Virginian Successor Quantico

[Labster]

Good news, Rajvik!  The rest of us, maybe not so good…

For those of your who have been living under a rock, you may not have heard that the governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Ralph Northam, is in a bit of hot water for wearing blackface back when I was like two years old.  The photo in his medical school yearbook he apologized for being in, then he said he wasn't in the photo because he wore blackface somewhere else.  And his wife had to tell him not to moonwalk at the press conference.  So, things are not looking up for him, and the resignation seems like it should be coming soon.

But his successor, Lieutenant Governor Justin Fairfax, he has an accuser suing him for sexual harassment.  If this goes on too long, the Democratic party will start asking him to resign, so as to live up to our MeToo cred.

Which leads us to the next in line, Attorney General Mark Herring, also a Democrat.  Looks like he'll be moving up, and oops, today he also admitted to wearing blackface to a party back in 1980.  People are already calling on him to resign.


Which leads us to the next in line, the Speaker of the Virginia House of Delegates.  Who is that?  Well funny story, back in the 2017 election, the 94th delegate district was very close, and was ruled to be an exact tie.  So a lots were drawn, and the seat went to Republican David Yancey.  This was enough to give the Republican party a bare majority in the House of 51-49, rather than a 50-50 split with a Democratic tiebreaker.  Because of this, Republican Kirk Cox was elected Speaker, and may find himself in the Governor's chair.  In fact, all three statewide offices could go to Republicans, now.

Statewide control of the entire government could flip because of scandal, and because of one single voter in the 94th district.  You know who you are, Scott.

It's the little things which make a difference sometimes.

[Jinx999]

Is forty year old blackface bad enough in the US that "I was a teenager and stupid and am now really sorry." not usable as a defence?

[Labster]

That excuse is a little harder to use when pursuing a postgraduate degree when it happened.

[classicdrogn]

It's the scandal of the moment, so naturally everyone is all stirred up to wag their finger and cry in alarm so they can demonstrate how utterly virtuous they are, unlike those evil, nasty, irredeemable public figures who were so shockingly revealed to have once been stupid kids as well. Because surely that's oh so unusual and completely worth ending their careers over. /sarcasm That's not to say that "it's just kids being stupid" is an excuse for racism, but no, I don't believe it to be a genuine measure of what their attitudes and actions are or would be in the present, and I'm not convinced that black skin tone makeup is racist if you're playing the role of a black character in a respectful way, either. I wouldn't be bent out of shape about, say, a black kid using pale makeup to sing a Frank Sinatra tune in a talent show, and I don't see why it should be different for a white kid singing something by Micheal Jackson. Though considering how MJ basically turned himself Orochimaru whiter-than-white through cosmetic surgery over the years he might not be the best example in the first place... or maybe he is the best example, I dunno.

Anyway, see also the thing Rajvik posted a link to a couple days ago with a title something like "(media outlet) thy name is hypocrisy," though I disagree with his take on the article in question.

[Labster]

I wouldn't be bent out of shape about, say, a black kid using pale makeup to sing a Frank Sinatra tune in a talent show, and I don't see why it should be different for a white kid singing something by Micheal Jackson.

So this is something that the Twitterati would say "check you privilege" to.  But I'll call it something else: innocent cruelty.  The point this argument misses is that white people can't really be the victim of racism in modern society.  We can be stereotyped, we can be joked about, but nothing that has any effect on our well-being.  Minstrel shows perpetuated harmful stereotypes for decades.  And actual harm, as the social standing affected jobs, education, health care.  It's different because it's different.  You can't afford to be colorblind because the world is not colorblind.

Someone once told me that I can't have sympathy for people of color.  Only empathy.  Because I have not lived a single day as as a black person, I cannot possibly have the same emotions, I can only identify and support.  And thus you can't tell someone what they're feeling is wrong.  It took me a while to get it.  But it's all too deconstructionist for me, you know?   And we're mostly writers here.  Forging sympathy is what we do, when we're doing our craft well.

I'm being careful not to pick a side on this one, there's no option to being involved.  I just want to remind people that every once in a while, the fulcrum of fate rests on a single voter, and to never take their civic duty lightly.

[classicdrogn]

Minstrel shows were the exact opposite of playing a character in a respectful manner, though, as I specifically mentioned being a requirement for not doing harm. (I would also dispute that whites don't get discriminated against in some areas and groups, but as a whole in US society it is probably close enough to true.) As for the rest, if you don't let - encourage! - people to be colorblind, how do you expect to make the world become colorblind? Equal means equal, skewing the balance the other way is not better.

[SilverFang01]

You have to wonder how many scandals of this magnitude are hiding in other state capitals.

[hazard]

Labster?

White people can absolutely be victims of racism. To be stereotyped, to be joked about, on the basis of your race? That is racism. A blonde, white woman being discarded as an obvious stupid bimbo? That's racist and sexist. A white person being told 'you can't do or be something because you're white?' That is racism Labster.

