Quote:
|
Originally Posted by brianwspencer
Of course I would find those comments offensive if a white, Republican male made them. Actually, perhaps offensive isn't the right word, but delusional would be better.
Only white, male, Republicans think that white, male, Republicans have some unique set of life experiences. Minorities of all kinds, folks without the sorts of built in privilege, DO have a unique view on things. I fully believe that, and it has nothing to do with quotas, affirmative action, or anything. White, male, heterosexual, Republicans would easily be the most privileged class of folks in the entire country, so of COURSE it would be different, because it would make absolutely no sense and it would rightly be seen as nothing but a racialist comment.
I firmly believe, and people can disagree all they want, that being a minority and having qualities about you that have no privilege does make one privy to a unique set of circumstances....and white, male, heterosexual, Republicans are about as privileged as you can get.
If the concept of privilege is lost on you, then I could type 80,000 words on it and you'll never get it.
|
i'd just concede she misspoke.
if there was only one "wise" decision, then a wise white male should reach the same decision as a wise latina female.
in this sort of discourse you have to ignore that there isn't a single "wise" course and that all decisions have both bad and good consequences. you have to ignore context. you have to ignore nuance.
this part of the nomination process isn't about the nominee. it's political, not judicial.
she can't speak for herself in public until the judiciary committee hearings. in the meantime, all the "judicial watch" pac's have to justify their existence. this is when they get all their contribution's.
relax. every nominee goes through this process. no one will remember the "controversy" a year from now.