Welcome to Blogster!
1,488,155 Blogster Users  |  364,642 Posts
 
 
 

tjdonegan

 

Blog Traffic: 7918

Posts: 154

My Comments: 563

User Comments: 738

Photos: 3

Friends: 5

Following: 0

Followers: 3

Points: 2943

Last Online: 9 hours ago


 
 

Visitors

No Recent Visitors
 

Got "race-baiting"?

Controversial Content
Added: Friday, July 19th 2019 at 11:22pm by tjdonegan
 
 
 

As of late the topics - @blogster.com, and in the Press -  have been addressing 'race-baiting' because POTUS Trump has been accused once again of being a racist, a race-baiter' and as representative of sundry other forms of bigotry, the question arises: "What in the hell, is a race-baiter?" Given that the response to such a question is generally, not a definition, but instead examples of what some hold as race-baiting, or a video of a White Republican Senator (Lindsey Graham from December 2015); a Senator who today disagrees with his past remarks... What we have noticed - particularly regarding Trump's remarks vis-à-vis Congresswoman Ilham Omar and her squad members - that the only argument against Trump is to claim that he is attempting to divide Americans, and divide along racial lines...? But such a claim is not an expression of fact;nor does it indicate that Trump is advocating something immoral; if he were doing so, a moral argument could easily be made against his claims, complaints and advocacy.

 

If Ilham Omar, or any of the other Congresswomen, could make a moral argument against Trump it would put him on his heels, but their argument (because of their views) would need to take the form: "The United States of America has throughout its history been monstrously unjust on occasion (e.g., regarding slavery, and regarding many other issues as well...), and as a result the USA can never overcome its institutional immorality! Moreover, only the fecklessly immoral will obey its laws, those which recognize the USA as the Great Satan - like those which follow Allah ('Blessing be upon HIM') - know we must destroy the USA from within, any which oppose us are illegitimatehate-mongers and bigots! So why doesn't Ilhan Omar make that argument? Because it would not divide Americans, it would united them. Instead she, as most social-political Leftists, Democrats and Press people assert that opponents to their view are a racist, or are race-baiters...

 

People such as Ilhan Omar, her 'squad', Democrats and social-political Leftists make allegations of racism, race-baiting, or inveterate bigotry to change/move the subject from a moral ground - which is the ground of an argument upon which they cannot win - to an 'argument' grounded in emotion/sentiment (pro-abortionists do the same thing, they cannot claim abortion isn't murdering babies, so they focus attention upon women and back-alley abortions and 'hateful' pro-life advocates...); whereby they rely upon the resentment for moral judgment with which the general population has been conditioned, and its correlative antipathy for truth, law, justice, and  the good...

 

Now if an individual can be moved by such things (by appeals to race, or some other fostered/fomented resentment), then such an individual possesses the necessary condition (but not necessarily the sufficient condition) for them to be identified as 'racist,' 'sexist,' 'misogynistic,' 'nativist,' et al, because such an individual may be moved by playing upon their emotions/sentiments; a self-possessed individual (one ordered in seeking to be morally virtuous) being cannot be moved by such impetuses i.e., an individual seeking to be ordered to the moral law neither seeks to manipulate, nor is manipulated by sentimental appeals... That manipulating people by resentment has become ubiquitous in our culture has much to do with this culture abandoning reason (and the truth which dispassionate reason may reveal), in favor of sentiment... But there is an irony in all of those claimsregarding derogator epithets, viz: racism, sexism, nativism, misogyny, homophobia, xenophobia et al, and the irony is two-fold:

            1.) Anyone claiming people are - for example - racist, are making the claim that they themselves are moved by their passions i.e., in this instance are themselves racist for they demonstrate inveterate antipathy for moral discourse (when one acts immorally one is morally obliged to morally rebuke the sinner i.e., If your brother sins, rebuke him, if he repents forgive him Luke 17:3), and reflexively impugn the motives of those which speak in contradiction to their sensibilities.