What matters here is that the victim is judged on their race. Nothing else. And if you get told you can't be racially discriminated against because you're white? That's racial discrimination right there. That person that told you you could not possibly feel sympathy for a person of colour, only empathy, because you are not one? That person also racist, because they defined you on your race.

Also, wrong, according to this e-dictionary link.

[Rajvik]

In my mind, part of the issue here is equality in how things are handled. During the recent past the media and the democrat party heads have blazed chapter and verse at republicans and conservatives that they were racists and then during the Kavenaugh hearings that every accuser should be believed. Now their volume is coming back to bite them in the ass because just like with Al Franker and the Me Too movement there are democrats running afoul of what they have done in the past.

When Bill and Hillary get raided like Roger Stone did, I will feel equality has been reached

[hazard]

Why would Bill and Hillary get raided? They've both been subjected to actual spurious investigations already. Bill due to the Ken Starr investigation and the impeachment trial during the 106th Congress, while Hillary has been incessantly investigated on account of the Benghazi mess.

If the Republicans held the Democrats to the Republicans' own actual standards every single one of them would've been able to get out of their scandals without any issues.

[Rajvik]

Why would Bill and Hillary be raided you ask. It would be because as Roger Stone has been accused, they have LIED TO CONGRESS. Them and all their little buddies thavideo.her out of the hacking investigation, and then started the whole Russia investigation going, the same ones involved in the Benghazi cluster fuck of an investigation and told congress and the media that it was because of a Youtube video.

[hazard]

As a result of the Ken Starr investigation, President Bill Clinton was accused of and tried before Congress for perjury and obstruction of justice. While no Democratic Senator voted against him, of the 55 Republican Senators then serving, only 50 voted against him on the perjury charge, and 45 on the obstruction of justice charge. This means 5 and 10 Republicans decided the man was not guilty and voted accordingly on those charges.

I can only assume that the reason Clinton wasn't accused again after the handover to the George Bush presidency was because of double jeopardy rules.

The Republicans have just finished a 2 year span of time in which they held every branch of government. For all of President Trump's rhetoric, Hillary Clinton has not been charged with any such crimes in any of the USA's jurisdictions. Not while she was Secretary of State and thus lacking the protections of a high ranking elected official from criminal proceedings, and not after she resigned in 2013 when she had only the protections due any given citizen of the United States.

If, after all these years and in both cases exhaustive investigations the decision was made not to prosecute such crimes any further it might just be because there's nothing to prosecute.

[Rajvik]

As a result of the Ken Starr investigation, President Bill Clinton was accused of and tried before Congress for perjury and obstruction of justice. While no Democratic Senator voted against him, of the 55 Republican Senators then serving, only 50 voted against him on the perjury charge, and 45 on the obstruction of justice charge. This means 5 and 10 Republicans decided the man was not guilty and voted accordingly on those charges.

I can only assume that the reason Clinton wasn't accused again after the handover to the George Bush presidency was because of double jeopardy rules.

The Republicans have just finished a 2 year span of time in which they held every branch of government. For all of President Trump's rhetoric, Hillary Clinton has not been charged with any such crimes in any of the USA's jurisdictions. Not while she was Secretary of State and thus lacking the protections of a high ranking elected official from criminal proceedings, and not after she resigned in 2013 when she had only the protections due any given citizen of the United States.

If, after all these years and in both cases exhaustive investigations the decision was made not to prosecute such crimes any further it might just be because there's nothing to prosecute.

Or, it would have been labeled as a banana republic dictators move by the media and been pushed as such on top of, and as a reason why the Russia probe was necessary. Quite frankly it was a political decision not to prosecute after Comedy's ursurption of the AG's job, (and he was hardly an unbiased person), and while I didn't agree with letting it go, it wasn't my decision to make.

Let's see a truly unbiased investigation into Hillary and her smashing of supeona'd electronics and deleting of supeona'd emails and see what happens.

Oh yeah, she's a Rodham and a Clinton, that won't happen.

[Labster]

Labster?

White people can absolutely be victims of racism. To be stereotyped, to be joked about, on the basis of your race? That is racism. A blonde, white woman being discarded as an obvious stupid bimbo? That's racist and sexist. A white person being told 'you can't do or be something because you're white?' That is racism Labster.

What matters here is that the victim is judged on their race. Nothing else. And if you get told you can't be racially discriminated against because you're white? That's racial discrimination right there. That person that told you you could not possibly feel sympathy for a person of colour, only empathy, because you are not one? That person also racist, because they defined you on your race.

Also, wrong, according to this e-dictionary link.

OK, let's start with your example.  Change the blonde, white woman, to a blond white man.  Does that still make sense?  What if it's an Asian woman who dies her hair blonde, are they immune to the bimbo label?  I would say no, and that your example doesn't make sense.  In order to be a victim, there has to be harm.  The argument is not that white people can't be subjected to racial discrimination, but that they do not suffer harm from it.  At least, no harm beyond the garden variety insult.

