RNC attendee: 'This is how we feed animals.'

[Andiethewestie]

Originally Posted by Rachael Rage

The action: Two people throwing peanuts at one person they don't know and saying "This is what we feed animals."

1. Throwing peanuts. No established symbolism there. Not like throwing tomatoes at a bad act on stage (or bagels). One can reasonably conclude that they wanted to throw something and this is what was at hand.

2. "This is what we feed animals." Clumsy phrasing that doesn't even really make sense (you feed animals peanuts? um...so?) but clearly meant as a ham-fisted insult, stating the victim is sub-human, less than a person.

Conclusion: Boorish and bullying behavior, regardless of victim or context. This alone should be enough to get them booted out of most civilized gatherings.

BUT there is nothing inherently racist or sexist in the action alone. The exact same attack could have happened, say, between male (of any race) fans of rival teams at a football game. Or I even between women, though I like to think our insults are more clever and devastating.

So the only way to try to explain the motivation of the behavior is to look at the perpetrators, the victim, and the circumstances where the action took place.

1. The perpetrators. Has any article conclusively stated that the perpetrators were white males? The OP and the cited Maynard Institue article say "two attendees." So does this mean that the race and gender of the perpetrators doesn't matter, or that the (admittedly reasonable) assumption is that they were white males, given the location?

If race is so clearly the basis of the attack, then why not definitively state that the perpetrators were white males? How would that change the context of the attack if this wasn't so, however unlikely?

2. The victim. A black woman. Pelted with peanuts and being called sub-human. While "animal" may be too general to see as racist out of context, that slur is not associated with being female. Sexist insults are usually along the lines of "know your place, shut up and smile" types of things and not so much "you are less than human," at least not in public. The "less than human" range of insults is much more likely to come from a racist outlook (notice I don't say definitely). I have no cite, that is just self-evident to me but one could argue otherwise.

However, if -- for the sake of argument -- the perpetrators were not white (but let's say not black either)? Would then the attack still be racist, based on word choice and behavior alone?

Let's add to this that the victim herself indicates that the attack was racist - or more accurately she was the target because she was a black woman and a rare sight at the RNC:



She was there, she got pelted with peanuts, so that carries a lot more weight than any of our hypothetical wankage (and I mean that lovingly of course).

Conclusion: Attack was most likely to be motivated by racism, and specifically prejudice against black women than by any other factor, due to the word choice and context.

As for the argument that maybe the attack was against the "liberal media," that seems less likely. While the victim IS a CNN cameraperson, she wasn't operating a camera at the time, and she was standing next to the FOX News area. According to her interview, it doesn't seem that there was anything clearly identifying her as being part of CNN.

I honestly don't get the pile-on of lance strongarm. I applaud him for checking the knee-jerk response of "They were (probably) white and she was black so it's OBVIOUSLY racism" without any reasonable argument. And even worse, with drawing the conclusion that asking for a reasoned argument (which I attempted above) was akin to defending racism or that he's a conservative Romney-loving teabagger. Please.

Sorry, but the truth is some people don't want to look at racism and see it for what it is. You can push semantics around all you want, but look at the CONTEXT of what happened here and it's straight forward: Patricia Carroll has known it all her life, and why should we deny her that? There were witnesses to the assault, and she herself "just wanted it to go away" because she knows things never change, how sad that it's still alive and kicking:

"I can't change these people's hearts and minds," Carroll added. "No, it doesn't feel good. But I know who I am. I'm a proud black woman. A lot of black people are upset. This should be a wake-up call to black people. . . . People were living in euphoria for a while. People think we're gone further than we have."

So why on earth would she say those things if she didn't recognize it for what it is? Moreover, unfortunately she hit on something very profound, and it's a testament to people wanting to just shove their heads in the sand and not deal with it honestly.

[grude]

If she was really wearing nothing identifying herself as a press worker(like a press pass) then I think that does totally change the situation, and it would have to be racially motivated. If it is reported a cop was attacked and called a filthy pig, but he was actually off duty with nothing to identify his profession then it changes the situation.

