Postman, I'm glad we can have a reasoned discourse about this, where we have profound disagreements -- even on the definition of terms -- without resorting to personal attacks. It's quite a step up from the crap that goes for discussion on some other parts of this site, and which I, as a moderator, often have to deal with in a different sort of way.
So, that being said, I will treat your "white guilt" comment as a reference to others.
I stand by my definition of racism. I stand by my analysis of the law, which I have read. To believe that there will be none of the kinds of police actions that you say the law does not allow is, in my view, tremendously naive about the history of how the forces of authority deal with minorities when we are on the cusp of historic changes in how society is ordered.
I also stand by my use of the word "reactionary" in this context. Too often this word is misused to mean "right-wing." I don't mean it that way. Reaction is a tendency to revert to a former state. In this case, those who will one day (sooner rather than later) become the minority rather than maintain their majority status are reacting. There is no doubt in my mind.
I have yet to find a credible, unbiased analysis of this law that suggests it is the way to fight the cartels.
I have pretty much said everything I have to say on this issue, but I will continue to point out racism when I see it, so I may post again. And by that, I am not assigning racism to you, Postman. Just to be clear ...
|