            2.) They are casting aspersions when they assert others are racists, because the ostensible racist has the temerity to view things differently from the accusers' view; the accused may speak carelessly (speak without deferring to the sensibilities of those which live to be personally offended; murdering a baby - for the easily offended folk - is no big deal, but intimating that an individual seems to hate the USA - if the person, is a person-of-color - must be because the person is a person-of-color i.e., any disagreement with a person-of-color is - of course - prima-facie evidence of racism...). The same thing goes with disagreeing with a feminist, or not voting for a feminist (e.g., Hillary). Yes, the men and women that voted for Trump instead of Hillary didn't vote for Trumpbecause they agree with his vision for the USA, they voted for Trump because they are afraid of strong women... If one cannot vote for a person because of the principles they avow, what other reason could there to justify voting for "A" over "B"? If the accident of gender is all that matters, those which advocate voting thusly, are ironically sexists; ditto regarding racism, or misogyny, or nativists...

 

What we have noticed, lately  - particularly regarding Trump's remarks vis-à-vis the 4 Congresswomen - is that the Congresswomen, the DNC and the Press focused the argument upon race, nativism and feminism as if to avoid a moral discussion!

Now laws - generally - have a moral grounding for they are meant to settle disputes which arise from human interaction, and the interacting of humans in competition for goods, services; erstwhile law - in the USA - was implicitly derived from, and limited by, the natural law (an objective morality), and from moral discussions come resolutions because the truth, and the good, command action! This is why those which accuse others of "baiting" are the real baiters; they haven't a valid moral claim, so they practice maligning those which do not share their despotic spirits because - as despotic souls - they cannot abide any discussion, or law, which they deem to be contrary to their interest...

 

Trump is too gauche to understand, the Left's sensibilities, and too impolitic to abide, the social-political Lefts immoral view of the world, and thus the constant controversial tête-à-têtes between him and the purveyors of bigotry, and dystopia, of the social-political Left...

Thomas J. Donegan

guildma@msn.com...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

User Comments

Tjd, you have heard the specific statement that caused Trump to be in this mess of a thing we call race-baiting when he said to four Black Congresswomen and I quote from his tweet, "Go back to your country."

Can you address the congresswomen in question by listing in quotation each of the things these four women said that shows them race baiting?

Hi, Writer!

I think what I was saying, and if I wasn't clear, sorry! The very act of asserting that one is "race-baiting" is an example of race-baiting, as I understand the term. I've asked you for a definition, and your refusal to provide one prompted me to think; in my thinking I noticed that those which accuse others of race-baiting are similar to those which accuse pro-life individuals of misogyny, sexism, fascism, racism and what have you, rather than making a moral argument for the murder of intrauterine children. Such arguments have been made, for example by the moral ethicist philosopher  Peter Singer. Singer's unabashed argument for murdering children/dependent children is predicated upon a denial of intrinsic human value - humans are just part of a natural continuum like chickens, goats, pigs etc... So to repeat: those which accuse others of race-baiting are engaged in avoiding discussing the moral basis for acting/choosing what course of action ought to be selected, and the appurtenant reasons for doing so i.e., those which make a race-baiting claim argue against the person i.e., issue ad hominem attacks upon the character of those with which they disagree... If I am not clear, I find the claim 'race-baiter' - irrespective of who issues the claim - to represent moral bankruptcy i.e., the individual - whether Lindsey Graham, Barack Obama, Pope Francis et al - to demonstrate that they haven't a clue as to what are their moral obligations, and it is likely that they haven't any interest in such knowledge. Such people are sentimental i.e., what they personally find objectionable is 'immoral' and those things, and actions with which they have an affinity, they hold to be good, and moral. Such is the mien of the egoist!

Take care, Writer!

Cordially, tjd

I will give you a very personal example of race-baiting one that I'm not proud of. I as a Black person was pulled over by a Hispanic cop about 15 years ago. I still remember the incident because it hurt my spirit that I did that to him. I was doing 46 mph in a 35 mph road. He pulled me over. I wasn't aware of the speed limit, but I felt he was in the right. But what I did next was deplorable. I was dressed in my jacket and tie and I looked him in the face and told him that he was racially profiling me by pulling me over. He said he wasn't. I knew he wasn't but I felt that if I played the race card it will give me some form of satisfaction and make him feel guilty. It was one of the dumbest things I ever did. I could see that he was disappointed in me. I can picture him telling his pals that these Blacks always pull the race card. I should have apologized and I didn't. I dropped the issue and paid the ticket, but I knew that I was guilty of race-baiting because of my action. It doesn't make me a racist. All it means is that I was race-baiting. Feel free to judge me.

 

Hi, Writer!

