Newsweek, Democratic Congressional Candidate, Voting Rights

[K Graham]

I disagree with your summary of all that the GOP ever offers. I think there are also many black "folks" as you call them that would have a different summary of what the GOP has offered.

He's a Democrat so why defend the GOP strategy to help black people at all? But since you made your position clear, that you're more in line with Republicans (surprise!) on helping black people, then please, do tell. What are all the wonderful things the Republican party has done to improve the quality of life for the black communities? Or, what is their strategy aside from tax cuts for the rich so they can hire more black people?

I am not saying that you are right or wrong, Res. I do not want to get into that. I am asking, or saying an saying by asking, that even some of the people you call black folks disagree with you - can you accept THAT?

What a dumb question. Of course "some" black people disagree.

[Res Ipsa]

He is not wrong about one thing: political parties exist to elect their members to political office. The rest is sophistry. All the GOP ever offers to black folks is "a rising tide lifts all boats." Except that, when we look at the numbers, the only thing rising is rich people's yachts.

The ability to intentionally disadvantage a targeted group by using facially neutral rules has been recognized for decades. His claim to the contrary simply insults the intelligence of his intended audience.

Do you think that there are any black residents in Atlanta that would agree with Barrington and disagree with you?

I disagree with your summary of all that the GOP ever offers. I think there are also many black "folks" as you call them that would have a different summary of what the GOP has offered.

I am not saying that you are right or wrong, Res. I do not want to get into that. I am asking, or saying an saying by asking, that even some of the people you call black folks disagree with you - can you accept THAT?

Binger, I didn't say anything about what "black folks" think. I said what I think the GOP has offered to "black folks." Of course there are black folks who disagree. I never said, or implied, that every black person has the same opinion.

You have a hyper literal approach to group references that does nothing more than derail conversations. Going forward, please assume that every time I reference any sort of group, I expect that the readers here are intelligent enough to understand that I'm not claiming anything about "each and every member of a group." If it helps, just imagine that every time I refer to a general grouping of anything, I put a little (#noteachandeverygroupmemberbinger) after the reference.

#toomuchmeta

[Binger]

Do you think that there are any black residents in Atlanta that would agree with Barrington and disagree with you?

I disagree with your summary of all that the GOP ever offers. I think there are also many black "folks" as you call them that would have a different summary of what the GOP has offered.

I am not saying that you are right or wrong, Res. I do not want to get into that. I am asking, or saying an saying by asking, that even some of the people you call black folks disagree with you - can you accept THAT?

Binger, I didn't say anything about what "black folks" think. I said what I think the GOP has offered to "black folks." Of course there are black folks who disagree. I never said, or implied, that every black person has the same opinion.

You have a hyper literal approach to group references that does nothing more than derail conversations. Going forward, please assume that every time I reference any sort of group, I expect that the readers here are intelligent enough to understand that I'm not claiming anything about "each and every member of a group." If it helps, just imagine that every time I refer to a general grouping of anything, I put a little (#noteachandeverygroupmemberbinger) after the reference.

#toomuchmeta

I understand your point. I am not sure if you understand mine.

Mine is that people (in groups or individually) may have a different opinion and that people (in groups or individually) may even have a different set of facts and circumstances. People (in groups or individually) may arrive at a different conclusion than mine, and one that is different than yours, and their conclusions are neither stupid nor nefarious.

One thing that we have all had to come to terms with, or some of us at least, is the change of our faith even to the point of this so-called crisis level of anxiety or fear. And many of us have had to do that while family, immediate and extended, stayed in the confines of the faith we raged against. There were ways to navigate that and keep the families and relationships intact.

When it comes to politics - WE SHALL NEVER SURRENDER. And with the harsh extremes of identity politics, this gets personal and then it gets insane.

That was my rant...

and now...

You make this exception for using "black folks" and not meaning EVERY SINGLE BLACK PERSON! Can you allow a similar exception for people who are part of the GOP? And, would you ever take a stand to defend someone or a group that is blanketed with similar aspersions toward a group that are meant to impugn or malign individuals that may be part of a group but not aligned perfectly with the aspersions?

[Res Ipsa]

Binger, I didn't say anything about what "black folks" think. I said what I think the GOP has offered to "black folks." Of course there are black folks who disagree. I never said, or implied, that every black person has the same opinion.

