Tariffs Catch-All

  • Thread starter Thread starter BubbaOtis
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 4K
  • Views: 138K
  • Politics 
Your melanin obsession is noted.
You are literally the only person here who ever talks about melanin. I'd say you're the one who is obsessed. The rest of us are smart enough to understand that race isn't really about skin color. It's about so much more than that.
 
You are literally the only person here who ever talks about melanin. I'd say you're the one who is obsessed. The rest of us are smart enough to understand that race isn't really about skin color. It's about so much more than that.
"Those deaths will be to brown people in 3rd world countries."

Where do you believe the brown skin that Zoo_View referenced comes from?

1A0A0976-1-1024x683.jpg
 
I don't think your link shows what you think it shows.
It shows that cuts to park service employees has resulted in decreased services. It's not always "permanently closed." Maybe you noticed that some of the entries read like this: "Closed M-T due to staff shortages." There was a lot of that.

I'm not going to argue with you about specific parks or details. Not all the closures are DOGE related. Duh. But some are, and that has impacted service, and it's not just me who is saying that. The google search produces a lot of results.

And of course you didn't address the other factors.
 
"Those deaths will be to brown people in 3rd world countries."

Where do you believe the brown skin that Zoo_View referenced comes from?
Anyone remotely familiar with the history of racism in the US knows of the one-drop rule. It wasn't skin color that made one a Negro. It was ancestry. Likewise with Mexicans. That the skin color is different makes the racism readily available and observable, and once upon a time it was the primary distinction. By once upon a time, I mean like 2 centuries ago. Racism stopped being moored to skin color when white Southerners realized they needed justifications for slavery, and pivoted to the "slaves are weak-minded, irresponsible beasts." It then became about those stereotypes with skin color merely being a proxy.
 
Anyone remotely familiar with the history of racism in the US knows of the one-drop rule. It wasn't skin color that made one a Negro. It was ancestry. Likewise with Mexicans. That the skin color is different makes the racism readily available and observable, and once upon a time it was the primary distinction. By once upon a time, I mean like 2 centuries ago. Racism stopped being moored to skin color when white Southerners realized they needed justifications for slavery, and pivoted to the "slaves are weak-minded, irresponsible beasts." It then became about those stereotypes with skin color merely being a proxy.
Just to prove that it was all science and no sentiment, recall they had this.


The "Pocahontas Exception" refers to a provision within Virginia's Racial Integrity Act of 1924 that allowed individuals with a certain degree of American Indian ancestry (specifically, one-sixteenth or less, and no other non-Caucasian blood) to be legally classified as white.
 
Anyone remotely familiar with the history of racism in the US knows of the one-drop rule. It wasn't skin color that made one a Negro. It was ancestry. Likewise with Mexicans. That the skin color is different makes the racism readily available and observable, and once upon a time it was the primary distinction. By once upon a time, I mean like 2 centuries ago. Racism stopped being moored to skin color when white Southerners realized they needed justifications for slavery, and pivoted to the "slaves are weak-minded, irresponsible beasts." It then became about those stereotypes with skin color merely being a proxy.
Everything you said may be true and is almost entirely irrelevant in a functional discussion about race. One need only search for "brown skin" on this site to see that skin color is THE focus. The same is true when you watch cable news opinion shows.

This is a completely disingenuous move on your part, IMO.
 
1. Many of the DOGE cuts have been blocked. Those blocks might only be temporary and in some cases are almost certain to be.
2. The "severance" period for the people who accepted Elon's "please leave" offer hasn't expired yet. So they are still getting paychecks, for the time being.
3. Has there been any significant impact to government services? Let's see:

UPDATED | What's Closed, Canceled Around The National Park System (parks)
Local scientists, fisheries and weather forecasters feeling impact of NOAA cuts (fisheries and weather reports)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2025/05/11/trump-government-operations-halt-funding-cuts/ (EPA)

among many many other effects. I'm not doing all the research for you. What you're displaying again is your insistence that your life experience is complete. If you don't experience something, it must not exist or it must be overblown. It's your constant refrain.
Pushback and a blizzard of lawsuits are the only way to handle Trump's tyranny and deliberate destruction of the US government and infrastructure.