[Truman Burbank]

But you can go visit the Freeper's and see how they 'recognize things for what they are'. Some things are incontrovertable fact, some are wild speculation, and there is a huge muddy area in between, which calls for tempered interpretation.
Maybe there are some further facts established of which I am unaware about this incident, but I do not know for 'fact', for instance, that there was 'no way for these old men to know she was a media person'. I think it's at least likely she was wearing clothing or a badge identifying her with CNN. I doubt that was relevent to the behavior of these cretins, but I'm less than certain. In fact, it may well have been a combination of being female/black/professional that set these guys off.
One of my favorite sayings is "he's frequently wrong, but never uncertain". I don't really understand why some of us are getting so bent over Lance and a few others being less than certain as the motives of these dunces.

[Rachael Rage]

Originally Posted by Andiethewestie

Sorry, but the truth is some people don't want to look at racism and see it for what it is. You can push semantics around all you want, but look at the CONTEXT of what happened here and it's straight forward: Patricia Carroll has known it all her life, and why should we deny her that? There were witnesses to the assault, and she herself "just wanted it to go away" because she knows things never change, how sad that it's still alive and kicking:

"I can't change these people's hearts and minds," Carroll added. "No, it doesn't feel good. But I know who I am. I'm a proud black woman. A lot of black people are upset. This should be a wake-up call to black people. . . . People were living in euphoria for a while. People think we're gone further than we have."

So why on earth would she say those things if she didn't recognize it for what it is? Moreover, unfortunately she hit on something very profound, and it's a testament to people wanting to just shove their heads in the sand and not deal with it honestly.

That's pretty much what I said. Are you implying I don't agree with you?

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by Andiethewestie

Sorry, but the truth is some people don't want to look at racism and see it for what it is.

And some people will insist that any slight done in a situation where race is present equals racism. That in and of itself is not helpful.

[Gyrate]

Originally Posted by Rachael Rage

2. "This is what we feed animals." Clumsy phrasing that doesn't even really make sense (you feed animals peanuts? um...so?) but clearly meant as a ham-fisted insult, stating the victim is sub-human, less than a person.

Nitpick: "This is how we feed animals", not "This is what we feed animals."

[BigT]

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

When did I say you said they were mine? I said "those are your words, not mine."

And that phrase means that you believe the person is ascribing those words to you. There's no other reason to use them.

You seem to not be very good at knowing what words mean outside their literal definition. Or, at least, choosing to ignore other meanings for the sake of an argument.

What you say is only true in theory, not in practice. People don't accidentally call black people animals. People don't accidentally only throw peanuts only on black people. If it was just about the "lamestream media," why didn't they do it to the others that were there representing other members of said media?

[Untoward_Parable]

By these crazy (probably racist) people defending the racists: Are we not entertained?

[Truman Burbank]

I hope you are not insisting that anyone not jumping on the 'certainly racist' bus is, therefore, a racist?

[Untoward_Parable]

Originally Posted by Truman Burbank

I hope you are not insisting that anyone not jumping on the 'certainly racist' bus is, therefore, a racist?

The word probably leaves plenty of room for some to simply be stupid, blinded partisans, and stupid. So there you go.

[Truman Burbank]

Well, then, you may have just gone a long way to prove Lance's original point. If you thought you were referring to me, for example, you probably haven't been reading my posts very carefully, and you fail.
But you're certain!

[Rachael Rage]

Originally Posted by Gyrate

Nitpick: "This is how we feed animals", not "This is what we feed animals."

That is what was in the OP's linked article, but the one Andiethewestie posted later had "what." That's the one I checked to make sure I had it right, and I only noticed later there was a discrepancy. I'm not sure how much it matters, but interesting that there are different accounts of what was actually said.

[Rachael Rage]

Originally Posted by Untoward_Parable

By these crazy (probably racist) people defending the racists: Are we not entertained?

I'm sorry, who, exactly, is defending racists here? Have you actually read this thread?

[Untoward_Parable]

Originally Posted by Truman Burbank

Well, then, you may have just gone a long way to prove Lance's original point. If you thought you were referring to me, for example, you probably haven't been reading my posts very carefully, and you fail.
But you're certain!

