6 ms·
> They were making the argument and affirming that they were discriminating based on political affiliation, in an attempt to show they were not discriminating b
by someone7x 8y ago
> They were making the argument and affirming that they were discriminating based on political affiliation, in an attempt to show they were not discriminating based on race. It was a conscious legal strategy to admit this.
Wow. Can't be racial prejudice if its already political prejudice.
Reminds me of the court scene in New Jack City where the Wesley Snipes confesses to being a foot soldier and therefore he can't be the kingpin.
- pathseeker 8y ago>Wow. Can't be racial prejudice if its already political prejudice. It can, but it's not in many cases. I also know lots of conservatives who are not the strawman racists people on the left like to attack. They really only care that people don't vote in left-wing people. Keep in mind that suppressing the Democrat vote will dis-proportionally affect black people (as well as poor people, etc), but that doesn't mean the people trying to do it are prejudiced against black people. They are just prejudiced against Democrats.
- someone7x 8y agoI think you misunderstand me. It’s not that it’s a veneer, it’s that the veneer is tolerated despite resulting in voter suppression. Voter suppression should be a universal bad in a democracy no? It’s not only bad when done for racist ends.
- stretchwithme 8y agoMaybe they are just prejudiced against policies they don't agree with. Just like everybody else.