Biden Hire's Racist Who Teaches Blacks are "Superior" to Whites

[epronovost]

And now your reaction, ie, that it's racism,
is further evidence that it's racist? Oh, dear.

Do you just read one line in posts?

Seriously I explain that when a bunch of racist people get together to attack on nativist ground a black person and are the only ones participating in the nativist attack. This is evidence that the attack is motivated by racism because racist people aren't the only nativists (at least not according to you, I personnaly consider nativism as a form racism based on ethnic and cultural ground more than a "old fashion" color of your skin ground).

If you want an example of sayng something is race bating is evidence it's race bating, I refer to you to your opinion on the ZImmerman case where you basically get fact wrong twice and then keep on trucking in your assertions.

 

[Revoltingest]

Do you just read one line in posts?

When they start out a certain way,
it doesn't inspire continuing.
(Nothing new thereafter anyway.)

Also, when I've found a compelling issue to
address shouldn't be diluted with lesser ones.

 

[epronovost]

The difference between our views...
You argue that prejudice (prior judgement of a
person) determine their motives for all things said.

No I don't. I argue that context and prior behavior informs on the intent behind other, very similar behavior.

Birther accusations are nativist. All of them rely on the fact that a person is considered "foreign" and thus not good enough to occupy a certain position. Being born outside the US makes and/or from parents that weren't US citizens you less apt and unnaceptable in certain position even if that person is now a full US citizen. All those accusations and its underlying principle are, by their very nature and ideological foundation, bigoted.

A group of well known racist people start a birther conspiracy theory on a black person, starting a long series of slanderous accusation sometimes accompanied by negative racial stereotypes. Nobody else beside that group and those people already well known for their racism get involved in such shenanigans. That, to me shows, that the nativist accusation is only a slander designed to insult a person; a vehicle for that group to hate and attempt to publicly humiliate and frustrate a black person. The motivation behind a group of racist person to launch slanderous attack on a public black figure seem to be evidently racism. It's what all those people have in common and the nature of the slander itself appeals to racist people values (xenophobia, tribalism, etc.) making the entire entreprise a display of racism.

I prefer to examine what's said.

In the case of the birther conspiracy and numerous other subjects, I certainly believe you that you take your time and do some research.

In the case of Zimmerman and your "Left wing race baiting", absolutely not. You use prejudices and don't do research all that much. The fact you "stop reading when things starts a certain way" makes me think you overevaluate your capacity to "examine what's said before making a judgement" in certain circumstances. I'd watch that bad habit if I were you as should I watch my moralistic and judgemental tendencies.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Um who are they and what isn't what?

Kristen Clarke, and what is in the letter is not what they believe.

 

[Audie]

Kristen Clarke, and what is in the letter is not what they believe.

Ok sorryah, still don't get it.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Ok sorryah, still don't get it.

In response to my post pointing out the context and age of the letter, you argued that when the claims were made is irrelevent "if it is still what they believe".

And I pointed out that it isn't what they believe.

 

[Revoltingest]

No I don't. I argue that context and prior behavior informs on the intent behind other, very similar behavior.

Birther accusations are nativist. All of them rely on the fact that a person is considered "foreign" and thus not good enough to occupy a certain position. Being born outside the US makes and/or from parents that weren't US citizens you less apt and unnaceptable in certain position even if that person is now a full US citizen. All those accusations and its underlying principle are, by their very nature and ideological foundation, bigoted.

A group of well known racist people start a birther conspiracy theory on a black person, starting a long series of slanderous accusation sometimes accompanied by negative racial stereotypes. Nobody else beside groups and people already well known for their racism in such shenanigans. That to me shows that the nativist accusation is only a slander designed to insult a person, a vehicle for that group to hate and attempt to publicly humiliate and frustrate a black person. The motivation behind a group of racist person to launch slanderous attack on a public black figure seem to be evidently racism. It's what all those people have in common and the nature of the slander itself appeals to racist people values (xenophobia, tribalism, etc.) making the entire entreprise a display of racism




In the case of the birther conspiracy and numerous other subjects, I certainly believe you that you take your time and do some research.

In the case of Zimmerman and your "Left wing race baiting", absolutely not. You use prejudices and don't do research all that much. The fact you "stop reading when things starts a certain way" makes me think you overevaluate your capacity to "examine what's said before making a judgement" in certain circumstances. I'd watch that bad habit if I were you as should I watch my moralistic and judgemental tendencies.

We must agree to disagree at this point.

 

[Audie]

In response to my post pointing out the context and age of the letter, you argued that when the claims were made is irrelevent "if it is still what they believe".

And I pointed out that it isn't what they believe.

Oh ok...
I didn't see how you did that.
How do you know she doesn't?
Is it decisively renounced?

I'd be more than a little pleased if such is the case.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Oh ok...
I didn't see how you did that.
How do you know she doesn't?
Is it decisively renounced?

I'd be more than a little pleased if such is the case.