 

You've already judged your own conduct! And as it is, the human mind is made to judge, such is a requirement of knowledge…

 

Cordially, tjd

Yep, I did. It thought me a lesson. Now can you list one specific statement each of these four Black congresswomen made that warrant Trump's statement to go back to where they came from? Because TJ if they were 4 Jewish women, there would have been cries of antisemitism and serious repercussions from the Jewish community. 

Hello, Writer!

            What would be the point? Trump motives are varied! 1 st , as a political move, he is bringing attention to the advocacies of the "squad" and attempting bring their words before the American public, particularly blue-collared Democrats an Independents. By doing so he is attempting to associate the ladies/Congresswomen with the Democratic Party and put Pelosi- and the DNC - in a position of rebuking the Congresswomen, or embracing them. If they embrace them, Trump is giving blue-collared people one more reason to vote for Trump and the RNC candidates in 2020. If Pelosi and the DNC rebuke the Congresswomen it cause greater division in the Democrat Party which will again likely redound in favor of Trump and the RNC. If the Press covered issues the way it ought, Trump wouldn't need to do such thing. 2 nd , Trump didn't say: "Go back where you came from." He said something like this (could get the exact quote, but a paraphrase makes the point): 'Why don't they go back to where they came from, fix the problems in those countries, and then come back and show us how it is done...' Trump was making the point that Ilhan Omar could not go back to Somalia and fix any problems, because she is a woman! Somalia - as a Muslim country embracing Sharia would give Oman, a woman, not a bit of respect (at least if the camera's were not following her) - If she returned to Somalia - as a nobody woman (as she was when she came to the USA as a refugee) she would likely be gang-raped (she is an physically attractive woman...) before the Muslims put her in her place, and they would likely murdered her, if she didn't show proper deference a woman under Sharia is to demonstrate... Thus, Trump is highlighting that she doesn't show appreciation for the difference between living in the USA and living in an absolute autocratic theocracy... 3 rd , I am not Trump, therefore I cannot point to a single phrase, or word, uttered by the ladies which germinated the idea to tae political advantage out of the words, and deeds, of these Congresswomen, but I can understand that tactically - as a political matter - Trump sees his tweets, and spoken words, as advantageous...

            You mention anti-Semitism - and the Congresswomen are to varying degrees anti-Israel and anti-Semitic - but anti-Semitism is again in vogue in the USA ; the cultural elite have become much more favorable of radical Muslims than pedestrian Jews, pedestrian Muslims, and Christians (???? I am puzzled as to why; could speculate, but speculation, is speculation... A topic for another day); it is evident by the lack of reporting given to the violence/murder/mayhem perpetrated against Jews, Muslims and Christians - in the USA and around the world - by radical/Jihadists Muslims; even Fox News has come to censor critics of Islamic Supremacism... It seems that there is much skullduggery taking place in the bureaucracy of the US Government with peoples around the World which are contrary to the good of the USA , as understood by most of its population, but that skullduggery isn't being covered... It is as if the bureaucracy - the Administrative State - which is the US Government - has an agenda, and a plan, for the USA, which is in contradiction to its elected officials, particularly is those elected want to put the USA first (and that is not only Trump, it is any elected official that desires to do "X" when the bureaucracy desires "Y"; they drag their heels and leak to the Press to harm those which desire to steer the USA in a direction different that the bureaucracy has determined to travel...??? Congress created and empowered the bureaucracy to administer all of the functions of Government which came into being beginning in the New Deal, and as those functions and agencies were added and grew, they have become the entities which actually write legislation e.g., Obama-Care i.e., the ACA)... As it is anti-Semitism is growing in the USA and in Europe ???

Take care, Writer!

Cordially, tjd

 

Proves my point that you couldn't list what the women said, but thanks for the conversation.

You quoted the President's fault as having said they should go back where they came from. That was a mistake for sure. But the question you ask is, essentially - list the the things the four women said that qualify as race baiting.  I'm not going to go to all that trouble but I will tell you that all of their race baiting and misogyny baiting began immediately following Trump's error. You'll have no trouble finding them but you may have some trouble recognizing them for what they are.

NoBull, I researched it and couldn't find it. Trump could have easily left the Dems with that battle, but what is happening because of his input is not affecting those 4 congresswomen because they are not running against him, but it is affecting regular Black folks going about their business as they are now being heckled to go back to their country. That's why I say Trump was race-baiting.

I don't believe that for a second. Blacks Americans are being told to go back where they came from? Where'd you get that bit of nonsense from?