The world in which people are not defined by their race is a non-existent fairy land.  It's not that it hasn't existed in the past -- Homer pretty consistently describes males as dark-skinned, and females as fair-skinned, with no distinction as to race, just city and culture.  Racism is actually pretty modern, it seems to be a function of nationalism.  But using a mental model that doesn't apply the effects of stereotyping is folly, too.  It's a higher-order effect, and not the same as stereotyping.

As for the rest, if you don't let - encourage! - people to be colorblind, how do you expect to make the world become colorblind? Equal means equal, skewing the balance the other way is not better.

Brexit means Brexit, the Wall means the Wall.

I think this is harmful naïveté.  First off, the social justice warriors are not after social equality, they are after social justice.  Equality is not justice, unless you're from the Hammurabi school of law (that's at Gilgamesh U, right?).  Justice, to me, is equality tempered by mercy.  All people need to be treated better than equally.

Perhaps a society without racism is possible; I am honestly not sure.  Humans, as they are, want to come up with reasons to divide themselves against themselves, and unlike racism those roots stretch well into prehistory.  Perhaps it can be eliminated if we come up with some equally odious way of dividing ourselves.  Perhaps if we can find some space aliens to serve as a suitable Other.  Or just maybe, we can get better as a species.  But for now, acting as if skin color doesn't matter in society is ignorance, ignorance which allows racism to thrive.  Simply treating people equally is not justice, not alone.

[robkelk]

...
But his successor, Lieutenant Governor Justin Fairfax, he has an accuser suing him for sexual harassment.  If this goes on too long, the Democratic party will start asking him to resign, so as to live up to our MeToo cred.
...

What, really?

What Fairfax has been accused of - and which he denies doing - is directly comparable to what Brett Kavanaugh was accused of. We all know what happened to Kavanaugh; is the Democratic Party really going to treat a black man worse than how a white man was treated?


(Oh, and am I the only one who thinks "Virginian Successor Quantico" would be a kickass name for an anime? )

[Rajvik]

Considering that they are being rather quiet about it, or "wanting an investigation " where with Kavenaugh it was immediate demands for him to walk away and decline the nomination I doubt that he will be treated as harshly as Kavenaugh was.

[robkelk]

This is the first time I've ever heard "appointed to the Supreme Court" described as being harsh.

[Black Aeronaut]

Labster, racism can happen to 'white' people, too. Have you ever worked in a predominantly Mexican worksite? I've had friends and family members get shafted because they weren't 'Mexicano' enough. Granted, it's not all the time, but it does happen. You can have two equally qualified men on a jobsite with only one opening, and it will be 'Pedro' who gets the job and not 'Wilfred' because Pedro is a Mexicano and Wifred is a Gringo. How is that not racism?

I'm not saying it to badmouth anyone or to say "these people are bad". I'm simply saying that racism doesn't have boundaries. Just like there are Feminists out there that claim they want equality, but clearly don't when they declare their intents to have men live like some kind of lower caste. (Again, not saying ALL feminists - just a few that are actually obnoxious and horrible.)

[Labster]

^^^ A challenger appears. Black Aeronaut presents a valid example. Or at least one that meets my standard of "racism" and "harm". It's moderately effective.

[Rajvik]

This is the first time I've ever heard "appointed to the Supreme Court" described as being harsh.

Rob, you know i'm talking about the shenanigans that were pulled during the confirmation process, please don't act dense, it doesn't become you.

[classicdrogn]

Ah yes. Shenanigans. Like paying minimal lip service to investigating allegations raised before confirming him anyway because he was a Republican nominated by a Republican to a Republican congress. That was the critical qualification for the job, after all.

[robkelk]

This is the first time I've ever heard "appointed to the Supreme Court" described as being harsh.

Rob, you know i'm talking about the shenanigans that were pulled during the confirmation process, please don't act dense, it doesn't become you.

Rajvik, you know I'm not talking about the shenanigans that were pulled during the confirmation process, please don't act dense, it doesn't become you.

[Rajvik]

Alright you guys, I'm about to post something that will probably have you saying, "Who are you and what did you do with Ray?"

Northam has apparently decided that he is the "Best person to heal this wound" (his words not mine) where the picture/racism is concerned. I won't make any judgment on that, its not my place. That said however, when he made that comment on Face the Nation this morning, the reporter corrected him about the status of the first Africans brought to the colonies which Northam referred to as indentured servants. The thing is that Northam was right, the first Africans brought to the colonies were brought as indentured servants, it wasn't until later that slavery actually started. I guess that being factually right doesn't mean anything when someone's knickers are in a twist.

[classicdrogn]

When the facts don't fit someone's narrative, or are too complex for a three second sound bite, it would be more surprising if they didn't get ignored. Even if Colbert has moved on to a less parody-centered stage persona, "truthyness" is still what carries the day far too often.

[Rajvik]

Thing is, this is face the nation, it's supposed to be a hard news show that is supposed to actually handle facts, not opinion.

(I'm not disagreeing with you Drogn, I know everyone has a bias, but it still irritates me)