dagblog - Comments for "What racism? It's socialists, the elderly and Muslims that are suffering from discrimination now!"

Those confused about the

artappraiser — Wed, 04 Mar 2020 15:21:42 +0000

In reply to What racism? It's socialists, the elderly and Muslims that are suffering from discrimination now!

Great point:

Those confused about the skepticism old black voters feel toward old white socialists should read Invisible Man
— Wesley Yang (@wesyang) March 4, 2020

Socialism is the new black.

rmrd0000 — Fri, 28 Feb 2020 22:25:17 +0000

In reply to READ!!! Then answer "where's

Socialism is the new black. Got it.

Coates would ask, "WTF did

rmrd0000 — Fri, 28 Feb 2020 22:18:05 +0000

In reply to It's tongue-in-cheek

Coates would ask, "WTF did she just say?"

READ!!! Then answer "where's

artappraiser — Fri, 28 Feb 2020 21:58:20 +0000

In reply to OK, "What Racism?", is a joke

READ!!! Can you? Then answer "where's the proof of rampant racism" in this Gallup doc?

Does NOT show people judging by race.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ER02dWLU4AAuYhw?format=png&name=small

AGAIN: the title refers to the content.

I was NOT making a post on racism in general. I was making a post about a tweeted doc. Pointing out an interesting doc, even if one didn't get the inside joke.

It's tongue-in-cheek

PeraclesPlease — Fri, 28 Feb 2020 21:32:19 +0000

In reply to OK, "What Racism?", is a joke

It's tongue-in-cheek referring to elections - "socialism is the new black" in this case. But way too deep, apparently. What would Ta-Nehisi say?

OK, "What Racism?", is a joke

rmrd0000 — Fri, 28 Feb 2020 21:16:50 +0000

In reply to I would like to reiterate:

OK, "What Racism?", is a joke about Bernie Sanders. Got it.

I would like to reiterate:

artappraiser — Fri, 28 Feb 2020 20:59:55 +0000

In reply to I merely responded to the

I would like to reiterate: the title of a post is supposed to refer to the post.

Also, in case it's not clear to you: the writer of any post would not always be thinking "how would rmrd with his special obsessions take this? He may not understand"

The title of the post does

artappraiser — Fri, 28 Feb 2020 20:48:23 +0000

In reply to I merely responded to the

The title of the post does not refer to the whole world, the title of the post refers to the content of the post.

Which is: a poll asking about characteristics that don't discourage you from voting for a president.

That content shows only 4% of Americans now consider race a factor when voting for a president.

The title of the post also served double duty as a joke about Bernie. Many people are clearly still prejudiced against socialists for president. In addition, many people do not want to vote for someone over 70, which reflects on more of the candidates.

That went way over your head in your jihad where you take everything both literally and personally.

By the way, the reason that "Catholic" is on the list is because at the time JFK was elected, many people did not think a Catholic president capable of keeping church and state separate. And were in fact quite prejudiced against Catholics. That changed.

Again, the title was basically a joke about Bernie.

I merely responded to the

rmrd0000 — Fri, 28 Feb 2020 15:48:06 +0000

In reply to If you're going to argue

I merely responded to the title of the post.

If you're going to argue

PeraclesPlease — Fri, 28 Feb 2020 14:52:00 +0000

In reply to No we can't move on. We can

If you're going to argue stupid shit about whether racism still exists which nobody except you ever contends we're saying. Welcome to Mickey Mouse kindergarten.

Instead you just derailed the whole purpose for this post, you asshole. Hey, every day is 1617, right?