I never agree with Ditka on anything, but I don’t think that’s what he meant. I think he meant that Putin probably would have felt the temptation to test Hillary’s will. Putin had fun toying with Obama in his 2nd term, in part because he knew it was Obama’s second term, and also because I think he sensed (correctly) that Obama really wasn’t a warrior. I don’t mean that as a knock on Obama’s manhood; I think it’s just the truth that Obama never felt the need to prove his masculinity and viewed himself as the diplomatic president. Obama almost looked awkward whenever he tried to savor his bad ass moments, like killing Bin Laden or telling Putin to ‘cut it out’. Putin probably felt that if he could push Obama around, he’d be able to do the same to Hillary.
Nah. It just means or meant that the term racist has lost and is losing its edge. Or its purpose.
When you disagree with an Obama policy and you’re called racist because of it, you really don’t give much of a shit for the term (or the people hurling it at you) anymore.
True that! One would think Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton never heard a discouraging word from the country’s conservantives.
Along these same themes: Liberals’ clueless crusade against far-right extremists
I’ve disagreed with Obama and I voted for him twice. When did someone ever say that disagreeing with Obama made someone racist? I guess that’s just another one of those Project Veritas memes, right?
Context matters. Disagreeing with Obama never made anyone on the right or left a racist; how that disagreement is expressed, the context in which it is expressed, on the other hand, might understandably lead someone to conclude that someone is being racist. Calling Obama the “food stamp” president when it has been long understood that there’s an association in the minds of white people between blacks and welfare, might make you a racist. Questioning his birth certificate when there’s clear proof to substantiate his birth in Hawaii might make you a racist. Those are the obvious examples, though there are many others that are more subtle. I don’t care to enumerate them all and I don’t care whether you agree with me. It’s already clear that conservatives live in a world of alternative facts.
I suspected (correctly) that the author was probably white. When you’re white you have the luxury of debating the importance of raising awareness of racism and whether even to mention it at all. What would he know about having experienced racism? What would he know about police profiling and abuse? What would he know about housing discrimination? What would he know about workplace discrimination? What would his parents have known about white bathrooms and black bathrooms? What experiences would they have passed along to him?
I’m not trying to disparage the writer - he probably meant well when putting that piece together but he doesn’t understand the struggle because he’s never really been in an environment that would enable him to understand it. Nobody who has would make these kinds of comments and give this sort of advice. The truth is the polar opposite of what he appears to suggest: the lessons of the civil rights movement make it clear that the way to confront racism is not to ignore them, but to shame them.
Contrary to what has been said here and elsewhere, calling people out on their overt (and sometimes covert) racism over and over again is not what led to the rise of the alt-right and white nationalist movements. Economic neglect and failed leadership at a time when whites simultaneously felt increasingly vulnerable and saw other demographic groups - blacks, latinos, women, gays - make perceived gains is what has led to white resentment. With the internet, that resentment has enabled those who carry around these grudges the opportunity to express them and to find company.
I find it disappointing that your first thought was apparently to go check the race of the author and proceed to discount whatever he said because of it. shrug
If Hillary runs, at least she won’t be subject to Matt Lauer’s stupidity.
I was thinking the same thing. I know this is sidebar, but eff Matt Lauer. He was a bad reporter and apparently a bad guy to boot.
I’m not discounting everything he said, but some of what he said made it obvious what his perspective was. The idea that we can have a purely antiseptic and neutral discussion on race is absurd, and to assume that a person from an ethnic majority is going to have some sort of understanding about how to treat racism is not plausible. Yes, he’s entitled to his opinions and to comment however he pleases. I’m not trying to demean the author, but I’ve been reading from mostly white authors and pundits over the past year that progressives need to talk about race less and just focus on economics. I understand what they’re saying, and I find myself in agreement to a point. I don’t endorse baseless accusations of racist intent, and I believe in giving those accused of a racist comment or behavior a chance to explain themselves and learn from their experiences, provided that they’re willing to raise their own awareness and listen to other people themselves. But calling out racism when it’s obvious has nothing to do with political strategy; it’s just the right thing to do.
I know you’re not. It just struck me that the idea of checking an author’s race / class / gender / sexual orientation before determining if their words get full credit or only partial credit based on their group memberships sounds … exhausting.
“oh look, someone wrote ‘men think …’, ahh, but it’s a woman, so she can’t possibly understand everything that goes on in a man’s thought process, or, ‘look, it’s another opinion piece on what white people should do, but written by a person of color,’ and they can’t really know what it’s like being white.” (or the reverse of these scenarios)
While I agree that HC likely shouldn’t run again, what I disagree with is the contention that she was a bad candidate, seriously flawed. She made some mistakes, the worst of which was some bad campiagning choices in the election.
Warren would be a horrible choice.
Nor has any President said they would not.
The United States’s policy on nuclear weapons has always allowed for first use. Never has the USA once expressed any indication whatsoever that first use is not an option.
Yes, I was wrong on this part.
Don’t feel obligated to respond, but I wanted to give you kudos for acknowledging this.
To quote Dave Anthony: “The Democratic leadership is a rudderless cash sucking machine with no morals or understanding of power or language.”
So I wouldn’t be surprised if it happens.
TBH I’m not even sure who the least horrible Dem will be by then - Nina Turner, I guess?
The mind without doubt
Works perfectly fine
There are no shadows
Where the sun don’t shine
- Buddha Shave
Not that hard, really. Right above the byline was a photo of Damon Linker’s white face.
Standpoint matters. To invent fake names for an example, something from “Shmuley Levin” is going to read a little differently from something from “T. J. LaDuke,” and something from “Sharif Khan Abdurrazzaq” a little differently yet again, even if you know they’re all Americans.