Here’s my suggestion. If you’re scared, something is seriously fucked up and needs fixing.
I get the strong sense that you don’t know what the term “strawman” means.
Wait… you’re arguing that home security ads are racist because they show white criminals, AND that the Willie Horton ad was not racist?
You may be the only person who thinks that the Willie Horton ad wasn’t designed to play to racist fears.
Please give me some reason to do so. You certainly haven’t yet.
“strawman” means to argue against a position your opponent never took. Usually the invented position is one which is similar to the opponent’s position, but much much weaker. In this case, you pretended that I had argued that Bush’s supporters had no choice but to make the ad itself. Of course I made no such argument.
I’m not sure if it’s wise to use the word “racist,” but anyway, my position is that the tendency to cast whites in the role of criminal shows racial bias; the fact that the “Weekend Passes” advertisement featured a black man does not necessarily indicate such a bias.
I don’t know if it was or it wasn’t.
Lol. And of course you refuse to re-think your position, even after being shown to be 100% wrong.
You said – as far as I can tell – that you were “sure” that a Bush campaign ad, similar to the Willie Horton ad, which used actors to play the role of criminals would have used mainly blacks. And yet such an ad was actually made, and it used mainly whites to play the criminals.
A fact which you were “sure” of turns out to be flat out wrong. And yet you won’t rethink your position.
Are you asserting that the “revolving door” ad featured only white actors?
I was incorrect in saying Atwater apologized for the Horton ad; he apologized for another equally scummy campaign move. The “Revolving Door” ad, officially a Bush campaign product, featured mostly white actors, but was designed to resemble the Horton ad (“Weekend Passes”), which was not officially a campaign ad.
No I am not. I am asserting exactly what I asserted. Which is that it used mainly white actors to play the role of criminals.
“mainly” is not the same thing as “only.” Duh.
Okay, in advance of your answer, I’ll assume that 1) you were referring to the “revolving door” ad, and 2) that you find it meaningful that many of the actors were white.
The revolving door ad did feature many white actors… going in to jail. Most of the ones coming out the revolving door in the ad were not white.
See here for a discussion:
So, are you still laughing your ass off, or are you rethinking your position?
Exactly - rather than bitch about whether criminals in commercials are white, quit being afraid that the black man is comin’ ta git ya!
Meaningful mainly because it shows you were dead wrong.
Yeah, I noticed that point being made in the wiki article. Frankly, it smacks of liberals desparate to find something racist about the ad. Why? Because it’s a revolving door. The point is that people go in and are sent out immediately thereafter. So it’s hard to see any significance in the distinction between who’s going in and who’s going out. The whole point of the ad is that it’s the same people going in as coming right out again.
But anyway, none of this changes the fact that you were dead wrong.
Still laughing.
Brazil has a good point. Just look how no one makes fun of Jenna or Tracy on 30 Rock. They are never ever the butt of jokes, especially not stereotypical black or female ones.
Please quote from me anything I said that was wrong.
What it shows is apparently white criminals going in and a bunch of non-whites getting released into the community.
But it’s ironic that, in this case, you are concerned about people desperate to find racism in an ad. I guess it’s okay if you’re Lee Atwater and not okay if you are Brinks. Or it’s okay if you suggest that people should be afraid of African Americans but not Caucasians.
Please quote from me anything I said that was wrong.
And not thinking. Didn’t really expect otherwise.
Did Algore ever apologize for being the first to bring up Horton’s name and furlough, and use it against Dukakis?
Regards,
Shodan
“I’m sure they would have done just what they did, because they weren’t interested in representing reality, they were interested in scaring people who worry about black criminals.”
That’s complete nonsense. Here is a link to the ad:
I’m not sure what your point is, but I am analyzing these ads objectively. If it turns out that there were 3 or 4 whites similarly situated to Willie Horton, then I would change my mind conclude that the Willie Horton ad was almost certainly racist. As opposed to inventing some silly distinction to deceive myself into clinging to my previous belief.
Lol. Keep telling yourself that you weren’t wrong.
Will you ever apologize for keeping this zombie untruth alive? Al Gore may have brought up the furlough program, but he never tried to personalize it. The Southern Strategy was a Republican strategy - and very much Lee Atwater’s strategy.
So, please cite evidence of your claim or retract it. Or simply go on about your drive by while also continuing to drop this inaccurate turd in future punchbowls, as is your wont .
So where in that is there anything incorrect? I never said they didn’t make any commercial with some white actors.
Yes, and? Who is coming out the door?
As I said, they did what they did. Their interest was in evoking an image of scary black men. The Southern Strategy is not a secret.
Unfortunately, I must, until you demonstrate otherwise, and you’ve so far failed abjectly.
The question I had asked you was whether mainly black actors would be used. You implicitly answered my question in the affirmative. You were wrong.
Anyway, the commercial speaks for itself.
You are correct. As far as can be discerned from the backs of those actors whose facial features are not shown, more of them may be Caucasian. However, those facial features which can be discerned coming out are predominantly Black or Hispanic.
I was correct in saying that they did what they did, and that their intent was to scare people about black criminals. Neither of those assertions is incorrect.
(As an aside, I’m sure that if they had filmed the commercial somewhere other than Utah, they would have been able to scare up more black actors. Fortunately, for them, they found enough so that the faces coming out of the prison in the commercial were primarily non-white faces. And non-white faces are much scarier than white backs-of-heads, aren’t they? (Unless of course you want to argue that in constructing this commercial, the arrangement of the actors in the line was happenstance.)
Yes, yes it does.
Thank you.
They did not mainly use blacks. Even of the prisoners whose faces you can see, the majority is not black.
Not only that, but if you went to a typical maximum security prison in Massachusetts, I have a feeling the population would have significantly more blacks than the group of people in the commercial.
If the point of the commercial was to scare people with black criminals, they could have easily made all of the prisoners black.
That’s the most ridiculous thing you’ve said in this entire thread. How much extra do you think it would have cost to hire 20 black extras in, say Los Angeles, and bus them out to Salt Lake City?
Why was Horton’s mug shot inserted into the “Weekend Passes” ad, brazil84?