Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Republican Paul Ryan takes flak from media over selfie with Caucasians


Recommended Posts

Not racist. That's not what my complaint is. But do you feel the comment "white as mayo" to describe white members of the audience is racist? Do you feel it is acceptable? If every time I referred to blacks I referred to them as "black as pavement" would you think that was racist? Do you think I would get a pass from those on the left?

Non-white people's skin is often compared to food-- "chocolate", "coffee", "mocha"... is it just that "mayo" isn't very dynamic-sounding? If I had picked something more action-packed, like perhaps cocaine, would that be better?

Anyway, this seems rather thin-skinned. I thought you right-wingers were sick of political correctness.

-k

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 86
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Non-white people's skin is often compared to food-- "chocolate", "coffee", "mocha"... is it just that "mayo" isn't very dynamic-sounding? If I had picked something more action-packed, like perhaps cocaine, would that be better?

Anyway, this seems rather thin-skinned. I thought you right-wingers were sick of political correctness.

-k

I personally could not care less about what anyone calls me or anyone else for that matter. I was just pointing out the double standard/hypocrisy of the left when it comes to racism. You still have not answered my question and I would really like to see your answer.

Would you call someone racist for referring to a group of black people as being "black as pavement"?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Non-white people's skin is often compared to food-- "chocolate", "coffee", "mocha"... is it just that "mayo" isn't very dynamic-sounding? If I had picked something more action-packed, like perhaps cocaine, would that be better?

Canada just uses the official catch-all and very "racist" term...."visible minority"...and it has nothing to do with food.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Canada just uses the official catch-all and very "racist" term...."visible minority"...and it has nothing to do with food.

You've been whining about that for a while now. What would you use? Non-white? Coloured people, perhaps?

Link to post
Share on other sites

You've been whining about that for a while now. What would you use? Non-white? Coloured people, perhaps?

Logically, it would be "visible majority" in Canada speak. Would "white" people object to being characterized and labeled based on another "race" ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

All that Taxme seems to be able to do is rabbit back the same tired Trump-ican rhetoric and propaganda that I've read on Social Media for months.

Of course, lacking the ability to debate, that is what the majority of them do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Logically, it would be "visible majority" in Canada speak. Would "white" people object to being characterized and labeled based on another "race" ?

You're being pedantic again. Visible minority is simply an extension of the term 'minority', and is largely used by 'progressives' in their insistence on implementing policies to benefit them, including job quotas. It's simply an easily recognizable and true description.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally could not care less about what anyone calls me or anyone else for that matter. I was just pointing out the double standard/hypocrisy of the left when it comes to racism. You still have not answered my question and I would really like to see your answer.

Would you call someone racist for referring to a group of black people as being "black as pavement"?

As I already mentioned, black people are often described as "chocolate" or "coffee" without "the left" freaking out. I'm not sure why you feel that "pavement" or "ape shit" are a more applicable comparison, but it's not.

-k

Link to post
Share on other sites

You're being pedantic again. Visible minority is simply an extension of the term 'minority', and is largely used by 'progressives' in their insistence on implementing policies to benefit them, including job quotas. It's simply an easily recognizable and true description.

No, it is simply a racist categorization extended from Canadian employment law, and doesn't even officially apply to First Nations people. The term is now internationally recognized as racist and deferential to a dominant majority "white" standard. Some "minorities" can easily pass without being identified as a "visible minority", with the key racist bias being the word "visible".

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I already mentioned, black people are often described as "chocolate" or "coffee" without "the left" freaking out. I'm not sure why you feel that "pavement" or "ape shit" are a more applicable comparison, but it's not.

-k

So as long as it's a food item, it's OK. Got it!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Uhh so you just want me to take your word for it?

Do you think that I would just make up a story like that? Why would I? What would be the point? If you don't want to believe well what more can I say.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I already mentioned, black people are often described as "chocolate" or "coffee" without "the left" freaking out. I'm not sure why you feel that "pavement" or "ape shit" are a more applicable comparison, but it's not.

-k

Connotation. Chocolate and coffee have good connotations and mayo doesn't. White as milk probably would've gone down a lot smoother.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Because honky is just such a powerful word.

Words don't matter. You can call me what you want. I'm all for freedom of speech.

My point was, of course, that if you want to categorize a member of an identifiable group as simply a member of an identifiable group, and not an individual, then it would only be fair to do so to all groups. I do it for none, myself.

Edit> I should make it clear that my avatar is simply a good natured dig at lefties. I do not actually make hippies use the backdoor.

Edited by bcsapper
Link to post
Share on other sites

Words don't matter. You can call me what you want. I'm all for freedom of speech.

My point was, of course, that if you want to categorize a member of an identifiable group as simply a member of an identifiable group, and not an individual, then it would only be fair to do so to all groups. I do it for none, myself.

You not caring about being called a honky kinda proves the point I was making.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You not caring about being called a honky kinda proves the point I was making.

I don't care what you call anyone. Do you think you should apply that sentiment to all members of any group to which you think I belong?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Announcements




×
×
  • Create New...