According to AOC, cauliflower is racist

Author: Alec

Posts

Total: 98
#31
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
@Greyparrot

I blocked you for throwing Ad Homs at me in a science thread. While I would have let it slide in a politics forum, doing that in a SCIENCE thread is over the top.
When you have awful beliefs. Turns out it goes through to other realms. This is clearly shown by the documentary you have shown in that forum post you made. I simply corrected you like I correct you in the politics. Are you too much of a snowflake to even comprehend that irrational beliefs leave you susceptible to other irrational beliefs? I guess you are on top of being triggered.  

The forum post in question:

Your irrational belief:
"I'm not concerned at all. It's in humanity's best interest to destroy inferior, unproductive people from the gene pool. The only people that need worry are the slow and the lazy."

#32
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Greyparrot
Ahh excellent; so everything she said was valid, Tucker Carlson was deliberately misrepresenting her position: your only issue is that you don’t like the way she referenced People from Central and South America, and presumably other immigrants from other cultural nations as “people of colour”.

Firstly, there is nothing about referencing communities of color as such that implies that all of them are oppressed groups, this appears to be mostly invented by yourself; perhaps because you have your own particular narrative of race politics to push and you see it everywhere.

Referring to minority communities in this way as the one most effect is largely related to the fact that they are the ones most affected red.

We could go down the road of pretending that your appeal to political correctness is sincere; by taking issue at perceived inaccuracies; but the issue is that it appears only to be you who is inferring some racial judgement. The implication being made here, is that it is typically communities of colour that suffer from these sort of problem. Not that they all do. 

That is broadly accurate implication in context, and doesn’t unfairly or inaccurately portray the scenario.

Why you seem to be leaping to inferring a value judgement here, seems to be all down to your own interpretation drawn seemingly to reject the messenger under the guise of fairness.




#33
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,887
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Ramshutu
Not at all, in fact I agree with some of her observations.

I would just wish we could leave the skin color labeling out of the realm of ideas though.
#34
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Snoopy
From this forum post:

Dodging my questions:
Asked here about the contradiction:

Asked again:

Asked again:

Kind of answered what I said then I was more specific on your stances here:

Thought you answered what I said but you didn't so I rephrased it:

Still don't understand what I said so I repeated it with a rebuttal to your comment:

A statement made by you that doesn't even answer anything that I gave as problems:

Had to ask again by your awful response:

Finally answered sufficiently:

A problem I have:

You dodging what I said:

Dodging again:

Pivoting:



Awful responses:

Saying positions don't need to be justified:

Saying I don't know to the very stance he has:



There is more but you get the point. You give awful responses. Pivot and dodge what I say until you decide to stop being disrespectful like you say you care about. Must be the same level of care you have for your stance of justifying not being a vegan non-existent.
#35
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Greyparrot
Why? Do mention of race and color make you uncomfortable?

If the references being made are inaccurate (which in context this is not), or are making implicit or inherent value judgements (which it is not) - what is the problem.

Trying to sanitize conversation and dialog to prevent the inclusion or reference to race sounds a bit like eradicating Racism through Newspeak

Let’s not mention issues of race and color and we remove the ability to recognize and appreciate Racism within political dialog.
#36
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,887
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Ramshutu
I don't care about the mentioning.

It's the labelling of people by skin color and not by beliefs that's divisive and misleading.

She is literally walking through a New York suburb in the video filled with English speaking people of color where the environment is far too cold to grow Yucca and YET IN HER VIDEO she is saying that communities of color should grow Yucca. She also claims that white skinned people don't know how to grow Central American crops like plantains, which is absolutely silly considering that there are plenty of people that live in Mexico and Central America that happen to be born with white skin.

Instead of rationally explaining why communities tend to grow Cauliflower in New York instead of Yucca, she resorts to labeling skin color cultural clashes as the main reason.

