The theory would presumably be that she was elected by predominantly white people because of their subconscious racism for their own benefit. When she showed how hopelessly incompetent she is that reinforces racist stereotypes. Bastards!
1 Like
if she denies incompetence, does that make them more racist, or would that make me a liar, or is the chair a hypocrite? sometimes all those years studying math and philosophy get in the way. if only someone could tell me what i really think!
1 Like
If you are (A) then, you think (B). Easy formula. If you default to symbolic logic, all cats are assholes.
1 Like
Right, which is complete speculation as we’ve said.
Who’s stereotypes? What stereotype are you talking about?
i’ll take it
Racist cats anyways
chicken dinner
2 Likes
No one who’s paying attention should even be a little surprised people of this apparent character (anyone can have a bad day, to be fair) are filling local government positions of this type.
1 Like
The Guardian defending wokeness, I can’t believe it!
What about the contents/premise of the article though?
I wouldn’t bother reading it, not from the Guardian, and not with that blurb. They can take their dog whistle and shove it.
1 Like
How can you reasonably expect to understand others ideas without reading them? Asked rhetorically. Have a good day.
Because A I know it’s the Guardian and B I can see how patently self-serving and one-sided it is from the blurb. I have other things to do with my time.
It’s actually a perfect encapsulation of woke bullshit. Criticizing wokeness in itself is a “dog whistle”.
Does this mean can finally write Fox off as well? Please say yes.
Who can
… meanwhile, three weeks ago…
1 Like
next time a piece from Fox is presented as a story or evidence, can posters take the same attitude? is that now a viable argument? the Guardian is far more credible and were just writing that off.
Or better yet a list of acceptable sites to quote from.
I think it comes down to conflicting perceptions.
It’s just my opinion of the Guardian especially with regards to this issue. People can read, comment on, quote, or not read etc. whatever media they like as far as I’m concerned. If someone linked to a Guardian piece on the price of tea or something I would probably read it.
How do you mean?
I can use a concrete example floating around right now. H.R.5 - Equality Act
Don’t really need to read it all I can summarize, it’s a rewrite of various equal rights bills and instead of “sex” this is replaced with.
in subsection (a), by inserting “sex (including sexual orientation and gender identity),” before “or national origin”;
So why do that? The trans communities existential reality is that sex is not determined biologically. Yet society reinforces a trans phobic view that it does and as such represents a form of oppression against them.
It seems to me they are adopting the trans existential view of what sex or gender is as it will create a society less trans phobic and less oppressive to them.
That leads to more questions I know and speaking more widely this existential view held by minority groups generally leads to a conflict between different perceptions held by different groups who have different existential realities.