Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot: I'm only granting one-on-one interviews to journalists of color

[Jimmy Higgins]

Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot: I'm only granting one-on-one interviews to journalists of color

She has been a horrible mayor, but this blatant racism takes the cake.

This must be awful for you.

What a ridiculous response.

To a guy getting upset over a mayor limiting those that can interview her regarding her two year anniversary to those of color... because she has observed a disparity in the press race wise?

Oh wait... he was upset because racist black mayor only will let colored people interview her.

I don't agree with her with how she did this, there would have been much better ways, but to consider her nuanced action (even if misplaced) as racist and broad brushed (as was poorly alleged) seems quite the bit more ridiculous.

 

[TomC]

What a ridiculous response.

To a guy getting upset over a mayor limiting those that can interview her regarding her two year anniversary to those of color... because she has observed a disparity in the press race wise?

Oh wait... he was upset because racist black mayor only will let colored people interview her.

I don't agree with her with how she did this, there would have been much better ways, but to consider her nuanced action (even if misplaced) as racist and broad brushed (as was poorly alleged) seems quite the bit more ridiculous.

Like I said in post #12.

Politicians can behave any way they want, as long as they've got supporters who will wave it away.

I see that as the real problem.
Tom

 

[J842P]

What a ridiculous response.

To a guy getting upset over a mayor limiting those that can interview her regarding her two year anniversary to those of color... because she has observed a disparity in the press race wise?

Oh wait... he was upset because racist black mayor only will let colored people interview her.

I don't agree with her with how she did this, there would have been much better ways, but to consider her nuanced action (even if misplaced) as racist and broad brushed (as was poorly alleged) seems quite the bit more ridiculous.

Oh it's nuance. Well, ok then!

 

[Metaphor]

What a ridiculous response.

To a guy getting upset over a mayor limiting those that can interview her regarding her two year anniversary to those of color... because she has observed a disparity in the press race wise?

Oh wait... he was upset because racist black mayor only will let colored people interview her.

I don't agree with her with how she did this, there would have been much better ways, but to consider her nuanced action (even if misplaced) as racist and broad brushed (as was poorly alleged) seems quite the bit more ridiculous.

Oh it's nuance. Well, ok then!

I'm curious, too. What is nuanced about her action?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

What a ridiculous response.

To a guy getting upset over a mayor limiting those that can interview her regarding her two year anniversary to those of color... because she has observed a disparity in the press race wise?

Oh wait... he was upset because racist black mayor only will let colored people interview her.

I don't agree with her with how she did this, there would have been much better ways, but to consider her nuanced action (even if misplaced) as racist and broad brushed (as was poorly alleged) seems quite the bit more ridiculous.

Oh it's nuance. Well, ok then!

Nuance, context, truth... whatever synonym you prefer.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Racist Chicago mayor won't let whitey interview her ...

Oh it's nuance. Well, ok then!

I'm curious, too. What is nuanced about her action?

That it was about an interview about a specific story, her two yr anniversary as Mayor. Not a generalized “no whitey interviews me” sort of thing as advertised by others, as stated in my post that apparently went unread.

 

[Metaphor]

Oh it's nuance. Well, ok then!

I'm curious, too. What is nuanced about her action?

That it was about an interview about a specific story, her two yr anniversary as Mayor. Not a generalized “no whitey interviews me” sort of thing as advertised by others, as stated in my post that apparently went unread.

Ah, I see. Yes, I can see how discriminating against whitey in only one specific way makes the actions not harmful and not even discrimination.

 

[Politesse]

Oh it's nuance. Well, ok then!

I'm curious, too. What is nuanced about her action?

That it was about an interview about a specific story, her two yr anniversary as Mayor. Not a generalized “no whitey interviews me” sort of thing as advertised by others, as stated in my post that apparently went unread.

To say nothing of the quoted article, that the thread is supposedly about.

But I think they are, in their way, conceding that they have no real point. If you have to lie about the facts to sound reasonable in your opinions, that's more or less an open admission that your opinion is not supported by facts.

 

[Derec]

That it was about an interview about a specific story, her two yr anniversary as Mayor. Not a generalized “no whitey interviews me” sort of thing as advertised by others, as stated in my post that apparently went unread.

That it is for a specific story does not make her "no whitey" policy any less racist.

I am sure you are a logically consistent fellow, though, and would also have seen nothing wrong if say Trump had instituted a "no darky" rule on occasion of his two-year anniversary ...

 

[Derec]

But I think they are, in their way, conceding that they have no real point. If you have to lie about the facts to sound reasonable in your opinions, that's more or less an open admission that your opinion is not supported by facts.

Oh, we have a real point. As well as facts. All you have is feeble apologetics for anti-white racism.

 

[Politesse]

But I think they are, in their way, conceding that they have no real point. If you have to lie about the facts to sound reasonable in your opinions, that's more or less an open admission that your opinion is not supported by facts.

Oh, we have a real point. As well as facts. All you have is feeble apologetics for anti-white racism.

So why lie?

 

[laughing dog]

That it was about an interview about a specific story, her two yr anniversary as Mayor. Not a generalized “no whitey interviews me” sort of thing as advertised by others, as stated in my post that apparently went unread.

