Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
God forbid if he had been completely white.
Now my question is, are you reading comprehension challenged or just dishonest?
Uh... 'scuse me, where does anybody anywhere in the story express "god forbid"? Got a quote?
See how you are?
God forbid if he had been completely white.
Now my question is, are you reading comprehension challenged or just dishonest?
Uh... 'scuse me, where does anybody anywhere in the story express "god forbid"? Got a quote?
See how you are?
Do you really expect me to believe your line of Bullshit?
You just want me to give up, am I right?
The bigotry is clear and even the author mentioned it was overlooked at the time she made said racist statement.... but apparently, upon looking back, it was noticeable. Trying to parse words and cherry-pick details is an exercise in denial. Nothing more.
I think you need to speak for yourself, because clearly I'm not alone in this.God forbid if he had been completely white.
Now my question is, are you reading comprehension challenged or just dishonest?
Uh... 'scuse me, where does anybody anywhere in the story express "god forbid"? Got a quote?
See how you are?
Do you really expect me to believe your line of Bullshit?
You just want me to give up, am I right?
What I want you to do is acknowledge that your assumption has no basis. What I "expect".... not so much.
The bigotry is clear and even the author mentioned it was overlooked at the time she made said racist statement.... but apparently, upon looking back, it was noticeable. Trying to parse words and cherry-pick details is an exercise in denial. Nothing more.
If the "bigotry is clear"... if there is a "racist statement" ------------ how come none of us can find it? Why can't it be quoted?
Because there isn't one, that's why. You assume it. Out of a score of possible bases of reasoning, you assume the most malevolent. Then you call it "clear".
The question now is --- why do you do that?
Btw the author never mentions a "racist statement". At all.
I think you need to speak for yourself, because clearly I'm not alone in this.God forbid if he had been completely white.
Now my question is, are you reading comprehension challenged or just dishonest?
Uh... 'scuse me, where does anybody anywhere in the story express "god forbid"? Got a quote?
See how you are?
Do you really expect me to believe your line of Bullshit?
You just want me to give up, am I right?
What I want you to do is acknowledge that your assumption has no basis. What I "expect".... not so much.
The bigotry is clear and even the author mentioned it was overlooked at the time she made said racist statement.... but apparently, upon looking back, it was noticeable. Trying to parse words and cherry-pick details is an exercise in denial. Nothing more.
If the "bigotry is clear"... if there is a "racist statement" ------------ how come none of us can find it? Why can't it be quoted?
Because there isn't one, that's why. You assume it. Out of a score of possible bases of reasoning, you assume the most malevolent. Then you call it "clear".
The question now is --- why do you do that?
Btw the author never mentions a "racist statement". At all.
When she said it would be worse if he had been white...chuckle...chuckle...that was racism.
You're just trying to put up a smoke-screen. Frankly, I've lost respect in you because of this dishonesty. Talk all you want. Anyone that understands English can see racism in her statement. It's as plain as it can be. The author implied that it was there, but in literal terms he or she danced around it and then moved on.
I think you need to speak for yourself, because clearly I'm not alone in this.God forbid if he had been completely white.
Now my question is, are you reading comprehension challenged or just dishonest?
Uh... 'scuse me, where does anybody anywhere in the story express "god forbid"? Got a quote?
See how you are?
Do you really expect me to believe your line of Bullshit?
You just want me to give up, am I right?
What I want you to do is acknowledge that your assumption has no basis. What I "expect".... not so much.
The bigotry is clear and even the author mentioned it was overlooked at the time she made said racist statement.... but apparently, upon looking back, it was noticeable. Trying to parse words and cherry-pick details is an exercise in denial. Nothing more.
If the "bigotry is clear"... if there is a "racist statement" ------------ how come none of us can find it? Why can't it be quoted?
Because there isn't one, that's why. You assume it. Out of a score of possible bases of reasoning, you assume the most malevolent. Then you call it "clear".
The question now is --- why do you do that?
Btw the author never mentions a "racist statement". At all.
When she said it would be worse if he had been white...chuckle...chuckle...that was racism.
No, It. Is. Not. And we already did this -- racism requires a value judgment as a basis. You ain't got one.
You're just trying to put up a smoke-screen. Frankly, I've lost respect in you because of this dishonesty. Talk all you want. Anyone that understands English can see racism in her statement. It's as plain as it can be. The author implied that it was there, but in literal terms he or she danced around it and then moved on.