Here is a link of one incident.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/black-georgia-lawmaker-says-white-man-told-her-go-back-n1031991

Hi, Writer!

If I chose to spend the time to gather from their many controversial words a line, or two, it would be easy; to satisfy you...? It is not worth my effort, for a number of reasons: 1.) I'd need to meet your standard; which moves because you are an admitted relativist... Thus, as an unprincipled individual, you can always re-draw what ever line you choose. 2.) Nothing you have written has put a dent in my assertion that any which engage in labeling others as some form of bigot (e.g., racist, sexist, homophobe, misogynist, nativist etc.) or engage in race-baiting - do so because they haven't a moral argument to make! Those which allege people are racists (or any other derogatory epithet e.g., sexist, homophobe, nativist...) - are violating the moral law unless they can make an argument as to why their claim is valid. If we take "racism" as an example, before a claim that "X" is a racist can be valid, there needs to be an objective definition of what racism is, and how it may be detected as the animating cause/principle of the individual tagged as a racist, otherwise those which claim "X" is a racist are expressing their opinion. To falsely assert that "X" is a racist, emanates from the same location of the human soul, as racism dwells! So let me put a point upon the matter, viz: those which claim people are bigots, or rapists, or spousal abusers, or child abusers, or pedophiles without evidence to support such claims have a kinsmen-ship with racist, misogynists, sexists, etc.

I enjoy answering questions you pose Writer, if I think they provide an opportunity to explain things which people ought to know, but generally do not know, or understand, because they've not been educated, but mis-educated, and they generally possess many 'facts' but haven't acquired the tools to put those facts together in a cohesive manner. Again that is a function of their mis-education, and their lack of curiosity i.e., if people sought to know - presently - they may acquire both the facts, and a rational means of organizing those facts, so that they are not habitually contradicting themselves in word, and deed... I do not see what benefit may be derived from me looking for phrases from Ilhan Omar, AOC, Ayanna Pressley,   Rashida Tlaib which demonstrate, or may demonstrate that they are insufferable; what is insufferable to those which have a 'foot-inside-Christendom' (me) is pretty much in diametric opposition to those which hold tolerance to be an absolute good (it seems this is your position...? Please correct me if I misjudge!).

Take care, Writer!

Cordially, tjd

Someone who race-bait doesn't have to be a racist. I am not saying Trump is a racist, but I see the incident as race-baiting. It is already having implications as I pointed out to Nobull. But if you cant show the proof of these congresswomen statements like I did with Trump then there is no need for me to debate this issuie with you because it is non existent. Trump used a race-bait tactics and it has its implications. If you can list what these congresswomen said to generate Trump's statement then it will be worth a discussion, but you can't.

Hi, Writer!

It seems that you are putting words in Trump's mouth; Trump didn't tell they were not welcome in this country, he indicated that they hate the country and they should go and fix the problems in Somalia (Trump was wrong to include AOC,Pressley, and TLaib in his remarks; sine they are natural born Americans...), and Trump further stated that once they fix the problems in Somalia, they should return to the USA to 'show us how it is done.' Why are you misrepresenting Trump? Are you race-baiting? And which Black folks are being 'heckled to go back to their country'? It seem that you want his words to be about race?

Cordially, tjd

Hi, Writer!

Looked at the link, the woman is a political activist, and is very likely utilizing the brouhaha between the Trump and the squad to pillory Trump; she is providing people that have a resentment for Trump to claim Trump is a racist. Unprincipled people - people that have only a subjective conception of right and wrong, or are possessed with the mien of ubermenschean - actually misrepresent reality to advance their interests... You may assert that she is doing what Trump did, but Trump didn't lie about the Congresswomen, Trump asserted that they are un-American; that is an expression of an opinion; one may agree, or disagree with his opinion, but one cannot assert his opinion is a lie, unless you happen to somehow know his opinion is actually different e.g., if Trump thinks that the Congresswomen are model patriotic Americans, but is claiming them to be un-American, then you would be able to claim that he is lying as to what his he expresses as his opinion...

Take care, Writer!

Cordially, tjd

TJ. You know They are all not from Somalia. I quoted from Trump's tweet. I will leave this issue here. I get the feeling as a Trump supporter you are unable to see things objectively.

Hi again, Writer!

