It’s called “privilege.”
You’re soaking in it.
17 Likes
I would not be so sure he would vote against doing so. Shameless pandering to the right wing, even attacking stuff he benefitted from is his MO.
6 Likes
all good points, thank you. This year is just generally full of things that seemed to be unthinkable just 5 years ago.
6 Likes
perhaps we ahould sue to slit that family apart. this is what mitch wants.
1 Like
As @Melizmatic pointed out above it’s only unthinkable to those who have the privilege of not being aware of it. In the U.S. it took until the mid-1990’s before a majority approved of interracial marriage, and less than ten years ago a Cheerio’s commercial–a commercial!–sparked outrage among racists for depicting an interracial couple and their child. Not that it takes much to set off racists.
20 Likes
That we agree on, although that’s what happens when you don’t do the work of facing the past and addressing it head on. I’d say that until we do that, this will continue to be a problem in “western” society. It’s on us to do the hard work. I’m ready to do it here, if you’re ready to do it where you live…
Also, always listen to @Melizmatic! She kick ass!
18 Likes
Takes one to know one, hon.
13 Likes
MM’s hypocrisy speaks to real life and especially to most of the history of Hollywood films: Can’t have Non-white males romance/sleep with White women… but it’s totally okay the other way around. MM’s “nay” may be another example of the former scenario.
7 Likes
(too bad I can’t spell for shit)… 
8 Likes
The logic used to overturn Roe v Wade (as explained in the Dobbs decision) can also be used to attack Loving v Virginia and more recently Obergefell v. Hodges. While few people believe that the court would allow states to ban interracial marriage, same-sex marriage is definitely more vulnerable. Given that the supreme court obtains its legitimacy from reasoning about precedents, and not from the laughable notion that the justices are trustworthy and wise, these sorts of reductio ad absurdam articles are useful because they make people less complacent about their liberties, and less respectful of justices who hide their malice and bad faith behind flowery language.
Do I believe that Clarence Thomas is not a man who would cut off his own nose to spite his face? He might well be, and deserves some measure of contempt.
2 Likes
Expecting Mitch McConnell to be consistent in anything is a losing game. The only thing he’s ever been consistent about during his long, disgraceful career is wanting more power and less accountability for him and his cronies. Anything else he does or says is mere opportunism, as the history of his moral outrages over Trump demonstrate. In a corrupt, self-serving party there are few more corrupt and self-serving than dear ol’ Mitch.
As for Thomas, an interesting New Yorker analysis of how his judicial views were formed suggest that he’s philosophically hostile to civil rights legislation, integration, and the like for different reasons than his Supreme Court buddies. But his goals align with theirs so who cares why he agrees with them as long as he agrees? The fact that Thomas is in an interracial marriage and disapproves of interracial marriages suggests that, like McConnell, he’s more interested in imposing his values upon others than in living by them himself.
10 Likes
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