Nothing about my reply points to you as part of any of the groups I described unless you want to go ahead and join the group of people embracing the uncertainty of intent of the peanut throwers at the event. If thats you then you are a racist, stupid or blindly partisan, if not relax and chill out,

[Andiethewestie]

Originally Posted by magellan01

And some people will insist that any slight done in a situation where race is present equals racism. That in and of itself is not helpful.

Granted, but to be fair we have a situation of two elderly white men taunting and assaulting. To taunt and assault anyone is boorish and bullying. To taunt and assault a woman is at the very least sexist, but because NO one else, all the people in the room including white men and women who COULD have been targets were not. You can draw only one conclusion. It's the face of Racism, it's callous and unambiguous and all the more horrific because these men didn't seem to give a damn about how their actions would be perceived.

[rogerbox]

Originally Posted by Rachael Rage

I'm sorry, who, exactly, is defending racists here? Have you actually read this thread?

The peanut throwers were obviously racist. Racism is bad. Claiming that racist people are not bad (racist) is defending them.

I had never really realized that dog whistles work three ways instead of just two:

1) Racist people hear the code words and know they are supported by the whistler
2) Non-racist people hear the words and don't pick up the racist context, whistler suffers no ill effects
3) Non-Racist/Racist people (either) hear the words and argue that we can't be absolutely, positively sure they are racist because the slimy dog whistler used weasel words and code words. Thus racists should always get away with their racism unless they are burning a cross in a front yard.

edit: Oh wait the cross burners are just celebrating their Southern Christian heritage! We can't know FOR SURE they are racist.

[Andiethewestie]

Originally Posted by Rachael Rage

That's pretty much what I said. Are you implying I don't agree with you?

I am not giving anyone a "bye" when the facts are presented here. I say anyone who calls another human being an animal is implying they are sub-human. When the person being bullied is black, that takes on a whole other layer of bullying. It's racism, and I gave the historical biblical association upthread.

[Untoward_Parable]

Originally Posted by rogerbox

The peanut throwers were obviously racist. Racism is bad. Claiming that racist people are not bad (racist) is defending them.

I had never really realized that dog whistles work three ways instead of just two:

1) Racist people hear the code words and know they are supported by the whistler
2) Non-racist people hear the words and don't pick up the racist context, whistler suffers no ill effects
3) Non-Racist/Racist people (either) hear the words and argue that we can't be absolutely, positively sure they are racist because the slimy dog whistler used weasel words and code words. Thus racists should always get away with their racism unless they are burning a cross in a front yard.

edit: Oh wait the cross burners are just celebrating their Southern Christian heritage! We can't know FOR SURE they are racist.

Maybe the cross had termites, ya never know, might have just been being conscientious.

[Rachael Rage]

Originally Posted by Andiethewestie

Granted, but to be fair we have a situation of two elderly white men taunting and assaulting. To taunt and assault anyone is boorish and bullying. To taunt and assault a woman is at the very least sexist, but because NO one else, all the people in the room including white men and women who COULD have been targets were not. You can draw only one conclusion. It's the face of Racism, it's callous and unambiguous and all the more horrific because these men didn't seem to give a damn about how their actions would be perceived.

Again, where does it say "elderly white men?" I read two articles in full, looking for this description. In both the perpetrators are described only as "attendees."

I am not saying that they weren't old white men, but considering that this is being reported as blatant racism, then why not identify the race (or gender or age) of the perpetrators? And how much difference would it make, if any, if they happened not to be old, white, and/or men? Would it be any less of a racist attack?

[Untoward_Parable]

Originally Posted by Rachael Rage

Again, where does it say "elderly white men?" I read two articles in full, looking for this description. In both the perpetrators are described only as "attendees."

I am not saying that they weren't old white men, but considering that this is being reported as blatant racism, then why not identify the race (or gender or age) of the perpetrators? And how much difference would it make, if any, if they happened not to be old, white, and/or men? Would it be any less of a racist attack?

I see, you would prefer that it wasn't old white men being racist this time. I know its hard sometimes being white.