I don't give a flying shit about "respect". What I care about is honest statement of fact. That's the only reason I keep pointing out where you fail to do so.
I think you need to speak for yourself, because clearly I'm not alone in this.God forbid if he had been completely white.
Now my question is, are you reading comprehension challenged or just dishonest?
Uh... 'scuse me, where does anybody anywhere in the story express "god forbid"? Got a quote?
See how you are?
Do you really expect me to believe your line of Bullshit?
You just want me to give up, am I right?
What I want you to do is acknowledge that your assumption has no basis. What I "expect".... not so much.
The bigotry is clear and even the author mentioned it was overlooked at the time she made said racist statement.... but apparently, upon looking back, it was noticeable. Trying to parse words and cherry-pick details is an exercise in denial. Nothing more.
If the "bigotry is clear"... if there is a "racist statement" ------------ how come none of us can find it? Why can't it be quoted?
Because there isn't one, that's why. You assume it. Out of a score of possible bases of reasoning, you assume the most malevolent. Then you call it "clear".
The question now is --- why do you do that?
Btw the author never mentions a "racist statement". At all.
When she said it would be worse if he had been white...chuckle...chuckle...that was racism.
No, It. Is. Not. And we already did this -- racism requires a value judgment as a basis. You ain't got one.
You're just trying to put up a smoke-screen. Frankly, I've lost respect in you because of this dishonesty. Talk all you want. Anyone that understands English can see racism in her statement. It's as plain as it can be. The author implied that it was there, but in literal terms he or she danced around it and then moved on.
I don't give a flying shit about "respect". What I care about is honest statement of fact. That's the only reason I keep pointing out where you fail to do so. What you're doing here is taking a statement of preference and attributing a basis to it that is simply not in evidence.
What basis we do have in fact contradicts you:
“I guess that I worry about races mixing because of the difficulty — not for, so much for prejudice or anything,” Robinson continued. “It’s just very hard.”A mother concerned that people who see race in everything will make her life "very hard".
Imagine that. Maybe she's referring to you and BLT.
I think you need to speak for yourself, because clearly I'm not alone in this.God forbid if he had been completely white.
Now my question is, are you reading comprehension challenged or just dishonest?
Uh... 'scuse me, where does anybody anywhere in the story express "god forbid"? Got a quote?
See how you are?
Do you really expect me to believe your line of Bullshit?
You just want me to give up, am I right?
What I want you to do is acknowledge that your assumption has no basis. What I "expect".... not so much.
The bigotry is clear and even the author mentioned it was overlooked at the time she made said racist statement.... but apparently, upon looking back, it was noticeable. Trying to parse words and cherry-pick details is an exercise in denial. Nothing more.
If the "bigotry is clear"... if there is a "racist statement" ------------ how come none of us can find it? Why can't it be quoted?
Because there isn't one, that's why. You assume it. Out of a score of possible bases of reasoning, you assume the most malevolent. Then you call it "clear".
The question now is --- why do you do that?
Btw the author never mentions a "racist statement". At all.
When she said it would be worse if he had been white...chuckle...chuckle...that was racism.
No, It. Is. Not. And we already did this -- racism requires a value judgment as a basis. You ain't got one.
You're just trying to put up a smoke-screen. Frankly, I've lost respect in you because of this dishonesty. Talk all you want. Anyone that understands English can see racism in her statement. It's as plain as it can be. The author implied that it was there, but in literal terms he or she danced around it and then moved on.
I don't give a flying shit about "respect". What I care about is honest statement of fact. That's the only reason I keep pointing out where you fail to do so. What you're doing here is taking a statement of preference and attributing a basis to it that is simply not in evidence.
What basis we do have in fact contradicts you:
“I guess that I worry about races mixing because of the difficulty — not for, so much for prejudice or anything,” Robinson continued. “It’s just very hard.”A mother concerned that people who see race in everything will make her life "very hard".
Imagine that. Maybe she's referring to you and BLT.
I think you need to speak for yourself, because clearly I'm not alone in this.Uh... 'scuse me, where does anybody anywhere in the story express "god forbid"? Got a quote?
See how you are?
Do you really expect me to believe your line of Bullshit?
You just want me to give up, am I right?
What I want you to do is acknowledge that your assumption has no basis. What I "expect".... not so much.
