We Hit Peak 2019

[CJD]

(12-24-2019, 12:10 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The problemis that the people who wer upset should not have been.  If this had been a case of Bloomberg making these comments about a stranger he had never met then they could have voiced their outrage, but it is silly for them to be offended when Bloomberg calls a Rhodes Scholar with a law degree from Yale "well spoken".

I am amazed that you don't see the problem with accusing people of racial bias when it does not exist.

People should not be required to apologize when they do nothing wrong.

Turns out you can't dictate to people what they are and are not allowed to get upset about. No matter how many times you try.

It has been explained to you multiple times why, even if Bloomberg wasn't thinking about Booker's race when he said what he said, it is still tinged with historical context. It is not important what qualifications Booker has.

I am amazed that you don't see the problem with rejecting another person's world view and personal experience.

Bloomberg could have easily said what you're saying. "I don't agree with the idea that this sentiment is racially tinged, so I refuse to apologize that I upset some people, even though I had absolutely no intention to."

But he chose to apologize because there is, literally, no harm in saying "sorry that I said something that upset you. I wasn't aware of the historical context before I said this and I know now."

If you're not sorry, don't apologize. But don't feign ignorance when those people that you upset do not want to vote for you.