Tulsi Gabbard accuses Black lesbian Chicago mayor Lori Lightfoot of "anti-white racism"

[Behind the Aegis]

Former Representative and Democratic presidential primary candidate Tulsi Gabbard spent the weekend trying to convince the White House and prominent Democrats to disavow Lori Lightfoot, the out mayor of Chicago, after she announced she will prioritize media requests from reporters of color.

“Mayor Lightfoot’s blatant anti-white racism is abhorrent. I call upon President Biden, Kamala Harris, and other leaders of our county [sic]—of all races—to join me in calling for Mayor Lightfoot’s resignation,” Gabbard tweeted. “Our leaders must condemn all racism, including anti-white.”

Lightfoot won the election in a run-off in May 2019. She became the only black lesbian mayor in the nation – and the first out mayor of one of America’s three largest cities.

Recognizing the second anniversary of her narrow election, Lightfoot announced that she is disappointed in the “overwhelming whiteness and maleness of Chicago media outlets, editorial boards, the political press corps, and yes, the City Hall press corps specifically” that covers her.

more...

Remember her?

[electric_blue68]

1. I HAD forgotten 😄 about her....STFU, Tulsi!

[TheBlackAdder]

52. Tulsi Who? Is that Gen. Gogol's Agent Sux?

Last edited Tue May 25, 2021, 05:28 PM - Edit history (1)

.



.

[ExciteBike66]

2. Is Gabbard still trying to convince us she is a Dem?

[diverdownjt]

13. No...she's just an attention whore...

Her run is over nobody cares about her...never did...she's struggling for relavence...and can find none...sooo

Standard repug move...go on the attack and get yourself back in the news...f-off T-bag...nobody cares what you think.

[Mike Nelson]

3. Yikes!

... she's another Ann Coulter. She needs some attention, I think... guess FOX or one of the other Con Nets didn't hire her?

[hlthe2b]

4. Tulsi has a sad that the Boeberts, MTGs are getting too much attention and she hasn't been

invited back to Tucker Carlson's show for way too long, it seems.

[NurseJackie]

5. Ho-hum!

[betsuni]

6. LOL, the person who said Hillary Clinton was "queen of the warmongers, embodiment

of corruption, and personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long, have finally come out from behind the curtain." LOL.

Tulsi should not come out from behind the curtain to make a fool of herself again.

[Hortensis]

57. While she and Nina Turner are such long and "dear friends."

Personally, I would never have bet on it, and I really don't see Turner joining her "anti-white racism" accusation.

[oldsoftie]

7. Tulsi aside, it was certainly terrible optics for Lightfoot

You just cant do stuff like that without it looking bad regardless of whatever point you're trying to make

[Maine Abu El Banat]

10. Agreed

[Amishman]

14. Agreed, was foolish and a gift on a silver platter to right-wing hotheads

It's bad enough debunking their right's actual lies without stuff like this being mixed in.

[diverdownjt]

15. She could have gone on for years not calling on them in press conferences....

At least a year and a half before before they said hey wait a minute...she never calls on me...

Missed opportunity there.

[RandiFan1290]

20. You can always tell who doesn't read the article. nt

[ProfessorGAC]

51. For One Day?

Are you aware that this limit relates specifically to the 2nd anniversary of her taking office?
This "stunt" is only related to a single day.
There's no bad optics here.
There would be if it was "from now on", but that's not what this is.

[catsudon]

54. i'd like to see someone on du

announce that they will act racist on du for one day and see how that goes, i bet you, not well.

[ProfessorGAC]

56. Silly!

Saying you only want to be interviewed by people of color for one day is not racism.
If you think it is, this conversation is no longer worth my time.

[oldsoftie]

60. Lol

hell, we cant even post facts people dont like without catching hell. Just imagine........

[catsudon]

62. yep see how fast

i got cancelled there? just proves my point.

[tonedevil]

63. LOL. /nt

[oldsoftie]

59. Yes, thats why i said regardless of the point she was trying to make

Its silly & does nothing but give ammo to her opposition

[ProfessorGAC]

66. To Quote A Movie Line...

..."You're not from Chicago."
This will be a non story in a week.
Her opponents are not terribly relevant.

