But one tells recipients to exclude a certain group from the distribution. That is a substantive difference.
I agree, but that doesn’t make the email in question any better. It’s a mountain out of a mole hill, but it is a mole hill.
That thread was obviously inspired by the same incident. But it was an attempt to get a factual answers as to the legal context, rather than an attempt to make anything of it. That’s why it was started in GQ and why it didn’t refer to the incident itself. (At the time it was started I wasn’t completely sure the incident had happened altogether.)
Calling that “conservative hand-wringing”, especially when this characterization was central to your point, was highly inaccurate.
I’m not persuaded. Suppose we have a bunch of cats and dogs. If I tell you to give this leftover fish to the cats, is that different from telling you not to give it to the dogs? Sure, it’s logically different. And you might imagine that the meaning is slightly different–you might give most of it to the cats but not feel any particular compulsion not to give a tiny bit to the dogs. But they are pretty damn similar in meaning.
A mole hill because of the unnecessarily divisive rhetoric. On that I agree.
The scandal is huge, and growing! Soon, it may overwhelm the massive, thunderous “uranium” scandal! Only time will tell.
I’m okay with this being an IQ test.
The more you complain about it, the stupider you obviously are.
I don’t think that’s the same as the situation we have here. I’m not suggesting that we say: “give this to the cats”, but “give this to the pets, and make sure the cats get some, too.”
Does anybody know if the “Latino Victory Fund” is actually made up of actual Latinos? This ad smells big time like a reverse psychology thing.
This story was reported by every major media outlet in the US, so the idea that it was a false flag operation smells even fishier. We’d have to assume, among other things, that Washington Post got punk’ed by Cristóbal J. Alex:
Created 2½ years ago by actress Eva Longoria and architectural designer Henry R. Muñoz III as a way to get more Latinos into public office. A bunch of their current staff reportedly had worked for the Clinton campaign.
Is Northam latino? I thought he was just another old white guy.
His real name is Norte-Jamón. 
Hillary certainly is not. Their goal has obviously changed to include getting into public office more candidates who aren’t likely to enact anti-Latino policies.
What I want to know is how this idiocy becomes so widespread and tolerated. I’m seeing more and more of these types of stories, such as a teaching assistant who won’t call on white males, and a singer who has a “policy” that whites have to be in the back and people of color can be up front.
You would think there would be reasonable “woke” people who would tell them they are doing it wrong. Are they just scared to disagree, thinking people will think them racist, and so this stupidity ends up actually happening for a long time before the media gets hold of it?
I tend to think it’s an attitude that whites deserve it.
There is some of that going on with some people, but I think with most it’s just “I want to raise women of people and color up, and I’m not a creative enough thinker to figure out how to do it without pushing white males down.” And then when they come up with their not so bright ideas, no one around them tells them it’s a bad idea.
That’s a consequence of people not being able to speak frankly about such issues. And the SJWs have made it worse, because now you can’t speak on issues of race and gender at all if you’re white and/or male. You can be as thoughtful and right as you can be, but it’s “whitesplaining” or “mansplaining”. Unless you just agree, then you’re okay. So most people just say nothing or kiss the person’s ass.
I think the simple answer is “groupthink” and people living in a bubble, but…
Here’s something I’ve been considering recently. Black people live in a world where a police chief gets caught saying, in regards to black people, really racist shit like “These [expletives] are like ISIS, they have no value. They should line them all up and mow 'em down. I’d like to be on the firing squad, I could do it.” That’s insane, right? I mean, it’s a small township in New Jersey or something, not of huge consequence, but still, that’s a cop, a police chief, and holy shit that’s crazy racist. And so black people protest stuff like that by kneeling during the anthem at football games and conservatives act like it’s the end of days. Meanwhile, anecdotes about anti-white racism trickle out and and those same conservatives seem to take notice. And I’m like, wait, if we’re suddenly concerned about racism, then let’s address the elephant in the room, because if there’s a problem with racism in this country, and there obviously is, then anti-white racism isn’t the primary issue. I’m not black so I don’t know what it’s like in the real world, but I spend a lot of time on the internet and holy shit, there are a lot of anti-black racists out there. Still. And a lot of white people like to pretend that it just isn’t a problem anymore, like since it’s not codified in law anymore then there’s nothing else we can or should do about it.
I guess what I’m saying is, sure, in an ideal world the civil rights movement of the 60’s would have resulted in a very rapid decrease in all forms of racism to zero. But since that hasn’t happened yet, I’m willing to except a certain amount of anti-white racism as long as the anti-black racism is still a massive, massive problem. It really only seems fair considering the history of this country.
Absolutely agree, and wish I’d added that to my comment above.
Which is really too bad, since back in the day (when I leaned left myself) this was the mantra of the left - ‘If we could only talk to one another, get the discussion going, things would be so much better.’
So much for that.
It’s certainly true that overt racism against minorities by prominent people is more common than the reverse, but we also have to correct this stuff wherever we see it. What racism is, is basically ethnic tension, which seems obvious, and yet we think about it differently in the West than we do when it happens in a third world country. In the West, it’s portrayed as “powerful majority oppresses weak minority”, whereas in the third world we usually think about it as, “ethnic groups have feuded for 2000 years, neither is particularly more to blame than the other”. The problem with racism is that it breeds more racism. If white people hate minorities, minorities will hate them in return. And vice versa.
Individuals do not usually think in terms of the grand sweep of history and society. They think, “I’ve just been discriminated against because of my race.” And that makes people mad.
The SJWs aren’t usually haters and shouldn’t be treated as such, but their dumber ideas really should get some pushback. It should be a principle of fairness in society that you cannot raise a people up by pushing other people down, even if that’s how whites got to where they are today. All that accomplishes is to make society as unfair as it ever was, just with different people on top. That’s a future we could very well see at the rate things are going.
Absolutely. And a sign (I think) that things have changed is that what he said is considered so outrageous and despicable it got him arrested for a federal hate crime.
Forty years ago I doubt that’d be the case.
Serious progress in my book.
I guess I just wish conservatives pushed back against the massive amount of anti-black racism that still exists in this country with the same fervor as they push back against the dumb anecdotes from the “SJWs.” I think if you’re honest with yourself you’ll know that’s not the case. Regular old racists are just dismissed every day as old coots, a few bad apples, “oh we dealt with that,” etc. So maybe we need to tolerate a bit more of the anti-white crazy while getting control of all the anti-black crazy, since, as you say, racism breeds more racism. Let’s start with the big ol’ pot of racism where we’ll get the best bang for our buck.