That's simply not how you should rationally discuss ideas. Skin color labels should not be your main argument.
#37
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Greyparrot
Skin color is not the main argument - this appears to be something your trying to shoe horn as the main argument despite this not being the implication or the context of what was said:

AOC pointed out that when running local environmental projects like growing fruit and veg in areas for ethnic and cultural minorities, the way it will work best is to go in with an understanding that they have their own cultural food, palette and food knowledge. Going in and expecting these minorities to grow, cook and enjoy food they’re not accustomed to, causes push back to those projects. She used Yucca and Cauliflower as off-the-cuff examples 

AOC is also pointing out a particularly mentality - a dominant culture going to an area of a cultural minority, and pushing their own foods, processes and methods without any thought or consideration that other cultures may have different preferences; is pretty much what I would consider a “colonial mindset”. It’s the implicit assumption - even though sometimes well intentioned - that their own cultural norms are better and would necessarily be acceptable to all.

Both of those complaints are completely valid, and are plausible reasons why those sorts of projects may fail. In this context the labelling is only misleading if it’s innaccurate - which it’s not.

What you’re doing, is making your own inherent value judgement based on your own beliefs and backgrounds: presuming that broadly accurately describing minority communities by skin color is somehow perjurative, innaccurate, being the root of the provlem or making value judgements - none of which are true.

Its more the case of you leaping to a conclusion rather than anything inherent in what AOC said - the same issue I pointed out with Tucker Carlson. It’s an issue, while you may want to promote this politically correct notion to eliminate the notion of race - it does make it harder to talk about and frame actual and subtle and not so subtle  racial issues in the US.






#38
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,887
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Ramshutu
I totally agree, and these are great valid arguments that she is saying.

So why the unnecessary and obvious race baiting by AOC by using terms like "White communities and Communities of color"

Why should she shoehorn these divisive terms into an otherwise perfectly reasonable and rational discussion about culture clashes?


#39
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Greyparrot
It isn’t race baiting. It’s a fairly broad and accurate description of the communities and the problems being faced. The implication that the problem is caused by racism, or is inherently racial in nature is really something your artificially injecting into the conversation.

May I ask why you think you were triggered by that comment? Given the context, why do you feel that an issue was being made solely about race rather than as part of a wider and more complex issue?

#40
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,320
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
-->
@Ramshutu
It isn’t race baiting. It’s a fairly broad and accurate description of the communities and the problems being faced. The implication that the problem is caused by racism, or is inherently racial in nature is really something your artificially injecting into the conversation.
In fact, it was introduced by Alexandria Cortez, picked up by the news and social media, and is a topic of discussion.

If anyone "artificially injected" it is solely Alexandria Ocasio Cortez

May I ask why you think you were triggered by that comment? Given the context, why do you feel that an issue was being made solely about race rather than as part of a wider and more complex issue?

#41
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Snoopy
The problem was valid, accurately described, and raised for discussion. It was picked up by the right wing media, who misrepresented it as “calling cauliflowers racist”, taken largely out of context and intent, and is irrationally accused of race baiting by people who object to the broadly accurate and valid description of the communtiea where the issue is most problematic. 

You them have those such as GP; who largely manufacture this into an argument about the inherent racial component of the original video, and spin this out of all proportion and context to make largely misrepresentative arguments that AOC is making this an issue of race, when it doesn’t really appear to be.

#42
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,320
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
-->
@Ramshutu

You are replying to the 5th relevant comment I have made

Snoopys first 4 contributions to the thread 

1.  I don't think it's appropriate for Mr. Tucker to represent Alexandria Cortez's 'side' of an issue with a crazy lady.

2.  Welcome.  What is yucca?


4.  I do not "lean right", something that has been previously stated to you. It is also evident that I do not prefer fox news.  I should have wrote Tucker Carlson in post #2.


Seriously?
#43
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,887
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
This skin color labelling is what leads to ridiculous, misinformed policy decisions as outlined in this video.

To say that people and communities of a certain skin shade should grow and eat a certain food is NOT a sane, rational position to hold.

#44
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Greyparrot
Again, the issue here is that you appear to be focused and intent on injecting an inherently racial or racist connotation to a discussion where that is neither the inherent context or the intent.

I’m sorry you feel triggered by this; but unfortunately this is more your own inability to view discussions or mention of race outside the inherent lense of racism, rather than anything specifically said by AOC.
#45
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,887
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Ramshutu
Right, go on defending skin color labelling as a sane, intellectual approach to solving problems.

