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.
Then explain why RVonse (trump supporter) disses on Winfrey for doing the same thing Trump uis doing.
Hence my point. You’ve just discovered it.
2. You are committing a tu quoque when you say "How dare they
You misread the tone; I never said anything to create the vibe of “how dare they”, which implies outrage and surprise.
I’m not surprised. This is what they do. Projecting. Accusing others of the things they are doing. I have no shock at this, no anger. It is 100% predictable.
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.
Oh, sorry you missed that. It was there, but I’ll spell it out for you more clearly. Oprah’s statements are not hypcritical because she has herself been the victim of significant racism and sexism. This provides her with deep empathy for those who suffer from its effects. While the racism and sexism directed at her no longer have the capacity to create the harm that it did when she was poor, she has great compassion for others, as can be seen in her philanthropy and her speech at this convention.
And falsely accusing her of hypocrisy is itself hypocrisy since the person who did it has no complaints about Republicans doing what he falsely accused her of, as your point #1 validates.
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."
I did address it, and have explained again above.
This does not erase the fact that the rant in the OP of this thread is definitely racist, as are the admonitions to “go ‘back’ to Africa” to someone who was never from there.
I mean, it’s not subtle.
Is it your position that they are using criticism of content to disguise the fact that they are racists?
I don’t think they are trying to disguise it at all, do you? It’s right out there in public.
Or, maybe they are and they are just achingly bad at the disguise.
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?
Sure, yes, so do you. THis thread’s OP isn’t one of those cases, though.
First they’d have to start with a valid criticism of content. And it will not include the rather piteous complaint that because a poor person made it big, that means they never faced racism or sexism. There was no other criticism. Just that; that Oprah Winfrey doesn’t know what racism or sexism feels like, because she now a billionaire.
So is that a criticism of her content? Or a criticism of her being an acceptable (to the conservatives) messenger for the content? He didn’t criticise her content, he criticised HER.
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"?
No.
This does not follow.
Especially since I never said, thought, or implied, “oh, you poor thing”.
