• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Multi-Billionaire Oprah Whines About Sexism & Income Inequality At DNC

Attacking a woman's credentials and character are all part of the course for Repugs. It goes against their fear based living.
Yeah, having a bunch of successful Black women talking on a national stage sure has 'em triggered.
So to the two of you, none of the criticism is about the apparent hypocrisy of her statements and all of it is only about the race and gender of the speaker?

There are so many ways I could respond to that, but you would just deny my lived experience as a minority if I did so.
 
Oprah did give us Dr. Oz and Dr. Phil. That's my problem with her.
Don't forget her goddamn book club. Oh, that book club. Every time I made the mistake of following up on some book she was hawking, it sucked the big wazoo.
Small data set (I quickly started rejecting anything she hawked) but I agree.
 
Oprah Winfrey is a major philanthropist. She opened a $40 million school for disadvantaged girls in South Africa.
I actually consider that a negative. When you try to do good in corrupt places it gets sucked up in corruption. Might feel good but does little.
 
Oprah Winfrey is a major philanthropist. She opened a $40 million school for disadvantaged girls in South Africa.
I actually consider that a negative. When you try to do good in corrupt places it gets sucked up in corruption. Might feel good but does little.
Yeah, we know that conservatives consider education a negative.
 
To be honest, I'm feeling pretty down after the convention. The country seems to be deciding whether it is better to cave a little or a lot to the philosophy of neo-fascism, and neither version of the country is really going to have a place for someone like me. "Leave then", you might say, but there's no safe place for the weirdos to go, anymore. The far Right is on the march everywhere, and normal people aren't going to get the memo until they've plunged the entire world into war and chaos again.

I honor that this is your opinion, and is not subject to anyone telling you that don’t don’t feel what you feel. And I understand it. That we can never seem to make a BIG step to the left; to compassion and acceptance and away from war and imperialism.

What makes me feel hopeful about the DNC and what it represents, is that in order to make any of those changes, we need to get the change agents into all levels of government, and this energy points to progress in that area. The president is just barely relevant, bhonestly. The far right learned that, and executed on it, that it needs to be the whole thing, town boards, school boards, county legislatures, state legislatures, judgeships, all the way on up. They have been executing on this plan for 50 years. It is written down, it is funded and there are feet on the ground executing every day.

The Leftists, by contrast are a big tent of diverse ideas. They have to work together without agreeing on the end goal. But they need each other to make any progress at all toward any goal. Many complain about being in a group of people who are not moving as fast as they want. Many are thinking (wrongly, IMO) that if they just get a more ideal president it will all fall into place.

We have a few outspoken progressives in Congress. But the state legislatures are still in the control of the rightists. The gerrymandering that the rightists have built can only be broken by a tsunami. Once it’s broken, the left will have a much more civilized palate to work with - a legislature that represents most of the people, unlike now. But to break it, it requires many disparate people to work together at the same time to take that one crucial step; overcoming the barrier of the gerrymander - in both state and federal offices.

THis energy, this “I will get on board even when the presidential choice may not be perfect, but what I need right now is change in the state houses and that requires a broad enthusiasm that requires me to be enthusiastic so that I will influence other voters to participate and overcome the gerrymander,” that’s what I saw at the convention.

People who are only looking at the president may not see what they hoped. There is still not enough compassion for the anti-war stance. There is still not enough embrace of the compassion for the immigrants and the poor. All true. But I want that ASAP, and the only way to get there is to convince people who are NOT nuanced, who are NOT paying attention to state races, to get excited enough about the one candidate that they see to get out and vote.


Let’s elect her and then see what she actually does.
I know more or less exactly what she'll do, or more importantly, won't do. The Overton Window is a bitch when there are neo-Nazis in the halls of Congress. We've been seeing this play out for the last four years. It will be meaningless after the fact to point out that "I told you so", but I suppose I probably will anyway...

Not if this enthusiasm translates to flips in state houses. If we flip state houses, then we are positioned to minimize the barrier of truly unfair gerrymandering - a tyrany of a minority. If we minimize that, we can elect federal legislatures that reflect the will of the people. If we do that, then they, who write and pass the laws, can affect the window, and the ability of the President to embrace those ideas without losing ground to the rabid right.

