My 'beef', if you will, is that the solution to racism is not more racism. I don't like racism. I don't like it when a white person is racist; I don't like it when a black person is racist; I don't like it when a Democrat is racist; I don't like it when a Republican is racist (it's taking all my willpower to not start quoting Dr. Suess here).
It also bothers me when someone decries racism and saying it's a problem in the country but then turns around and is racist themselves or makes a racist statement or act etc.
(08-25-2020, 11:59 PM)Dill Wrote: I agree that "the left" does care about race and gender, but I would say their "care" is about creating equality of opportunity, not inequality. I am wondering if you disagree with that.
At BEST, they care about creating equality of OUTCOME. But, let's be honest, the main reason they "care" is it gives them a way to shut down an argument or to be critical of their opponent.
RE: It's Kamala! - Dill - 08-28-2020
(08-26-2020, 04:49 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Of course, they're not the same. One was mandated by the government whereas the other is just being done by a singular individual. Now, just because they aren't bad to the same degree, they're still bad. Just like rape is bad, I think most people would say the raping of a child is far worse than that of a convicted felon in prison.
My 'beef', if you will, is that the solution to racism is not more racism. I don't like racism. I don't like it when a white person is racist; I don't like it when a black person is racist; I don't like it when a Democrat is racist; I don't like it when a Republican is racist (it's taking all my willpower to not start quoting Dr. Suess here).
It also bothers me when someone decries racism and saying it's a problem in the country but then turns around and is racist themselves or makes a racist statement or act etc.
At BEST, they care about creating equality of OUTCOME. But, let's be honest, the main reason they "care" is it gives them a way to shut down an argument or to be critical of their opponent.
Sorry I am late getting back to this. Thanks again for responding.
It would bother me as well if someone decries racism and then turns around and makes racist statements or promotes racism in actions. But I don't think Biden was doing that in choosing Kamala. I also don't think his goal is "equality of outcome" but equal opportunity.
Above, in post # 210, I write the following towards a definition of "racism":
A definition of "racism" I'd say, at a minimum, ought to include a belief that "race" is a biological given, not a social/cultural construction, a belief that some "races" are inherently superior or inferior, and that this inherence ought to be reflected in political order. This basis is necessary even where people insist that "racism" can only be behavior, not thought and belief unacted, or when it can only be "systemic."
Seems to me Biden's reasons for choosing Kamala don't fall under this definition, don't exemplify "more racism." Racism is not just any old use of race as a selection criterion, and most especially not when motivated by a belief in racial equality, not racial inequality.
RE: It's Kamala! - Dill - 08-28-2020
(08-25-2020, 01:40 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Dill Wrote: Leftists-without-quotation-marks have, since the 19th century, excluded race as a criterion of political exclusion.
So Jim Crow laws WEREN'T enacted by Democrats?
Also, didn't Biden specifically state he was going to exclude the white race from his pool of VP candidates? Yes, he did. So, this is complete bullshit, isn't it? Yes, it is.
It is the left and Democrats that care what one's race or gender or sexual orientation is.
Now for these points.
1. Bels and Bpat stole my thunder here. 19th century Dems were not "leftist." In post #210 above, I offer a brief history of how the terms "left" and "right" appeared in European political discourse, the principles which distinguished between these ends of the political spectrum. A little after that I wrote this regarding the Dem party pre- and post Civil War:
If there was a "right" in the U.S. then the pro-slavery movement would exemplify it, not the free-soilers and Whigs who would form the Republican party. If anything, between 1854-70, Democrats and Republicans were the inverse of today, with Dems fighting "big government," supporting slavery and receptive to the nativist "Know Nothings" when the latter's party failed, and Republicans, to the left in that political spectrum, opposing slavery and (by 19th century standards) embracing government.
I should add that at least two members of my extended family were segregationist Dems, but shifted to the Republican party when Reagan ran for president. Imagine them reminding me (were they still alive) that Dems are the "party of racism;Repubs the party of Lincoln."
So one cannot use the term "leftists" as synonymous with Democrats. That's just Tucker/Hannity talk.
2. Giving blacks and women the vote, and trying to insure that they are not discriminated against for being black or female or gay or whatever would be one form of "caring what one's race or gender or sexual orientation is."
