Doesn’t Matter Who Wins the K Race; We’re All the Same

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

"because of how he handled it?" Like earlier today a sock said that, it was, ummm, oh, it was you.The easy thing is to say it's over after this shit show- the man was about to break dance at a press conference until his wife grabbed his arm. And there is at least one FB piece (I assume from a black person) sort of saying, "if we wait for perfect white people we'll be lonely." Meanwhile, my point is that has apparently used black face so many times he feels competent to give advice?

I just want to put a pin in this because it's so fucking bizarre. I know I should not laugh at this, but we are in 2019. 2019. And people are discussing using blackface within the past thirty years.

Jon Stewart inflection: Whaaaaaa?

To put on blackface, one must first think there's some reason to do this -- that someone will find this interesting or funny. Then he must apply it. He must apply some sort of black face paint (or shoe polish, apparently) to his face. I've worn make up (I went as a nun one Halloween, as a genie another, some strange chicks I used to hook up with dressed me up in drag once, and a bunch of sorority girls made me up once in a hazing ritual). It's really hard to get lipstick, eye shadow and mascara off. What sane human wants to get black paint or shoe polish off the entirety of his face?

Why? Putting aside all cosmic wrongness of such a racist costume, why the fuck would anyone want to undertake that effort? It's insane. And this guy was a doctor, and the Atty. General, who also wore blackface, is a practicing lawyer. I'm not suggesting docs and lawyers all have great judgment, but for fuck's sake -- how in the hell does one justify the cost-benefit of this perverted costume? "Oh, you don't know how great it feels to imitate Al Jolson!"

I've long thought we were moving toward an Idiocracy. This is wrong. We've been one for a long time.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

she could have blown donkeys in the street, none of that justifies his acts- he was the champion of women's causes and he treated one like meat.

I'm not talking about the fact that she was a Playboy model. You brought that up. I'm suggesting she might be embellishing because she's a right winger taking out a Democrat.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I'm not talking about the fact that she was a Playboy model. You brought that up. I'm suggesting she might be embellishing because she's a right winger taking out a Democrat.

She was passed out, she couldn't embellish. I'm talking about why he could justify what he did then. Doesn't matter who she is now, she ain't embellishing that he felt it funny to fake grab a tit.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

You say the dem who routinely wore black face is out BECAUSE of his press conferences. You'd give an R a pass for being a regular black face user? Please.

Setting aside that that isn't what I said, I'd apply "I think a long ago black face might be forgivable from someone with a demonstrated record of working for racial equality after they accept responsibility, admit wrongdoing, express understanding of the harm and seriously apologize" to a qualifying R as well. Although that record thing is not terribly likely for this hypothetical R.

Edit- plus, the thought that at least is giving people pause is "because he does so much good." the definition of what is "good" always flows from political stance- "that R senator may have worn black face but he's very effective at stripping away EPA regulations so maybe we give him a pass?"

Yeah, if someone is going to get credit for doing good, it's gotta be for doing good for the group that's harmed by the conduct.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Exhibiting mob frenzied behavior is not hewing to principles. It's actually the opposite. The principled person stands up to the Robespierres and says, "Hey, this feels cathartic, but is actually quite counterproductive."

Resigning over inappropriate conduct is hewing to principles. As you've already noted, there's little chance of getting the other side to recognize a principle if you won't do it yourself.

Are you suggesting Gillibrand called for Franken to resign (and hers was one of the most significant voices in the chorus) out of principle?

I don't recall how many senators it was in total, but it was at least in the teens. And there were lots of non senators.

What's political is trying to hang it on her.

Nah. She was making a political calculation. She's an operator of the first order.

She must be pretty stupid then, because you're telling me it killed her chances.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

Setting aside that that isn't what I said, I'd apply "I think a long ago black face might be forgivable from someone with a demonstrated record of working for racial equality after they accept responsibility, admit wrongdoing, express understanding of the harm and seriously apologize" to a qualifying R as well. Although that record thing is not terribly likely for this hypothetical R.



Yeah, if someone is going to get credit for doing good, it's gotta be for doing good for the group that's harmed by the conduct.

So you give someone a pass if their record since the incident is to do what dems think positive? Got it. so you would give a hypothetical R a pass if he became a dem. You sir, are evolved.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

So you give someone a pass if their record since the incident is to do what dems think positive? Got it. so you would give a hypothetical R a pass if he became a dem. You sir, are evolved.

It's truly messed up that we've only got one party that has any interest in racial equity and that we think it's gotta be that way.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

It's truly messed up that we've only got one party that has any interest in addressing racial equity in the way that one party thinks we should address racial equality and that we think it's gotta be that way.

Fixed what you wrote to convey what you meant. Put aside the current trash, there are republicans that feel their policies are more likely to bring us closer to equality then the dem’s policies. Maybe they are wrong, but you are arguing circular.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Fixed what you wrote to convey what you meant. Put aside the current trash, there are republicans that feel their policies are more likely to bring us closer to equality then the dem’s policies. Maybe they are wrong, but you are arguing circular.

Name one policy that the GOP has proposed in the last decade that was offered as a means of addressing racial equity.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

Name one policy that the GOP has proposed in the last decade that was offered as a means of addressing racial equity.

They (alotting for tons of actually racist haters) believe that cutting back gov and social safety net is actually how to best address racial and economic inequality. You dismiss that this is any way, let alone the best way, but for those that believe it, they think they are helping. So now a hypo senator who wore black face but has spent the last 20 years doing what he thinks best, cutting the size of gov and social peograms- you would not cut him slack since he is not doing what you think helps. That is entirely a politically based decision. The only way an R can do good by you is to embrace D policies. Own it, it applies to everyone.no shame.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

They (alotting for tons of actually racist haters) believe that cutting back gov and social safety net is actually how to best address racial and economic inequality. You dismiss that this is any way, let alone the best way, but for those that believe it, they think they are helping. So now a hypo senator who wore black face but has spent the last 20 years doing what he thinks best, cutting the size of gov and social peograms- you would not cut him slack since he is not doing what you think helps. That is entirely a politically based decision. The only way an R can do good by you is to embrace D policies. Own it, it applies to everyone.no shame.

Yeah, don’t believe that he believes that addresses racial equity or they he’s in the least motivTed by it.

I can imagine a conservative whose done charity work in the community that is credit though.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

I understand coming out strong as negotiating leverage, but coming out 50 klicks north of Utopia isn’t the smartest start.

AOC has been shrewd so far. This appears to be youthful hubris.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

Yeah, don’t believe that he believes that addresses racial equity or they he’s in the least motivTed by it.

I can imagine a conservative whose done charity work in the community that is credit though.

No mas

[Tyrone Slothrop]

What I don't understand about this mini-showdown between Whitaker and Nadler over the former's testimony and the latter's subpoena is, if Whitaker won't show up, Nadler is going to subpoena him, right? So where is Whitaker's leverage? "I won't do the thing you can force me to do unless you agree not to force me." maybe that works selling toilets, but it doesn't sound like a well-planned legal strategy. So maybe I am missing something.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I understand coming out strong as negotiating leverage, but coming out 50 klicks north of Utopia isn’t the smartest start.

AOC has been shrewd so far. This appears to be youthful hubris.

She's not playing for negotiating leverage in the next two years.

Also, unrelatedly, apropos of Sen. Klobuchar: Believe it. Terrible boss.