ADVERTISEMENT

Rex Chapman implies Clarence Thomas is a Black white supremacist

Well, when the best tool in your toolbox is labeling, and not coherent argument, this the corner you paint paint yourself into.




(Holy mixed metaphor, wondering if I could've squeezed one more trade in there somewhere?)
 
  • Like
Reactions: HawkeyeShawn
Racism and white supremacy and corporate fascism are behaviors and those behaviors are institutionalized into policies and practices. It is possible for someone who is not white to perpetuate white supremacy and corporate fascism, and make racism more prevalent.
And if those Racists of Color claim they're not racist, white supremacist, corporate fascists, it's simply proof that they ARE racist, white supremacist, corporate fascists.

It's not enough to be non-racist, non-white supremacist, non-corporate fascists, we must be ANTI-racist, ANTI-white supremacist, ANTI-corporate fascists.
 
Yep, of course not. I'm just pointing out the folly of the means by the quick-to-label folks.
Once again, the label is not a new one. Its not a matter of cognitive dissonance and some incoherent arguement. Its pretty straight forward. Hes calling him an Uncle Tom. Either you agree with that or you dont, but your framing of it as some sort of illogical rambling is just not accurate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jim Grizzly
Once again, the label is not a new one. Its not a matter of cognitive dissonance and some incoherent arguement. Its pretty straight forward. Hes calling him an Uncle Tom. Either you agree with that or you dont, but your framing of it as some sort of illogical rambling is just not accurate.
Once again I will acknowledge the Uncle Tom label is not a new one. You're equating this with "Back, White Supremacist." I think the latter is clearly a step too far.

You started out seeming to say you don't agree with it, BWS, either. Confused where you stand exactly.
 
Once again I will acknowledge the Uncle Tom label is not a new one. You're equating this with "Back, White Supremacist." I think the latter is clearly a step too far.

You started out seeming to say you don't agree with it, BWS, either. Confused where you stand exactly.
I dont believe Clarence Thomas is consciously making a decision to hurt African Americans. However, I also dont believe he is intouch with the poor in this country and his decisions will likely have a disproportionate effect on people of color. Does that make him racist? Probably not. Just out of touch.

And I dont agree with the position, but I dont think its out of line to have the discussion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ihawk in FWB
I dont believe Clarence Thomas is consciously making a decision to hurt African Americans. However, I also dont believe he is intouch with the poor in this country and his decisions will likely have a disproportionate effect on people of color. Does that make him racist? Probably not. Just out of touch.

And I dont agree with the position, but I dont think its out of line to have the discussion.
Good post. But take the biggy, the Roe reversal. You don't believe CT knows that a disproportionate number of Black women have abortions? Or travel to another state would be a hardship on poorer demographics?
 
I dont believe Clarence Thomas is consciously making a decision to hurt African Americans. However, I also dont believe he is intouch with the poor in this country and his decisions will likely have a disproportionate effect on people of color. Does that make him racist? Probably not. Just out of touch.

And I dont agree with the position, but I dont think its out of line to have the discussion.
Same can be said for the current administration in the White House. Out of touch with the everyday people and people that need help the most. It’s maddening.
 
I dont believe Clarence Thomas is consciously making a decision to hurt African Americans. However, I also dont believe he is intouch with the poor in this country and his decisions will likely have a disproportionate effect on people of color. Does that make him racist? Probably not. Just out of touch.

And I dont agree with the position, but I dont think its out of line to have the discussion.

Isn't that literally EVERY person in power, especially elected officials? None of them are really "in touch", outside of what their campaign manager tells them to say.
 
Good post. But take the biggy, the Roe reversal. You don't believe CT knows that a disproportionate number of Black women have abortions? Or travel to another state would be a hardship on poorer demographics?
He is probably aware of that, but he is a conservative and someone who really buys into individualism. His beliefs are probably strongly influenced by his own survivorship bias.
 
Isn't that literally EVERY person in power, especially elected officials? None of them are really "in touch", outside of what their campaign manager tells them to say.
Absolutely, but each politician, party, campaign is likely insulated from the masses in different ways. I think the influence of corporate money exacerbates this problem.
 
He's the classic example of "I made it so obviously everyone can". When in fact that's not the case.
 
He is probably aware of that, but he is a conservative and someone who really buys into individualism. His beliefs are probably strongly influenced by his own survivorship bias.
Survivorship bias? I like that.

I suppose though, one man's survivor example is another man's success example.
 
Absolutely, but each politician, party, campaign is likely insulated from the masses in different ways. I think the influence of corporate money exacerbates this problem.

You can 100% remove the "I think" part. There isn't a politician, elected official or political party that has the best interest of the people as their #1 priority. It's all about the $. That's why it's so comical that people still get worked up over democrat vs republic. Too stupid to realize it's exactly what the political parties want them to focus on, not the ineffectiveness of the elected officials.
 
  • Like
Reactions: luvmyhawks
Survivorship bias? I like that.

I suppose though, one man's survivor example is another man's success example.
Absolutely. Clarence Thomas is a success. I dont disgree with that at all. He beat the odds. The problem is just because he beat the odds, it doesnt change the odds.
 
