|
what is with the conservative resistance to context?
a hundred years ago, it was routinely conservatives who claimed to be oriented toward the concrete and their opponents toward the abstract.
seems that this has been stood on its head in the intervening period.
granted there are some statements which on their own are transparently racist--but these seem to me a special case, typically involving some type of derogatory word or expression.
there is no way that the sentence taken entirely out of context in the op falls into that class of statements. it's simply and empirically false to claim it does.
what it does have is a formulation that plays into the conservative canard of "reverse racism""---but since it's being floated in a rather pathetic attempt to smear a supreme court nominee--and given that her actual decisions make mincemeat of the conservative smear--i dont entirely understand why the discussion here is still happening.
more often than not, it's when a thread has passed the point of coherent discussion but continues to twitch along anyway that things grow snarky.
maybe it'd be better to read through and decide whether it's a waste of time to continue the discussion, if a point has been demonstrated or its contrary demonstrated so that the argument is effectively over--if you want to continue the discussion, but find yourself confronted with a game that's over, start another thread in which you make your argument by using a different tack.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|