[Raine]

65. Totally agree! nt

[Skittles]

71. I tend to agree

I would have thought she was more savvy than that.

[mucifer]

8. Mayor Lightfoot's move has been seen by most on the left and the right as a

publicity stunt here in Chicago.

She has a history of ignoring requests by local media for interviews, Black and white. But, she frequently goes on MSNBC and CNN for interviews.

[Bullfeathers]

9. Don't care at all

about that person. Her aside I’m not sure what mayor lightfoot is trying to gain by discarding certain people but I’m sure we will find out

[bucolic_frolic]

11. Hopefully that term won't stick

But I do see it as a trial balloon.

[2naSalit]

12. Who?

[NEOBuckeye]

16. That was my knee-jerk response too.

And also, why is she even worried about Chicago?

[2naSalit]

17. Shit-stirring for attention.

[40RatRod]

18. Just the facts!!!!!

What's True
Lightfoot sent a letter to the Chicago press stating that on the two-year anniversary of her historic inauguration, she would only grant one-on-one interviews to journalists of color to highlight the lack of diversity in the news media.

What's False
It's not true that Lightfoot refused to do any more interviews with white journalists. Her decision was limited to one-on-one interviews for one day.

[marble falls]

19. 'cringe' ...

[mountain grammy]

21. We saw a "Tulsi 2020" billboard

driving through rural Nebraska last week. That huge face on a billboard! I had nightmares.

[frazzled]

22. Tulsi Gabbard and the journalist interviews aside

Lightfoot has been facing increasing criticism from Black and (somewhat less uniformly) Latinx Chicago activists and aldermen, as well as from the progressive caucus in the city council, for some time, and it has reached a crescendo recently.

It reached fever pitch on this 2-year anniversary, when a parade of Black, Latino, and other Aldermen were interviewed about her tenure on the local public affairs tv programs here. They are irate about her reversals and/or foot dragging on major issues that were cornerstone promises of her campaign. Chief among these are her now seeming opposition to the civilian police oversight board, her foot-dragging on police reform, and her reneging on the promise to have an elected rather than appointed school board. Overall, they complained about her being unpleasant to deal with.

I’m not totally in line with all the criticism, but I do see parts of it, especially with respect to police issues. I am surprised at the rancor, which to my mind exceeds anything Emanuel received publicly from elected officials in the Black and Brown communities. I am not surprised in other respects, however: she sold herself as an anti-establishment progressive, but I could never see how this North-side corporate attorney, who had never been in elected office, fit that bill. (Disclosure: I voted for the other Black woman, Cook County Board president Toni Preckwinkel). I hope she gets her act together: Giving one-time access to journalists of color is not going to fix the issues.

[colsohlibgal]

23. That's So Culture Blind

Anti White? Like we’ve encountered Black only anythings.

We sure seem to be coming to a reckoning and it’s no certainty that the forces of good and decent and not crazy will beat back this building Autocratic movement.

There are more of us that them but because of institutional tilt we’ Pedaling uphill. In a true Democracy where duh the person with the most votes wins no Dubya no Twitler instead Gore and Hillary. If only.

As is we’re in jeopardy of a long dark night.

[oldsoftie]

24. And why the need to point out that shes a Lesbian?

Seems a bit odd

[TwilightZone]

27. The source is LGBTQ Nation.

They exist to bring notice to LGBTQ issues. The reference in that context would seem to be clear.

[tenderfoot]

28. Because Tulsi Gabbard is a well-known HOMOPHOBE

eom

[TwilightZone]

31. That, too.

[BannonsLiver]

25. Tulsa's nuts and the mayor is hopelessly bad at politics.

Neither are or ever will be A list.

[LiberalFighter]

26. She thinks she is prominent enough?

[Devil Child]

29. Gabbard is correct.

I certainly remember her.

[TwilightZone]

32. Huh, her one DU fan is still around.

Imagine that.

[Devil Child]

34. Yes.

I happily supported her primary campaign.