In post #175 above, addressed to Hollo, I discuss how historically, when they recognized segregation was permanently rolled back, some former segregationists realized they could reduce Black admissions to graduate schools by ruling out race as a criterion. They could maintain a status quo set by racist policies, simply by now insisting that "merit" be the sole criterion of selection. They knew that previous segregation had excluded many black applicants from any opportunity to gain the requisite merit (i.e., skills and background). "Leftists" opposed this by introducing affirmative action.
So the "racists" were for excluding racial selection criteria as a means of maintaining white dominance and the anti-racists were for including it to advance equality of opportunity.
I.e., excluding race from policy considerations doesn't always mean one "doesn't care" about race; and including race doesn't mean one is "perpetuating racism." This is why contextual analysis of any supposed racist policy or action is necessary, to understand motives and effects.
RE: It's Kamala! - PhilHos - 08-28-2020
(08-28-2020, 12:17 PM)Dill Wrote: Sorry I am late getting back to this. Thanks again for responding.
It would bother me as well if someone decries racism and then turns around and makes racist statements or promotes racism in actions. But I don't think Biden was doing that in choosing Kamala. I also don't think his goal is "equality of outcome" but equal opportunity.
Above, in post # 210, I write the following towards a definition of "racism":
A definition of "racism" I'd say, at a minimum, ought to include a belief that "race" is a biological given, not a social/cultural construction, a belief that some "races" are inherently superior or inferior, and that this inherence ought to be reflected in political order. This basis is necessary even where people insist that "racism" can only be behavior, not thought and belief unacted, or when it can only be "systemic."
Seems to me Biden's reasons for choosing Kamala don't fall under this definition, don't exemplify "more racism." Racism is not just any old use of race as a selection criterion, and most especially not when motivated by a belief in racial equality, not racial inequality.
I ascribe to the "plain Jane" definition of racism: "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group"
Anytime someone feels the need to change or edit that definition, to me, is a sign of that person trying to get away with being a racist or excusing someone else's racism.
As to Biden, let's say he said that he preferred his VP was a white male. Would you still say that he's not being racist?
RE: It's Kamala! - bfine32 - 08-28-2020
(08-28-2020, 04:32 PM)PhilHos Wrote: As to Biden, let's say he said that he preferred his VP was a white male. Would you still say that he's not being racist?
Depends. Is Biden a Democrat or Republican in this scenario?
As to Kamala she checked the 2 biggest boxes for Biden:
1. A vagina
2. The ability to paint an old white man as a racist.
RE: It's Kamala! - GMDino - 08-28-2020
Damn Joe for picking a woman. I remember how the right went crazy when McCain picked Palin. They hated how he was just trying for the female vote and stood behind Obama's pick of a white guy!
Or maybe I'm misremembering how that went.
RE: It's Kamala! - GMDino - 08-28-2020
Watching you guys have fits about his choice is funny. Shouldn't y'all be talking about their policies rather than who is an isn't racist?
RE: It's Kamala! - Dill - 08-29-2020
(08-28-2020, 04:32 PM)PhilHos Wrote: I ascribe to the "plain Jane" definition of racism: "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group"
Anytime someone feels the need to change or edit that definition, to me, is a sign of that person trying to get away with being a racist or excusing someone else's racism.
As to Biden, let's say he said that he preferred his VP was a white male. Would you still say that he's not being racist?
Well I appreciate your going into detail to explain your views.
You didn't think MY definition was somehow "changed" or "edited," did you? The Dictionary.com definition you used is distilled from the one I articulated. It does not support a claim that any and every race-based selection for a position is automatically "racist."
I don't see how Biden could be guilty of either version.
He didn't choose Kamala to express his "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism" against her "particular racial or ethnic group"--rather the opposite.
If choosing her was discrimination against whites, that would suggest that choosing whites discriminates against blacks.
If Biden said he chose a white male vp because the thought whites were suprerior, then I wouldn't say he was "not being a racist."
If there had never been a white vp candidate in 250 years of US history and he said "now's the time," I would not think that racist either--unless he did it to "antagonize" the man's race or ethnic group.
RE: It's Kamala! - Dill - 08-29-2020
(08-28-2020, 05:17 PM)GMDino Wrote: Damn Joe for picking a woman. I remember how the right went crazy when McCain picked Palin. They hated how he was just trying for the female vote and stood behind Obama's pick of a white guy!
Or maybe I'm misremembering how that went.
Well, not so much the female vote as the Evangelical.
It probably gained him more votes than he lost.
