(05-06-2021 11:55 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-06-2021 10:12 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-06-2021 09:17 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-06-2021 06:18 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-06-2021 05:27 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Two wrongs do not make a right. The answer is, to stop doing wrong.

That's not a very practical answer IMO. Everyone gets a memo... "Time to turn off your conscious and unconscious bias!"?

The answer from your side is seemingly 'time to turn on your conscious bias'.

Again:

so the takeaway is that one political theology explicitly promotes defining winners and losers expressly based on race and racial terms and advocates for strict racial determination of outcomes.

And one does not.

Does that about sum it up?

There's all sorts of way that one can word it so that your side "wins".

One political theology recognizes the uneven playing field that has existed for more than two centuries in the United States and they would like to help address said uneven playing field. The other side would like to ignore the issue as they are quite content with the uneven playing field.

Or something like that.

I see. Anyone who opposes aiding is racist. I see you are back to complete trope time.

What? I didn't say anything about racist. All I said is that your side is comfortable with the status quo. There's a lot of reason to be comfortable with the status quo without feeling hatred towards BIPOC.

And to think that you guys are constantly accusing the left of injecting racism into everything...

Quote:You dont seem to note that you feel the added urge to add intent. That training is kicking in again.

Somehow you feel the age old built in urge to change the term 'and one does not [advocate and push for race based determinative outcomes]' to your race baiting pile of garbage. Oh goody. On cue like Pavlov's dogs.

Race now, race forever. Cant keep a tiger from hiding its stripes when the cards are down, can ya pardner?

Im not looking to 'win'. I am looking for you to denote exactly what you are doing.

Again:
so the takeaway is that one political theology explicitly promotes defining winners and losers expressly based on race and racial terms and advocates for strict racial determination of outcomes.

And one does not.

I do like how my statement is pure description of action, while yours returns to age old knee jerk reflexive move of having to add pure racist intent to the mix......

Did you not see that I simply too your statement (which I felt was somewhat hyperbolic) and I have you an example of a contrasting statement (which I also felt was somewhat hyperbolic)?

I'm sorry I ruffled so many feathers with this. I wasn't expecting you to take my statement to heart.