If you read what I wrote, and posted @ 11:23am - (1hour and 25 minutes before your response @ 12:48pm, you will see that I indicated that: "(Trump was wrong to include AOC, Pressley, and TLaib in his remarks; since they are natural born Americans...)" Or let me just copy and paste the whole response:

"Hi, Writer!

It seems that you are putting words in Trump's mouth; Trump didn't tell they were not welcome in this country, he indicated that they hate the country and they should go and fix the problems in Somalia (Trump was wrong to include AOC, Pressley, and TLaib in his remarks; sine they are natural born Americans...), and Trump further stated that once they fix the problems in Somalia, they should return to the USA to 'show us how it is done.' Why are you misrepresenting Trump? Are you race-baiting? And which Black folks are being 'heckled to go back to their country'? It seem that you want his words to be about race?

Cordially, tjd"

It seems that you are a bit too zealous to read the things I write to understand what I write...? Objectivity- writer - is an act of willed; those that desire to be just require themselves to be objective, those which disavow objective moral imperatives i.e., relativists, are under no such imposition of their will; that is one of the things about a relativist, they are asserting - unconsciously - that they cannot be trusted. One that subscribes to objective morality can violate their avowed principles i.e., lie, or be unjust, but a relativist is inveterately selfish, thus, he/she is principally untrustworthy...! Relativism, and absolute tolerance seem to be virtuous, but they are the marks of betrayal. This is why the US military formerly screened recruits, and Top Secret and other classified clearances would be denied to people of questionable character. It was understood as sanity to reject those which have a morally defective worldview. We - as a Nation - are more vulnerable today, because moral relativism has become accepted, because such views are nor the dominant University worldview...

Take care, Writer!

Cordially, tjd    

 

 

 

The story does not add up. What kind of fool would "come forward" and admit he browbeat a woman 9 months pregnant? He could be arrested, sued or both. Sounds like a political stunt staged for publicity. It smells like Jussie Smollett's staged racial attack.

I'm not to tell you whether it is true or not. I just showed you the implications the president's words can have on the nation. The president need to set better examples in his words.

Hi, Writer!

Yes, Trump doesn't act at all like a Republican; when most Republicans are accused of the some of the most heinous things imaginable, they keep a stiff upper (like George W. Bush), and know the Media will treat them as guilty (even if the same Press knows they are innocent); a big ugly investigation will take place, and finally the investigation can't validate the ugly claims... Democrat Presidents never suffer such indignities, because the Press and the bureaucracy has their back... Trump - because he fights against injustices he is accused of gets constant, and more vicious vitriol, than Bush, or Reagan received. The only reason Trump's speech is an issue is because he is a Republican populist (instead of an quasi-intellectual); if he was a Democrat, he'd have plenty of apologists... Those that voted for Trump realized that he was unconventional, and a fighte; it is better that he be who he is, than attempt to accomadate/placate those that will deride him no matter what he does...

As it is, those which chosose to make false allegations against him, will continue to do so...

Cordially, tjd

Tjd I get what you are saying and much of it is true, but in this case Trump was race-baiting. I am not saying he is a racist. I am saying that he was race-baiting. A tactic to energize part of his base. There are nothing specific that each of the congress women has said that shows they hate America except were Omar who comes across more like a radical than a hater. I've heard Whites like Alex Jones, Rand Paul and David Duke say similar things on some of the issues she has touched on like 9/11 and our involvement with Israel when it comes to financing wars in the Middle East. Trump didn't need to go down that road. Send me the specifics on the Congresswomen individually if you have links of them hating America.

Hi, Writer!

We are going to disagree, because I do not believe most people are racist, or think of issues as beneficial or harmful to races. I do think that many Americans - particularly blue-collar workers - resent that people view the USA in contempt; since many blue-collarworkers are Democrats, if Trump is baiting anything, he is patriot-baiting. The blue-collar Democrat is generally conservative in their lifestyle, and love the traditional understanding of the USA. Trump is seeking to divide conservative blue-collar Democrats, from those which are not so conservative. Trump's actions place Nacy Pelosi in a difficult spot; as I've already said, she is iven a Hobson choice. If she embraces the 4 Congresswomen, Trump place the entire Democratic Party in camp of USA haters; if Pelosi rebukes the 4 Congresswomen, she is effectively rebuking many young Democrat voters, and dividing the Democratic Party. Irrespective of which choce she makes, Trump and Republicans will likely benefit @ the ballot box...

