Just what the hell isn't considered racist or insensitive anymore?

[Steelgrave]

I almost hate to address the question, considering that I'm a serial thread derailer, but here is the obvious answer from where I sit:

96% of blacks voting for Obama = NOT RACIST
Any white person who votes against Obama = RACIST

This is all according to the media and leftist apologists, of course. I guess it's the same "logic" that says a hate crime is not a hate crime if the victim is a hetrosexual white person. I think the novel "1984" missed the mark by about 25 years.

[MetalDog]

Sadly, this has gone way too far and there is no turning back.  If you go along to get along, you end up feeling frustrated.  If you speak your mind, you are met with disapproval and approbation.  And discussing it frankly, while well meaning, can be construed as the worst form of racism and insensitivity because you are putting your opinion on someone else.

[Silent Disapproval Robot]

I almost hate to address the question, considering that I'm a serial thread derailer, but here is the obvious answer from where I sit:

96% of blacks voting for Obama = NOT RACIST
Any white person who votes against Obama = RACIST

This is all according to the media and leftist apologists, of course. I guess it's the same "logic" that says a hate crime is not a hate crime if the victim is a hetrosexual white person. I think the novel "1984" missed the mark by about 25 years.

Could be worse.  You could be in Canada where we've gone and codified reverse discrimination into our Constitution.

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

If they'd ended things right there, that would've been fine, but they just had to go and throw the next bit in.

(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

Notice how nice and vague the second bit is?  How nothing is mentioned about what metrics are to be used to determine who is disadvantaged, who decides this, and at what point a group is no longer considered to be at a disadvantage any more.

As a result, we get lovely incidents like this.

B.C. soccer team banned over lack of Indo-Canadian players

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2012/08/13/bc-soccer-ethnicity.html

They can't even bring themselves to honestly state the real case in the headline.  They weren't banned for having too few Indians on the team.  They were banned for having too many whites.  Each team is limited to a max of 4 non-Indian players per team.  4 out of 14.  But that's not racism.  That's "ameliorating the condition of disadvantaged individuals" you racist white bastard.

[bayonetbrant]

I wonder if my Cajun heritage qualifies me to be ameliorated by the Canadian gov't?

[MIGMaster]

I'm working on checking that out for ya right now !

[Windigo]

I wonder if my Cajun heritage qualifies me to be ameliorated by the Canadian gov't?

parlez vous Acadian victemization?

[Silent Disapproval Robot]

I wonder if my Cajun heritage qualifies me to be ameliorated by the Canadian gov't?

I think they'll give you a free bottle if Screech but you have to move to the Alberta oil sands and promise to drunkenly lament the loss of cod the entire time you're there.