Quote:
|
Originally Posted by FoolThemAll
And it can be dangerous to do so, anyhow. For instance, is seeking to abolish affirmative action anti-black? Likewise, is seeking to overturn hate crime legislation anti-women or anti-minorities or anti-gay? Or could there be a lack of bigotry in the motivation to do so?
It may be that good intentions lead such politicians to make decisions that aren't worth the damage they do to a particular group, but that doesn't make them anti-thatgroup. Unless you're trying to dilute the phrase to the point where it means something other than what one generally would assume it means, in which case you have a responsibility to elaborate on what is meant by "anti-black".
|
Here's the thing...i regularly decide if i think a politician is anti-queer. There are two levels. Are they willing to trade in anti-gay rhetoric to get elected? There is a huge industry in sending out homophobic fund raising material "TEH GHEYS ARE TRYING TO STEAL YOUR CHILDREND!!!" and the like...
Are they in support of, or silent assent to anti-queer political movements. FMA or ban on civil unions, opposing hate crime laws, etc...
As a member of a community, i make choices and decisions in conversation with that community, if a politician stands for us or against us. Now, it's not a 100% thing...there are in fact hard core republican queers. I think they're flipping loons to think that this makes them safe or isn't tantamount to treason...but that's another post. The point is that the political desires and needs of minority (racial or whatever) communities often align to a significant degree. If a canidate ran on a hyped up campaign of welfare "reform" and "tough on crime" while cutting job programs and education funding...
I'd tend to think that that would signal a participation in racist rhetoric, and agreement and assent to policies that are at least functionally and perhaps structurally constructed as anti-black.