|
blacksword404 -> RE: Curiousity about nuanced semantics. (8/27/2008 9:37:04 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:
ORIGINAL: Thadius
I understand what you are saying. However, the media and alas some campaigns, are suggesting exactly that a vote for one is a vote against the other, and thus the nuance of semantics. I completely understand that there are other reasons to vote for or against somebody, yet that is not how it is presented. Too, you keep avoiding the obvious double standard in holding a position of "I am choosing to vote for X because they are Y race or gender." Insert white or male for Y and it is reported and attacked, compared to inserting black or female being inserted for Y. See the dicotomy in practice here, not just the theory that we wish was reality.
It is possible that I am completely off base here, as I am just going on my personal observations.
I'm not avoiding any double standard. I only vote for white candidates is a different proposition than I am voting for this candidate because he is white. It is possible to be actually hold the first position but express the second but it isn't necessarily true that if you state the second statement that you hold the first position.
Going back to the original post the question was "Do any of the panelists think there were some white folks that wouldn't vote for Obama simply because he was black?" which implies the position of "I will not vote for any black candidate."
Then the second proposition is presented thus "Were there any blacks that were voting for Obama simply because he was black, and were there any women out there that voted for Hillary simply because she was a woman?" which implies "I'm voting for this candidate because he is black."
The first and second propositions are similiar but not identical and that is the crux of the issue.
The way question is phrased, "Do any of the panelists think there were some white folks that wouldn't vote for Obama simply because he was black?" Seems to denote just that one criteria as the basis of making it. I don't think we would vote for david duke if he were running and black. But why wouldn't we? Would he not be black? The reason we would not is because he does not have our best interest in mind. We had all white people until now. We voted for them until now. We always had the option to just not vote for any white person. In the event of a tie like you had between hillary and barack, guess who got that extra point? If you have two people from your city running in a race and one grew up on your block and the other grew up on the other side of town and you size them up as being basicly the same, the one that grew up on your block would likely get the extra point. But most people don't just use race or gender to pick thier candidate. Its just one of many items to compare against.Issues first then race,age,hot dog eater, sex, working stiff, rich guy,city slicker, country feller.
|
|
|
|
