Anyone who defends the flying of the Confederate flag on government property is either a racist or an idiot. You tell me which of the two Sessions is.
Seems like an awfully broad definition for “racist”.
From here, he didn’t deny praising the KKK, but insisted that his praise of the KKK was a joke. That sounds like an excuse to me. He’s also issued the broad excuse/explanation that he could be “loose with his tongue” at times. He also has never denied supporting flying the confederate flag on state property.
And the accusations that he called someone n*gger, or boy?
Regards,
Shodan
Not really. The Confederate flag really entered the political sphere in the late 1940s and into the 1950s, first as an emblem of the Dixiecrat movement and then more generally as a symbol of white resistance to the civil rights movement. It was added to the Georgia state flag only in 1956, for example, and the Georgia senate research office later concluded :
Even at the time (1956), some newspapers in Georgia bemoaned the fact that the new flag was chosen specifically as part of a “segregation at all costs” spirit, and the change was mostly to signal opposition to the Supreme Court’s decisions in Brown v. Board. Opposing integration and wanting to uphold segregation and white supremacy are pretty much by definition racist acts.
What about them? Did someone say he didn’t deny those accusations?
Well, I’m certainly convinced! After all those citations for actions and statements which clearly demonstrate his commitment to equal rights and justice, I consider the matter closed!
Fortunately, convincing you is not the least bit necessary.
No, but convincing you that he’s racist or did say those words is not the least bit necessary, either.
He made a point. That, given the guy’s past actions, the idea that he’s at least once said the word “nigger” doesn’t require very strong evidence.
Why not address that?
Why is it relevant? You’ve typed the word at least once. Are… are YOU a racist?
:rolleyes: Poor Bricker. How oppressive it must be for him to have to take the time to think about the possible connotations of an expression that he didn’t intend in a racist way, in order to avoid inadvertently sounding racist. I’m telling you, we just don’t pay enough attention to the suffering of people like him.
In fact, it’s quite instructive to examine the commentary that David Howard actually did offer on the widespread misinterpretation that his use of the word “niggardly” was a racial epithet:
Emphasis added. David Howard, instead of using his ordeal as an excuse to whine and scold about how unfair it is for white people to have to think carefully about what they say to avoid inadvertently sounding racist, responded with empathy and awareness about how unfair it is for black people to be so constantly subjected to racism that they sometimes misinterpret innocent remarks as being racist.
It’s a pity that out of the many, many white people who like to tut-tut about Howard’s mistreatment by Those People too dumb to know what “niggardly” means, so few bother to pay any attention to what Howard actually discovered about white privilege and complacency as a result of his experience.
It’s true that nowadays, being lazy and complacent about one’s white privilege, and resentful about being expected to be aware of one’s white privilege, is often seen as a form of racism in itself.
Whatever one may think of the justice or reasonableness of that criterion, it seems pretty clear to me that if one does accept that criterion, then Bricker, honey, you racist as hell.
Someone posted this -
So there was Sessions’ joke about the KKK, which to most people is pretty obviously a joke. I suppose you could say that this was making an excuse. But the more serious accusations were that he called somebody n*gger, or boy. If those are included in the bunch of accusations that you mentioned, then you are factually incorrect in your assertion that Sessions has never bothered to deny them. He did, and in no uncertain terms.
Regards,
Shodan
In what possible way do I have white privilege? This should be fascinating.
Okay. Many doesn’t mean all (they’re quite different, in fact). And while you suppose calling his praise of the KKK a joke might be an excuse, I’m sure of it – it’s an excuse. I don’t see how it being a joke lessens it – if it’s a joke, it’s a joke that what he really hates is marijuana use, not violent bigotry, which reflects as poorly on him as it would if he was serious, IMO. Equally as serious as accusations of using racial slurs were the accusations he supports flying the Confederate flag on government buildings – which he didn’t deny. He also gave a broad excuse for the criticism overall that he has a loose tongue.
So I think your argument with me on this particular thing is a straw man you built up. Thank you for noting that I’m only incorrect if I said something that I didn’t say.
But I’ll try to be more clear next time. Sometimes I just get into conversational tone, thinking that we can have a back and forth without extreme nitpicking. I love those sorts of discussions with the friendly Shodan. Sometimes the snarky Shodan takes over, and I can’t make a single mistake – I can’t say “many of the things…”, even if it’s correct; I have to say which specifically, or else snarky Shodan might seize on a potential misinterpretation to use for snarky purposes. Sometimes I try to match your snark with snark of my own, but that usually fails – you’re better at it than I am. So I’ll just ask you, kindly, to try and assume that I’m really being honest in my beliefs, and when we disagree it’s not because of bad motives, or dishonesty, but really because we see things differently in a lot of ways (especially, as we’ve seen for years, on issues related to bigotry in the US), and hold back snarky Shodan when possible.
That is actually a very good point. Liberals in general have been so conditioned by what they have been told that sometimes they see racism where none exists. Therefore, one must take accusations of racism with a grain of salt, as in this case and the “niggardly” case.
Regards,
Shodan
For a change, I will offer no opinion as to whether Sessions is a racist.
Instead, I’ll just note that Sessions is not some unknown who’ll have to be vetted thoroughly. He’s been in the SEnate nearly 20 years. The people who will vote to confirm or reject him know him well. If Sessions has said the N word in the past 20 years, Senate colleagues know it. If he has said or done anything to prove himself a racist, his colleagues are free to bring those things up now. If they haven’t seen or heard anything damning in 20 years, it would be stupid to dig for dirt farther back.
I’d just ask Senate Democrats point blank: you’ve known this guy and worked with him for 20 years. What have YOU seen that disqualifies him?
And, by the way, assuming there ARE lots of racist remarks and acts in his recent past… funny you never tried to censure him even once. Why not?
I hope this response does mean that I’m being snarky. . . but I cannot help but reflect that “many” conveys the idea of ‘lots’ or ‘most’ without actually meaning anything other than “more than one.”
If your goal is, in fact, straightforward conversation, this is something I’d view as a conversational gambit for rhetor’s points as opposed to straightforward talk.
I will strive to be more clear and avoid such tactics, whether done consciously or subconsciously. I think I said “many” in this case because I knew it was some but not all, and in the moment I was too lazy to verify exactly how many. I could have said some, which might have fit better, even if they mean the same thing.
Non-black privilege. 
In my view, that’s a better choice – some simply conveys there are more than one, without a connotation that it’s LOTS more than one.