And still you’re slapping an additional phrase on. Why are you doing that? Because, so the argument goes, “I reed a book” only sounds normal if you add something extra to set it up or top it off or whatever; otherwise, you’d just say “I don’t buy it. * ‘I reed a book.’* Sounds like a perfectly normal sentence.”
Instead, you’re adding something – when arguing that it sounds perfectly normal even if we don’t add anything.
You aren’t making sense. Presumably in Wilson’s mind his outburst was set up by Obama’s lies.
Also, to me “You lie!” seems like a more natural outburst than “You’re lying,” or, “You’re a liar,” or “That’s a lie!”
Even more natural might just be “Liar!” or “Lies!”
The hell? To you importing some context is “Slapping an additional phrase on”? Alrighty. Assuming context is, for some reason, in your argument impermissible, then you are theorizing the relative oddity or strangeness of people who are just randomly uttering out verb phrases without context – “I read a book!” “I like pickles!” “I drive!”
Well, you got me there. Without any context, pretty much any phrase you might choose to just randomly utter does in fact sound odd or strange, including “you lie” and “I read” – it sounds, in fact, like the speaker has Tourette’s or a developmental disability.
What’s your point? We are looking at “you lie” in the context in which it was uttered. Why then do we look at “I read” without any context whatsoever? And even if I grant that “I read” sounds odd without context – it does, almost everything does – what bearing does that have on the question of whether “I lie” sounds odd in the context in which it was spoken?
No context: Both odd (lots of things odd)
Context: Neither particularly odd
All of which is of course tangential to the point, which is that “oddness” is itself too subjective a judgment to justify speculating that additional unvoiced insult must have been intended.
Some might say that his actions over the weekend proved his apology to be insincere, at best.
That reflects directly on the veracity of what he says, and not to his credit.
Giving someone the benefit of the doubt is a wonderful thing, but given Wilson’s refusal to offer a simple apology to the house on monday, I don’t think he deserves it. Obviously YMMV, but that neither makes you right, or me wrong.
It’s inappropriate to debate this in GQ, but that doesn’t grant one side or the other the right to assert honesty, or the lact thereof, on Wilson’s part, as fact in this forum.
If we’re to stick to facts here, let’s stick to facts for which there is tangible evidence.
Well, yes, it’d be odd to just pop off with either a “You lie!” or a “You’re lying!” – or “That’s a lie!” or “Liar!” – with no context. But even so, I’d think “You lie” still sounds weird compared to those other ones up there. Likewise, blurting out “I read a book” in the past tense is odd with no context; blurting out “I reed a book” in the present tense sounds even weirder with no context. All IMHO and YMMV, obviously.
I don’t believe there was some additional unvoiced insult. I merely note that “You lie!” sounds weird to me even if you think someone is lying; even in context, it sounds weird compared to “You’re lying!” or “That’s a lie!” or simply “Liar!” It strikes me as sounding just as weird as the phrase “I reed a book,” in that either could work in response to the right question but sound unusually odd without it.
I think that whatever factual aspects the OP may have had have already been addressed, so this will be better served my moving it from GQ to GD.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
It’s not criticism that draws those associations. It’s rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth, googly-eyed, bouncing into the ceiling, paste-eating, somersault-doing, tongue rapidly unrolling and rerolling, hair standing on-end, steam emitting from the ears, head spinning in circles fanaticism at anything he says or does. Our own public school systems were forced to treat the situation like Kruschev himself was coming over on a recruiting mission when he wanted to address students. That is unprecedented. Like it or not, a huge number of people, consciously or not, are freaked out about this guy simply because he’s black. It started before he even took office. Hell, it started before he was elected. Bush had to start 2 wars among other clusterfuckery before his detractors approached anything near the level of noise that Obama’s opposition has reached already.
I think this whole thread is based on a misunderstanding of Dowd’s point.
I don’t think Dowd meant anyone other than her was literally thinking of adding the word “boy” after “you lie.”
She believes (and not unreasonably so) that race is a factor in the treatment of Obama, including Wilson shouting “You lie!”
“Boy” was “in the air” not because anyone actually thought it, but because the practice of calling Black men “boy” is based on similar racial feelings to those experienced by Wilson and his like.
Certainly. His own statement is tangible evidence that his utterance was spontaneous. So I am not giving him the “benefit of the doubt,” I am assuming he is not lying because he says he is not – just as would grant the same assumption to anyone who said they were truthful, in the utter and complete absence of any evidence that they have been untruthful.