Lots of people are in that camp.
#46
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Snoopy
I replied to the only message in this thread you directed at me. In this reply you appeared  blamed AOC for the video making the media (fair), for making the video onto social (fair), and for being derided as artificially talking about race (unfair). I’ve broadly explained what actually happened.

I’m not entirely sure why you’re objecting to my reply.
#47
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Greyparrot
Thats not what I’m doing : what I’m doing is pointing out that you’re irrationally ceasing upon a reference to skin color used as an accurate and reasonable description of those impacted in order to incorrectly pressure the issue is being billed solely as one of race.

I am very sorry your not able to seperate a description of a group from an attributed causation of a problem, but this is really looks like your own inability to look beyond mention of race in it’s appropriate context.

Your position in this regard is wholly unreasonable and incorrect, and I suspect is part of a broader right wing PC push to sanitize and eradicate Racism - not by improving anyone’s position, but inherently change the conversation about what is being discriminated against.


#48
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,887
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Ramshutu
Right. Because resisting broad generalizations of the beliefs of people using skin color as the criteria is an evil racist agendenda solely created by the radical right.

That sounds sane.
#49
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Greyparrot
Again, no: as you seem to now be ignoring my points and degenerating into freewheeling straw men, I guess you accept that your position is incorrect and you’re diving straight into face saving nonsense.

Refering to the communities that have the biggest issues as communities of colour, is relatively accurate, looses little nuance, and captures the primacy of the issue at hand: after all we’re not discussing an enclave of Norwegians.

The wider strategy of the right - and this includes innumerable comments by yourself, is to change the narrative of aspects like Police Brutality, poverty, voter suppression, and issues in the criminal justice system to try and make these aspects not racist by ignoring the racial component of these examples.

 

#50
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,887
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Ramshutu
I really don't see any sane points you have presented defending skin color labelling to describe the beliefs of people.
#51
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Greyparrot


And again, Straw man.

Only you are viewing this as a label outlining people’s beliefs, as opposed to an accurate and relevant description of the communities involved.
#52
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,887
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Ramshutu
Let's skip the strawman then.

Please do list your sane reasons for the merits of labelling the beliefs of people due solely to skin color.

This will be interesting.
#53
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,887
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Ramshutu
"Communities of Color" is in no way an accurate description of the communities involved. Neither is the term "White communities"

Considering there are "white communities" in both Central America and Norway, which one can't grow plantains again?
#54
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Greyparrot
There you go again. The same Straw Man. It was a straw man the last half dozen times you’ve mentioned it and I’ve pointed it out, and will continue to be a straw man for the next dozen times. 

Its not used as a placeholder for beleifs - but a description of a given set of communities.






#55
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,320
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
-->
@Ramshutu
Can you use a better term in your expository for community please?
#56
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Snoopy
such as?
#57
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,320
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
-->
@Ramshutu
I have to assume you aren't using "community" as in a social context, and it's confusing since that is inherent to the subject.
#58
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Snoopy
The video was talking about local groups of individuals that live and socialize in a particular neighbourhood.

I think that communities is probably the best description of those groups.
#59
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,887
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Ramshutu
It absolutely was not the "best description" considering you will find ZERO "communities of color" in NEW YORK where she was filming her rant that grows and eats Yucca.
#60
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Greyparrot
I like the way the point you claimed was valid in the last page is now perjuratively referred to as a “rant” now. Did you change your mind over the last 5 posts? Or are you simply exposing some pathological need to vilify AOC by any means necessary?

While I like the honest way that you’ve given up all pretence that you are portraying what AOC said accurately, without wildly misrepresentative accusations of race baiting you’ve pulled from your own presuppositions: the fact remains the communities she was referring to are almost exclusively communities made up of different ethnicities than “white people”. Given that, there appears to be no accuracy issues with referring to these communities as “communities of color”.

Of course, this is not taking into account the reaction of the right and their pathological need to attack every aspect of everything she says: I am certain that you would have found some other non-existent and irrational objection to vilify her had she used any other term instead.