Wow, is there anything you wouldn’t work so hard to justify? Can you reference anything you perceive as racist?
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.
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.
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.
I mean quite clearly you were responding literally to a commenter's disbelief that you think the video didn't intentionally use racist imagery.
So you could have not chosen any example. Or one that is relevant to the current state of the world, even if it hides behind a mask of legitimacy.
Anyway, I imagine if RBG were here she'd probably have something to say on response but I can't think of anything that is more of a non-controversy.
Clearly if Barrett is "less racist" that isn't a value Trump actually sought.
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.
Not that anyone's reading this but what a great example of the tired old trick of attempting to use social justice language as a rhetorical lever.
>This was an indigenous people treaty case
and here say
>not a treaty matter
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.
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.