Wait, what? Should we have a program in place to find out who’s got it too easy, and toughen things up a little? Gosh, who in America has it “too easy”? Wow, tough one…
There’s an important definitional question.
Bob hates black people as a group, and is willing to take actions to hurt black people, for no reason other than to hurt them. Is he a white supremacist?
Jane knows that white people agree with her more than black people, and is willing to take actions to hurt black people in order to get her own way. Is she a white supremacist?
I think both of them are: if you’re deliberately taking actions that advance the interests of white people as a whole over those of black people as a whole, “white supremacy” seems to be a good descriptor for you. If it isn’t, we need another word to describe people willing to hurt a group by race in order to advance their own interests.
I’m not too concerned about ultimate motivations.
(Now: cue the terrible analogy gotcha questions!)
Sure, if you only read history up to 1968 or so.
If this is the case, I feel it my duty to inform you:
- Astronauts have visited the moon.
- The Beatles have broken up and two of them are dead.
- A singer named Michael Jackson popularized a dance step called the Moonwalk.
- Michael Jackson is also dead.
I hope this has been informative.
Not us folks out in CA. No sir-ee! We’re suffering through one of the worst droughts in history and have to let our grass go brown just so we can keep our pools filled!! Talk about suffering…
Your misplaced confidence is Trumpian in nature.
Not necessarily. Bob could be an Asian guy who just really hates black people. Hurting them could be so important to him that the resulting benefits, if any, to other groups doesn’t even occur to him.
Fair point. Add to the scenario the belief that in hurting black people, he’s helping white people, and that’s his ultimate goal.
Again, white majority does not equal white supremacy.
Some of you seem to refuse to believe that America has a culture – a white majority culture that most minorities and immigrants assimilate into (if they want to be “American”, and want to be successful).
Deliberately trying to make it harder for black people to vote because they want fewer black people to vote does equal white supremacism.
I’ll grant that there is an American culture, that immigrants not only assimilate into, but also add to and enrich. It is NOT a “white majority culture.” (If it is, we are doing something so very, very wrong.)
Those who wish for a “white majority culture” are the white supremacists.
I support Latino immigration and naturalization because such voters tend to strongly support the same political party I do. If they were overwhelmingly Republican, I would be much less enthusiastic about their immigration and especially their naturalization. How does that fit into your framework?
Getting back to the topic of the thread, I’m glad courts are striking down these 21st-century Jim Crow laws. But now this is an important inflection point. Democrats have to stop being reflexively against any sort of voter ID. It looks as craven and partisan on our side as those overturned laws on the GOP side did. And that’s because the anti-ID position is craven and partisan, with no real justification.
We certainly can’t tolerate a situation where hunting licenses are accepted but student IDs are not. But what we should support is a national photo ID/voting card for every citizen, with a law that includes funding for armies of social workers to fan out into poor communities to help ensure that everyone gets one. .
American culture is not white culture - American culture is a mix of many, with strong European, African, and Hispanic influences, among others.
You know that you did not actually present any evidence? You quoted someone who has an opinion that mail-in-balloting is bad. But you don’t provide anything that actually shows it is bad, nor do you say why you think it’s bad.
My friend Jack thinks Disneyland is an evil place. You can’t argue against evidence like that!
When Obama took office, white Christians were the majority of people in this country. Now they are not, for the first time in American history. That is a major change, but it is also a very recent one.
You can tell by looking closely at the clues in the lyrics to some of his songs, and in the background to the cover-art for his albums.
We can’t trust NPR to have vetted this expert whom they invited to testify on their show? If you were a juror and an expert witness testified at the trial, would you demand to see all of their data?
This is a good thing. Though it has more to do with young people not identifiying as christian, more than it is a change in racial makeup (though that is changing too). There is a difference between being a majority, and having your majority be “The Culture.”
I say this as a nearly middle aged white guy, raised in a conservative, christian household.
Um… yeah. Do you think expert witnesses just show up, give their opinion, and take off without having to support that opinion?
I’ve never been a juror (I always get eliminated before the trial), but I can’t imagine that they have the jurors do peer review on their research in real time.
More broadly, you can’t operate in the modern world by verifying every expert’s claim, or even almost any of them. You have to decide which experts you can trust and go from there. It’s either that or solipsism. I mean, how do you even know any of what you read about in the news? Do you travel around and verify all of it?
The point is that you said this was evidence. It is not. It is the opinion of one guy. He might have evidence to support that opinion and if he were testifying at trial he would have to show that evidence.
Someone agrees with you. That’s great. He’s a law and political science professor. Even better.
I suspect evidence that supports your opinion might exist, but you haven’t shown that.