Sure, for instance, SCOTUS justice RBG once wrote a minority opinion in Rice v Cayetano that it is OK to ban certain races from voting in certain public elections. Obviously, RBG was a flaming racist and thankfully her opinion was overruled.
So yes I would say people like Ruth Ginsburg who didn't believe in the 15th amendment allowing equal voting rights with regards to race, are racists.
This was an indigenous people treaty case, and when mothballed says "certain public elections" they mean "a single election for a position in Hawaii which was established in negotiations with indigenous Hawaiians in the 1970s. Not, however, a treaty obligation.
I don't know that I agree with RGB here, but I don't find that to be a racist opinion.
I love it. A video depicting both white and black people as non-human primates is more racist than literally using the might of the state to try and block excluded races from voting for a public office.
This is part of the reason why the nominally anti-racist zealots are losing the battle. We want to live in a world where it's actually considered racist to exclude races in a public election, rather than one where it's not racist to exclude races from a public election but somehow more racist to post a multi-racial video depicting whites and others as non-human animals.
Would you say a 25 year old opinion by a single dead Supreme Court justice is more damaging to your supposed platform than voter ID laws, gerrymandering, and the attack on vote by mail?
No, it just is the most direct obvious example I can find of high level assistance in violating the 15th amendment since the year 2000. I have no doubt all of your examples have also been used to effectuate the same thing, they just have a little more plausible deniability to the point it's harder to point out in black and white.
I was not asked to contemplate every example of racism.
The ID bit is particularly amusing to look at. In my state you need an ID to vote but not to conceal carry a gun. In Illinois it's the exact opposite, with a lot of handwaving why you need an ID to prove you are a 'person' but not a 'citizen'. Obviously the states and government are totally inconsistent on the issue of ID to exercise rights.
Mail voting might be more prejudicial to the poor with irregular addresses, since their only option is to vote in person whereas those better off with regular mail access can vote via mail or in person.
Overall I would take a stab that both mail voting and ID requirements yield a net slight prejudice against some minorities. Gerrymandering is just dog-shit all around.
RBG didn't want to take the time and stop and think about her career and have discourse with us here. She wanted to work to the end so that Trump could replace her with someone less racist. It was her final, but most valuable act.
Safe to assume your characterization of RBG as racist is based purely on one instance of balancing colorblind values and the rights of indigenous people?
Clearly if Barrett is "less racist" that isn't a value Trump actually sought.
"indigenous people" do not have the right to block other races from voting for a public office. The fact that they're polyneysians that slaughtered other polynesians isn't a magic trump card to shit on the ethnic filipinos, chinese, and others that were enslaved and subjected under the "Kingdom of Hawaii" which by the estimation of BryantD were part of the subjected people at that time the "treaty" was meant to protect (no matter that the case itself, ruled that these "treaty" protections carveouts were applicable to Indians and that Hawaiians are not that, thus the racist tried to angle on the legally vague 'indigenous' instead.)
RBG was not balancing the rights of 'indigenous' but rather "balancing" and supporting the racism of ethnic Hawaiians against all the other exploited minorities on the island that were subject in the Kingdom that the US overthrew. Only in the simplified view that it was just Hawaiians and the colonizers does the 'balancing' nonsense even look remotely to be the case, and that is in the most charitable possible interpretation.
The fact you may have contradicted yourself later by arguing it is a "case" but not a "matter" doesn't disprove that. It's just a cheap way to cover both bases by using vague enough overlapping terminology that you can claim it's a "case" when you want or a "matter" when you want so you can retroactively create a catch-22 where you win if it's heads and I lose if it's tails.
How do you manage to have conversations with people in your day to day life with so much assuming negative intent? Some people treat these little linguistic excursions as ways to achieve common understanding, rather than as a sporting event with winners and losers, you know.
What you can do if you're uncertain -- and my language was sloppy, good point! -- is say "hey, I'm not sure what you meant here; can you clarify?" And I say "yeah, I was unclear. I meant that the question was related to treaty status but after digging in, it's not required by treaty for that elected position to only be occupied by someone of a specific heritage. Thank you for pointing that out."
(I might not have said thank you, to be honest, and of course you're welcome to assume I'm just covering up because you called me on the phrasing.)
>>>what a great example of the tired old trick of attempting to use social justice language as a rhetorical lever.
>... assuming negative intent?
You're not fooling anyone. You kicked off saying I was lying obviously and used tired tricks and rhetorical levers, then surprise pikachud when I received negative intent and following that called out your contradiction.
Don't pretend to be the victim here and that bit about me being a liar was just helpful clarification with positive intent. You know what you're doing, then blaming me for what you're doing.
Well it's good you acknowledge she wasn't coming from a place of hatred but rather choosing between two terrible options. The president's video, on the other hand, is unambiguously hateful and ethnocentric.
Even if masked, unidentified armed men are trying to shoot you? That sounds an awful lot like self defence. Or it might have been nothing but an attempt to flee.
But perhaps fleeing is also punishable by Death by our new Stasi/Judge Dread balaclava wearing hybrids.
With their availability issues it will be hard to forecast costs of “continuous” operation. I guess everyone using ARC can get rekt, why would you put in the work to move to their next bs when you can just leave?
They are a gov chosen winner, so it is a safe bet they will exist for as long as they are a useful political puppet. Why or how would they become more competitive?
reply