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

[dropzone]

Rather than forcing us to dig through four pages of back and forth, please sum up your position here and explain why you object to our public pillorying of these unknown people on the basis of the slightest speck of a possibility they aren’t the racist scum they obviously are. And remember that you are not under oath, that this is not a court of law, and that none of us has an opinion that is more than an opinion.

[Truman_Burbank]

@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.

Well, this has become not so much about the incident, as arguing about interpretations of the incident, so this is probably my last post. I would just point out that I am an atheist and not aware of the biblical basis quoted by Andie, and she seems to believe that everyone must be aware of it, so it must be relevent. It may or may not be, to the perps.
Lance never said we should dismiss this as "youthful hijinks’, that is a shameless strawman.

[lance_strongarm]

@dropzone

Rather than forcing us to dig through four pages of back and forth, please sum up your position here and explain why you object to our public pillorying of these unknown people on the basis of the slightest speck of a possibility they aren’t the racist scum they obviously are. And remember that you are not under oath, that this is not a court of law, and that none of us has an opinion that is more than an opinion.

Well, see, now YOU are trying to speak for me.

You started this thread, and you’ve been participating in it. If you still don’t understand what I’m saying, you should just give up.

[dropzone]

@Truman_Burbank

I would just point out that I am an atheist and not aware of the biblical basis quoted by Andie, and she seems to believe that everyone must be aware of it, so it must be relevent.

sigh Aside from your personal beliefs, to understand America, now and 250 years ago, you need to know quite a lot about Christianity, particularly Protestant and Evangelical Christianity, the Bible, and how various people interpret it. If you are not aware of the Biblical support for slavery used by the people of the Confederacy, for instance, you cannot fully understand the Civil War. Not being of a particular faith does not give you an excuse to know little about the dominant faith in your country. If you lived in Saudi Arabia you would want to know the Koran because without that, even if you spoke Arabic, a lot of the society would make no sense.

Lance never said we should dismiss this as "youthful hijinks’, that is a shameless strawman.

Then I apologize. I got lost in the endless back and forth, which is why I asked him to place his opinion of the situation in a single post.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

lance strongarm: So, now you are agreeing with the statement that this incident was “probably racist.”

Here’s you saying a whole bunch of stuff that is inconsistent with the conclusion that this was “probably racist”:

@lance strongarm

Not the reporter, the peanut-throwers. They were boorish.

Boorish isn’t always racist.

These guys might have targeted the reporter for being, you know, part of the evil mainstream liberal media. Or some other reason.

To assume motives in people is not only wrong, it backfires. It’s like crying wolf. Make enough false accusations and nobody will believe the true ones.

@lance strongarm

So there’s a long tradition of throwing peanuts at blacks and calling them animals?

@lance strongarm

Maybe it started with someone throwing peanuts, because that’s what they had in their hand. Then someone used the animal insult because of the peanuts.

Or maybe they just picked a random insult.

We don’t know.

@lance strongarm

No, it is NOT.

The first and best interpretation is “we don’t know.”

Calling someone a racist without good evidence is dangerous. I would take deep offense if you pulled that on me.
Quote:
Otherwise it’s just willful ignorance or partisan contortions.
No, it’s called fairness. The same fairness you would demand. And I’m a Democrat.
Quote:
The RNC saw no room for doubt.
The RNC didn’t call it racist either!

@lance strongarm

Here is my test for whether something is obviously racist or not:

If you heard that someone at a convention somewhere threw peanuts at someone and said “this is how we feed animals” and you did NOT know the victim was black, would you say, “hmm, that sounds racist, I wonder if the victim was black?”

I wouldn’t, and I don’t think anyone else would either. It’s just not that closely associate with racism. If it had been watermelon thrown and someone called an ape, we’d all know it was a racist attack. But this is not clear enough.

I have my credibility. When I make a charge of racism, it’s not done lightly. You guys can do what you want.

@lance strongarm

Without access to the minds of the people who threw the peanuts, all we can do is work with the evidence we have. Sorry, but calling someone an animal is not undeniable, obvious evidence of racism. Far from it. And to say so is good for the cause of fighting racism, because if you make false accusations of racism, they hurt your credibility. The right-wingers already use that - they call it “playing the race card” and belittle accusations of racism, even when they really are obvious.

@lance strongarm

So it’s okay to make up any motive for any boorish behavior?

You run a red light, and I can assume you’re a child molestor?
Quote:
Anyway, why are you so invested in defending peanut throwing assholes?
I’m not.

I’m defending the principle of innocent until proven guilty.

If you feel you’ve been misunderstood, you have nobody to blame but yourself.

[lance_strongarm]

@Hentor_the_Barbarian

lance strongarm: So, now you are agreeing with the statement that this incident was “probably racist.”

Here’s you saying a whole bunch of stuff that is inconsistent with the conclusion that this was “probably racist”:

I don’t think any of my comments are inconsistent with that. Moreover, you left out my other comments where I said it was probably racist, for example:

I don’t deny any facts.

I deny that the facts are conclusive enough to make a judgement. I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if these two losers were racially motivated. But there isn’t enough evidence.

If you feel you’ve been misunderstood, you have nobody to blame but yourself.

Nope, I blame you for not reading all of my comments, carefully. I’ve been quite clear.