The bigotry is clear and even the author mentioned it was overlooked at the time she made said racist statement.... but apparently, upon looking back, it was noticeable. Trying to parse words and cherry-pick details is an exercise in denial. Nothing more.
If the "bigotry is clear"... if there is a "racist statement" ------------ how come none of us can find it? Why can't it be quoted?
Because there isn't one, that's why. You assume it. Out of a score of possible bases of reasoning, you assume the most malevolent. Then you call it "clear".
The question now is --- why do you do that?
Btw the author never mentions a "racist statement". At all.
When she said it would be worse if he had been white...chuckle...chuckle...that was racism.
No, It. Is. Not. And we already did this -- racism requires a value judgment as a basis. You ain't got one.
You're just trying to put up a smoke-screen. Frankly, I've lost respect in you because of this dishonesty. Talk all you want. Anyone that understands English can see racism in her statement. It's as plain as it can be. The author implied that it was there, but in literal terms he or she danced around it and then moved on.
I don't give a flying shit about "respect". What I care about is honest statement of fact. That's the only reason I keep pointing out where you fail to do so. What you're doing here is taking a statement of preference and attributing a basis to it that is simply not in evidence.
What basis we do have in fact contradicts you:
“I guess that I worry about races mixing because of the difficulty — not for, so much for prejudice or anything,” Robinson continued. “It’s just very hard.”A mother concerned that people who see race in everything will make her life "very hard".
Imagine that. Maybe she's referring to you and BLT.
BTW, I don't give a flying shit either. Nobody respects someone they lie to.
I think you need to speak for yourself, because clearly I'm not alone in this.Uh... 'scuse me, where does anybody anywhere in the story express "god forbid"? Got a quote?
See how you are?
Do you really expect me to believe your line of Bullshit?
You just want me to give up, am I right?
What I want you to do is acknowledge that your assumption has no basis. What I "expect".... not so much.
The bigotry is clear and even the author mentioned it was overlooked at the time she made said racist statement.... but apparently, upon looking back, it was noticeable. Trying to parse words and cherry-pick details is an exercise in denial. Nothing more.
If the "bigotry is clear"... if there is a "racist statement" ------------ how come none of us can find it? Why can't it be quoted?
Because there isn't one, that's why. You assume it. Out of a score of possible bases of reasoning, you assume the most malevolent. Then you call it "clear".
The question now is --- why do you do that?
Btw the author never mentions a "racist statement". At all.
When she said it would be worse if he had been white...chuckle...chuckle...that was racism.
No, It. Is. Not. And we already did this -- racism requires a value judgment as a basis. You ain't got one.
You're just trying to put up a smoke-screen. Frankly, I've lost respect in you because of this dishonesty. Talk all you want. Anyone that understands English can see racism in her statement. It's as plain as it can be. The author implied that it was there, but in literal terms he or she danced around it and then moved on.
I don't give a flying shit about "respect". What I care about is honest statement of fact. That's the only reason I keep pointing out where you fail to do so.
The judgement I base it on is her statement of having misgivings of a half white black man combined with her statement that it could have been worse if he was white. Explain how it could have been so bad if he had been white. Is Michelle's mother saying that her race is better, the same, or worse than the white race? Obviously better, which is the very definition of racism. She didn't like her daughter dating a bi-racial man but especially would have objected had he been, and I quote, "completely white". That is the basis of judgment.
I think you need to speak for yourself, because clearly I'm not alone in this.Uh... 'scuse me, where does anybody anywhere in the story express "god forbid"? Got a quote?
See how you are?
Do you really expect me to believe your line of Bullshit?
You just want me to give up, am I right?
What I want you to do is acknowledge that your assumption has no basis. What I "expect".... not so much.
The bigotry is clear and even the author mentioned it was overlooked at the time she made said racist statement.... but apparently, upon looking back, it was noticeable. Trying to parse words and cherry-pick details is an exercise in denial. Nothing more.
If the "bigotry is clear"... if there is a "racist statement" ------------ how come none of us can find it? Why can't it be quoted?
Because there isn't one, that's why. You assume it. Out of a score of possible bases of reasoning, you assume the most malevolent. Then you call it "clear".
The question now is --- why do you do that?
Btw the author never mentions a "racist statement". At all.
When she said it would be worse if he had been white...chuckle...chuckle...that was racism.
No, It. Is. Not. And we already did this -- racism requires a value judgment as a basis. You ain't got one.
