That's not racist. His point was that the man was of Mexican descent with family in Mexico, and one of Trump's platforms is to build a wall on the Mexican border. That's a clear conflict of interest.
He was born in Indiana and is an American citizen. He has been after drug cartels for decades. He is a judge that does his job, and saying someone can't do their job because of where they are descended from is messed up.
He was of Mexican decent, not sure how birthplace chamges that, didn't like Trumps rhetoric, amd made a decision in a lawsuit that pratically any lawyer wpuld agree was made by ignoring the law because of personal bias because he didint like Trumps rhetoric. So much for free speech, right?
Why are you bringing up that he's an American citizen? No shit. Everybody knows that. But, judges are supposed to recuse themselves of a case when they have bias; in this case, there is a good case to be made that Judge Curiel would have a bias against Trump.
None of that stuff is sexist or racist.
I dont think your definition of sexist or racist is.. should we call "mainstream" to be diplomatic about it?
My definition of sexism and racism is on my mytakes, and a lot of people agreed with me.
@Thisperson98 So you got two accounts now or how is your comment relevant?
I assume by racism and sexism, you mean that one thinks they're better than another race or gender on the virtue of their's. In that case, those examples are still not racist or sexists. Yeah, they're mean, and he's kind of an asshole for making some of these comments, but he's not racist or sexist for doing so.
That is not what racism is. Thinking your groups is superior to another is kind of standard but not required. What is required however is for you to believe that inherent differences among various "human races" determine cultural or individual achievements.For example if you think Mexicans are more prone to become a rapist because they are Mexicans then that is racism.Sexism is more or less the same thing but with gender.
There are inherent differences between the races and genders. Nobody (outside of science-denying nutjobs) denies that.
Human categorization or "races" are sometimes argued on the basis of groups of phenotype's. The thing is these groups or "races" that is supported through science are not the ones you or me recognize.As such while there exist a real counterpart in science to races, what you consider races are nothing but a construct of society and dont actually exist. Same thing goes for gender to a lesser degree.
Races (as we commonly know them) differ in everything from skull shape to average IQ. That is patently false. Sociologists try to argue that there's no such thing as race--but sociologists are social scientists, not natural ones.
Gender is also almost entirely biological.
That is just plain false. To start with Humans are a singular species, there are no subspecies or "races" among us. We have a large genetic variation and adaptation to environmental factors but these are not major defining features like lower IQ or whatever.It is true that the shape of for example the skeleton can change but that is basically as significant as having blue eyes, a minor cosmetic change that just hints at ancestry.Yes Gender is a biological difference but men and women still use the same body but just a slightly different configuration. Your muscles are the same as that of a woman, so is your skeleton and brain. What is different is things like hormonal balance.
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
Already have, brah.
The only opinion from girls was selected the Most Helpful Opinion, but you can still contribute by sharing an opinion!