You have a hyper literal approach to group references that does nothing more than derail conversations. Going forward, please assume that every time I reference any sort of group, I expect that the readers here are intelligent enough to understand that I'm not claiming anything about "each and every member of a group." If it helps, just imagine that every time I refer to a general grouping of anything, I put a little (#noteachandeverygroupmemberbinger) after the reference.

#toomuchmeta

I understand your point. I am not sure if you understand mine.

Mine is that people (in groups or individually) may have a different opinion and that people (in groups or individually) may even have a different set of facts and circumstances. People (in groups or individually) may arrive at a different conclusion than mine, and one that is different than yours, and their conclusions are neither stupid nor nefarious.

One thing that we have all had to come to terms with, or some of us at least, is the change of our faith even to the point of this so-called crisis level of anxiety or fear. And many of us have had to do that while family, immediate and extended, stayed in the confines of the faith we raged against. There were ways to navigate that and keep the families and relationships intact.

When it comes to politics - WE SHALL NEVER SURRENDER. And with the harsh extremes of identity politics, this gets personal and then it gets insane.

That was my rant...

and now...

You make this exception for using "black folks" and not meaning EVERY SINGLE BLACK PERSON! Can you allow a similar exception for people who are part of the GOP? And, would you ever take a stand to defend someone or a group that is blanketed with similar aspersions toward a group that are meant to impugn or malign individuals that may be part of a group but not aligned perfectly with the aspersions?

I think I understood. And yes, just like I said, each and every time I refer to a group. That's also the way I understand it when someone else refers to a group. That's why, for instance, I thought the whole #notallmen thing was absurd.

I don't understand your last question. Can you give me a concrete example?

[Binger]

I understand your point. I am not sure if you understand mine.

Mine is that people (in groups or individually) may have a different opinion and that people (in groups or individually) may even have a different set of facts and circumstances. People (in groups or individually) may arrive at a different conclusion than mine, and one that is different than yours, and their conclusions are neither stupid nor nefarious.

One thing that we have all had to come to terms with, or some of us at least, is the change of our faith even to the point of this so-called crisis level of anxiety or fear. And many of us have had to do that while family, immediate and extended, stayed in the confines of the faith we raged against. There were ways to navigate that and keep the families and relationships intact.

When it comes to politics - WE SHALL NEVER SURRENDER. And with the harsh extremes of identity politics, this gets personal and then it gets insane.

That was my rant...

and now...

You make this exception for using "black folks" and not meaning EVERY SINGLE BLACK PERSON! Can you allow a similar exception for people who are part of the GOP? And, would you ever take a stand to defend someone or a group that is blanketed with similar aspersions toward a group that are meant to impugn or malign individuals that may be part of a group but not aligned perfectly with the aspersions?

I think I understood. And yes, just like I said, each and every time I refer to a group. That's also the way I understand it when someone else refers to a group. That's why, for instance, I thought the whole #notallmen thing was absurd.

I don't understand your last question. Can you give me a concrete example?

Concrete examples may not be concrete for both of us. I will stick to the example that I had in mind when I made the comment. This one....

All the GOP ever offers to black folks is "a rising tide lifts all boats."

On the one hand, you are saying that "black folks" does not include all black citizens. My point in asking the question was to clarify whether "the GOP," is inclusive of all republicans and all members of the GOP. After all, the GOP is nothing but a collection of people. Some of the GOP members may fit your description, but in my mind, many members of the GOP offer more than what you are suggesting.

I do not think that all black members of the GOP are dumb. I do not think that all black members of the democratic party are dumb. I think that people from all walks of life are doing the best they can with the information and experience that they have. Comprehensive categorization of either side is unproductive.

[Res Ipsa]

I think I understood. And yes, just like I said, each and every time I refer to a group. That's also the way I understand it when someone else refers to a group. That's why, for instance, I thought the whole #notallmen thing was absurd.

I don't understand your last question. Can you give me a concrete example?

Concrete examples may not be concrete for both of us. I will stick to the example that I had in mind when I made the comment. This one....

All the GOP ever offers to black folks is "a rising tide lifts all boats."

On the one hand, you are saying that "black folks" does not include all black citizens. My point in asking the question was to clarify whether "the GOP," is inclusive of all republicans and all members of the GOP. After all, the GOP is nothing but a collection of people. Some of the GOP members may fit your description, but in my mind, many members of the GOP offer more than what you are suggesting.