You're just trying to put up a smoke-screen. Frankly, I've lost respect in you because of this dishonesty. Talk all you want. Anyone that understands English can see racism in her statement. It's as plain as it can be. The author implied that it was there, but in literal terms he or she danced around it and then moved on.
I don't give a flying shit about "respect". What I care about is honest statement of fact. That's the only reason I keep pointing out where you fail to do so. What you're doing here is taking a statement of preference and attributing a basis to it that is simply not in evidence.
What basis we do have in fact contradicts you:
“I guess that I worry about races mixing because of the difficulty — not for, so much for prejudice or anything,” Robinson continued. “It’s just very hard.”A mother concerned that people who see race in everything will make her life "very hard".
Imagine that. Maybe she's referring to you and BLT.
My marriage is bi-racial. Whites and blacks look down their noses constantly at mixed couples. I'v dealt with It for close to 40 years. It was bad in the 60s and 70s, but today there isn't any difficulties involved. Michelle's mother is just showing her prejudice. She even thinks it's a fucken joke. I see no concern in her statement. You just want to be a pure literalist and cut her some slack , but she's showing her bigotry and hypocrisy, especially since she herself isn't completely black. What a hypocrite.
I think you need to speak for yourself, because clearly I'm not alone in this.Do you really expect me to believe your line of Bullshit?
You just want me to give up, am I right?
What I want you to do is acknowledge that your assumption has no basis. What I "expect".... not so much.
The bigotry is clear and even the author mentioned it was overlooked at the time she made said racist statement.... but apparently, upon looking back, it was noticeable. Trying to parse words and cherry-pick details is an exercise in denial. Nothing more.
If the "bigotry is clear"... if there is a "racist statement" ------------ how come none of us can find it? Why can't it be quoted?
Because there isn't one, that's why. You assume it. Out of a score of possible bases of reasoning, you assume the most malevolent. Then you call it "clear".
The question now is --- why do you do that?
Btw the author never mentions a "racist statement". At all.
When she said it would be worse if he had been white...chuckle...chuckle...that was racism.
No, It. Is. Not. And we already did this -- racism requires a value judgment as a basis. You ain't got one.
You're just trying to put up a smoke-screen. Frankly, I've lost respect in you because of this dishonesty. Talk all you want. Anyone that understands English can see racism in her statement. It's as plain as it can be. The author implied that it was there, but in literal terms he or she danced around it and then moved on.
I don't give a flying shit about "respect". What I care about is honest statement of fact. That's the only reason I keep pointing out where you fail to do so.
The judgement I base it on is her statement of having misgivings of a half white black man combined with her statement that it could have been worse if he was white. Explain how it could have been so bad if he had been white. Is Michelle's mother saying that her race is better, the same, or worse than the white race? Obviously better, which is the very definition of racism. She didn't like her daughter dating a bi-racial man but especially would have objected had he been, and I quote, "completely white". That is the basis of judgment.
That just confirms my point. Had Michelle been marrying an all-white man, it would be obvious to every passerby. Hence "it's hard" -- to deal with societal prejudices. And those prejudices would have been looking at two more obviously different races.
Don't you get that? You keep burying your head in the sand on this point desperately trying to see "racism" where none was expressed. Trying to see the worst in someone you don't know, when an alternative has already been suggested, and then plugging that in in spite of appearances.
I think you need to speak for yourself, because clearly I'm not alone in this.Do you really expect me to believe your line of Bullshit?
You just want me to give up, am I right?
What I want you to do is acknowledge that your assumption has no basis. What I "expect".... not so much.
The bigotry is clear and even the author mentioned it was overlooked at the time she made said racist statement.... but apparently, upon looking back, it was noticeable. Trying to parse words and cherry-pick details is an exercise in denial. Nothing more.
If the "bigotry is clear"... if there is a "racist statement" ------------ how come none of us can find it? Why can't it be quoted?
Because there isn't one, that's why. You assume it. Out of a score of possible bases of reasoning, you assume the most malevolent. Then you call it "clear".
The question now is --- why do you do that?
Btw the author never mentions a "racist statement". At all.
When she said it would be worse if he had been white...chuckle...chuckle...that was racism.
No, It. Is. Not. And we already did this -- racism requires a value judgment as a basis. You ain't got one.
