NM

Did you bother reading the thread? I made a point. Windy misrepresented that point, and claimed to have distilled it down.

Knowing what others are thinking doesn't have anything to do with this exchange. It was my point to begin with. No mind reading required.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Misinterpreted would be a better choice of word, if you disagree with my distillation.

No, I think misrepresented is the correct choice. There's no fucking way you thought I was saying it's ok to assume blacks are criminals because of their skin color.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

From a total outsider's perspective he always seemed like he had his head screwed on right and I shared that sentiment.

But with Disney resurrecting the Star Wars franchise he will likely be too busy voicing Darth.

No but I did think you were saying sometimes it is okay to use race as a criteria and sometimes it is bad. I just extended it to a logical situation for analysis.

Yeah, you chose, deliberately I think, a pretty shitty example. And no, you didn't offer it for analysis. You tossed it out there and told me it was incoherent nonsense.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Perhaps, but it shows a particularly inane viewpoint that picking a President to "move past certain issues" rather than for their leadership ability or any organizational skills. The last 8 years have revealed that problem in my opinion. As a Naval Officer, would you rather see a good ship driver or a token tossed for diversity's sake as a CO? What makes someone like CP believe that leading the US is any less important?

I did choose deliberately an example using extreme contrasts to demonstrate I think your point is intellectually incongruent

It's not incongruent at all. I proposed that it's sometimes ok to make a decision based on race, and sometimes not. You chose an example that clearly fits in the second category and tried to pass it off as if I was claiming it belonged in the first. It's typical bullshit from someone who can't or doesn't want to make an actual argument, but just really wants to act like a dick.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Looks Like Trump is Our New President

May we live in interesting times! :)

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

Fine when is it okay to make a judgement based solely on race? (feel free to omit solely if that is too limiting)

Category A - it's ok to make a decision based on race

Guy goes online to an internet dating website. He's black, and he wants to date black girls. He clicks the box that indicates that he only wants to see dating profiles of black women.

Guy is a salesman for hair products designed for African Americans. He chooses to market his product only on BET and in predominantly black neighborhoods, based solely on the fact that he will primarily reach black audiences.

Guy is conducting a survey in which he needs to get the opinions of X number of people from various different racial and/or ethnic groups. He chooses his next respondent based solely on the fact that he needs more black respondents.


Category B - it's probably not ok to make a decision based on race, but it's not racist to do so

Guy decides to vote for a political candidate because he thinks the country needs to see a minority leader to help heal the racial divide and provide an example for minorities to show how far the country has come

Guy starts a conversation with a new acquaintance an assumes the new guy is interested in rap music because he's black


Category C - it's not ok to make a decision based on race, and it is racist

Guy votes for an African American political candidate because he's Black, and fuck whitey, and it's time for Blacks to take control so we can put white America in its place

Guy is recruiting athletes for a team, and chooses a black athlete over a white solely because he thinks blacks are genetically just better athletes


This stuff takes just a small amount of ability to recognize nuance, and that the world is, in general, not black or white (no pun intended), but rather various shades of gray. Something can be ok sometimes and not ok other times based on a whole variety of circumstances and specifics. A bad thing can be racist sometimes and not racist other times, again based on a variety of specifics.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

This is not facetious, but doesn't Powells vote fall into category C? (removing the fuck whitey for decorum's sake)

No, I don't think so. I think it falls directly in category B, based on what I know of Sec Powell's general character, which is why I used it as the model for the first example I provided in that category.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Oh my gawd. That is so spot on. I'll be forwarding this to a lot of people.

Not to mention those credit card commercials. What's in your wallet?

Maybe he will never run because the vetting process might expose who he really is and his carefully crafted persona of Mr. Levelheaded and Rminently Qualified will come crashing down.

Maybe he's the Tiger Woods of D.C.

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

Wow! I've been laughing for 5 minutes straight! Epic! That's "Best Ever" of it's kind, material!

. . . but I have to ask was there Drug Testing? :)

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

But the sole reason he is voting is race based regardless of qualification in the category B example.

Maybe, or maybe he views the two candidates as equal, or maybe he views a white candidate as slightly more qualified except for the value of having a minority in office, etc.

Doesn't really matter. The point is that category B isn't motivated by racism. It's not motivated by, "race X is better than race Y."

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

But it is since the vote is cast because the minority candidate is a minority. By definition your scenario leads to a race decison based outcome