Right-Wing Icon Arpaio a Racist - Who Knew? EVERYONE!!!!!

Indeed. Being called a token, regardless of skin color, is usually considered a highly offensive term. I don't think employers (or anyone else for that matter) are going around saying, "We have a token so-and-so", but I think liberals are going around pointing out that they perceive so-and-so is a "token". Even distinguishing the difference in skin color is a form of racism. But, liberals don't want to even think about that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokenism

 

Of course, I believe that supposes that they really are tokens and are too ignorant to realize that they are. I do not believe that. And I am not going to give a free pass on racial insensitivity or negativity or divisiveness just because someone is a liberal.

 

I was just trying to head off an unnecessary argument. He actually came in the first wave of rescue dogs from Oklahoma to the shelter we volunteer at. We are now receiving the second wave from another hoarding situation. Lots of dogs in rough shape. They just need a little love.

 

Where is the assumption in all this that tokens are too dumb to realize that they are tokens? I suppose a few of them are, and some are just self-loathing honorary whites (in this case) who are good with their special status if it gets them what they want. But I think that the vast majority know what the score is and think that they are both being true to their political and economic values and in one way or another expanding the tent of (again in this case) the Republican party by being "tokens".

Little Missy has seen this stuff at work in both in the context of race and in that of sexual orientation both in politics and religion. It's complex and involves a lot of trade offs, and a lot of psychological and image issues that I'm not qualified to address in any but an anecdotal way. However, there are some reasonable arguments or at least understandable arguments mixed in with all this although you might not agree with many of them. The villains are the ones who make the whole cluster f*ck necessary and cynically exploit it where they can. Pointing this out is not racism.

 

I think it's funny to watch how outraged liberals become when a minority doesn't march lock step with what the liberal thinks the minority should believe. It's even crazier whem the lemmings repeat the narrative that the Republicans are somehow anti-minority...who here noticed (or what media reported) when the female governor of South Carolina (a woman of Indian heritage) appointed a black man to that state's open Senate seat? Gov Haley, during a campaign, was also the victim of vicious personal attacks that turned out to have been fabricated by the state's democrat foes....the accusations were widely reported but somehow the apologies from the democrats were not. Hmmmm

 

(comment moved)

 

If they are not ignorant of being a token then the other choice is that they are ok with being used and having their qualifications, experience, knowledge and everything else about them dismissed and filtered down to a single demographic, whether it be race, gender, sexual orientation or whatever. Neither of those are too flattering.

And that is where the negative connotations of tokenism come into play. It dismisses everything about an individual except for some demographic that they happen to fit. It doesn't care about qualification, intelligence, experience or anything else. In fact, it negates and dismisses all that and filters it down to just a check box for a certain demographic.

We just hired a female police officer. First ever that I have seen here. Do you think she would be pleased if I asked her if she was the token woman on the force? I bet not. In fact, I'd expect to have an EEO complaint filed on me immediately and probably be fired. And completely justifiably, IMHO. Because it would be a degrading, negative question and assumption. She has the job because she was the best person for the job.

 

Did you read the rest of the post that you pulled that quote from? Or did you stop with the first line?

 

You're all wrong. This is Token.

View attachment 1677

 

I read it but don't think it made it any more racially positive of a term nor do I agree that it is. The least worst label you could assign to someone being knowingly willing to accept being a token would be 'desperate'...which is still not positive.

And, btw, I don't buy that they would try to 'expand the tent' unless they were ignorant of their token status. There would be no point in it. You wouldn't expand a tent that only accepts you as a token. It would never happen.

See, the assumption is that they are only allowed to be in the tent because of their race. You may be right or you may be wrong, but either way it is not positive to the person being token-ized and that is my point.

Another anecdote, we just hired a Hispanic Female in our shop. First time ever for either demographic in the entire history of this VA. I am sure there are some people - like you believing that republicans only bring in blacks as tokens - that this worker was hired as a token because it is a job that is typically all male in an area of the country that is typically all white. And that would be an insult to her.

I can tell you for a fact that she is no token because me and another old white redneck curmudgeon personally hired her over 2 other old white redneck curmudgeons because we believed she was the most qualified and absolute best fit for the job. There were no quotas or pressure for a quota involved at all. Hiring a token never came up.

And saying that she is a token - even if it were true - would be a gender or racially negative remark, both in this case. And disparaging to her personally.

 

I think the Right is happy to trot minorities out and parade them around as examples of inclusiveness even in relatively low numbers and therefore technically they are tokens in the eyes of those in positions of power. However, I think the reasons these minorities choose to represent voices that clearly denigrate their minority status and consequently the status of all minorities are more complicated. Some, I suppose do it because they profit financially and never had any attachment to their own status as a minority. Some probably think that is is best to change an organization from the inside. Some are probably just ignorant enough to lie to themselves. Others probably have different reasons. I think that there are many complicated reasons for people to work against or fool themselves into doing something that is against their own best interests as minorities but that is really nothing new in the human experience is it?

 

I'm thinking in the contexts of politics, specifically as practiced by the Republican Parties (the plural is intentional). When it comes to employment, which is what you seem to be focusing on I think we are in different territory with different objectives and circumstances, so I don't think we are talking apples and apples here. As for Joe, without going back and confirming the context, I believe he was also talking political affiliation and campaign strategy rather than employment.

 

Why would you issue a free pass to anyone in this discussion? Not sure where that came from.

 

So, basically, fog-of-war moen doesn't believe minorities are smart enough to think for themselves or obtain an ID card. Interesting.

 

Forgive the interruption, but you can not be the token old white redneck curmudgeon (please don't make me write that again, I have a hernia) because they make up 93.8% of the site. However, you may qualify for being the Green token.

You may now smash things. But only because the Hulk has failed to register. Otherwise we'd go with him. No offense, but what Hulk want, Hulk get.

 

Arpaio supports his deputies when they break the law:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maricopa_County_Sheriff's_Office_controversies

 

Hey, on a side note, which President nominated ....nay, appointed.... Eric Holder as a judge of the Superior Court of the D.C.? Who was that again? Rhymes with "vegan"? Anyone? No? He liked chimps...and talked about communism a lot? Nothing? He ate bananas? Used toilet paper? Sneezed on children? No?

Oh well, it'll come to me.

 

Because I don't see Partisan Lines as a shades of grey place. I see it as an either/or, black or white, with us or against us place. And my perception is that giving a pass 'sometimes' happens here in the various interactions and discussion be it either by support or silence.

 

Not sure how it makes it any more flattering of a term to call Rice or Rubio a token than it is to call Jenn or Craig who you work with a token. Other than the fact that people obviously say things about public figures that they would never say to someone they actually know face to face. And politics is still obviously job seeking but I think we have probably reached the around and around, repetitive, both have stated and understand each other's positions, portion of the discussion.