You're just trying to put up a smoke-screen. Frankly, I've lost respect in you because of this dishonesty. Talk all you want. Anyone that understands English can see racism in her statement. It's as plain as it can be. The author implied that it was there, but in literal terms he or she danced around it and then moved on.
I don't give a flying shit about "respect". What I care about is honest statement of fact. That's the only reason I keep pointing out where you fail to do so. What you're doing here is taking a statement of preference and attributing a basis to it that is simply not in evidence.
What basis we do have in fact contradicts you:
“I guess that I worry about races mixing because of the difficulty — not for, so much for prejudice or anything,” Robinson continued. “It’s just very hard.”A mother concerned that people who see race in everything will make her life "very hard".
Imagine that. Maybe she's referring to you and BLT.
My marriage is bi-racial. Whites and blacks look down their noses constantly at mixed couples. I'v dealt with It for close to 40 years. It was bad in the 60s and 70s, but today there isn't any difficulties involved. Michelle's mother is just showing her prejudice. She even thinks it's a fucken joke. I see no concern in her statement. You just want to be a pure literalist and cut her some slack , but she's showing her bigotry and hypocrisy, especially since she herself isn't completely black. What a hypocrite.
Then I'm afraid it's you who has now pegged yourself as the hypocrite. You articulate perfectly what the issue is above from your own experience. Yet you can't allow that acknowledgement of sociocultural pressures to somebody else?
Why not? How come you can call that out, but Marian Robinson can't ?
Where do you get the idea she thinks it's a "fucken joke"? Let's have a link to that one now in our endless parade of evidence.
And further about the time-travel thing, the concern being expressed would have been 25 years ago, not "today there isn't any difficulties [sic]". You're still going out of your way to ascribe a motivation that doesn't exist, while simultaneously claiming to have an experience that affirms the one that does.
That's what I call blinded by bias.
I think you need to speak for yourself, because clearly I'm not alone in this.What I want you to do is acknowledge that your assumption has no basis. What I "expect".... not so much.
If the "bigotry is clear"... if there is a "racist statement" ------------ how come none of us can find it? Why can't it be quoted?
Because there isn't one, that's why. You assume it. Out of a score of possible bases of reasoning, you assume the most malevolent. Then you call it "clear".
The question now is --- why do you do that?
Btw the author never mentions a "racist statement". At all.
When she said it would be worse if he had been white...chuckle...chuckle...that was racism.
No, It. Is. Not. And we already did this -- racism requires a value judgment as a basis. You ain't got one.
You're just trying to put up a smoke-screen. Frankly, I've lost respect in you because of this dishonesty. Talk all you want. Anyone that understands English can see racism in her statement. It's as plain as it can be. The author implied that it was there, but in literal terms he or she danced around it and then moved on.
I don't give a flying shit about "respect". What I care about is honest statement of fact. That's the only reason I keep pointing out where you fail to do so.
The judgement I base it on is her statement of having misgivings of a half white black man combined with her statement that it could have been worse if he was white. Explain how it could have been so bad if he had been white. Is Michelle's mother saying that her race is better, the same, or worse than the white race? Obviously better, which is the very definition of racism. She didn't like her daughter dating a bi-racial man but especially would have objected had he been, and I quote, "completely white". That is the basis of judgment.
That just confirms my point. Had Michelle been marrying an all-white man, it would be obvious to every passerby. Hence "it's hard" -- to deal with societal prejudices. And those prejudices would have been looking at two more obviously different races.
Don't you get that? You keep burying your head in the sand on this point desperately trying to see "racism" where none was expressed. Trying to see the worst in someone you don't know, when an alternative has already been suggested, and then plugging that in in spite of appearances.
I think you need to speak for yourself, because clearly I'm not alone in this.What I want you to do is acknowledge that your assumption has no basis. What I "expect".... not so much.
If the "bigotry is clear"... if there is a "racist statement" ------------ how come none of us can find it? Why can't it be quoted?
Because there isn't one, that's why. You assume it. Out of a score of possible bases of reasoning, you assume the most malevolent. Then you call it "clear".
The question now is --- why do you do that?
Btw the author never mentions a "racist statement". At all.
When she said it would be worse if he had been white...chuckle...chuckle...that was racism.
No, It. Is. Not. And we already did this -- racism requires a value judgment as a basis. You ain't got one.