[Truman Burbank]

So anyone who can see even the slightest bit of ambiguity here, is unambiguously a racist in the eyes of those who saw no ambiguity in the first place. The 'racist defenders' have all, I think, stated they believed it was a much better than even chance racism was the motivating factor for these bums. Because that wasn't definite enough for some, they get tarred with the epithats racist, or partisan, or stupid.

[Andiethewestie]

Originally Posted by Rachael Rage

Again, where does it say "elderly white men?" I read two articles in full, looking for this description. In both the perpetrators are described only as "attendees."

I am not saying that they weren't old white men, but considering that this is being reported as blatant racism, then why not identify the race (or gender or age) of the perpetrators? And how much difference would it make, if any, if they happened not to be old, white, and/or men? Would it be any less of a racist attack?

I'm not into hypotheticals, my information came from what I posted, that I guess the news media revised to remove the description of the perps. However,

Here is the article that cites an eyewitness account
http://www.phillytrib.com/newsarticl...,-insults.html

[Rachael Rage]

Originally Posted by Truman Burbank

So anyone who can see even the slightest bit of ambiguity here, is unambiguously a racist in the eyes of those who saw no ambiguity in the first place. The 'racist defenders' have all, I think, stated they believed it was a much better than even chance racism was the motivating factor for these bums. Because that wasn't definite enough for some, they get tarred with the epithats racist, or partisan, or stupid.

Yeah, seriously, I never realized that saying these asshat peanut-throwers were bullies and most likely racists, based on all available evidence, turned me into a cross-burning KKK member. Or, worse, a Republican!

I'd better turn in my East Coast liberal-elite Obama-supporter card.

[Truman Burbank]

Well, I will admit finding myself more or less agreeing with Magellan was weird...

[Hentor the Barbarian]

So, we've gone from being annoyed that others are raising the concept of innocent until proven guilty in regards to this discussion, to tarring and feathering those who raise even the merest scintilla of doubt about the motivations of these morons.

People here are putting a lot more thought and emotion into this than even the two peanut throwing racists.

[Rachael Rage]

Originally Posted by Andiethewestie

I'm not into hypotheticals, my information came from what I posted, that I guess the news media revised to remove the description of the perps. However,

Here is the article that cites an eyewitness account
http://www.phillytrib.com/newsarticl...,-insults.html

Ah, that's more like it. Her response was terrific ("Are you out of your mind?" Indeed).

This expanded quote ("Here, want more peanuts? This is what we feed the animals in the zoo.") somehow makes the whole incident a lot creepier.

[Andiethewestie]

Originally Posted by Hentor the Barbarian

So, we've gone from being annoyed that others are raising the concept of innocent until proven guilty in regards to this discussion, to tarring and feathering those who raise even the merest scintilla of doubt about the motivations of these morons.

People here are putting a lot more thought and emotion into this than even the two peanut throwing racists.

According to the eyewitness there is absolutely no doubt as to what this was. I just find it rather sad that Roberta has to prove her victimization beyond a scintilla of doubt. Obviously this is why some who are victims of racism hate to talk about it. She didn't want to grant other interviews. Not only is it humilitating to endure, but people would rather disbelieve it than to entertain the notion that racist bullies exist.
Who wants to be humilitated and be labelled a liar?

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Untoward_Parable

By these crazy (probably racist) people defending the racists: Are we not entertained?

Originally Posted by Untoward_Parable

The word probably leaves plenty of room for some to simply be stupid, blinded partisans, and stupid. So there you go.

You can say what you like about the people at the convention, but you can't insult people who are posting here by saying they are stupid or racist or with other personal commentary. At best you're walking a fine line here, at worst you're breaking the rules. Take a step back from that line.

[Truman Burbank]

Well, I don't think we're going to hear any more of substance about this story, the men will apparently not be identified (which surprises me, I must admit). No new news about this within the past 48 hrs I can see.

[Andiethewestie]

Originally Posted by Truman Burbank

Well, I don't think we're going to hear any more of substance about this story, the men will apparently not be identified (which surprises me, I must admit). No new news about this within the past 48 hrs I can see.

