Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I asked the question about your comfort, and since you don't know what views others are harboring that they keep to themselves, you are patently unwilling to infer racist views about any particular individual, in the real world, unless they cop to it.
|
Here's a question for you:
Do you think you have a right to place affirmative duties on voters, and the right to label them where they fail to meet such duties?
(Explanation: Different voters have different hierarchies of issues that are important to them. Bob from KS is populist on trade and wants to reverse
Roe. He can't vote D and can only vote R given his desired policies. To say that if he votes R he is a racist puts Bob in an unwinnable predicament. He can vote for the issues most important to him and be a racist, or throw his convictions out the window and avoid being so labeled. By cudgeling him in this regard [saddling him with an awful descriptive if he chooses his hierarchy of policies over yours], you confer on yourself the right to dictate duties to Bob, and judge him, harshly, when he fails to meet them. You are telling Bob that, even though he voted the way he did because he had no acceptable alternative, he is a racist. This is a strange power to confer on yourself. Certainly, more would be needed to so harshly judge Bob, and there are numerous mitigating factors at play. But under this reasoning - the reasoning underpinning a strict impact vs. intent definition of racism/sexism/ethnic bigotry - Bob can be called a racist.)
