Limbaugh v StewartFollow

What word, Norwa-

Wait, fuck.

Barack Obama never mentioned skin color when he said that his son would look like Treyvon either Joph. Yet, even Smash figured out that he was talking about how they look (ie: skin color).

She said "In these girls Barack and I see our own daughters". I'm asking in what way does she see her own daughters? Were her daughters raised in the same country? In the same culture? Do they speak the same language? Do they live in the same socio-economic class? Do they endure the same hardships? Do they deal with the same problems? Do they face the same threats?

The only thing they have in common is that they are female, and they are black. Combine this and the whole comparing Martin to a hypothetical son of theirs, and it's hard to not see how the common theme seems to be pointing out a connection based on skin color. Do you honestly think that if a group of white children were harmed that the President or First Lady would have compared them to their daughters? Did they do this when those kids were killed in Sandy Hook? Any school shootings? Any deaths or crimes committed against white kids? Or even just against children not specifically in a group based on race?

You don't see that the two times they choose to make this kind of comparison was Martin and the Nigerian schoolgirls and that this might just be about race?



If that were true, they'd make these kinds of statements when the kids involved weren't just black kids. Can you find an example of this happening?



OMG did I not freaking say that! WTH? Is that really what you think this is about? That I'm accusing the president (ok, first lady) of not caring about anyone unless they are black? Holy hell! You're projecting your own liberal identity focused politics on me Joph. That's not remotely what I'm saying.

What I'm saying is that the first family connects themselves to victims that match their own skin color in order to do two things:

1. Associate themselves with the victim(s) within the context of race. This way, any criticism of their handling of the issue at hand becomes an attack on the victim(s), and by extension an attack on the race of the victim(s).

2. To reinforce within our own society the association of race and victimhood. This is the kind of systematic associative reasoning that causes people like Smash to conclude that a rich black kid is more at risk of victimization than a poor white kid. That sort of lunacy doesn't happen overnight!




She could have made the exact same comments about parenthood and caring about children without making the specific comparison to her daughters. In fact, she did. I'm talking about just the line about how she sees her own daughters in the victims. You seriously don't see how this is about associative victim hood? Wow. That's... amazingly blind of you.



If there were some polite way to point out how so utterly the Left has managed to indoctrinate African Americans into a victimhood mentality that even when they're serving as President (or First Lady) they still think of themselves as victims, and could put that on a bumper sticker, I totally would. It's a hard subject to broach because it's always going to get a knee jerk negative reaction. But that doesn't mean that it's not true.

If Smash thinks that rich black kids are more victimized than poor white kids, do you honestly not think that Michelle and Barack think the same? Seriously, stop and think about the level of delusion that's going on with this issue. I'm just pointing it out and that makes some people uncomfortable. It may seem like I'm reading into it, but that's exactly why he said what he said about Martin, and why she said what she said about the school girls. Because deep down, both of them have adopted that same assumption that skin color and victim status go hand in hand and have been taught to reinforce that association whenever they can.

Conservatives are more aware of this because we're usually the ones receiving the brunt of whatever social critique is at hand. But I assumed that you'd at least be savvy enough to know that this is what was going on with these sorts of statements. It's just kind of funny that you're denying that there's any racial connotation at all, while Smash is saying that of course it's all about race, but it's legitimate because black people and victimization go hand in hand regardless of socio-economic status.

I find that interesting. It's like the left hand not knowing what the far left hand is doing.

I get that the closest you've ever come to being a parent is wondering if it's rude to *** in a Vegas hooker's hair, but I am able to project my sons when I see other children. Of any race. Really, it's no more complicated than that.

Well, unless you just want to cry big hot tears at how mean the Left is when they see your racism and go off on half-cocked diatribes about how the Left is all like this but the Right is all like that.

Two people sharing the same socio-economic status and similar geography are going to have much more in common with each other than two random people living far apart who happen to share the same skin tone. And it's frankly absurd that you'd think otherwise.

Nope, just data. I know, I know, math is hard. If you want to avoid being a victim of crime be a rich white man. More likely to be a victim of crime if you're a rich black guy. More likely to be a victim of crime if you're a poor white guy. Just not as much more likely than the rich black guy. Why? RACISM. What is the fucking obession with living in this fantasy world where racism doesn't exist? It does. It's a fucking disadvantage to be black. A massive one. Less of one than during slavery, mostly less of one than in 1955, but still a massive, massive, massive devastating. FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR greater than being a white orphan with a dog named Sandy. Being rich only benefits your social interactions with strangers if they somehow assume you're rich. If I walk to the park with my kid in the affluent suburb I live in wearing a hooded sweatshirt and jeans, people assume I'm wealthy. If I give my clothes to my black neighbor (he's imaginary, I don't have any black neighbors) no one will assume he's wealthy. They'll be nervous and more watchful of their kids. Because racism is a thing. It's ingrained, institutionalized, unconscious. It doesn't require someone to think "hey, I dislike those dark skinned gentlemen, I find" it's automatic. It can't be avoided. By anyone, really, it's so infused into US culture. Acknowledging it's existence is the most basic act of humanity possible. Pretending it doesn't exist makes you not only obviously racist and defensive, but also just an asshole. For what? To feel better about your own privilege? You didn't succeed through hard work. You aren't a unique snowflake. Welcome to what most people realize at 9 years old.

No, see, that happened in 1997 and Martin happened in 2012. Totally different.

I'm sure this racist statement'll be ignored, but either way nothing like having to become a caricature of a caricature just to get attention.

Vote Republican, everybody!

That's only relevant if you plan on voting Democrat.

Varrus is actually an excellent troll, if he is (primarily) one.

Best as post fodder.

But as long as you're a rich white guy stealing from millions is perfectly okay. I believe they have a term for that; it's called profiteering.

By far the biggest determinant of victimization is poverty.

Hi. Stop saying this until you find anything that indicates it's true other than your own intuition. Which, we should remind you, is ALMOST ALWAYS WRONG. I provided you the source data. Are you still having trouble understanding how to use the website? I'd be happy to help. Let me know what it is that you don't understand. It's pretty straightforward for me, but then I'm used to technical terminology. I could see how it would be confusing for other people.