I do not think that all black members of the GOP are dumb. I do not think that all black members of the democratic party are dumb. I think that people from all walks of life are doing the best they can with the information and experience that they have. Comprehensive categorization of either side is unproductive.

The GOP is a party. It's an organization. If I wanted to refer to "republicans," I would say "republicans" or "members of the GOP." But even if I made a general reference to "republicans," you should add the hastag. If intend to say "each and every republican" or "all republicans," I'll say so.

So, given the example you chose, who am I supposed to "take a stand and defend?" I still don't understand the question.

[Binger]

Concrete examples may not be concrete for both of us. I will stick to the example that I had in mind when I made the comment. This one....



On the one hand, you are saying that "black folks" does not include all black citizens. My point in asking the question was to clarify whether "the GOP," is inclusive of all republicans and all members of the GOP. After all, the GOP is nothing but a collection of people. Some of the GOP members may fit your description, but in my mind, many members of the GOP offer more than what you are suggesting.

I do not think that all black members of the GOP are dumb. I do not think that all black members of the democratic party are dumb. I think that people from all walks of life are doing the best they can with the information and experience that they have. Comprehensive categorization of either side is unproductive.

The GOP is a party. It's an organization. If I wanted to refer to "republicans," I would say "republicans" or "members of the GOP." But even if I made a general reference to "republicans," you should add the hastag. If intend to say "each and every republican" or "all republicans," I'll say so.

So, given the example you chose, who am I supposed to "take a stand and defend?" I still don't understand the question.

I got my answer on that.

What I was thinking about, was the example of the OP and author, Barrington Martin II.

He ran as a democrat, and then took a stand against what one may consider a democratic position. He is black, and he takes stands that some people find peculiar for a black man. I think the same is true for Adam Coleman and also Colion Noir in some cases. I was asking in the context of whether you would take a stand against groups that you have or would affiliate with and whether you would stand up for people who do the same.

[Res Ipsa]

The GOP is a party. It's an organization. If I wanted to refer to "republicans," I would say "republicans" or "members of the GOP." But even if I made a general reference to "republicans," you should add the hastag. If intend to say "each and every republican" or "all republicans," I'll say so.

So, given the example you chose, who am I supposed to "take a stand and defend?" I still don't understand the question.

I got my answer on that.

What I was thinking about, was the example of the OP and author, Barrington Martin II.

He ran as a democrat, and then took a stand against what one may consider a democratic position. He is black, and he takes stands that some people find peculiar for a black man. I think the same is true for Adam Coleman and also Colion Noir in some cases. I was asking in the context of whether you would take a stand against groups that you have or would affiliate with and whether you would stand up for people who do the same.

What do you mean by "take a stand?"

[Binger]

I got my answer on that.

What I was thinking about, was the example of the OP and author, Barrington Martin II.

He ran as a democrat, and then took a stand against what one may consider a democratic position. He is black, and he takes stands that some people find peculiar for a black man. I think the same is true for Adam Coleman and also Colion Noir in some cases. I was asking in the context of whether you would take a stand against groups that you have or would affiliate with and whether you would stand up for people who do the same.

What do you mean by "take a stand?"

He said what he thought was awesome. He took a lot of crap for it, and will again. He wants to be a leader and took a chance as a candidate for congress. He is making real moves in real life doing real things.

[Res Ipsa]

What do you mean by "take a stand?"

He said what he thought was awesome. He took a lot of crap for it, and will again. He wants to be a leader and took a chance as a candidate for congress. He is making real moves in real life doing real things.

I have no interest in running for political office, so I'm not taking that kind of stand. I'm not shy about expressing my opinions, but I don't consider that taking a stand.

The issues he campaigned on were solid progressive issues (universal basic income, universal healthcare, reparations to black folks, etc.). I skimmed his Twitter feed, and his substack, and I don't see him discussing the issues he campaigned on. He currently sounds more like Jordan Peterson than Bernie Sanders, so I have no clue what he's all about. He's clearly jumped on the populist, culture wars bandwagon, so maybe after getting 5% in the Senate Runoff, he's rebranding. Is it "brave" to denounce a political party when all the cool kids that support the other party are high fiving you in the media and on your Twitter page? ***shrug***

Is he a brave renegade? Or pandering after losing badly in an election? As far as I can tell, he did not express any of this "anti-woke" culture war stuff while he was a candidate.

I don't see him as "making real moves in real life doing real things" any more than any other person running for political office. He's a special education teacher. Now THAT's a real move in real life doing real things in my book.