[mothballed]

I love it. A video depicting both white and black people as non-human primates is more racist than literally using the might of the state to try and block excluded races from voting for a public office.

This is part of the reason why the nominally anti-racist zealots are losing the battle. We want to live in a world where it's actually considered racist to exclude races in a public election, rather than one where it's not racist to exclude races from a public election but somehow more racist to post a multi-racial video depicting whites and others as non-human animals.

[cosmicgadget]

Would you say a 25 year old opinion by a single dead Supreme Court justice is more damaging to your supposed platform than voter ID laws, gerrymandering, and the attack on vote by mail?

[mothballed]

No, it just is the most direct obvious example I can find of high level assistance in violating the 15th amendment since the year 2000. I have no doubt all of your examples have also been used to effectuate the same thing, they just have a little more plausible deniability to the point it's harder to point out in black and white.

I was not asked to contemplate every example of racism.

The ID bit is particularly amusing to look at. In my state you need an ID to vote but not to conceal carry a gun. In Illinois it's the exact opposite, with a lot of handwaving why you need an ID to prove you are a 'person' but not a 'citizen'. Obviously the states and government are totally inconsistent on the issue of ID to exercise rights.

Mail voting might be more prejudicial to the poor with irregular addresses, since their only option is to vote in person whereas those better off with regular mail access can vote via mail or in person.

Overall I would take a stab that both mail voting and ID requirements yield a net slight prejudice against some minorities. Gerrymandering is just dog-shit all around.

[cosmicgadget]

> I was not asked to contemplate every example of racism.

I mean quite clearly you were responding literally to a commenter's disbelief that you think the video didn't intentionally use racist imagery.

So you could have not chosen any example. Or one that is relevant to the current state of the world, even if it hides behind a mask of legitimacy.

Anyway, I imagine if RBG were here she'd probably have something to say on response but I can't think of anything that is more of a non-controversy.

[mothballed]

RBG didn't want to take the time and stop and think about her career and have discourse with us here. She wanted to work to the end so that Trump could replace her with someone less racist. It was her final, but most valuable act.

[cosmicgadget]

Safe to assume your characterization of RBG as racist is based purely on one instance of balancing colorblind values and the rights of indigenous people?

Clearly if Barrett is "less racist" that isn't a value Trump actually sought.

[mothballed]

"indigenous people" do not have the right to block other races from voting for a public office. The fact that they're polyneysians that slaughtered other polynesians isn't a magic trump card to shit on the ethnic filipinos, chinese, and others that were enslaved and subjected under the "Kingdom of Hawaii" which by the estimation of BryantD were part of the subjected people at that time the "treaty" was meant to protect (no matter that the case itself, ruled that these "treaty" protections carveouts were applicable to Indians and that Hawaiians are not that, thus the racist tried to angle on the legally vague 'indigenous' instead.)

RBG was not balancing the rights of 'indigenous' but rather "balancing" and supporting the racism of ethnic Hawaiians against all the other exploited minorities on the island that were subject in the Kingdom that the US overthrew. Only in the simplified view that it was just Hawaiians and the colonizers does the 'balancing' nonsense even look remotely to be the case, and that is in the most charitable possible interpretation.