60% of the new jobs and GDP created since WWII are related to federal R&D investment. Research and education are the biggest ROI of virtually any expenditure by federal and state governments. I calculated approximately a 50:1 ROI for flagship public higher education spending in Texas.
 
Everything you said may be true and is almost entirely irrelevant in a functional discussion about race. One need only search for "brown skin" on this site to see that skin color is THE focus. The same is true when you watch cable news opinion shows.
This is going to blow your mind, but there's such a thing as metonym. Sometimes we use the word proxy. As ChatGPT puts it:

"using skin color to define racial identity is a kind of metonym—specifically, it’s metonymic shorthand where a physical trait stands in for a broader, socially constructed category."

You're confusing the shorthand for the concept. It's not that different from the way we talk about "big men" in basketball. There is obviously so much more than height that separates players, and even their play style, but "big man" is a shorthand to refer to the collection of traits we associate with tall players.

Of course, it's not that skin color is unrelated to race. It's just that race is so much more about skin color, even if we use skin color words as shorthand because other formulations are wordy. You would hoot and holler at a formulation like, "racial identities based on societally imposed feelings and perceptions of inferiority, often due to skin color or assumptions about skin color." So we say dark-skinned for brevity.
 
This is going to blow your mind, but there's such a thing as metonym. Sometimes we use the word proxy. As ChatGPT puts it:

"using skin color to define racial identity is a kind of metonym—specifically, it’s metonymic shorthand where a physical trait stands in for a broader, socially constructed category."

You're confusing the shorthand for the concept. It's not that different from the way we talk about "big men" in basketball. There is obviously so much more than height that separates players, and even their play style, but "big man" is a shorthand to refer to the collection of traits we associate with tall players.

Of course, it's not that skin color is unrelated to race. It's just that race is so much more about skin color, even if we use skin color words as shorthand because other formulations are wordy. You would hoot and holler at a formulation like, "racial identities based on societally imposed feelings and perceptions of inferiority, often due to skin color or assumptions about skin color." So we say dark-skinned for brevity.
Of course race is more than skin color but the political discussion is virtually never a discussion about genes or anything, honestly, intelligent. If anything, it's a race to the bottom... pun intended. Who can generalize the most, sound the most simplistic and sound the least intelligent? Dems like to fancy themselves educated and informed, yet continually sound like freaking idiots when talking about race, which only puts them in line with the actual racists.

The majority of people don't even use race or racism correctly because the majority of Mexicans are part of the Caucasian race.
 
Says the guy who thinks that it was the sex and not the mannerisms that I was noting. Points out the true misogynist. You haven't missed your foot with a shot yet.
The mannerisms are based on sexual stereotypes and are still intended to be insults based on those sexual stereotypes.

Epic Fail GIF by The Resident on FOX
 
Who can generalize the most, sound the most simplistic and sound the least intelligent?

The majority of people don't even use race or racism correctly because the majority of Mexicans are part of the Caucasian race.
As to your first question, the answer is clearly you.

As for the second issue, you betray yourself. The majority of people are not less knowledgeable than you. They just understand race better than you do. And for what it's worth the phrase is race or ethnicity and Hispanic/Latino is usually regarded as an ethnicity. The practical difference between ethnicity and race is close to nil. In both cases, the driving factor is ancestry.
 
Then maybe you should be more sympathetic with other males showing their feminine side.
Other than clearly trying to deflect, I have no idea what you're talking about, but that isn't stopping you from continuing the misogyny.
 
As to your first question, the answer is clearly you.

As for the second issue, you betray yourself. The majority of people are not less knowledgeable than you. They just understand race better than you do.
And yet still manage to sound less intelligent, likely because they are obsessed with it.
And for what it's worth the phrase is race or ethnicity and Hispanic/Latino is usually regarded as an ethnicity. The practical difference between ethnicity and race is close to nil. In both cases, the driving factor is ancestry.
The difference is close to nil when you're someone who is obsessed with melanin and ignores the reality of what race really is. For the rest of us, it's a huge difference and, in most cases, makes true racism/xenophobia, as we see in society, ridiculous.

The racists don't care that Ernie Els is here. The racists don't care that Elon Musk is here because they're obsessed with melanin not science. The same is true with far too many democrats.
 
Back
Top