My mom has great-grandchildren, and I haven’t noticed any increase in intelligence or awareness in her. Just pointing out that you’re using lousy logic.
You want to rag on people for not being as hip as you, be my guest. If you really can’t conceive of people not having the same experiences as you, be my guest. I’m not defending their ignorance. I’m just saying that use of antiquated terms alone does not make them racist.
I’m from fucking Appalachia.
And Michele Fiori is in her mid-40s.
Absolutely none of which applies to a Nevada State Assemblywoman who was born in Brooklyn, New York in 1970. She has no excuse.
45 years seemed a bit long to me, so I looked it up. It turns out that “Negro” was on the last US Census form in 2010 (as in the 2000, 1990, 1980, and previous censuses), because that’s how some older blacks still self-identified. The inclusion predictably upset some people who had the same problem you guys do, of thinking that once they get the memo, there’s no possible excuse for everyone else not agreeing with them.
I’m not trying to either excuse her or defend her. I was commenting on the headline, which implied that the use of the term “colored” proves that racism still exists. My only point is that while racism does indeed still exist, the use of the term “colored” doesn’t prove it. If anything, it proves that uninformed people still exist, but that’s even less surprising than the fact that racism still exists.
Congratulations. Yet you seem perfectly capable of using the internet, and of posting in a mostly liberal forum, in arguably its most liberal thread, so what possible refutation is that of my assertion that you associate with liberals?
I didn’t associate exclusively with liberals. And you’re the one who brought up Georgia, as if this were location-dependent.
Nobody said you did, but what’s you’re point? Are you trying to say that anything you learn from liberal sources is instantly forgotten the next time you talk to a conservative? If so, you should be on my side. Maybe that poor assemblywoman had the misfortune to speak to a conservative right before that meeting.
Note the “e.g.” before “Georgia” in my post. Where you are from doesn’t matter as much as how you were raised, what you’ve read, who you’ve talked to. Until now, I thought that was self-evident, but you guys have fought my ignorance on that one.
No, I’m saying that despite being surrounded by very conservative, very ignorant, and often very old people, “Negro” and “colored” were rarely used, and never with the excuse that it was so confusing because the NAACP exists.
Well, great. But as I meant to convey in my first response to you, your personal experience is not a universal rule.
No, but it gives a pretty firm context for your ridiculous excuse-making.
for your reference, here is Michele Fiore talking to Chris Hayes last year, as she was about to go join the oath keepers, praetorian guard and the Bundy family to celebrate how they drove off the evil, violent feds.
Now, I am sure Cliven Bundy has friends who are not racist ––– no, wait, I am not at all sure of that. If she was pigging out at the barbecue with all those other whaddyawannacallems, yeah, she is very possibly a racist dick.
Geez, what a dumb bitch. Hayes could have used better analogies on her, for instance, “hey, dumb bitch, try evading you taxes and then not showing up to court. Men with guns will most assuredly be visiting you.”
Yes, awkward. Disconcerting. Bemusing.
[sub]Disorienting…[/sub]
It has got to the point that when I see that Bryan has posted to a thread, of any topic, I open it just to see what he’s posted.
One of the stupid right-wing lies is pretending that the media is liberal.
Here’s an article at Dailkos that debunks that misconception.
(And one of Septimus’ stupider ideas is to post that in this thread. Will someone please add some content and post in GD?)
Dammit, Chris shouldn’t let her do that to him. At some point he should have told her to stop fucking interrupting him and let him speak. She had her say and she should let him have his. She does this on purpose. It seems to be a tactic that is taught. Don’t let the interviewer speak. Don’t let him get a word in edgewise. Change the subject. Make ridiculous leaps in logic. Put words in the interviewer’s mouth. Accuse him of opinions he doesn’t hold. Misinterpret (intentionally) what he’s saying.
This isn’t an interview. It’s not even a debate. It’s her shouting talking points without letting him respond.
What? Yes, she does. She has a terrific excuse: she’s a friggin’ idiot.
You’re in the wrong thread. That article belongs in the stupid liberals thread. The media isn’t uniformly liberal, of course, but the writer’s opinion on what the media SHOULD be covering if it was actually liberal is ridiculous.