But your Overton Window is a fact of life in American politics.
And that's why I'm depressed. We have a minority party pushing strongly toward authoritarian rule, and a disunified majority opposition pushing back as weakly as possible. Any student of history knows what this situation looks like, what it should remind people of. But seeing it does not help you prevent it.


Yes. That minority is able to operate because the progressives, the moderates and the idealists have not sustained the power of the left. There are too many who are “not excited” about putting their shoulder to the wheel because they insist on the presidential candidate to lead, rather than follow, and insist that it be their own flavor before they’ll help. They want to parachute into the CEO position and expect to make change from there. There are too many who want to see it NOW and if they don’t, are willing to walk away to try to teach some lesson. There are too many who will waste enthusiasm by publicly putting down the candidate that for many is the only avatar, and risk driving away votes because they want to voice their discontent that the top candidate is not the perfect one.

I see this on my own social media where friends lament and complain about how bad Harris is, while saying they are going to vote for her “because they have to,” utterly oblivious to the replies they are receiving below that say, “yeah, you’re right, I probably won’t vote at all,” representing the loss of votes due to the perpetuation of this discontent. Sure they will vote for Harris, but they created 10 non-voters, damaging their own goal.

The progressive groups that have made incredible progress never did it by withholding their vote. They never did it by convincing others that the candidate was only 25% of what they wanted. They pushed for enthusiasm and votes for the movement and knew that each step was not the whole picture.

So, yes, you are down following the DNC, seeing a party that is “caving a little”.
But I see a party that is doing the work to build a foundation that makes it less and less necessary to cave. I see them getting out the votes for people who will help us flip state houses. I see them making people feel good about voting. Not you. But 1000 others who can make a difference in whether we can pass laws that are progressive.
 
Last edited:
Attacking a woman's credentials and character are all part of the course for Repugs. It goes against their fear based living.
Yeah, having a bunch of successful Black women talking on a national stage sure has 'em triggered.
So to the two of you, none of the criticism is about the apparent hypocrisy of her statements and all of it is only about the race and gender of the speaker?

There are so many ways I could respond to that, but you would just deny my lived experience as a minority if I did so.


For me the claim that her statements even ARE hypocrisy is, yes, about racism and sexism.

Why do I say that? Because there are hundreds of speakers at both conventions and along the campaign trail who are making statements about inequality, while being notable enough for a spot on the stage - wealth, fame, whatever - and hence not currently inhibited by it, and the people who are complaining that Winfrey’s statements are hypocrisy do not highlight them. Donald Trump being the most obvious. We’ve never heard RVonse complain about Trump’s hypocrisy - all of the vast examples of it - or the hypocrisy of men voting in congress about women’s health rights, or the hypocrisy of wealthy white men complaining about how high their taxes are. I can go on and on with an obvious list.

The fact that RVonse decides to pick a woman who very definitely and very obviously did face discrimination, but managed to break through and reach a position where, while it still exists for her, doesn’t hurt her any more, is one more piece of evidence in a long line of observing who he and other rightists choose to complain about. And yeah, the pattern is racism and sexism, and it’s not even subtle.


It’s the pattern. And it is clear as day. Yes, him calling out Winfrey and calling her speech hypocritical is all about racism and sexism, and is not about anything she said that could honestly be called hypocrisy.
 
Last edited:
I can’t see the repugs saying the same thing about Dolly Parton for example. She crawled out of poverty and became a superstar. I’m sure she had similar issues with sexism. Her philanthropy is exceptional (like Oprah’s). But you know her skin color is the right shade.

If anything you would hope Oprah should sing the same praise as Dezi Arnaz. Of someone who came from humble beginnings who was given a tremendous opportunity for achievement. But that is more of a conservative republican type of message which is why I wrote in the OP she should just shut up.
Ah, so the conservative Republican Cuban who comes from humble beginnings and creates a huge entertainment empire gets to say whatever the fuck he wants, but the Black woman who does the same should sit down and shut the fuck up?

That's the crazy part here. You say you don't begrudge Oprah her success, while at the same time insisting that she must be silent unless she says things you think she should. That's quite the intersection of racism and misogyny you've got going there.! You're not mad at her for being rich, but if she gets "uppity," suddenly the gloves are off!

