POLL re gay marriage

[bedstuy]

In practice, it almost never matters in how I vote.  If someone opposes gay marriage, usually they're a Republican and I wouldn't vote for them anyway. 

The only primary with a pro-SSM candidate vs. an anti-SSM candidate I can remember was the US House Primary in Central Brooklyn between Charles Barron and Hakeem Jeffries.  I had enough reasons not to vote for racist, far-left Charles Barron, but his anti-SSM position was another indicator of how terrible he was.

[bedstuy]

In practice, it almost never matters in how I vote.  If someone opposes gay marriage, usually they're a Republican and I wouldn't vote for them anyway.  

The only primary with a pro-SSM candidate vs. an anti-SSM candidate I can remember was the US House Primary in Central Brooklyn between Charles Barron and Hakeem Jeffries.  I had enough reasons not to vote for racist, far-left Charles Barron, but his anti-SSM position was another indicator of how terrible he was.

Charles Barron is racist, what? Unless you think that veiled or not so veiled antisemitism constitutes racism (which is fair), that statement has no basis in reality.

I'd vote for an anti-marriage equality Democrat over a pro-marriage equality Republican but I'd only consider an anti-marriage equality Democrat in a primary if they were running against a centrist Democrat and had excellent credentials on economic issues. For example: if Brendan Boyle was against gay marriage and his only opponent was Margolies, I'd vote for him without hesitation.

Charles Barron hates Jewish people and white people.  Both are forms of racism.  I guess the counter would be that Charles Barron is just a race-baiting buffoon who plays that angle for politics.  I think he's probably both racist and a race-baiting buffoon. 

[bedstuy]

In practice, it almost never matters in how I vote.  If someone opposes gay marriage, usually they're a Republican and I wouldn't vote for them anyway.  

The only primary with a pro-SSM candidate vs. an anti-SSM candidate I can remember was the US House Primary in Central Brooklyn between Charles Barron and Hakeem Jeffries.  I had enough reasons not to vote for racist, far-left Charles Barron, but his anti-SSM position was another indicator of how terrible he was.

Charles Barron is racist, what? Unless you think that veiled or not so veiled antisemitism constitutes racism (which is fair), that statement has no basis in reality.

I'd vote for an anti-marriage equality Democrat over a pro-marriage equality Republican but I'd only consider an anti-marriage equality Democrat in a primary if they were running against a centrist Democrat and had excellent credentials on economic issues. For example: if Brendan Boyle was against gay marriage and his only opponent was Margolies, I'd vote for him without hesitation.

Charles Barron hates Jewish people and white people.  Both are forms of racism.  I guess the counter would be that Charles Barron is just a race-baiting buffoon who plays that angle for politics.  I think he's probably both racist and a race-baiting buffoon.  

What statements has Charles Barron made that show that he hates white people? Also, what's wrong with Black politicians appealing to largely Black constituencies by acknowledging the existence of racism and the disproportionate amounts of power held by white America? How is that race baiting?

City Council people are supposed to work for their constituents.  What Charles Barron did was scream about renaming streets after black panthers and loving Robert Mugabe, instead of doing his job.   I think his chief of staff actually said that other city council members should be assassinated if they didn't support renaming a street after a black panther.  That's being a buffoon who ignores his constituents actual needs and distracts people by turning everything into a white vs. black issue.  That's what race baiting is. 

As far as proof that he's a racist, here's one specific incident.  He said he wanted to slap random white people because he was angry about reparations.  Assaulting people because they're a specific race is pretty much the definition of racist, right?

[bedstuy]

I'm not saying that being racist against white people is a significant problem.  I say this as someone who was called a cracker by some dude on the street the other day. 

I've experienced what it's like to like as a white person in a 85% black neighborhood.  I can say, there is practically no racism against whites on the part of black people in America.  I know what being discriminated against is, because I'm gay.  White people are not victims of discrimination and I would never say that.  So, I can see the aversion to saying Charles Barron is racist.  It's not the same as white on black racism.  I actually think the only victims of Charles Barron's racism are black people who get this dog and pony show about Robert Mugabe and black power instead of actual representation for their community.

[bedstuy]

Your ignorance is showing. Race is a modern concept that emerged out of colonialism and became solidified with Darwinism. It was not present in classical civilizations or medieval principalities. The Romans, Persians and Greeks possessed slaves of all phenotypes. Discrimination that appears on first glance to be similar to racism existed: the caste system in India, the destruction of indigenous peoples across Asia, Arab enslavement of Blacks. Yet none of these forms of oppression can be described as racist because they were justified on grounds outside of race.

The Japanese appropriated the concept of race as they modernized just as they appropriated liberalism. It was a foreign idea.

w/e, gay marriage is boring.

I think that's pretty much wrong.  People in antiquity didn't have a modern conception of race, as they didn't have a modern conception of anything, sure.  But, most people in antiquity never saw someone of a different race so they didn't need a word for race.  People didn't usually live in multi-ethnic/racial societies at all outside of few centers of trade.   There was always a view of "us" versus "them" in appearance, whether it was skin color, clothing or other habits. 

If you look at ancient Japan, do you think if a boat full of super dark East African or blond Swedes showed up in 1200, people wouldn't have gone absolutely nuts over their skin color and appearance?  I believe people fixate over different physical characteristics like skin color very easily and naturally.