They are both racist (and even both very racist), but actively engaging in white supremacy IS WORSE and I shouldn’t have to explain why. You can argue that they are both bad, but I think the side that is okay with a former police officer chasing a black man down with his truck and shooting him might be worse.
Make an argument that calls out the “tough on crime” narrative that passively destroys the lives of racial minorities, but don’t call them the same. That’s such a weenie position.
Curious what you think “tough on crime” means and how it’s separate from “white supremacy” and the police killing black people. How is “tough on crime” passive? Do you think the effects of “tough on crime” on the lives of racial minorities were not intentional?
Yeah, considering I went over how there are Republicans that have actively lynched people for their race, I think I covered that pretty well, but let’s pretend I didn’t because not everyone can understand things the first time.
Tough on crime is passive because it is not about saying white people are superior, a thing Republicans do. It is also not actively telling people that Muslims are worse than dogs, a thing Republicans do. While the mechanisms of the state actively target minorities to a significantly higher degree, this is passively racist because it relies on underlying connections to tie minorities to crimes.
See, the sad part about your argument is that Republicans platform and actively defend the people who shoot minorities and actively defend the people who do so. Motherfuckers out here pretending the people who shoot up black churches and synagogues are anything other than Republicans, are hilariously bad faith. Anyone who thinks the Democrats are somehow just as racist as hate crime doers and defenders has shit for brains. That’s active racism, and yeah, it’s fucking worse.
Unless you think killing minorities and telling people to kill minorities is better than just saying “we’re tough on crime”. Do you think that?
Curious what you think “tough on crime” means and how it’s separate from “white supremacy” and the police killing black people. How is “tough on crime” passive? Do you think the effects of “tough on crime” on the lives of racial minorities were not intentional?
Yeah, considering I went over how there are Republicans that have actively lynched people for their race, I think I covered that pretty well, but let’s pretend I didn’t because not everyone can understand things the first time.
Tough on crime is passive because it is not about saying white people are superior, a thing Republicans do. It is also not actively telling people that Muslims are worse than dogs, a thing Republicans do. While the mechanisms of the state actively target minorities to a significantly higher degree, this is passively racist because it relies on underlying connections to tie minorities to crimes.
See, the sad part about your argument is that Republicans platform and actively defend the people who shoot minorities and actively defend the people who do so. Motherfuckers out here pretending the people who shoot up black churches and synagogues are anything other than Republicans, are hilariously bad faith. Anyone who thinks the Democrats are somehow just as racist as hate crime doers and defenders has shit for brains. That’s active racism, and yeah, it’s fucking worse.
Unless you think killing minorities and telling people to kill minorities is better than just saying “we’re tough on crime”. Do you think that?