You're just trying to put up a smoke-screen. Frankly, I've lost respect in you because of this dishonesty. Talk all you want. Anyone that understands English can see racism in her statement. It's as plain as it can be. The author implied that it was there, but in literal terms he or she danced around it and then moved on.
I don't give a flying shit about "respect". What I care about is honest statement of fact. That's the only reason I keep pointing out where you fail to do so. What you're doing here is taking a statement of preference and attributing a basis to it that is simply not in evidence.
What basis we do have in fact contradicts you:
“I guess that I worry about races mixing because of the difficulty — not for, so much for prejudice or anything,” Robinson continued. “It’s just very hard.”A mother concerned that people who see race in everything will make her life "very hard".
Imagine that. Maybe she's referring to you and BLT.
My marriage is bi-racial. Whites and blacks look down their noses constantly at mixed couples. I'v dealt with It for close to 40 years. It was bad in the 60s and 70s, but today there isn't any difficulties involved. Michelle's mother is just showing her prejudice. She even thinks it's a fucken joke. I see no concern in her statement. You just want to be a pure literalist and cut her some slack , but she's showing her bigotry and hypocrisy, especially since she herself isn't completely black. What a hypocrite.
Then I'm afraid it's you who has now pegged yourself as the hypocrite. You articulate perfectly what the issue is above from your own experience. Yet you can't allow that acknowledgement of sociocultural pressures to somebody else?
Why not? How come you can call that out, but Marian Robinson can't ?
Where do you get the idea she thinks it's a "fucken joke"? Let's have a link to that one now in our endless parade of evidence.
And further about the time-travel thing, the concern being expressed would have been 25 years ago, not "today there isn't any difficulties [sic]". You're still going out of your way to ascribe a motivation that doesn't exist, while simultaneously claiming to have an experience that affirms the one that does.
That's what I call blinded by bias.
Bullshit. You need to explain how Obama's dead white mother is a problem. While you're doing that also explain how Obama looks any less black than Michelle, and explain how this is a difficulty today or even when they were married. Years ago the worst thing that happened was some old white lady would frown at us or some cracker would call me a ****** or even worse a ******-lover. Now it amounts to simply having to tell waiters we'll be both on the same check. If Michelle's mother thinks that's a problem she needs to get over it.
I don't need another link. Michelle's mother must have thought it was funny or she wouldn't have laughed.
****** puleeeeeeeeze!!!!!I don't need another link. Michelle's mother must have thought it was funny or she wouldn't have laughed.
Laughter isn't always because something is "funny". Laughter is for tension relief, whether there's humor present or not.
Again, cherrypicking causations. Seems to be on sale today.
Whatever.I think you need to speak for yourself, because clearly I'm not alone in this.
When she said it would be worse if he had been white...chuckle...chuckle...that was racism.
No, It. Is. Not. And we already did this -- racism requires a value judgment as a basis. You ain't got one.
You're just trying to put up a smoke-screen. Frankly, I've lost respect in you because of this dishonesty. Talk all you want. Anyone that understands English can see racism in her statement. It's as plain as it can be. The author implied that it was there, but in literal terms he or she danced around it and then moved on.
I don't give a flying shit about "respect". What I care about is honest statement of fact. That's the only reason I keep pointing out where you fail to do so.
The judgement I base it on is her statement of having misgivings of a half white black man combined with her statement that it could have been worse if he was white. Explain how it could have been so bad if he had been white. Is Michelle's mother saying that her race is better, the same, or worse than the white race? Obviously better, which is the very definition of racism. She didn't like her daughter dating a bi-racial man but especially would have objected had he been, and I quote, "completely white". That is the basis of judgment.
That just confirms my point. Had Michelle been marrying an all-white man, it would be obvious to every passerby. Hence "it's hard" -- to deal with societal prejudices. And those prejudices would have been looking at two more obviously different races.
Don't you get that? You keep burying your head in the sand on this point desperately trying to see "racism" where none was expressed. Trying to see the worst in someone you don't know, when an alternative has already been suggested, and then plugging that in in spite of appearances.
I think you need to speak for yourself, because clearly I'm not alone in this.
When she said it would be worse if he had been white...chuckle...chuckle...that was racism.
No, It. Is. Not. And we already did this -- racism requires a value judgment as a basis. You ain't got one.
You're just trying to put up a smoke-screen. Frankly, I've lost respect in you because of this dishonesty. Talk all you want. Anyone that understands English can see racism in her statement. It's as plain as it can be. The author implied that it was there, but in literal terms he or she danced around it and then moved on.