According to Clarke, the letter was in response to views touted by the psychologist Richard Herrnstein and political scientist Charles Murray, in a book titled “The Bell Curve,” that questioned the intellectual ability and moral right of Black students to be at an institution of higher learning. The book, she said, “was generating wide acclaim for its racist views” and her intention in opening the letter “with an absurd claim that Black people are superior based on the melanin in their skin” was to “hold up a mirror to reflect how reprehensible the premise of black inferiority was set.”​

“It was meant to express an equally absurd point of view — fighting one ridiculous absurd racist theory with another ridiculous absurd theory,” Clarke explained, “and the goal was all about [exposing] the ugly racist underpinnings of the Bell Curve theory. It was deeply personal and profoundly important to Black students and other students of color who felt that their right to be on campus was challenged. And frankly, the fight that we were leading as students is a fight that I am still very much a part of today.”​

“The fact is that I am somebody who has dedicated their entire career to fighting antisemitism, racism, white supremacy and bias whenever it shows up,” she added.
SOURCE: Kristen Clarke regrets hosting antisemitic professor​

 

[epronovost]

Oh ok...
I didn't see how you did that.
How do you know she doesn't?
Is it decisively renounced?

I'd be more than a little pleased if such is the case.

I think his argument is that her behavior and the fact she is a laureated civil right activists that worked for well known organisation that reject racialism is "proof enough" that she doesn't support such ideals.

PS: the fact it was in a letter criticising the book "the Bell Curve" which is piece of racialist pseudo-science that was getting some traction in the mid 90's might also indicate that there miht have been some exageration and satire in the anti-white racialist passage to drive her point that "the Bell Curve" was garbage (though I don't believe it's the case. I think she was serious).
PPS: seems I should have waited for more info since that was her intent.

 

[Audie]

According to Clarke, the letter was in response to views touted by the psychologist Richard Herrnstein and political scientist Charles Murray, in a book titled “The Bell Curve,” that questioned the intellectual ability and moral right of Black students to be at an institution of higher learning. The book, she said, “was generating wide acclaim for its racist views” and her intention in opening the letter “with an absurd claim that Black people are superior based on the melanin in their skin” was to “hold up a mirror to reflect how reprehensible the premise of black inferiority was set.”​

“It was meant to express an equally absurd point of view — fighting one ridiculous absurd racist theory with another ridiculous absurd theory,” Clarke explained, “and the goal was all about [exposing] the ugly racist underpinnings of the Bell Curve theory. It was deeply personal and profoundly important to Black students and other students of color who felt that their right to be on campus was challenged. And frankly, the fight that we were leading as students is a fight that I am still very much a part of today.”​

“The fact is that I am somebody who has dedicated their entire career to fighting antisemitism, racism, white supremacy and bias whenever it shows up,” she added.
SOURCE: Kristen Clarke regrets hosting antisemitic professor​

Cool, thanks.

 

[Revoltingest]

Cool, thanks.

Argumentum ad absurdum is a risky thing when seen out
of context, eh. I've found that one must use with great care.

 

[epronovost]

Argumentum ad absurdum is a risky thing when seen out
of context, eh. I've found that one must use with great care.

It's the problem of the "poe law". At least it's been clarified and some people probably need to present some excuse to her to have jumped at the conclusion a tad bit too early since context did open the door for satire to be a possibility.

 

[Revoltingest]

It's the problem of the "poe law". At least it's been clarified and some people probably need to present some excuse to her to have jumped at the conclusion a tad bit too early since context did open the door for satire to be a possibility.

To even allow for sincerity of arguments from the other
side is risky. It got me labelled a "creationist" here.
(Notice to all: I'm a fire breathing fan of evolution.)

 

[epronovost]

(Notice to all: I'm a fire breathing fan of evolution.)

Social darwinist?

/joke /satire

 

[Revoltingest]

Social darwinist?

/joke /satire

Pbbbtttttt!

 

[Audie]

To even allow for sincerity of arguments from the other
side is risky. It got me labelled a "creationist" here.

Seem more the drug store truck driving man.

 

[Revoltingest]

Seem more the drug store truck driving man.

Hardware store...please.

 

[Augustus]

Yes and yes. Not only do white people get the benefit of the doubt, they've been enjoying the benefit of the doubt on matters like this for decades.

Can't say I agree that the 2020 post BLM dems would appoint a white person who had expressed scientific racialist views to a key civil rights position.

Or, you could not play into the hands of disingenuous people and appoint the person you believe is right for the job.

In the real world, the right person for the job takes into account all factors caused by the appointment.

Given that politics on both sides is always disingenuous and you fully understand that the appointment smacks of hypocrisy, she would have to be an irreplaceable genius before the positives outweigh the negatives, especially if you have a stated goal of healing divisions in a country.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Can't say I agree that the 2020 post BLM dems would appoint a white person who had expressed scientific racialist views to a key civil rights position.

Did you forget that the party is currently lead by Joe Biden, who played a key role in the establishing of the 1994 crime bill which disproportionately negatively affected black communities?

In any case, it's irrelevant, since she doesn't hold racialist views.

In the real world, the right person for the job takes into account all factors caused by the appointment.

Exactly. So why should a letter written 27 years ago precede literally everything else this person has ever said or done? You are the one arguing that this one thing alone is sufficient reason to deny this person this particular position.

Given that politics on both sides is always disingenuous and you fully understand that the appointment smacks of hypocrisy, she would have to be an irreplaceable genius before the positives outweigh the negatives, especially if you have a stated goal of healing divisions in a country.

This is just false equivocation and playing into the hands of bad actors. She does not hold these views, and to ignore 26 years of this persons work as a civil rights lawyer and assume she holds them anyway only emboldens the bad actors who want to draw false equivalence between the left and right. This narrative of "healing division" is pure nonsense fabricated by the losing side in order to earn concessions. I have no interest in the muck-slinging nonsense they want to get into, or to play into their hands and justifying their bad faith objections. Progress isn't made by constantly having to concede to people who want to stifle it through rhetoric and obstruction.