I assert his veracity on the same basis I assert yours: Because as we rub along in society we assume our fellows are honest in the absence of any evidence whatsover to the contrary. This is not me courting a Great Debate, it is merely me reasonably relying on a societal assumption I, and most people, universally grant.
Nope, you’ve chosen to ignore his behavior over the weekend, and subsequent refusal to apologize to the members of the house. That’s not you being reasonable, that’s you sticking with your assumption in the face of evidence to the contrary.
I agree it’s stupid and dangerous to attribute any and all criticism of Obama to racism. White presidents were subject to criticism; a black president should not be immune.
However, when the nation’s only black president is subjected to treatment that his 42 white predecessors never received, racism should be considered as an explanation. It shouldn’t be assumed to be the only possible explanation, but to pretend it’s not a potential contributing factor seems foolish.
The two most recent presidents, Clinton and Bush the younger, were enormously polarizing figures who engendered strong feelings in the opposition. Heck, one was even impeached on grounds of perjury. And yet no legislator was heard shouting shouting “you lie!” or anything equivalent at any of their joint addresses to congress. I would guess none even seriously considered doing such a thing. Yet Wilson thought it was appropriate to do to this president. (Yes, I do think he made a conscious decision. The idea that he suffers from some sort of “baby tourette’s” and couldn’t control himself beggars belief.) So what’s different about this president? Race isn’t the only thing, but to pretend its *no *thing is to willingly be blind to reality.
How is “his behavior” – and you’ll have to be specific – evidence that the statement “you lie!” was not spontaneous? Allow me to tell you that whether or not he apologized to the House (and I believe he should have) is not evidence on the issue of whether or not his statement was spontaneous.
You are making an argument as to the weight of the evidence; he has said the statement was spontaneous, and you don’t believe him. But you’re the one who has chosen to drag this into the realm of what is or is not evidence, so I’ve cited to mine; let’s see yours. Not opinion, not weight: Evidence.
Well, if his behavior invalidates the sincerity of his apology, the man’s sincerity in general is brought into question.
If you want to believe that Wilson’s assurance that his outburst was spontaneous is the truth, solely on the basis of his claim that it was spontaneous, have at it. I’m not going to argue with you in a relocated thread.
This is America, lots of people believe lots of stuff for no good reason. But there’s no reason to be posting such beliefs in GQ as if they’re written on tablets of stone. They have no more reality than the threat of Saddam’s WMD’s.
While the case we’re talking about NOW is debatable, do you honestly think that it’s beyond possible that Ken Starr WASN’T obsessed? :dubious:
Well, it’s like this, lalenin: Even today, there are some Americans who will never accept a black POTUS as legitimate; and (as we saw in the Clinton years) there are some Americans who will never really accept a Democratic POTUS as legitimate, no matter what the election returns may say (remember Rush Limbaugh’s “America Held Hostage: Day ___” bit on his short-lived TV show? or Sarah Palin’s more recent “Real America” idiocy?); and the Boolean intersection between them is not a complete union, but is very nearly so. Put the two together and you’ve got some powerful synergy-mojo workin’ – and it even spills over into more moderately conservative groups that do not fit into either of the above classifications.
Public reaction to a black Republican POTUS would be rather more interesting and revealing, but I don’t expect to see that eventuality in my lifetime; this is not your grandfather’s Republican Party, not since Nixon’s Southern Strategy and the two main parties’ ensuing partial exchange of constituencies and geographic bases.
Oh, he was obsessed, all right, and quite insanely; but probably not sexually.
And regardless of the white man’s and black man’s respective ages. (White men would also address younger white men as “boy,” but not elders or contemporaries – not even if they were also distinctly social inferiors.) Mostly. Really old blacks sometimes got to be addressed by whites as “Uncle.” Or, on terms of personal acquaintance, by their first names (a form of address the black was definitely not allowed to reciprocate). But never, outside a courtroom, as “sir” or “Mr. Jones.” It was that way in large parts of the South well into the 1970s, actually.
N.B.: The plural/collective “boys,” as in “Shoot low, boys, they’re riding Shetland ponies!” always had a very different connotation, one of easy equality and camaraderie. Likewise with “good ol’ boy.” Both expressions used only among whites, AFAIK.
Can we just be clear one more time, Dowd MADE IT UP.
Let’s not lose sight of the fact that she made it all up. In her crazy, tiny mind.
Racism may be a small factor in the Obama hate. Some haters may privately be bigoted but have other rationale for criticizing him. But I don’t think race is the reason for more than a small portion of the nonsense we’ve seen. This is not new or unprecedented.