NashVol11
Gloomed to Fail
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2009
- Messages
- 25,621
- Likes
- 9,676
LOL, I don't have to because what he said wasn't a racist comment. I reallize you donn't have the mental capacity to understand the context of where he said it. GO ahead and get your bottle of jergins and a box of tissue and turn on the view.Still waiting on that posted definition, or do you not have the aptitude to type one word into Google?
Understood - at some level, we are all racist because we have biases or prejudices that we've developed over the years. As Theo Von said, "I'm not racist, but I sometimes have flare-ups in traffic."I think "not that bad" and "not racist" are two different things. I'm sure there are many people who have seen a Black professional and internally questioned their qualifications, or seen a brown person and internally questioned their immigration status or something. But doing that is still racist and IMO, pretending that label doesn't apply isn't doing anyone any favors.
In short I think something can be both racist and also "common" or "not that bad," and that when people see the word "racism" they immediately jump to things like segregation or race science
Same advice I gave to 8188LOL, I don't have to because what he said wasn't a racist comment. I reallize you donn't have the mental capacity to understand the context of where he said it.
Next time there is an opening at your job, go to HR and say "if it's a Black guy, i'll be like, 'Boy, I hope he's qualified.'" and let me know how they take it
This is all fair, but I also think it is harmful to be spreading rhetoric about how you can't trust the qualifications of a Black working professional, whether or not it comes from a place of hateUnderstood - at some level, we are all racist because we have biases or prejudices that we've developed over the years. As Theo Von said, "I'm not racist, but I sometimes have flare-ups in traffic."
I guess the question here with Kirk is, is what he said hateful racism or part of a good-faith debate over affirmative action policies? I think most on the left would say nothing Kirk ever did in setting up debates was in good faith.
Understood - at some level, we are all racist because we have biases or prejudices that we've developed over the years. As Theo Von said, "I'm not racist, but I sometimes have flare-ups in traffic."
I guess the question here with Kirk is, is what he said hateful racism or part of a good-faith debate over affirmative action policies? I think most on the left would say nothing Kirk ever did in setting up debates was in good faith.
This is all fair, but I also think it is harmful to be spreading rhetoric about how you can't trust the qualifications of a Black working professional, whether or not it comes from a place of hate
Rambling about nothing. Like I said, go use Kirk's exact words to HR at your job and let me know how they react to "When I see a Black [your job], I'm like, 'Boy, I hope he's qualified'"If you lower standards on anything your chances of having someone not qualified will be doing that job. Why do you think black people need extra help? DO you think they are incapable?
This is simple....In your opinion, did Charlie Kirk want black people to be judged by the color of their skin, or by their skill/ability as a person?Rambling about nothing. Like I said, go use Kirk's exact words to HR at your job and let me know how they react to "When I see a Black [your job], I'm like, 'Boy, I hope he's qualified'"
Why would HR be the right place to seek the truth about a controversial statement? Being a major role they play is to avoid offense and controversy?Rambling about nothing. Like I said, go use Kirk's exact words to HR at your job and let me know how they react to "When I see a Black [your job], I'm like, 'Boy, I hope he's qualified'"
What makes it "controversial" other than being based on race? The last few pages of this thread are such a weird exercise in mental gymnastics to avoid saying that looking at people differently based on their race is racistWhy would HR be the right place to seek the truth about a controversial statement? Being a major role they play is to avoid offense and controversy?
It's why you can't have a meaningful open and honest discussion with them.
In the forum of ideas and dialogue you must be willing to offend and absorb offense in open debate.
I don't really care what he "wanted" when he explicitly, out loud, publicly, judged people's aptitude by the color of their skin. If he "wanted" the opposite of what he said then he probably should have looked in the mirror to find the problemThis is simple....In your opinion, did Charlie Kirk want black people to be judged by the color of their skin, or by their skill/ability as a person?
I don't really care what he "wanted" when he explicitly, out loud, publicly, judged people's aptitude by the color of their skin. If he "wanted" the opposite of what he said then he probably should have looked in the mirror to find the problem
I was only specifically talking about his comments about black pilots.
There are all kinds of reasons to be skeptical that your pilot is a great pilot. Every pilot thinks he's an above-average pilot, but the harsh reality is somebody's gotta be the bottom 10% and whether they're white or black or whatever, they rarely, rarely, ever crash planes. So yeah, to look at your black pilot and be afraid at the 0.000017% chance that there will be a fatal crash is 100% ignorant and racist.
The more concerning things are generational rather than race based.There are all kinds of reasons to be skeptical that your pilot is a great pilot. Every pilot thinks he's an above-average pilot, but the harsh reality is somebody's gotta be the bottom 10% and whether they're white or black or whatever, they rarely, rarely, ever crash planes. So yeah, to look at your black pilot and be afraid at the 0.000017% chance that there will be a fatal crash is 100% ignorant and racist.