Conservative and Black? Well that's bc of white privilege

[CitizenBBN]

I kid you not. OK, just a little.

https://www.foxnews.com/entertainmen...ning-hes-black


“I’ve chosen to cross different parts of the media world, done the work so that I’m qualified to be in each one. I never considered my color the issue, I considered my qualifications the issue,” Webb said.


“That’s a whole, another long conversation about white privilege, the things that you have the privilege of doing, that people of color don’t have the privilege of,” said Martin – who also hosts CBS’ “Face the Truth.”


A dumbfounded Webb asked, “How do I have the privilege of white privilege?”


Martin responded, “David, by virtue of being a white male you have white privilege.”


The Fox Nation host then explained that he was actually black.


Oops. I know it's a standard answer of the Left to call anyone a racist who doesn't agree with them, but it's not THAT much of a trump card. You do actually have to be accusing a white person in order for it to work effectively. lol.


(PS - there was even an article today saying criticism of the Democrat junket to Puerto Rico during the shutdown was b/c of racism, since they went to a Latino location. Even for the "well your'e just racist" diatribe that's pretty thin, since it was fat old white guys out on the beach.)

[Catonahottinroof]

Wow....just wow. Pre programmed to spout the talking points rather than actual debate....

[CitizenBBN]

Wow....just wow. Pre programmed to spout the talking points rather than actual debate....

It's brilliant how Leftism does it. The same way any totalitarian movement works that wants to shut down opposition. You don't attack the idea, you attack the motives of the person presenting the idea.

In the 1950s it was the Right doing it with McCarthyism. if you disagreed with Senator McCarthy and/or the House Un-American Activiites Committee well then you were a Communist sympathizer. There was no way to disagree with their tactics on the basis of something like civil rights b/c any disagreement was by THEIR definition supporting Communism.

Now it's the Left, and boy have they upped the game. There's no way to question anything they do or believe, b/c if you do then it's b/c you are racist, or you can't understand b/c you are white and by DEFINITION a white person's opinion doesn't count b/c their inherent "privilege" disqualifies them. All those folks in Appalachia sure do appreciate all that privilege btw.

It's a way to avoid discussion as you said. You shut down the debate by defining disagreement as subversion, evil, etc.

Classic tactic, but the reason it's so dangerous now is b/c the media is so massively in on the deal. McCarthy even at his height was not in control of the media and there were always other voices, and it was not able to be sustained for very long. IN the end McCarthy was only really a voice for about 7 or so years, less than a decade really. It didn't hold.

But it seems that the Left's version is taking full hold b/c the Left controls academia and the media and even social media. They control a huge part of the voice people hear and there are no signs they're going to stop moving forward in this direction.

[UKHistory]

Being labeled in the 1950s a commie or being labeled a racist today is a quick way to end a thoughtful and open dialogue about any issue.

I am concerned that free speech is being denied to protect the sensitivities of others. There is a balance in protecting rights and accepting there are ideas we hate or oppose but are allowed to exist.

Great that this woman was called on it. She showed her ignorance and should lose credibility as talking head.

I understand race, gender, economic class are issues that impact many if not all areas of American life. But it is a cheap and quick way to end a conversation labeling someone as an "untouchable".

[UKHistory]

And I have seen it on both sides. I have actually been dismissed as a tree hugging liberal by the Young Republicans at Transylvania and received a Hitler mustache drawing of myself from the independents on campus.

[Doc]

Personally I'm all for free speech by everybody, even white supremacist, neo-nazi clansmen. IMO it is their right to spout their hatred if that is what they believe. I'd rather know what somebody believes than try to guess. I'd rather know if a baker does not want to bake a cake for gays, or a restaurant does not want to serve blacks...but a big old sign in the door so I can go elsewhere. I don't get the snowflake's "what you say offends me so I'm going to a safe zone BS". But I find it so incredibly odd that those who cry for tolerance are the most intolerant of alternative opinions.

[UKHistory]

Personally I'm all for free speech by everybody, even white supremacist, neo-nazi clansmen. IMO it is their right to spout their hatred if that is what they believe. I'd rather know what somebody believes than try to guess. I'd rather know if a baker does not want to bake a cake for gays, or a restaurant does not want to serve blacks...but a big old sign in the door so I can go elsewhere. I don't get the snowflake's "what you say offends me so I'm going to a safe zone BS". But I find it so incredibly odd that those who cry for tolerance are the most intolerant of alternative opinions.

And I agree totally. I want to personally be as respectful and polite to others as I can be. That should not mean I have to hide who I am because of others' sensitivities.