But it's really about her liberal politics, isn't it? A white guy born with a silver spoon in his mouth who shits in a golden toilet can tell you that unemployment was 400 percent under Obama, his crowd size on J6 was the biggest crowd in the history of crowds, and you'll swallow that whole because he is (or at least claims to be) conservative. A black woman who came from nothing and is worth arguably as much as that guy publicly espouses liberal politics and you shudder and scream that she should sit in the back of the bus and keep her damned Negro mouth shut.

What - as the kids nowadays say - the fuck?
"I'm the big shot Oprah who has made it big in the US. Bigger than any of you peons and low life creatures. And I want to tell all of you how repressive the US was to me... and how wonderful my home continent Africa was in comparison. I own palaces all over the US but would not dream of moving back anywhere to Africa even though I easily could at this point... because my home continent of Africa is so great and with the women's rights which would be so good for me."

I'm not convinced at all.
Her home continent would be North America.
Then why does she call herself a black African American instead of an American Indian?
You need to broaden your mind a little! She has always embraced both her black and Indian heritage. Just google it. Here is her celebrating her Indian roots in 2020:

 
I can’t see the repugs saying the same thing about Dolly Parton for example. She crawled out of poverty and became a superstar. I’m sure she had similar issues with sexism. Her philanthropy is exceptional (like Oprah’s). But you know her skin color is the right shade.

Then why does she call herself a black African American instead of an American Indian?
You need to broaden your mind a little! She has always embraced both her black and Indian heritage. Just google it. Here is her celebrating her Indian roots in 2020:


RVonse is talking about Oprah Winfrey, not Kamala Harris, btw.
 
So this is a racist thing to say.
Are you oakay with that, or was it an accident? Serious question. Are you okay with saying racist things?

Oprah can’t “go back” to a place she’s not from. And that is what makes what you said a deplorable thing to say.

Sure she can. Otherwise, what is the purpose of the term “African American”?
So you are likely European American, so perhaps you should go back to Europe.
 
So this is a racist thing to say.
Are you oakay with that, or was it an accident? Serious question. Are you okay with saying racist things?

Oprah can’t “go back” to a place she’s not from. And that is what makes what you said a deplorable thing to say.

Sure she can. Otherwise, what is the purpose of the term “African American”?
So you are likely European American, so perhaps you should go back to Europe.

No, I’m not a “European American”, I would never present myself as a “European American”. I am a naturalized US citizen so I could go back to my country of origin which is in Europe.
 
So this is a racist thing to say.
Are you oakay with that, or was it an accident? Serious question. Are you okay with saying racist things?

Oprah can’t “go back” to a place she’s not from. And that is what makes what you said a deplorable thing to say.

Sure she can. Otherwise, what is the purpose of the term “African American”?
So you are likely European American, so perhaps you should go back to Europe.

No, I’m not a “European American”, I would never present myself as a “European American”. I am a naturalized US citizen so I could go back to my country of origin which is in Europe.
You are a European American then.

Oprah is a citizen of the United States she was born here, not naturalized like you so why would she go back to Africa?
 
Oprah Winfrey is a major philanthropist. She opened a $40 million school for disadvantaged girls in South Africa.
I actually consider that a negative. When you try to do good in corrupt places it gets sucked up in corruption. Might feel good but does little.
Is this just idle speculation based on stereotypes or do you have actual facts of corruption of her efforts in South Africa? Citation please.
 
So this is a racist thing to say.
Are you oakay with that, or was it an accident? Serious question. Are you okay with saying racist things?

Oprah can’t “go back” to a place she’s not from. And that is what makes what you said a deplorable thing to say.

Sure she can. Otherwise, what is the purpose of the term “African American”?
So you are likely European American, so perhaps you should go back to Europe.

No, I’m not a “European American”, I would never present myself as a “European American”. I am a naturalized US citizen so I could go back to my country of origin which is in Europe.
You are a European American then.

Oprah is a citizen of the United States she was born here, not naturalized like you so why would she go back to Africa?

Some people still think all blacks should “go back to Africa” even though they weren’t born there. Feel free to ask them why they think that, though I think we already know. Lincoln thought blacks should “go back to Africa,” even though the freed slaves were not born there. He even tried to get them to voluntarily deport and set up their own colonies there, and also curiously in Central America. Only toward the end of his life did he seem to drop the plan, but only after an Oval Office meeting with black leaders, pleading with them to lead their people out of the U.S., fizzled. Lincoln also had a really embarrassing meeting with Native Americans once, all of them fluent English speakers. He spoke to them in pidgin English and baby talk, and condescendingly informed them that the earth was “a great big ball.”
 
