Probably much more along the lines that a “racial discussion” should be, if it pans out the way the article portrays.
It takes some guts to push back against conventional thinking in one’s “home” community.
” Charles Barkley calls it friendly fire.”
Charles is fond of wagering, I believe, hence I wonder whether he might approve ex-post facto (i.e., without foreknowledge) of a betting pool dedicated to the date of the first appearance of the word “phlosgiston” to occur on his new program? Or in the alternative, ought the betting pool to focus on the first occasion in which race is denied to exist as used?
I read the article expecting something new. If there was anything more than the same old same old I missed it.
Probably much more along the lines that a “racial discussion” should be, if it pans out the way the article portrays.
It takes some guts to push back against conventional thinking in one’s “home” community.
” Charles Barkley calls it friendly fire.”
Charles is fond of wagering, I believe, hence I wonder whether he might approve ex-post facto (i.e., without foreknowledge) of a betting pool dedicated to the date of the first appearance of the word “phlosgiston” to occur on his new program? Or in the alternative, ought the betting pool to focus on the first occasion in which race is denied to exist as used?
I read the article expecting something new. If there was anything more than the same old same old I missed it.
You missed it.
If you missed seeing anything new in Barkley’s post, try this one:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/the-uncomfortable-truth-of-having-a-black-conservative-on-campus/article/2005052