That it is for a specific story does not make her "no whitey" policy any less racist.

Well, it certainly is not racist in the sense that racist used to mean the idea that races are inferior or superior to one another. Of course now, the term has been debased expanded to mean "judgment by race".

Mayor Lightfoot certainly showed a tin ear for a politician with her pronouncement. It was stupid even if her stated intent had some value (promoting black journalists in the Chicago region).

I am sure you are a logically consistent fellow, though, and would also have seen nothing wrong if say Trump had instituted a "no darky" rule on occasion of his two-year anniversary ...

That is a pretty inept hypothetical "whataboutism" since the use of the term "darky" is historically consistent with bigoted and racist language.

 

[fromderinside]

So if blacks are racists if they exclude whites why does Chicago, a majority white city, have a black mayor.

I think Chicagoans are brighter than those who want to find racist equivalence in a minority black mayor saying she doesn't want to be interviewed by white reporters from conservative (read racist) newspapers and media outlets.

 

[Metaphor]

So if blacks are racists if they exclude whites why does Chicago, a majority white city, have a black mayor.

I think Chicagoans are brighter than those who want to find racist equivalence in a minority black mayor saying she doesn't want to be interviewed by white reporters from conservative (read racist) newspapers and media outlets.

No race group is an absolute majority in Chicago (the city is 45.3% white). The mayor is not denying white reporters from 'conservative' newspapers, but white reporters from any media outlet.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Racist Chicago mayor won't let whitey interview her ...

That it was about an interview about a specific story, her two yr anniversary as Mayor. Not a generalized “no whitey interviews me” sort of thing as advertised by others, as stated in my post that apparently went unread.

That it is for a specific story does not make her "no whitey" policy any less racist.

I am sure you are a logically consistent fellow, though, and would also have seen nothing wrong if say Trump had instituted a "no darky" rule on occasion of his two-year anniversary ...

Why are you bothering to reply to me if you didn’t bother to read what I’ve posted?

 

[TomC]

That it is for a specific story does not make her "no whitey" policy any less racist.

It does to me. The OP wasn't clear that the subject was just one event, that's more of a personal milestone than a government function.

The link might have clarified that, but I didn't care enough about this to click it.
Tom

 

[LoAmmo]

That it is for a specific story does not make her "no whitey" policy any less racist.

It does to me. The OP wasn't clear that the subject was just one event, that's more of a personal milestone than a government function.

The link might have clarified that, but I didn't care enough about this to click it.
Tom

To be fair, I must admit that I didn't catch that detail on the first pass, either.

I *still* think it's a misguided dumbass move, and remarkably tone-deaf for such a big-league politician. And, it is still racist, even if it's in a more limited or targeted application. I mean, if the white mayor of Hickville, Alabama said he'd only grant interviews to white reporters covering his two-year anniversary, I can imagine some wailing and gnashing of teeth on these pages, and to NOT raise an eyebrow at Chicago's mayor doing just that would be, in a word, hypocrisy.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

That it is for a specific story does not make her "no whitey" policy any less racist.

It does to me. The OP wasn't clear that the subject was just one event, that's more of a personal milestone than a government function.

The link might have clarified that, but I didn't care enough about this to click it.
Tom

To be fair, I must admit that I didn't catch that detail on the first pass, either.

I *still* think it's a misguided dumbass move, and remarkably tone-deaf for such a big-league politician. And, it is still racist, even if it's in a more limited or targeted application. I mean, if the white mayor of Hickville, Alabama said he'd only grant interviews to white reporters covering his two-year anniversary, I can imagine some wailing and gnashing of teeth on these pages, and to NOT raise an eyebrow at Chicago's mayor doing just that would be, in a word, hypocrisy.

That context isn’t analogous, as that Mayor would need to do that because most of the press he’d dealt with were black.

 

[LoAmmo]

To be fair, I must admit that I didn't catch that detail on the first pass, either.

I *still* think it's a misguided dumbass move, and remarkably tone-deaf for such a big-league politician. And, it is still racist, even if it's in a more limited or targeted application. I mean, if the white mayor of Hickville, Alabama said he'd only grant interviews to white reporters covering his two-year anniversary, I can imagine some wailing and gnashing of teeth on these pages, and to NOT raise an eyebrow at Chicago's mayor doing just that would be, in a word, hypocrisy.

That context isn’t analogous, as that Mayor would need to do that because most of the press he’d dealt with were black.

God damn it. I KNEW someone would pull that bullshit. It's why I made my example the EXACT FUCKING THING the Chicago mayor did.
How 'bout this, take a shot at hand-waving this version away:

I mean, if the white mayor of Joliet, Illinois said he'd only grant interviews to white reporters covering his two-year anniversary, I can imagine some wailing and gnashing of teeth on these pages, and to NOT raise an eyebrow at Chicago's mayor doing just that would be, in a word, hypocrisy.

Your floor.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

If you knew your poor analogy would be called out, then why did you go forward with it.

Her poor idea came about because the press in her experience was extraordinarily white. It is amazing that even when you admit not understanding what happened, you continue to be ignorant of it.

She was wrong, but would it kill some people to put forth a legitimate analogy for one time in their life?