No need to imagine.

[marble falls]

36. You think Gabbard is right in calling Mayor Lightfoot a racist? What else is she right about?

[Devil Child]

38. Yes, I agree with Gabbard's characterization of Lightfoots proposal

If you send me a list of things to agree/disagree with I could run through it when convenient if it is that important to you.

[marble falls]

39. So you agree with Gabbard: Mayor lightfoot is a racist.

[Devil Child]

40. Hell if I know, I'm not a mind-reader. I'll give Lightfoot the benefit of the doubt

Her policy proposal is racist IMO.

[marble falls]

41. Taking one day to only take questions from minority reporters in a room with reporters from ...

... from all media is a racist policy. You believe 'affirmative' action to be racist policy?

[marble falls]

43. Where does the "fuck-off white reporter day" come from? You. How does that make Lightfoot ...

the racist? You believe 'affirmative' action is racist?

[Devil Child]

44. Yes, it came from me.

I'm not seeking trademark protection so feel free to use as you see fit.

[marble falls]

48. So explain how Mayor Lightfoot's one day afirmative action program was a racist.

[StarfishSaver]

50. I love how the same people who insist people of color should never accuse white people of racism

unless they wear a hood and burn crosses because that is divisive and makes it harder to deal with "real" racism are very quick to call Black people racist whenever we try to address racism in ways that aren't centered in white people's comfort zones.

[rogue emissary]

58. +1

[Tommy Carcetti]

30. Who? nt

[tenderfoot]

33. Lightfoot certainly upset the WHITE SUPREMACISTS among us.

eom

[marble falls]

47. And how! See above.

[no_hypocrisy]

35. Same hackneyed complaints about

Affirmative Action: reverse racism.

[Solly Mack]

37. And as always, conservatives lie to pump up the outrage.

For the two-year anniversary on Lightfoot becoming mayor, that ONE time for that ONE anniversary, she was "prioritizing media requests from POC reporters".

To highlight the lack of diversity among the media in Chicago.

Link to tweet

But conservatives, and apparently others, have a reading comprehension problem or are just plain lying.

For that reason, she is “being intentional about prioritizing media requests from POC reporters.” Lightfoot took questions only from reporters of color on May 20, the anniversary of her inauguration, for one round of interviews.

ONE time, for ONE event, to make a point about the the lack of diversity in the Chicago media.

So, naturally, white fragility gets its whine on.

How dare a black, lesbian woman so blatantly point out a disparity that heavily favors white reporters.

How dare a black, lesbian woman do this by choosing to highlight the disparity by giving reporters who aren't white a chance.

How dare she!

[Iggo]

45. Tulsi white again?

[Polybius]

46. In this case she's correct

You can't exclude an entire race of reporters and not call it racist.

[marble falls]

49. Oh yeah? It's not racist. Calling it racist trivializes racism. A whole class of reporters?

[Polybius]

68. And if the opposite happened, it wouldn't be racist?

Either they both are, or neither are. Which is it?

[marble falls]

70. Specifically, are you speaking of an actual occurrence? How are both that the same? As a "class" ...

... how do you compare the racism shown to white reporter's in general per the racism shown, say AA reporters?

[StarfishSaver]

53. She didn't exclude an entire race of reporters.

And I'll bet that not one single person who is throwing a fit about this ever noticed much less objected the countless times only white reporters were given access and minority reporters were relegated to the sidelines.

[Polybius]

67. Can you name one Mayor over the last 40 years that publicly called for the opposite?

I'll wait.

[StarfishSaver]

69. If you knew anything about institutional racism, you'd never ask such a question

[Polybius]

72. A black male in his 40's in NY doesn't know about institutional racism?

Gee, that's a new one.

[StarfishSaver]

73. Lots of Black people don't understand institutional racism

If you are a Black person who needed to ask such a question, you may be one of them.

[Polybius]

74. I know what racism is when I see it

The Mayor that I'm supporting in NYC (Eric Adams) won't dream of doing something like that.

[mcar]

55. Nobody cares what you think Tulsi

[JI7]

61. In her final days in office Gabbard tried to push through anti lgbtq legislation

and anti choice legislation .

