4 ms·

I don't believe a racial attack is in any way an appropriate response to portman's comment.

te_chris 14y ago
That wasn't a racial attack, it was pointing out that the 3 people who he proposed to "fix" everything were among the most privileged people on the planet (in part due to the colour of their skin). This was done to try and make the point that, given past history, another round of letting the most privileged people on the planet come up with "solutions", probably won't get us very far.
- derleth 14y ago
  > That wasn't a racial attack You explicitly mentioned race. It's racist.
  - wpietri 14y ago
    I see. And if I point out that the KKK is all white dudes, then I'm also being racist? What a meanie I am! Pointing out the unbalanced composition of a group meant to solve society's problems is not in any way racist. It's a specific application of the general rule that humans have hard time understanding the experiences of people different than themselves, especially when there's privilege involved.
    - reader5000 14y ago
      Unlike the kkk, there is no indication the OP chose the three men on account of their race. To therefore attack them on the basis of their race is an ad hominem racial assault. Furthermore, obviously the three are privileged compared to a kid born in, say, Ethiopia, but I don't see how that illegitimates them for a discussion on America.
      - wpietri 14y ago
        It doesn't mean they can't participate in the discussion. It does mean that if they're the only people in the discussion, there's probably going to be some things wrong with the outcome.
  - andybak 14y ago
    That's the silliest statement I've read all day.
- crusso 14y ago
  >That wasn't a racial attack "attack" might be a strong word, but it was definitely a racist comment. Whenever you generalize or predict behavior or outcomes based upon race, you've made a racist comment. Maybe you liked the sound of it. Doesn't really matter, though, does it? Substitute "black" for "white" and how does your original statement sound? You're decrying the solutions that those three guys could come up with in part because they're white. Maybe you wanted to say, "ethnically homogenous"?
  - scarmig 14y ago
    I'm not so sure. They were also described as men. Does that make it sexist? They were also described as privileged. Does that make it class warfare? The point is obviously that they come from the same, very particular place at the very top of the same hierarchy that's created the world we now live in. Simply because the media has chosen to glamorize those people more than others doesn't mean we should do the same. Why not throw some equally intelligent and qualified people as Elinor Ostrom or Amartya Sen in there? Aside from the fact that they're probably a bit more left-leaning/sympathetic to the little guy than the three mentioned.
    - crusso 14y ago
      > They were also described as men. Does that make it sexist? It notes the sex of the decision-makers and implies the quality of results as part of a generalization, so I guess it is sexist. > They were also described as privileged. Does that make it class warfare? Warfare? That has a lot of extra meaning. "Classist" would be more clinical. Words like "racist", "sexist", and "classist" have real definitions and you don't get to apply them only when they support portions of an argument that you happen to agree with.

That wasn't a racial attack, it was pointing out that the 3 people who he proposed to "fix" everything were among the most privileged people on the planet (in part due to the colour of their skin). This was done to try and make the point that, given past history, another round of letting the most privileged people on the planet come up with "solutions", probably won't get us very far.

derleth 14y ago
> That wasn't a racial attack You explicitly mentioned race. It's racist.
- wpietri 14y ago
  I see. And if I point out that the KKK is all white dudes, then I'm also being racist? What a meanie I am! Pointing out the unbalanced composition of a group meant to solve society's problems is not in any way racist. It's a specific application of the general rule that humans have hard time understanding the experiences of people different than themselves, especially when there's privilege involved.
  - reader5000 14y ago
    Unlike the kkk, there is no indication the OP chose the three men on account of their race. To therefore attack them on the basis of their race is an ad hominem racial assault. Furthermore, obviously the three are privileged compared to a kid born in, say, Ethiopia, but I don't see how that illegitimates them for a discussion on America.
    - wpietri 14y ago
      It doesn't mean they can't participate in the discussion. It does mean that if they're the only people in the discussion, there's probably going to be some things wrong with the outcome.
- andybak 14y ago
  That's the silliest statement I've read all day.
crusso 14y ago
>That wasn't a racial attack "attack" might be a strong word, but it was definitely a racist comment. Whenever you generalize or predict behavior or outcomes based upon race, you've made a racist comment. Maybe you liked the sound of it. Doesn't really matter, though, does it? Substitute "black" for "white" and how does your original statement sound? You're decrying the solutions that those three guys could come up with in part because they're white. Maybe you wanted to say, "ethnically homogenous"?
- scarmig 14y ago
  I'm not so sure. They were also described as men. Does that make it sexist? They were also described as privileged. Does that make it class warfare? The point is obviously that they come from the same, very particular place at the very top of the same hierarchy that's created the world we now live in. Simply because the media has chosen to glamorize those people more than others doesn't mean we should do the same. Why not throw some equally intelligent and qualified people as Elinor Ostrom or Amartya Sen in there? Aside from the fact that they're probably a bit more left-leaning/sympathetic to the little guy than the three mentioned.
  - crusso 14y ago
    > They were also described as men. Does that make it sexist? It notes the sex of the decision-makers and implies the quality of results as part of a generalization, so I guess it is sexist. > They were also described as privileged. Does that make it class warfare? Warfare? That has a lot of extra meaning. "Classist" would be more clinical. Words like "racist", "sexist", and "classist" have real definitions and you don't get to apply them only when they support portions of an argument that you happen to agree with.