I for one do not believe hrc a threat to world peace
Daily mail journalists or the fake sheikh are I believe alternative suspects
Quite
I didn't realise you'd asked before. Here goes.
In a racist society, white people enjoy more privilege. Thus, white, working class folks tend to enjoy more social, economic and political privilege and power than non-white working class folks. Can we agree on this?
By turning it around and citing class identity before whiteness, it suggests that the less advantaged part of your identity (i.e. being working class, compared to middle or upper class) is more important than the more privileged part of your identity - the whiteness. Whiteness then comes across as almost incidental, if not irrelevant.
It can also be used to dismiss calls from working class people of colour to shift movements on the left from centering so much on the white working class experience, with the, "but, we're all oppressed by the class system, we should focus on what unites us, not what divides us."
I've seen some try to use it as a pass to insist they aren't racist and they don't benefit from the privilege that comes from white supremacy, because working class white people have no say in creating or sustaining the class system from which racism emanates.
Before someone blows a gasket, I'm not thinking of anyone in particular from this message board and if it helps, of course "not all white working class people . . . "
Some weeks ago, I posted several articles from African Americans and other people of colour explaining why relatively few non-white folks backed Bernie Saunders, which seemed to baffle white Sanders supporters. These explained the situ a lot better than I have, I'm sure.
You asked. I explained. You choose what to feel, or indeed to feel nothing.
Do as you please.
That's your interpretation, but it's not my intention.
Racist attack? Uh, no.
"Aleksandra Mut, 23, and younger sister Angelika Mut, 20, went berserk after two men they were with began making flirty comments towards the three women at the end of a night out."
Women attacking women their dates flirt with isn't very noble, but it's motivated by jealousy, not racism (and probably fueled by plenty alcohol.) It wouldn't have been racism unless the women they beat up weren't white and the article doesn't say. There's no such thing as reverse racism, or reverse xenophobia, Chrisake.
Point spectacularly missed.
No shit. Are you related to Sybil Fawlty?
Okay, what about this from October: Should The U.S. Double Down In Syria With A No-Fly Zone?
The idea, long resisted by the Obama administration, has been endorsed by Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton and by prominent Republicans, Democrats and defense experts. It would declare a portion of northern Syria and perhaps southern Syria off-limits to Syrian and Russian aircraft, and would enforce it with air-to-air fighters and long-range cruise missiles.
So, not just Clinton's idea?
A slim majority of Americans supports a no-fly zone despite the risks, reflecting their frustration that the United States seems to be doing nothing while Syrian civilians are dying in relentless Syrian and Russian attacks.
The table below comes from the study linked above. Looks like there support for no fly zones was pretty similar between Democrats and Republicans, and stronger support from Republicans than Democrats for direct military action, including ground forces.
Democrats were more likely to support a peace deal that kept Assad in power - which is surely also what the Putin government wants.
Then there's this from David Petraus, whom Trump shortlisted for for his Secretary of State (before it went to Tillotson)“People keep asking, ‘Is it too late?’ It’s not too late to declare a no-fly zone,” former CIA director and retired Army Gen. David Petraeus said on “Charlie Rose” last week.
“If the [Syrian] regime air force bombs folks we’re supporting or we’re concerned about, we tell them, ‘We’re going to ground your air force,’” Petraeus said. That threat would be backed up with readiness to take out Russian or Syrian aircraft and air bases with strike fighter and cruise missiles launched from outside Syrian airspace from American bombers or Navy ships, he said.
“Yes, there are risks,” Petraeus said, “and those risks have increased and gotten more complicated. But if you don’t show you are doing something to prevent them [Russians and Syrians] from carrying out a war crime … there is considerable risk in not taking action.”
Hasn't the slogan also been used in the U.K.?
Yes, because unfortunately there are A) a lot of people who need to hear it, and B) a lot of eejits who will follow whatever they think is the latest thing from the US.
What do you think their response should be? To see the irony and laugh it off?