I don't give a flying shit about "respect". What I care about is honest statement of fact. That's the only reason I keep pointing out where you fail to do so. What you're doing here is taking a statement of preference and attributing a basis to it that is simply not in evidence.
What basis we do have in fact contradicts you:
“I guess that I worry about races mixing because of the difficulty — not for, so much for prejudice or anything,” Robinson continued. “It’s just very hard.”A mother concerned that people who see race in everything will make her life "very hard".
Imagine that. Maybe she's referring to you and BLT.
My marriage is bi-racial. Whites and blacks look down their noses constantly at mixed couples. I'v dealt with It for close to 40 years. It was bad in the 60s and 70s, but today there isn't any difficulties involved. Michelle's mother is just showing her prejudice. She even thinks it's a fucken joke. I see no concern in her statement. You just want to be a pure literalist and cut her some slack , but she's showing her bigotry and hypocrisy, especially since she herself isn't completely black. What a hypocrite.
Then I'm afraid it's you who has now pegged yourself as the hypocrite. You articulate perfectly what the issue is above from your own experience. Yet you can't allow that acknowledgement of sociocultural pressures to somebody else?
Why not? How come you can call that out, but Marian Robinson can't ?
Where do you get the idea she thinks it's a "fucken joke"? Let's have a link to that one now in our endless parade of evidence.
And further about the time-travel thing, the concern being expressed would have been 25 years ago, not "today there isn't any difficulties [sic]". You're still going out of your way to ascribe a motivation that doesn't exist, while simultaneously claiming to have an experience that affirms the one that does.
That's what I call blinded by bias.
Bullshit. You need to explain how Obama's dead white mother is a problem. While you're doing that also explain how Obama looks any less black than Michelle, and explain how this is a difficulty today or even when they were married. Years ago the worst thing that happened was some old white lady would frown at us or some cracker would call me a ****** or even worse a ******-lover. Now it amounts to simply having to tell waiters we'll be both on the same check. If Michelle's mother thinks that's a problem she needs to get over it.
What the hell are you smoking and more importantly why aren't you sharing?
Where did I ever say "O'bama's dead white mother is a problem"?
As for "who's blacker" -- if we're really going there to try to get this turkey to fly -- what Marian Robinson says is that it did NOT concern her as much as if he had been completely white. So you're trying to turn her point into its own opposite here, and you should know that quote by now -- you pasted it enough.
And while we're at it, why is being called a ******-lover "worse" than being called a ******?
Are you bigoted against love?
BTW, I remember when Michelle went to China. Her mother was a total ****, and the Chinese weren't afraid of saying it. Michelle drug her mother all the way to China and the bitch showed her ass to the hotel staff. I wouldn't be surprised if since mom is staying in the Whitehouse she's the same way there.
Yeah. I've read Heinleins work. Irrelevant.I don't need another link. Michelle's mother must have thought it was funny or she wouldn't have laughed.
Laughter isn't always because something is "funny". Laughter is for tension relief, whether there's humor present or not.
Again, cherrypicking causations. Seems to be on sale today. You're detemined to see the negative, no matter how hard you have to stretch.
“I've found out why people laugh. They laugh because it hurts so much . . . because it's the only thing that'll make it stop hurting.”-- Robert A. Heinlein, Stranger in a Strange Land (1961)
BTW, I remember when Michelle went to China. Her mother was a total ****, and the Chinese weren't afraid of saying it. Michelle drug her mother all the way to China and the bitch showed her ass to the hotel staff. I wouldn't be surprised if since mom is staying in the Whitehouse she's the same way there.
BTW, I remember when Michelle went to China. Her mother was a total ****, and the Chinese weren't afraid of saying it. Michelle drug her mother all the way to China and the bitch showed her ass to the hotel staff. I wouldn't be surprised if since mom is staying in the Whitehouse she's the same way there.
I've been suggesting you're pre-biased going into this. You just confirmed it.
Thanks for that.
BTW, I remember when Michelle went to China. Her mother was a total ****, and the Chinese weren't afraid of saying it. Michelle drug her mother all the way to China and the bitch showed her ass to the hotel staff. I wouldn't be surprised if since mom is staying in the Whitehouse she's the same way there.
Assumes facts not in evidence!
