What? You stated the same point that I have been trying to make repeatedly. That Allen was addresssing the “Macaca” insult to the kid. But, if you simply listen to the video, or read the transcript and take the whole thing in context, it is clear that he was talking about his oppenent’s lack of spending time outside the beltwat and "in America.
Do you mistate your position earlier when you said:
Did I misunderstand you?
Have you changed your position?
What you stated is precisely my position. And if you take his comments in context my interpretation (and yours?) is vastly more likely to be construed as a fair interpretation than “Hey, Macaca, you look like a foreigner, so I’d like to welcome you to America.” Especially when he knew the kid worked for his opponent.
Damn, magellan. He called a dark-skinned kid a little monkey. Or possibly a shithead. Three times. And then welcomed him to America. Even if he had come out and said “Oh, by the way, I wasn’t talking to you so much as I was ragging Webb,” would it make any diference? As soon as he said ‘macaca’ he lost any chance of claiming he was indulging in political rhetoric.
What is your point? The question is, do you think the talk of America and Virginia, etc. was directed at Webb and his penchant for staying in the beltway? Or do you think he was actually tellinig the kid "Hey you little brown foreigner, welcome to America? A kid, mind you, who Allen knew worked for the opposition’s campaign.
There is no whole thing in context. No one is disputing that he was slamming Webb and liberals and the usual other asinine Republo-cliche (made especially ironic by the fact that Allen is a posuer who lives inside the beltway himself, while Webb’s family is actually from the area). But it’s undeniable that he directed his comments to the kid as well. I think the “real Virginia” line seemed to be about the point his brain engaged and he realized what he had said and what it sounded like.
My point is that it does not matter. If he chooses to use racial slurs against this kid, while really using him as sort of a stalking horse to get at Webb, what the hell difference does it make? He’s still a racist asshole. Why be so mealy-mouthed about it? Why not speak directly what is on his mind? Why not identify the kid as an employee of his opponent, and then direct his comments to Webb? Why hide his meaning if it is so benign?
Here’s a thought experiment for you. What if you were to walk down the streets of East Saint Louis at midnight calling every third man you met ‘nigger?’ Do you think your explanation that you were really talking to someone else would cut you any slack?
If he has a problem with his opponent he needs to confront him, not pick on someone who cannot fight back. He’s a pussy, and a mealy-mouthed one at that.
It doesn’t matter as far as the “Macaca” comment. I still cannot phathom why/how an experienced politician—even if he was a complete out-and-out racist—would be dumb enough to—in public—with a video camera on him, of which he is fully aware, not only utter a racist insult, but do so three times. But he did it.
But that doesn’t mean you get to reassign meaning to all the other words he said. It is clear that the Virginia/America/beltway jibes were directed at Webb and not to the kid. Or to the kid as a representative of the other camp.
I agree, that’s one of the things he was saying. Language can have multiple meanings, and an equally valid (at the very least) interpretation is the one Apos has been pushing. Allen was almost certainly addressing Webb when he said that, but he was undeniably addressing Sidharth. It’s possible that he meant that statement to apply only to Webb and not at all to Sidharth, but the context you’ve been arguing from is not the irrefutable evidence that you claim.
No, yes, and no.
I wasn’t stating my position, I was explaining yours to someone who seemed to have become confused as to what the argument was about. Note that I said, “The claim,” not “My claim.”
Did you read my post directly before that one? I think I made my position on the subject clear in that post.
Taken in context, Apos interpretation is every bit as reasonable as your own. Your interpretation, while valid, requires a bit more extrapolation and assumption of motives than Apos*. His words were clearly directed at Sidharth. It takes an intuitive leap (although, again, not an unreasonable one) to assume that he was including Webb in those remarks in addition to Sidharth. The plain text reading is the one Apos presents: “You, Mr. Macaca, are an outsider who is unfamiliar with the ways of ‘real’ Americans.” The additional context you’ve offered does not change that plain text reading.
*Well, the racial component of that particular phrase is admittedly an assumption, but one that seems likely given his repeated use of a racial slur in the same speech.
I appreciate you trying to clarify things, but I think this is absurd. Do you really think he gives a shit about the kid at all? Do you think he would have even addressed him if he didn’t know he was from Webb’s campaign? Listen to the video, again. Sure, he addresses “Macaca” and refers to him three times. But the point of the entire thing is not the kid, it’s Webb. You think this is a tortured interpretation? Or that the other one offered is more reasonable? Fine. Once again, we are worlds apart.
To you perhaps. It is not nearly that clear to me. Making one dumbass remark hardly makes a second dumbass remark less likely. It may seem logical to you that his remarks were directed at his opponent, but inasmuch as the preceding remarks make little sense (unless viewed as a racist screed) one can hardly appeal to logic, can one?
In the absence of access to his inner thoughts and motivations, we are forced to take his words at face value. If he has already called the guy a little monkey, is it that much of a stretch to believe the ‘welcome to America’ part? Sure, you can claim that the context of his remarks suggest he was referring to Webb, but if that was the case, why not say so? Who was he trying to convince, exactly? Why did he need to speak in code, and use racial slurs, to make a fairly simple point, (rightly or wrongly) that Webb was unamiliar with the real Virginia?
If in fact his diatribe was directed at Webb, (which I doubt) then he is a chickenshit motherfucker and a pandering racist. If not, pretty much the same holds.
He needs to remember the rules of the playground, one of which is ‘Pick on somebody your own size.’ If the best explanation of his behavior is that he was ragging this kid out as a surrogate for someone with a bit of clout, who might even be able to hit back, then he is undeserving of your defense.
No, he wouldn’t, but that doesn’t prove your point. He would not have attacked the kid if the kid weren’t working for Webb’s campaign, obviously. But that does not mean that his words were not targeted at the kid. Imagine that, instead of insulting Sidharth, Allen was so incensed by the prescence of a member of the opposite camp that he physically attacked him. Would you argue that he “wasn’t really punching the kid, he was punching Webb?” He wouldn’t have jumped him if he weren’t a member of the opposition, but that doesn’t mean the fists he was swinging at the kid were landing somewhere else.
Where have I said anything about your argument that could be remotely interpreted as “tortured”? I’ve said, repeatedly, that it’s a reasonable argument and most likely correct. I’ve merely pointed out, also repeatedly, that your argument does not invalidate Apos’s argument. Allen was clearly speaking directly to Sidharth, and intended his words for Sidharth. That his words were also meant for Webb is a secondary, but still valid, meaning. Even if Sidharth was being used as a stand-in for Webb, that still implies that he and Webb share the qualities Allen assigned to them. Yes, he is saying that Webb is not a real American. But he’s doing so by accusing Webb’s campaign worker of not being a real American. The context you’re arguing from merely widens the scope of Allen’s remarks. It does not redirect them.
You’re certainly free to believe that your interpretation is the more likely one, but can you at least recognize that one can see a different spin on his words without being (as you have accused Apos) a “blind partisan” or deliberately taking words out of context? That there’s some room for confusion over exactly who he was referring to? Especially when the full context is off-the-cuff, poorly considered speechifying, and not a carefully parsed, endlessly rewritten policy paper or academic thesis?
Okay. Good. Then we disagree merely in a matter of degree is to the reasonableness of the other interpretation. I maintain it requires a partisan bent. You disagree. We understand each other.