We are all Slave now.

[Adder]

Lesson of the night: racism gets out the vote. Both for and against. And the for wins in a lot of places.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Senate would have been better than the house, if we got to choose. Next court pick Trump might pick someone CONVICTED of something just to see if he can get that through.

The Senate was always a long shot. You can't be upset you didn't prove a 1 in 7 shot incorrect. Those just aren't good odds.

Republicans seem disappointed that they lost the House. I don't understand that either. The math was near insurmountable there.

I think Trump's upset victory is leaving people with unrealistic expectations about surprise victories over well established odds.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

Lesson of the night: racism gets out the vote. Both for and against. And the for wins in a lot of places.

In GA, yes. But where else? FL? FL is always a crap shoot. No one knows why anything happens in that freak kingdom.

Judging from the election of many minorities, the against won the night.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

There will always be racism during our lives, but I do not think there will always be racism. If the environment doesn't do us in as a species in the meantime, eventually we will become so interconnected globally that both culturally and physically differences underpinning the notion of "race" will fade away.

I've had this conversation a few times in college. While there is an end point on the spectrum of race somewhere in the extremely distant future in which all races will blend into one, bringing it up like it is some sort of solution to racism in the immediate future or even the next 1,000 years, is ridiculous. Hell, even when all the races meld into one on some superficial level there will be other ways to determine lineage and race. Trust me. White people are never letting it go.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Is a tenet of that book's point that all people in this country are racist to some extent? That people start out racist because we live in a system that's racist? Is racism a sort of original sin with which we're all born?

Short answer? Obviously not at birth, but so early on that it is effectively a problem from moment one? Yes.

First let's talk about how she draws the distinctions between race prejudice, racial discrimination, and racism that so few of us acknowledge. We use the term "racism" to cover everything. But really, we should be using the proper terms.

• Race prejudice is stereotyping and prejudging people based on their race
• Racial discrimination is an injurious action committed based on race prejudice
• Racism is the systemic, cultural, institutional structure this country was built on and maintains that favors white people to the detriment of people of color (and black people, historically more than others)

In the book she sites a study performed by Monteiro and others*--and Monteiro discovered racial hostility in white children as young as three years old--that focuses on groups of white children aged 6/7 and 9/10 years old. The groups were separately asked to allocate money to other white and black children sometimes with no adult in the room, sometimes with an adult in the room. The younger group discriminated against black children under both conditions. The older group discriminated only when they were alone, proving that they have been taught not only to discriminate, but to hide their racial discrimination.

I don't want to get into a long discussion about all the factors that we are consistently bombarded with that teach every human being on this planet what the racial hierarchy is and where there place is in it. But what you need to understand is that there is no such thing as "color-blind." And for all effective purposes (since this planet will die long before we get to the "Browning of America" utopia you keep bringing up), there never will be. So arguing that such a standard should be the goal is absolutely pointless and only serves to equip white people with a shield to use now to keep from confronting their own racial issues.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I ask that because if that's the case, then that same logic would apply to sexism.

And you see how this would preclude, necessarily, an argument that racism or sexism are acts of free will. It would make an argument that the individual is automatically freighted with decisions of the society into which he was born. But if this is the case, I assume one can reject racism and by doing so remove himself from that group indictment. In this regard, racism would still have an intent element to it. Only, rather than intending to engage in it, one is born into it and makes an intentional decision to reject it.

Your argument is flawed from the start. These traits are not innate. They are taught. The fact that you can't see how they are taught from the moment of birth on would be stunning to someone like me if it weren't the norm. White people do their best to resist studying these issues. They push it all off on us as if it's our issue to solve--like it's even possible for us to solve it. I don't have an issue with racism. I suffer from it. White people have the issue and they do not want to admit it, learn about it, or deal with it.

Read the book.

TM

*https://repositorio.iscte-iul.pt/handle/10071/8425

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

In GA, yes. But where else? FL? FL is always a crap shoot. No one knows why anything happens in that freak kingdom.

MN8, MN1, FL Gov, FL Senate, GA gov, etc. The GOP ran on the scary brown people coming to get you, and voters turned out pretty strong on that message.

Judging from the election of many minorities, the against won the night.

The against wins where there are black and brown people (except Florida).

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Russia/Mueller: Not popular
Kavanaugh: Not popular
Economy: Popular
More women/minorities in office: Popular
Health care reform (protecting pre-existing conditions): Popular

https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/06/polit...lts/index.html

And from that article: "Nancy Pelosi more unpopular than Donald Trump"

That's a big time heel to beat.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Icky Thump

And from that article: "Nancy Pelosi more unpopular than Donald Trump"

That's a big time heel to beat.

She's hated from a lot of angles. I don't get it. I've never found her interesting enough to hate. Pure politician, seems competent and shrewd. Utterly vanilla.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

MN8, MN1, FL Gov, FL Senate, GA gov, etc. The GOP ran on the scary brown people coming to get you, and voters turned out pretty strong on that message.



The against wins where there are black and brown people (except Florida).

You really think significant numbers of people voted based on the caravan bullshit? Granted, I don't know many of the types who'd be swayed by that sort of obvious nonsense, but come on... The number of rubes who'd eat up that story cannot be more than a rounding error in most races. (With the exception of the truly redneck states [I don't need to list them]).

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Adder

Lesson of the night: racism gets out the vote. Both for and against. And the for wins in a lot of places.

I was really pleased by the district where I grew up, NY19. Every effort was made to use racism to get out the vote. Trump won the seat, and besides a lot of money from Mercer and Ryan you had intervention from Trump, Pence, Ryan, and Scalise. This is what happens when the Dem's candidate in a rural white district is black, Hispanic, and Jewish.

It backfired. Just a reminder that there are still decent folk among the haters.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

You really think significant numbers of people voted based on the caravan bullshit? Granted, I don't know many of the types who'd be swayed by that sort of obvious nonsense, but come on... The number of rubes who'd eat up that story cannot be more than a rounding error in most races. (With the exception of the truly redneck states [I don't need to list them]).

I know lawyers in Massachusetts who get excited about the Caravan.

People believe what they want to believe.

[Hank Chinaski]

Lots of love given for michigan proposal 2- The Michigan thing might make it better, but ultimately it only changes who is Gerrymandering. The commission is made up of 3D/3R and I think someone else picked how???. To me they should do it by geometry. Find the population center of a state. Define a square around that center of a size sufficient to cover the correct amount of people THEN build more squares from that. That the current Gerrymandering has been R driven doesn't mean the Ds are above it. Politicians do it to protect themselves. Math wouldn't care.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

She's hated from a lot of angles. I don't get it. I've never found her interesting enough to hate. Pure politician, seems competent and shrewd. Utterly vanilla.

She's a woman.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

You really think significant numbers of people voted based on the caravan bullshit?

Yes. The thing you can't seem to get through your head is that lots of people really are racist.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Do I take this as disappointment or celebration?

It was a question about stress management earlier in the day.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

There will always be racism during our lives, but I do not think there will always be racism.

Hard to square that notion with the Robbers Cave experiment.