You can 100% remove the "I think" part. There isn't a politician, elected official or political party that has the best interest of the people as their #1 priority. It's all about the $. That's why it's so comical that people still get worked up over democrat vs republic. Too stupid to realize it's exactly what the political parties want them to focus on, not the ineffectiveness of the elected officials.
The 2 party system is great at one thing: perpetuating the 2 party system. Having said that, it doesnt mean the Christian Right is not a danger to our society. When you tie peoples salvation to their political beliefs, democracy becomes an after thought. For that reason, I dont believe that both parties are equally as bad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: THE_DEVIL
Absolutely. Clarence Thomas is a success. I dont disgree with that at all. He beat the odds. The problem is just because he beat the odds, it doesnt change the odds.
But the odds of what?

Being a SCOTUS justice? Making it through law school? Not fathering children outside of marriage? Not allowing his child to be aborted?

Not the highest of bars, the latter.
 
The 2 party system is great at one thing: perpetuating the 2 party system. Having said that, it doesnt mean the Christian Right is not a danger to our society. When you tie peoples salvation to their political beliefs, democracy becomes an after thought. For that reason, I dont believe that both parties are equally as bad.

Both parties are 100% equally as bad, you just don't see it because your views align a little closer with one than the other. Both parties thrive on hate and divisiveness and if people don't believe that, then they are exactly the person they're targeting.

At the end of the day, neither party truly serves you, align with your beliefs or give a shit about what you think, because you aren't lining their pocketbooks.
 
But the odds of what?

Being a SCOTUS justice? Making it through law school? Not fathering children outside of marriage? Not allowing his child to be aborted?

Not the highest of bars, the latter.
The odds that your will be able to achieve upward social mobility.

Those things might not seem like the highest of bars, but when a kid is born in poverty, poor family dynamics with poor education, then poverty tends to perpetuate itself.
 
Both parties are 100% equally as bad, you just don't see it because your views align a little closer with one than the other. Both parties thrive on hate and divisiveness and if people don't believe that, then they are exactly the person they're targeting.

At the end of the day, neither party truly serves you, align with your beliefs or give a shit about what you think, because you aren't lining their pocketbooks.
No. They arent the same. At Kiwanis we had a guy who was running for a state congressman seat come talk. He very comfortably said he believes in a biblical interpretation of the law. Thats a whole new level of crazieness that I am not seeing from the left.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BelemNole
No. They arent the same. At Kiwanis we had a guy who was running for a state congressman seat come talk. He very comfortably said he believes in a biblical interpretation of the law. Thats a whole new level of crazieness that I am not seeing from the left.

Again, comes down to your interpretation and views. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is just as crazy on the other end of the spectrum, but that won't be admitted by democrats, because of the political party letter next to her name.

I'm sorry that you don't see both parties have dangerous and reckless people. It's the problem the R and D parties have created to assure they stay in power and are able to get away with the shit they do.
 
The odds that your will be able to achieve upward social mobility.

Those things might not seem like the highest of bars, but when a kid is born in poverty, poor family dynamics with poor education, then poverty tends to perpetuate itself.
It doesn't cost any money to make sure your kid has done his homework, or he's not running with gangs, or selling drugs ...

Poor POC make it all the time in this country. Don't even know the language. Still flocking here for the chance.
 
Racism and white supremacy and corporate fascism are behaviors and those behaviors are institutionalized into policies and practices. It is possible for someone who is not white to perpetuate white supremacy and corporate fascism, and make racism more prevalent.

You know, there's a reason people think of man-slaughter completely differently than murder. In both scenarios somebody was killed and damage was done -- however, intent and context are going to be radically different.

So... we use language that acknowledges the difference. There's an important delineation to be made.

Collapsing racism or white supremacy down into something roughly along the lines of "all that might be bad for black people" loses important distinction, intent and context are obliterated.

Of course this was probably done on the basis of trying to capitalize on the power the phrases had amongst the public at large -- because of certain intent and context they possessed. No wonder we see backlash to these uses.

You're trying to have your cake and eat it too.

Thomas clearly isn't a white supremacist or racist in an ideological sense.
 
Again, comes down to your interpretation and views. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is just as crazy on the other end of the spectrum, but that won't be admitted by democrats, because of the political party letter next to her name.

I'm sorry that you don't see both parties have dangerous and reckless people. It's the problem the R and D parties have created to assure they stay in power and are able to get away with the shit they do.
No, shes not just as crazy. Its drastically different. I feel sorry for you that you insist on being an "enlightened centrist". You need to pretend that both are equally bad in order to pretend that the rights behaivor is normal. Youre clearly blinded to the situation.
 
Racism and white supremacy and corporate fascism are behaviors and those behaviors are institutionalized into policies and practices. It is possible for someone who is not white to perpetuate white supremacy and corporate fascism, and make racism more prevalent.

So what's your working definition of non ideological -- you're making a delineation here -- white supremacy and racism here?
 
It doesn't cost any money to make sure your kid has done his homework, or he's not running with gangs, or selling drugs ...

Poor POC make it all the time in this country. Don't even know the language. Still flocking here for the chance.
What if mom is a single mom forced to work 3 jobs? Still not hard to make sure your kid is staying out of trouble? Like I said, poverty perpetuates itself.
 
What if mom is a single mom forced to work 3 jobs? Still not hard to make sure your kid is staying out of trouble? Like I said, poverty perpetuates itself.
Sure that's hard. Do-able. But very hard.

Otoh, the stay-at-home Baby Mama with three different Baby Daddies and seven kids ... could she have made some better choices?

Maybe Reverend Al, et al, could be trumpeting that message instead of the nonstop victimhood message.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 24 so far
ADVERTISEMENT