Lincoln presided over the largest formal mass execution of Native American prisoners in our nation's history. I am told that "no one is perfect".
 
Attacking a woman's credentials and character are all part of the course for Repugs. It goes against their fear based living.
Yeah, having a bunch of successful Black women talking on a national stage sure has 'em triggered.
So to the two of you, none of the criticism is about the apparent hypocrisy of her statements and all of it is only about the race and gender of the speaker?

There are so many ways I could respond to that, but you would just deny my lived experience as a minority if I did so.
For me the claim that her statements even ARE hypocrisy is, yes, about racism and sexism.

Why do I say that? Because there are hundreds of speakers at both conventions and along the campaign trail who are making statements about inequality, while being notable enough for a spot on the stage - wealth, fame, whatever - and hence not currently inhibited by it, and the people who are complaining that Winfrey’s statements are hypocrisy do not highlight them. Donald Trump being the most obvious. We’ve never heard RVonse complain about Trump’s hypocrisy - all of the vast examples of it - or the hypocrisy of men voting in congress about women’s health rights, or the hypocrisy of wealthy white men complaining about how high their taxes are. I can go on and on with an obvious list.

The fact that RVonse decides to pick a woman who very definitely and very obviously did face discrimination, but managed to break through and reach a position where, while it still exists for her, doesn’t hurt her any more, is one more piece of evidence in a long line of observing who he and other rightists choose to complain about. And yeah, the pattern is racism and sexism, and it’s not even subtle.


It’s the pattern. And it is clear as day. Yes, him calling out Winfrey and calling her speech hypocritical is all about racism and sexism, and is not about anything she said that could honestly be called hypocrisy.
There are a few problems with your analysis.

1. Republicans are far less concerned about income inequality. Their paradigm is "a rising tide lifts all boats" and if one person increases by a little and another increases by a lot Republicans will say "both increased" while those who focus on inequality will say "one increased more than another". So the fact that Republicans aren't focused on the fact that Trump is wealthy isn't a significant fact.

2. You are committing a tu quoque when you say "How dare they point out that a wealthy person is talking about income inequality, they have men voting on women's rights." You're not actually addressing whether or not there is hypocrisy in Oprah's statements. Personally I think the charge of hypocrisy is overblown because, as has been pointed out, she does donate large sums to trying to help others. All that's left is the appearance of hypocrisy, but you won't even address that and fall back to the default of "well they're just a bunch of racists." Is it your position that they are using criticism of content to disguise the fact that they are racists? Do you think it is possible to criticize the content of a minority speaker, the way you just did to me, without it being race based?

3. Aren't you infantalizing minorities by saying "oh you poor thing, they're not actually criticizing your content, they're just a bunch of mean racists"?
 
Lincoln presided over the largest formal mass execution of Native American prisoners in our nation's history. I am told that "no one is perfect".

Here is the full story on that.

Lincoln ordered 38 Sioux to be executed and commuted the sentences of 265 other sentenced to die. When aides protested that executing them all would be a cool vote-getter, Lincoln replied, “I cannot afford to kill men for votes.”

Yeah, and no one is perfect, true enough. Yet if the imperfect Lincoln had not been president when he was (someone shot at him and barely missed in 1863, two years before his actual assassination) I expect we would be living today in a world much further removed from the unobtainable perfection than it actually is.
 
That is a "full story" in the same way that most AP articles are the "full story", yes.

I highly recommend David Nichol's book "Lincoln and the Indians: Civil War Policy and Politics" if you are interested in learning more about the situation.
 
Last edited:
That is a "full story" in the same way that most AP articles are the "full story", yes.

What full story do you have that differs from the link? The AP article substantively agrees with other historical accounts I have read about this episode.
 
That is a "full story" in the same way that most AP articles are the "full story", yes.

What full story do you have that differs from the link? The AP article substantively agrees with other historical accounts I have read about this episode.
In that it is accurate, but leaves out a lot of important details and discussion. Like any AP article. That is because the purpose of the Associated Press on a core level is to distill and summarize, not to tell the "full story".
 
Back
Top Bottom