It is a shame it doesn't go further as Roberta wanted to drop it, but the two older white men are deplorable and should be held to account.

[gamerunknown]

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

Now you're saying I shouldn't complain about it (on behalf of those who were accused).

False equivalence. Rogerbox knows the motives of his own comments and actions, we can only impute them for the perpetrators in question, based on the context. As it stands, there are pretty significant second order signifiers to the actions in question.

Do you think this is a racist image?

More so than this?

If so, why?

[Normal Phase]

Originally Posted by rogerbox

The peanut throwers were obviously racist. Racism is bad. Claiming that racist people are not bad (racist) is defending them.

I had never really realized that dog whistles work three ways instead of just two:

1) Racist people hear the code words and know they are supported by the whistler
2) Non-racist people hear the words and don't pick up the racist context, whistler suffers no ill effects
3) Non-Racist/Racist people (either) hear the words and argue that we can't be absolutely, positively sure they are racist because the slimy dog whistler used weasel words and code words. Thus racists should always get away with their racism unless they are burning a cross in a front yard.

edit: Oh wait the cross burners are just celebrating their Southern Christian heritage! We can't know FOR SURE they are racist.

You think you're joking, but in the closed zombie thread in the pit, someone actually argued that a guy who threw around "fat nigger bitch" as an insult might not actually be racist in his heart. So no, there's pretty much no level of racism that some pretending-to-be-fair-minded white person somewhere will not defend as maybe not actually REALLY racist.

[Andiethewestie]

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

False equivalence. Rogerbox knows the motives of his own comments and actions, we can only impute them for the perpetrators in question, based on the context. As it stands, there are pretty significant second order signifiers to the actions in question.

Do you think this is a racist image?

More so than this?

If so, why?

Why because George Bush is not a descendant of Ham according to the Bible, but Obama is. When you have a Biblical justification for allowing slavery, allowing people to be considered sub-human animals, then segregation and all the things that follow, eg; don't swim in a white man's pool, don't drink from a white man's drinking fountain, don't eat in the same restaurant, don't go to the white man's convention is not only normal but according to God's will.

[Rachael Rage]

Originally Posted by Andiethewestie

According to the eyewitness there is absolutely no doubt as to what this was. I just find it rather sad that Roberta has to prove her victimization beyond a scintilla of doubt. Obviously this is why some who are victims of racism hate to talk about it. She didn't want to grant other interviews. Not only is it humilitating to endure, but people would rather disbelieve it than to entertain the notion that racist bullies exist.
Who wants to be humilitated and be labelled a liar?

Who is Roberta? Aren't we talking about Patricia Carroll?

No doubt it would be sad if Ms. Carroll had to prove anything, but as far as I can tell, nobody has asked her to. Certainly not in this thread. Did I miss where someone said her account was unreliable? Or that racist bullies don't exist? Or that she is a liar? Or that the peanut-throwers aren't complete idiot troglodytes* deserving of punishment?

Originally Posted by Normal Phase

You think you're joking, but in the closed zombie thread in the pit, someone actually argued that a guy who threw around "fat nigger bitch" as an insult might not actually be racist in his heart. So no, there's pretty much no level of racism that some pretending-to-be-fair-minded white person somewhere will not defend as maybe not actually REALLY racist.

Well I's sure someone would, but it is a dumb thing to do. Racist behavior can be judged as such completely separate from what's "in the [perpetrator's] heart." It looks like we'll never know, but if you track down these guys and ask, I'm guessing they'd swear they'd never had a racist thought in their lives. They "don't see race." They come from a predominantly black state. They are Christians and Jesus says love thy neighbor. And any number of other things that people with bias always say to explain why they have no bias.

But even if they really, truly, believe this, it is the actions that matter. And most importantly, how those actions are perceived by the target. Like I said in my first post, the strongest argument for this incident being racist is not the specifics of the attack, but how Ms Carroll felt about it, though the actions themselves certainly leaned in that direction as well.

*With due apologies to troglodytes everywhere.