Cordially, tjd

The problem is while politician play games with Race, people get hurt by those who fall victim to their bait. Trump as president of all of the USA should not do that.

Well, Writer, I just can't see how this has a thing to do with race...? The Left, the Press, the Democrats and you have made this be about race...? I just don't know how it became about race; I just must be stupid as all hell, because asserting that the four Congresswomen hate the USA is a judgment which asserts that 4 people are critical of the USA for what it is; this is different from Trump's criticism of the direction anti-American politicians have chosen to direct this Nation. Trump was critical of both Democrats and Republicans for their actions as politicians; Trump was asserting - in his criticism - that the USA had pursued policies which did not utilize our advantages (e.g., abundant natural resources e.g., oil/natural gas), but instead acted to place ourselves at disadvantage; this he ascribed to both Parties... His criticism wasn't racist then, and it has not a thing to do with race now. How did you ascertain that Trump was/is attempting to race-bait? And how do you know that there are significant numbers of American that are susceptible to being motivated to act predicated upon race? Do you always think/feel in terms of race? To me the only time I see, or hear, race injected into public affairs is when the Democrats, the social-political Left, the Hollywood, Academia or the Press inject race, or sexism, or misogyny, or homophobia, or nativism, or zenophobia, into an issue, and I note that only conservatives, Republicans, Christians are capable of such misanthropic behavoir... So where do those on the social-political Left get off incessantly ascribing derogatory epithets to their political opponents? What makes a disagreement a racial disagreement? How does feminism/sexism/nativism get injected into issues of disagreement? Why must one inveterately agree with Leftist, and their causes or lese be characterized as sem sundry deplorable? Trump didn't make mention of race, but that all that he does is reduced - by his opponents - to some form of insatiable animus for minorities, for women, for immigrants, for people-of-color, for Jews (although his grandchildren are Jewish)...? Why? From whence does the idea of race enter - or any derogatory epithet - enter these tete-a-tetes? Please explain...

Cordially, tjd

 

 

 

 

You still haven't answered my question upon numerous request, so I will leave it there. Tell me specific statements from the four that is anti-American.

Hi, Writer!

That I don't spend the time to look through statements of the 4 Congresswomen to find things Trump finds objectionable, is a completely different matter than you answering how race enters this kerfuffle. The issue is not, and has not been what the women said; the issue has been about Trump's response which has been described as racism (by many people who like to assert Trump is a racist) and race-baiting by you and others. So I'm not asking you to find what is objectionable in Trump's statements; I'm asking how they are race-baiting, and how the mention of race is relevant? Trump didn't say a thing about race, or race-baiting, that came from is critics! The onus for explaining how racism, and race-baiting is upon those making such accusations; so I await your explanation... It is my view that there isn't a reasonable explanation. The explanation is herd mentality; one person says "X" and everyone similarly impassioned repeats "X."

And if I thought it important to look through the Congresswomen's words to find objectionable statements I could, but I don't see them as anything other than women driven by passions to be in-the-spotlight, to be famous, and to feel powerful. I think they mis-educated sentimentalists, that is to say, they are like most University graduated, irrationally passionate...

Take care, Writer!

Cordially, tjd

It is race baiting because he made a comment that racists has used over the years to Blacks and Jews. When it is used agsinst Jews it is viewed as antisemitism and when it is used against Blacks it is used as rascism. That's it TJd. That's how this whole conversation about what Trump said started. He wasn't talking about the economy and got attacked by the media about it, he was race-baiting and they picked it up.

Hello, Writer!

And what comment would that be? 

Take care, Writer!

Cordially, tjd

Won't want to repeat myself Tjd. This is not the circle of life. What I will do is put together a blog on the Squad and some of the questionable things that they've said that can be viewed as un-American.

That story was debunked within hours of it going viral, writer.  The lawmaker was NOT told to go back to her country, and the 'white man' she accused has been on the news--he is not white, he is a Democrat, and well-known Trump hater in his community.

Instead, he'd simply told her to get in another line at the grocery store because the privileged twat was in the express line with a full cartload of groceries.

Even she has admitted it didn't happen the way she originally claimed, but of course, the NYT buried that retraction in paragraph 14 of the huge-assed story they ran on 'racism.'