[Truman_Burbank]

“Not being of a particular faith does not give you an excuse to know little about the dominant faith in your country.”
I don’t need an excuse, I know as much of the bible as I choose to. Whether it provides a useful context to ‘understand’ the incident in question is, in fact, part of this debate.
sigh
BTW, Hentor, he’s always, I think, maintained it was ‘probably racist’.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@Truman_Burbank

BTW, Hentor, he’s always, I think, maintained it was ‘probably racist’.

If he had said as much from the get go, this thread would be 1 page long. I can only assume that by saying that the facts at hand “are far from” an “obvious” racist explanation, that we cannot know the motivations of the two guys, and that they are innocent until proven guilty, he was engaging in some kind of academic exercise in argument against the proposition that we can with 100% certainty know the true motives of these clowns. Very few would honestly disagree.

Without prefacing his argument thusly, however, it became indistinguishable from an apologist JAQing off.

[Truman_Burbank]

This is the first post Lance made about the ‘were they definitely motivated by racism’ point:

@lance_strongarm

Not the reporter, the peanut-throwers. They were boorish.

Boorish isn’t always racist.

These guys might have targeted the reporter for being, you know, part of the evil mainstream liberal media. Or some other reason.

To assume motives in people is not only wrong, it backfires. It’s like crying wolf. Make enough false accusations and nobody will believe the true ones.

I don’t think that reads how you thought it read…

[lance_strongarm]

@Truman_Burbank

I don’t think that reads how you thought it read…

How who thought it read?

How does it read to you?

[Truman_Burbank]

Sorry, that was to Hentor, with me trying to make the point that you (Lance) never denied the likely hypothesis of racism, but felt there was some possiblity of alternative motives.
I swear I’m gonna stop mucking about in this thread now, talk about diminshing returns…

[lance_strongarm]

@Truman_Burbank

Sorry, that was to Hentor, with me trying to make the point that you (Lance) never denied the likely hypothesis of racism, but felt there was some possiblity of alternative motives.

Thanks.

It’s not mucking up anything when you’re backing me up.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Der_Trihs

There’s a rather large overlap between the categories “racist” and “idiot”.

I’m trying to figure out which one is your euphemism for Republican.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@Damuri_Ajashi

I’m trying to figure out which one is your euphemism for Republican.

There’s a rather large overlap between the categories “racist,” “idiot” and “Republican.”

[dropzone]

@Truman_Burbank

“Not being of a particular faith does not give you an excuse to know little about the dominant faith in your country.”
I don’t need an excuse, I know as much of the bible as I choose to. Whether it provides a useful context to ‘understand’ the incident in question is, in fact, part of this debate.

It is your loss. Not from a religious standpoint, but because it leaves you willfully, self-satisfyingly ignorant of why your countrymen act the way they do. It’s one thing that I can be almost gleefully ignorant of comic books, though I have gotten in trouble for that (I was not gracious in my appraisal of their fans) and it leaves me without a clue about much of popular culture. It’s quite different to know little about the Bible and Christians because they actually matter. You don’t like religion? Fine. Think of it as knowing your enemy. And if nothing else it helps you get the jokes on Landover Baptist Church’s website.

[Trinopus]

@dropzone

It is your loss. Not from a religious standpoint, but because it leaves you willfully, self-satisfyingly ignorant of why your countrymen act the way they do. It’s one thing that I can be almost gleefully ignorant of comic books, though I have gotten in trouble for that (I was not gracious in my appraisal of their fans) and it leaves me without a clue about much of popular culture. It’s quite different to know little about the Bible and Christians because they actually matter. You don’t like religion? Fine. Think of it as knowing your enemy. And if nothing else it helps you get the jokes on Landover Baptist Church’s website.

Agreement. The Bible is so very much a part of our culture, not having at least some working familiarity with it is noticeably handicapping. It leaves one missing out on vast numbers of allusions – David and Goliath, the Wise and Foolish Virgins, Faith like a Mustard seed – etc.

As wide an education in these classics is really a good idea. I once had a session with a psychiatrist who didn’t get it when I referred to “Scylla and Charybdis.” Kind of a useful metaphor in psychiatry!

As for comic books, well, the Poppupians were about to unleash The Impossible Man upon you for a hideous vengeance, but the Great Lakes Avengers dispatched Squirrel Girl to safeguard you, and now you’re as safe as can be. Except your bird feeder is empty.

[Truman_Burbank]

Dropzone, you are entitled to your opinion. I would, in fact, agree, that some knowlege of the Bible is a culturally relevent thing. I never said I was entirely ignorant of the Bible, I said I was unaware of Andie’s “children of Ham” reference, which she declared placed this action clearly in the ‘definitely racist’ camp because it apparently *had to be *a factor in the perp’s behavior and thoughts.
I don’t appreciate you calling names, (“willfully, self-satisfyingly ignorant”). It takes us back to seed of this thread, you assuming you know something about another person that you don’t know. Adding a personal attack makes you seem, I don’t know…ignorant of the forum we’re in, for one.

[dropzone]

1. I apologize for my insulting words. They were uncalled for.

2. If that psychiatrist is not a member here he is an idiot.

3. My daughters are Squirrel Girl fans. They are not members and are idiots. I pray for their souls nightly. Or would, if I believed in souls. Which they still wouldn’t have because of the whole Squirrel Girl thing.

[Truman_Burbank]

1. Graciously done and fully accepted. Thank you.

[dropzone]

No, thank you. However, I am now employed and maybe my mood will improve and I will stop lashing out. (checking my posting history) No, that usually takes a suspension, voluntary or not, of several months.