RE: It's Kamala! - GMDino - 08-29-2020
(08-29-2020, 01:56 AM)Dill Wrote: Well, not so much the female vote as the Evangelical.
It probably gained him more votes than he lost.
If the people on the right really believe Biden was just trying to get the female vote or minority vote by picking Harris I wonder if they believe Trump was just trying to get the religious and white male vote by picking Pence?
Pence was the opposite of Trump: religious, married once, conservative.
Now he's sold his soul and just parrots Trump but he still tries to ride on those traits for the voters.
RE: It's Kamala! - Dill - 08-29-2020
(08-29-2020, 08:40 AM)GMDino Wrote: If the people on the right really believe Biden was just trying to get the female vote or minority vote by picking Harris I wonder if they believe Trump was just trying to get the religious and white male vote by picking Pence?
Pence was the opposite of Trump: religious, married once, conservative.
Now he's sold his soul and just parrots Trump but he still tries to ride on those traits for the voters.
Evangelicals know that for sure. That's why they praised the pick and endorsed Trump.
RE: It's Kamala! - masonbengals fan - 08-31-2020
Another example of the Dems actions on violent protesters.
https://www.fox9.com/news/minnesota-nonprofit-with-35m-bails-out-those-accused-of-violent-crimes
https://thefederalist.com/2020/08/31/meet-the-rioting-criminals-kamala-harris-helped-bail-out-of-jail/
RE: It's Kamala! - Belsnickel - 08-31-2020
(08-31-2020, 12:21 PM)masonbengals fan Wrote: Another example of the Dems actions on violent protesters.
https://www.fox9.com/news/minnesota-nonprofit-with-35m-bails-out-those-accused-of-violent-crimes
https://thefederalist.com/2020/08/31/meet-the-rioting-criminals-kamala-harris-helped-bail-out-of-jail/
So, what it looks like is that the non-profit was being absolutely stupid and bailing out all sorts of people without looking at what they were in for. As the actual news article states, "Much of the money donated to the MFF was given to help protesters get out of jail after Floyd’s death, and for “nuisance bail” for gross misdemeanor offenses. But, many of the protesters arrested were quickly released or only received citations." So it seems that the people donating, and likely Harris in her promotion of the organization, were doing so under the impression that this was not for the violent actors.
RE: It's Kamala! - masonbengals fan - 08-31-2020
Yes, Belsnickel. A prime example of be careful of the causes you support.
RE: It's Kamala! - fredtoast - 08-31-2020
(08-31-2020, 01:04 PM)masonbengals fan Wrote: Yes, Belsnickel. A prime example of be careful of the causes you support.
Kamala was not the one that set the bail. If you have a problem with these people getting out on bail then criticize the judge who set the bail. Otherwise you are just saying poor people who can not afford the bail are more dangerous than people with money who commit the same exact crimes.
A poor person has the exact same right to be free on bail as a wealthy person. The criminal justice system is not supposed to punish people just for being poor.
RE: It's Kamala! - Sociopathicsteelerfan - 08-31-2020
(08-31-2020, 04:57 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Kamala was not the one that set the bail. If you have a problem with these people getting out on bail then criticize the judge who set the bail. Otherwise you are just saying poor people who can not afford the bail are more dangerous than people with money who commit the same exact crimes.
This statement is more an attack on the bail system itself than addressing the point Mason was making, that being that Harris advocated for an organization that actively assisted violent criminals to post bail.
Quote:A poor person has the exact same right to be free on bail as a wealthy person. The criminal justice system is not supposed to punish people just for being poor.
So, then your solution is to remand all people accused of a violent crime at the detention hearing?
RE: It's Kamala! - masonbengals fan - 08-31-2020
(08-31-2020, 05:13 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: This statement is more an attack on the bail system itself than addressing the point Mason was making, that being that Harris advocated for an organization that actively assisted violent criminals to post bail.
So, then your solution is to remand all people accused of a violent crime at the detention hearing?
This
RE: It's Kamala! - masonbengals fan - 08-31-2020
(08-31-2020, 04:57 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Kamala was not the one that set the bail. If you have a problem with these people getting out on bail then criticize the judge who set the bail. Otherwise you are just saying poor people who can not afford the bail are more dangerous than people with money who commit the same exact crimes.
A poor person has the exact same right to be free on bail as a wealthy person. The criminal justice system is not supposed to punish people just for being poor.
I'm not saying that at all.