• mriguy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    “We would have all stayed under our rocks if YOU hadn’t forced us to freak out by electing a black guy”.

      • pomodoro_longbreak@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        9 months ago

        Look, the country just wasn’t “ready” yet for a democratically elected, centrist, fiscally conservative, brown, America-first, pro troop, business friendly, candidate. There’s just something about him that was too radical for many people. 🤷

          • AA5B@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            It was that goddammed tan suit. What kind of president could rock one of those? What kind of president has any style or fashion sense? It’s just un-American

            • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              8 months ago

              My favorite part was how they would make up New Traditions just so they could accuse Obama violating them, when none of these violated Traditions were ever historically a thing. They were legitimately making things up just to be mad about them

    • banneryear1868@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      “Race relations” is itself a racist notion, the idea that a race is a real ontological entity and that people can be spokespersons on behalf of a race. This usually means meritocratic elitist race representatives dismissing notions of racial justice which threaten economic arrangements that sustain the system that causes racial disparities in the first place. “Race relations” is how you get things like entrepreneurial programs (half of all businesses fail in general) for racialized business owners instead of improved social services.

    • banneryear1868@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      My favorite thing about Rudy are his sexts with the assistant he was banging. They sound like someone who doesn’t really know how to talk dirty but the partner really wants it.

      “Those tits… those are MY tits. You like my tits? That’s right, I own those tits. They’re mine. Those are my tits.”

    • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      All the teabaggers will just never get over Obama. All those boomers that loved to whine about Carter and Clinton got so much more butthurt over Obama and seemed to talk about the former a lot less once Obama got into office. Gee, I wonder why. 🤔

        • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          9 months ago

          I noticed even those people tended to be mostly occupied by Obama ever since his election - I bet it has something to do with melanin. I guess Hillary running resurrected some of that, which triggers their misogyny and that does battle with their racism. Also, some of the older ones would still grumble about how Nixon and Ronnie Raygun were so “unfairly” treated by the “liberal media”. The resentment among the teabaggers about Nixon is easy to underestimate, I think. I bet most of them would have rather he just stuck it out and did not resign, no matter what.

          Same thing with their view of Ronnie Raygun. They won’t listen to one iota of truth about the real Raygun and they will practically start spitting if you bring up Iran/Contra (which was worse than Watergate, and of course, Raygun’s administration was objectively the most criminal in history up to that point - I’m not sure if donnie’s admin surpassed it).

          But once Obama was elected, wow, they seemed to never let up with all the dog whistles and their brain seemed to be occupied with ODS primarily.

  • vitamin@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    9 months ago

    What he meant to say was that Republicans would have continued to pretend to not be racist and stuck to their wink wink dog whistles, but electing a black man president drove them so insane that they regressed 50 years and returned to being openly racist.

    • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      I even remember in 2016, most especially right after donnie won the EC, all the gaslighting cons were doing classic DARVO and telling everyone how they “had” to vote for the likes of donnie because they were made to do it because of something, something, Obama. [1]

      If they didn’t blame it on Obama, they blamed it on Hillary being “shrill” or something. I think Patton Oswalt summed it up pretty well when he talked about donnie being a racist palate cleanser:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4cHWDTNWBs

      [1] Of course Tucker has gone further and said that people like him will be forced to go fascist because something something “woke”.

  • Unpigged@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    So elected Obama made fun of Trump. It made him flip and get into the race. That put him in a position to become a president which fucked up the race relations. So yeah, checkmate.

    Thanks Obama!

  • Treczoks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    9 months ago

    Well, his idea of “race relation” is going back to colored people in chains and white people with whips. Getting 40 or 50 years away from that is a good thing.

    • banneryear1868@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      9 months ago

      “The dominance of neoliberalism frames inequality as deriving from personal responsibility or the lack thereof and replaces structural analysis with a focus on “race relations.”” - Barbara Fields

      • SCB@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        The Jacobin lol

        Always worth a read just for the chuckle.

          • SCB@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            A historian is not a leading scholar on economics. That’s a Jacobin-level tale from ya there

            • SquirtleHermit@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              8 months ago

              A historian, with a Ph.D from Yale, Professor at Columbia University, first African American woman to earn tenure there, a multiple award winning author including the MacArthur’s Fellows Program, who spent her professional career studying the concepts of race and racism in America.

              But sure, throw out her point because a website you don’t like talked about it.

              • banneryear1868@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                8 months ago

                Not only that but race and racism in America as a uniquely economic relation. One of her central thesis is that this notion of race developed out of economic relations and not the other way around as it is often presented, or in her words, “as though the point of slavery was to produce white supremacy instead of cotton.” She argues that race is not a real biological category and against essentialist notions of race that suggest they are ontologically “real,” and that race is invoked to explain and justify economic inequalities. She often invokes the absurdities within so-called “biracial” or “mixed” racial categories to highlight the lack of explanatory power race offers as a point of analysis.

                • SquirtleHermit@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  8 months ago

                  First off, Neolibralism is broader in scope than just economics, reducing it to such shows a profound lack of knowledge on the subject.

                  Secondly, even if your limited definition was sufficient, the study of how economic systems affects racism and societal structures is a common topic amongst scholars in her field. Racism and racial divides directly impacted the social structures of the United States, economic systems also directly affect social structures, so (intentionally or otherwise) economic systems will have an effect on the divisions along racial lines.

                  Feel free to make continue glib assumptions that a respected scholar discussing a topic she spent her life researching must have missed your brilliant point that “economics is a different word than race”, but the reality is that you are dismissing a well researched point out of ignorance on both the topic at hand, and the argument being made. But do us all a favor, the next time you don’t know what you are talking about, read up or shut up.

            • banneryear1868@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              8 months ago

              historian is not a leading scholar on economics

              Their major area of study and impact as scholars is contextualizing the institution of slavery as a primarily economic relation. You’re being confidently incorrect.

              Jacobin is a leading left publication, if you’re a right wing or liberal you probably don’t agree with it’s editorial stance, but dismissing leading scholars on a topic because of this is pure anti-intellectualism. Here’s one of her essays Ideology and Race in American History that a prof seems to have hosted on their university site which contains some of her main ideas, you can lead a horse to water after all…

  • PsychedSy@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    Even from a right/conservative view of things this makes no sense. Obama was a fucking legal scholar. He’d learned CRT in the context of law and brought it to bear not at all in a social context.

  • dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    9 months ago

    I wonder why Republicans think that Democrats and Leftists have “Trump Derangement Syndrome” but no other Republican president ever received that degree of ire.

    • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      TDS wasn’t real

      While the symptom of a leftist freaking out whenever Trump does something was true, it’s not fair to call this irrational when what Trump was doing was legitimately terrible. It would be like telling the Jews that they had Hitler derangement syndrome.

  • spider@lemmy.nz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    Electing Obama Trump has ‘taken us back 40 or 50 years on race relations’

    fixed that for ya, Rudy

    • Telorand@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      9 months ago

      Like, this is the laziest attempt at projecting I’ve seen in a while. It’s like watching someone become more bigoted as their facilities deteriorate from dementia, and it’s just sad to watch.