And People had been telling us for 5 years or so how she had changed for better while attacking long time Democrats.

[Hekate]

64. Tulski? Toddle on back to your cult leader & tell him you're not The One...

We didn’t elect you. Give up.

[Caliman73]

75. No such thing.

Whenever someone says, "Anti-White racism" or "Reverse racism" they show that they are making a bad faith argument OR they are incredibly ignorant and stupid.

Racism is both the belief that one's race is inherently superior to another AND the structural power to enforce that superiority through practice (laws, customs, traditions, etc...). We can all have racial bias, racist beliefs, prejudices, and we can discriminate. Racism however, as a practice, involves attitudes and power.

Now, Mayor Lightfoot certainly has authority in Chicago as the mayor, BUT the power structure in society still firmly rests within Whiteness. Mayor Lightfoot can certainly be argued to have engaged in unfair discrimination. Though I personally don't think that encouraging more diversity by advantaging journalists from historically marginalized groups for one day is really a significant discriminatory practice. Obviously, if she makes it an ongoing thing, then there needs to be more discussion about that.

I fall into the camp of people who think Gabbard is just doing what many "former liberals" do when they are found to be wanting within liberal circles. They veer hard right with respect to identity. There is little, more lucrative than siding with the White power structure to combat the scourge of marginalized people trying to bring awareness to the struggle for equality. They love, or at least loved Dave Rubin, a gay man arguing how intolerant the left is ... or Candace Owens, a Black woman, arguing how "Democrats have Black people on the Plantation". Gabbard is hoping they will love her for attacking Lightfoot.

I will say that Lightfoot's tweets are pretty poorly expressed. She could have made the observation better by saying that while progress is ongoing, there is still a dominance of White media, and that needs to be addressed. She could have pointed to the diversity and announced her wanting to give more diverse experiences more prominence on this day. Of course anything that she would have said with respect to this topic would have drawn outrage from right wingers. Then some liberals would see the outrage and said, hmm there may be something valid to that, and criticized her anyway.

So, bottom line though, anyone using those terms, "Anti-White racism" and "Reverse racism" in the United States, is making a bad faith argument and should be duly ridiculed.

[The Mouth]

76. Enlightnen me if I'm wrong

But I've long understood what you are talking about to be the difference between the words "Racism", and "Prejudice"

Lots of people, of all colors, are prejudiced as hell; Black, White, Latinx, Asian. Plenty of ignorance and hate from those of all skin tones.

But "Racism" is what happens when one of those has the institutional power to fuck over the others.

[Caliman73]

77. There are a lot of terms that have become "interchangeable".

It is confusing sometimes. Words change meaning with their usage over time, people start using words to mean other things, or use them incorrectly, either through ignorance or on purpose. For example, people say that a person is bipolar if they are happy one minute and sad within a short time after. That is not Bipolar. Bipolar is a condition marked by extremes in activities measured over days and weeks. A person can be manic (high) and not sleep for days, be hyperverbal, hypersexual, and grandiose or they can be depressed and not get out of bed for days, not eat, be suicidal, etc... When someone's mood changes quickly you can call them labile (lay bile).

Sorry for the digression.

Racism at one point was simply the belief that one's race was inherently superior to another, but scholars tended to add the power dynamic into the meaning as well because to engage in racism is to act upon the belief that your race is superior, or other races are inferior which means instituting discrimination and advantaging your own race above others. That can only be done through having the social and legal power.

Prejudice basically means "pre judgement" and means that a person has negative feelings for a person, group, etc... without good reason. If you judge someone before you know them, then it is unfair and unreasonable. You are prejudiced against them. For example, "I've never met a Chinese person, but I really don't like them" Huh? How can you not like a whole group of people that you HAVEN'T met?

Bigot (another word for the confusion) is someone who stubbornly clings to negative ideas and attitudes about people. So you can be bigoted against French people because you think they are "surrender monkeys" or you don't like the berets they where, etc...

[The Mouth]

78. Thanks

My brain process nothing, until all terms are defined.