[scabpicker]

Originally Posted by Andiethewestie

It is a shame it doesn't go further as Roberta wanted to drop it, but the two older white men are deplorable and should be held to account.

See, out of this whole thread, this is the part I don't get. If she wants to let sleeping dogs lie, why can't we? She was the injured party. It appears that she realizes her dignity only increases by these assholes running and hiding, no matter what their motivation is or was, and she's already won.

Being a (probably racist) asshat isn't usually against the law unless a party wants to press charges, or someone is sent to the hospital. I'm pretty sure they won't be invited back to the RNC for fear of causing more incidents. If you just want to go find some racists to look down your nose at, we can go find a couple before lunchtime. It's pretty easy. I drove by a Confederate flag with a Nazi eagle emblazoned in the center flying on the side of route 180 week before last. It's a pretty sure bet the folks living there are fucking white supremacists, a whole lot more threatening in my book than these jokers.

[rogerbox]

Originally Posted by Normal Phase

You think you're joking, but in the closed zombie thread in the pit, someone actually argued that a guy who threw around "fat nigger bitch" as an insult might not actually be racist in his heart. So no, there's pretty much no level of racism that some pretending-to-be-fair-minded white person somewhere will not defend as maybe not actually REALLY racist.

I wasn't joking, I really don't understand this phenomenon...well I do when it comes from our resident racist white conservatives on the SDMB because conservatives have a vested interest in lying and saying that there isn't systematic racism in the US still so they can keep locking up the people they hate at disproportionate rates and eliminate all forms of affirmitive action, but when non-conservatives do it it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to be putting their heads in the sand.

[Andiethewestie]

Originally Posted by scabpicker

See, out of this whole thread, this is the part I don't get. If she wants to let sleeping dogs lie, why can't we? She was the injured party. It appears that she realizes her dignity only increases by these assholes running and hiding, no matter what their motivation is or was, and she's already won.

Being a (probably racist) asshat isn't usually against the law unless a party wants to press charges, or someone is sent to the hospital. I'm pretty sure they won't be invited back to the RNC for fear of causing more incidents. If you just want to go find some racists to look down your nose at, we can go find a couple before lunchtime. It's pretty easy. I drove by a Confederate flag with a Nazi eagle emblazoned in the center flying on the side of route 180 week before last. It's a pretty sure bet the folks living there are fucking white supremacists, a whole lot more threatening in my book than these jokers.

You don't know that these elderly men aren't white supremists. All I know is you have to lance a boil instead letting it fester.

[Andiethewestie]

Originally Posted by Rachael Rage

Who is Roberta? Aren't we talking about Patricia Carroll?

No doubt it would be sad if Ms. Carroll had to prove anything, but as far as I can tell, nobody has asked her to. Certainly not in this thread. Did I miss where someone said her account was unreliable? Or that racist bullies don't exist? Or that she is a liar? Or that the peanut-throwers aren't complete idiot troglodytes* deserving of punishment?

Well I's sure someone would, but it is a dumb thing to do. Racist behavior can be judged as such completely separate from what's "in the [perpetrator's] heart." It looks like we'll never know, but if you track down these guys and ask, I'm guessing they'd swear they'd never had a racist thought in their lives. They "don't see race." They come from a predominantly black state. They are Christians and Jesus says love thy neighbor. And any number of other things that people with bias always say to explain why they have no bias.

But even if they really, truly, believe this, it is the actions that matter. And most importantly, how those actions are perceived by the target. Like I said in my first post, the strongest argument for this incident being racist is not the specifics of the attack, but how Ms Carroll felt about it, though the actions themselves certainly leaned in that direction as well.

*With due apologies to troglodytes everywhere.

Sorry, I got her name incorrect, but my thought on the subject remains the sameapparently she did not want this to be a distraction, but a lot of people according to the report was very upset by it.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by Andiethewestie

I am not giving anyone a "bye" when the facts are presented here. I say anyone who calls another human being an animal is implying they are sub-human. When the person being bullied is black, that takes on a whole other layer of bullying. It's racism, and I gave the historical biblical association upthread.