Thanks for pointing it out Imperatrix. I looked at the video and I agree with you. Interesting that he looks white, but he is actually Cuban abd his parents are Hispanics. There is truly hope that one day racism will be a thing of the past because we all came from the same place. It seems like the congresswoman tried to use Trump's rhetoric to her advantage.

Here's a thought, writer--real overt racism of the type these fools fake for sympathy is so rare in America that stories have to be fabricated to 'prove' it exists.  Even Jussie Smollett had to import Nigerians to do the racist acts no American would do.

I am not saying racism doesn't exist.  It does.  But it's hidden from the public eye, it is not overt, it's underground.

Interesting thought.

You haven't encountered any overt racism in your life, writer?

Give me an example. I am pretty oblivious to such things.

You're black, unless your photo lies, so it's YOU who needs to consider, and honestly answer, a query of this nature.

Have you ever, in America, been exposed to blatant, and/or overt, racism?

Example: You are walking to the corner store and a carload of yahoos slows down to scream the "DREADED 'N' WORD" at you?

Example: You walk into a store, any sort of store, and are closely followed by employees of that store?

Example: Has anyone lit up a cross in your backyard? 

If you need *me* to give you examples of racism, overt, institutional, or occult, you've never experienced it, though you have admitted to faking it.

Interesting that you'd weigh in on this topic.

I didn't understand the term overt. No one admits to racially profiling a person when they are doing it. I remember visiting America as a tourist in 1987 and was in a car with 4 of my friends who were black driving in Brooklyn. We stopped for gas an a car pulled up next to us and 4 white guys came out and pulled out their guns and asked us to put our hands up. They started to search us. One even started feeling my penis area and I asked him if he could show me an ID. He pulled out a police badge and slammed it against my lips. After they searched us they apologised and told us that they received a call that a robbery had taken place and the car description suited ours. Have you ever experienced overt racism Imperatrix?

Overt means obvious, writer.  If you are unsure of a definitionm look it up.

And yes, as a white woman in today's society, I experience it almost daily.  I see my race villified, even when a claim is proven false.  I see us blamed for every ill, every atrocity...

Don't get me started.  White is the new Black.

Yes, White is becoming the new Black, and that is the fight we are experiencing today. The question is how we as a society can prevent a repeat of history? Haven't we learn enough from hurting each other? No one wins.

It doesn't matter one whit, writer.  Even if we were all born with the exact same skin tone as everybody else, something defining the 'other' would rise up to replace bigotry based on color of skin.

In England?  They discriminate based on ACCENT.  For real, and for nasty.  The accent identifies 'the other.'

Good point. Yes, I know that about England. We are doomed.

Well said. But all the issues of race, homophobia, misogyny; you know the list, is so bogus I just wish we'd all drop it. This madness was planted in our social conscience decades ago by the worst of the radical activists and the more we debate it the more legitimacy we give it. The more we argue it or try to explain it in rational terms as you just did the more entrenched the useful idiots become in their defense of it.

Hello, thinker!

I agree with you that the ascriptions are all crap, but as long as leftist continue to accuse people of such things, moral obligation requires a defense of both the innocent, and the truth. Some people - perhaps only a few - may have their view changed when they come to understand the claims of racism, sexism, homophobia et al, are not only without a reasonable foundation, but immoral...  As it is, I've come to see the inveterate use of pejoratives as a corollary of the dominant and material worldview; if the human soul, and mind are viewed as fictions - as they are by the behavioral sciences, and modern philosophy - then for subscribers to such views (and most unconsciously subscribe to such views irrespective of whether they may protest otherwise...) what such an individual feels cannot really be differentiated from their material reality. Thus, this culture encourages such ubiquitously sentimental, and unjust, characterizations; only by providing reasoned arguments may we grow the number of rationally disposed individuals! Take care thinker! 

Cordially, tjd

"....views....cannot really be differentiated from their mental reality." 

That's a fact, which is exactly why I say these radical ideologues should not be debated. They cannot differentiate between belief and objective reality.

Peace. Out.

Hi, Thinker!

I'm not concerned with changing the minds of ideologues (one can only hope, but one has little chance in changing the views of the irrational, and the irrational herd... If one changes the cultural direction, the bovines will tend to desire to be included and drift in the direction the herd is moving...); what my interest is that many undecided can still become rational in their thinking, and those which have rational views ought to explain for the benefit of those open to the truth, and to reason, lest they be seduced by the dark-side i.e., the social-political Left...

Cordially, tjd

Post A Comment