candycorn
Diamond Member
- Aug 25, 2009
- 110,616
- 50,776
Beto's excellent adventure drips with white male privilege - CNNPolitics
There are no sane major parties any more. This country has completely lost its shit.
We desperately need a viable third party. As funny as this stuff is, the wings are fucking killing us.
.
That's one Nia-Malika Henderson. Since when is she one of the "major parties"? Let alone "This country"?
Moreover, don't you still believe it takes, you know, an actual argument to take an article apart? Like, presenting the article's major assertions, and pointing out major flaws like lack of internal consistency, or factual inaccuracies?
Jumping to conclusions without so much as a hint of an argument to support them is otherwise known as prejudice. Efforts at inviting others to share your prejudices are otherwise known as propaganda.
O'Rourke is being criticized for his randomness. For his TMI'ing and for his "what do I want to do with my life" aimlessness.
But the fact that he knows he has the freedom to cast about as a campaign-in-waiting forms, shows how much of his political identity is predicated on being white and male.
I suspect, Henderson has a point here, even while white males, exercising their white, male privilege, strenuously refuse to see the extent to which women are being treated differently.
I think Mac's point is that the lady did not have to go to Betos race and apply a stereotype to him in order to evaluate his candidacy.
People are gradually realizing thjat Identity politics, from which the idea of 'white privilege' emerges, is nothing more than racism without white people being allowed to play.
And racism of any form should not be tolerated in an educated, moral enlightened population, or else it will destroy us.
In that narrow context, I think you're right. The lady who was writing the article (and you can say this about every political commentator who has X number of columns to write or X number of minutes to fill on their podcast) simply had to find something to write about.
Just my commentary here. This, to me anyway, seemed to smack of just writing an article to have something to file. If you want to do a "tale of the tape" between O'Rourke, Hillibrand (sp?), Warren, Kimala Harris, fine...do that. Warren won in blue MA, Harris won in Blue California, and Hillibrand (I think) ran in Blue NY. O'Rourke lost a very close race to a seated Senator in brick red Texas actually getting more votes than Warren and I think a total very close to Hillebrand in blue blood NY. He's a different type of cat.
But lets say she's right and there is a built in primal stereotype of guys treating male candidates different. If one were to make that argument, wouldn't one have to say the same thing for females treating female candidates differently? And, since the electorate if majority female, if that argument is true, we should have a female majority in places that have an electorate that is majority female. I know it's not as cut and dried as that on the mathematics but neither is it as "cut and dried" that Beto is getting some sort of white male privilege because he's a white male. He may be getting some unearned cache but I don't think it has to do with gender or race...it probably has to do with his charisma, his energy, and his elect-ability which spans the spectrum of his playing in a band to his being someone who you think you could be best buds with. I'd vote for Warren if she is the nominee of the DNC. But, in no way, would I want to spend 5 seconds in the room listening to her. She's a terrible orator. I'm excited about Kimala Harris. Don't know much about Hellebrandt.