Again, when your slur needs a long discussion of biblical history to prove it's a slur, it's not a slur. Real slurs are instantly recognized as slurs. This was an insult. It MAY have been racist. We can't be positive.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by Normal Phase

You think you're joking, but in the closed zombie thread in the pit, someone actually argued that a guy who threw around "fat nigger bitch" as an insult might not actually be racist in his heart. So no, there's pretty much no level of racism that some pretending-to-be-fair-minded white person somewhere will not defend as maybe not actually REALLY racist.

But I wouldn't argue that. "Nigger" is undeniably racist (though even that word is now often used in non-racist ways). "Animal" is not undeniably racist.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

False equivalence. Rogerbox knows the motives of his own comments and actions, we can only impute them for the perpetrators in question, based on the context. As it stands, there are pretty significant second order signifiers to the actions in question.

Not significant enough for me to declare them guilty.

Do you think this is a racist image?

Very likely.

Though it reminds me of this:

http://farm2.staticflickr.com/1059/4...34dcd13d_z.jpg

More so than this?

Of course.



If so, why?[/quote]

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by Hentor the Barbarian

So, we've gone from being annoyed that others are raising the concept of innocent until proven guilty in regards to this discussion, to tarring and feathering those who raise even the merest scintilla of doubt about the motivations of these morons.

And that kind of proves my point.

Now it's a witch hunt, where anyone who dares express even the slightest doubt that someone is a witch is simply accused of also being a witch.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by BigT

What you say is only true in theory, not in practice. People don't accidentally call black people animals. People don't accidentally only throw peanuts only on black people. If it was just about the "lamestream media," why didn't they do it to the others that were there representing other members of said media?

Do people call white people animals and throw peanuts at them, on purpose?

[Andiethewestie]

Originally Posted by lance strongarm

Again, when your slur needs a long discussion of biblical history to prove it's a slur, it's not a slur. Real slurs are instantly recognized as slurs. This was an insult. It MAY have been racist. We can't be positive.

You need to read the full account of the event, and then you need to understand the propaganda from white supremists. They ABSOLUTELY know the biblical references that justifies their racism.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by Andiethewestie

You need to read the full account of the event, and then you need to understand the propaganda from white supremists. They ABSOLUTELY know the biblical references that justifies their racism.

That's a circular argument though - you don't know if the guys who called this lady an animal were white supremacists!

In fact, perhaps they had no idea that their insult was racist because they weren't racists and hadn't learned all that racist stuff.

We just don't know.

And of course I've read a full account of the event.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by Andiethewestie

Why because George Bush is not a descendant of Ham according to the Bible, but Obama is. When you have a Biblical justification for allowing slavery, allowing people to be considered sub-human animals, then segregation and all the things that follow, eg; don't swim in a white man's pool, don't drink from a white man's drinking fountain, don't eat in the same restaurant, don't go to the white man's convention is not only normal but according to God's will.

You've done a great job of proving that racism exists. Thanks.

Doesn't prove that this particular incident was racist.

[dropzone]

The incident was PROBABLY, nearly indubitably, racist, based on the history of this country and the evidence presented. A lawyer may not be able to satisfy the "beyond a shadow of a doubt" rule given juries based on the minimal information we are working with, but you continue to insist that the teensiest sliver of a possibility that there was no racial intent on the part of the men means we should dismiss the incident as not-so-youthful hijinks. You have been presented with the evidence that a black woman was targeted and that there is a centuries-old meme in this country that African Americans are animals. Based on that a reasonable person can safely assume that the incident has a racist basis. To continually not do so betrays a willful ignorance if not a desire to make us give up talking to you, making it seem to you that you have won.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by dropzone

The incident was PROBABLY...racist...

Yep.

[dropzone]

Well, we have that. After four pages I lost track of exactly what you believe. Maybe we should have a poll.

[lance strongarm]

Originally Posted by dropzone

Well, we have that. After four pages I lost track of exactly what you believe. Maybe we should have a poll.

I made it very clear what I believe, despite all the crap thrown at me. Ignore the crap and read what I say, and you'll have no trouble.