What, pray tell, was the boorish activity that the CNN reporter was engaging in? If it wasn’t racially motivated, why were the individuals booted from the convention?
You’re late. Scroll up.
Do you need assistance untwisting yourself after that amazing example of mental contortionism?
Srsly that is amazing!
What ladyfoxfyre said.
No, he’s right. All the RNC delegate did was to graciously offer the camerawoman some of his peanuts and she went hysterical, accused him of rape and/or racism and had him arrested. The man is clearly the victim in this incident.
I’m reminded of this. Even Rowan Atkinson could acknowledge that blacks can do some jobs almost as well as whites. It’s driving while black that’s boorish, not operating a camera. We should encourage the beleaguered blacks that actually do have jobs, unlike their feckless brethren.
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.
Those cameras were security cameras. Republicans are afraid a black guy is just their to steal their stuff.
So there’s a long tradition of throwing peanuts at blacks and calling them animals?
Well, the Irish were the first Apes…
This is from Landover Baptist; I couldn’t soil my browser with the “real” sites that Google offered. Look for yourself. But, yes, idiot racists do engage in that disgusting behavior. And they are well represented among the Republican stalwards…
Mitt’s main attraction: He’s white.
Is this a joke? It must be, but there’s no humor to it.
Yes, there’s a long history of calling African Americans animals. The peanut throwing is just a variation on the theme, but the guy provided helpful exposition in case his meaning wasn’t clear.
What’s next, JAQ about the history of watermelon and fried chicken references?
“apes” and “animals” are not the same word.
LOL. Landover Baptist is a PARODY site. Kind of like The Onion.
I don’t blame you for believing it though, since it’s not far from reality.
See why you have to be more careful with your accusations?
Of course this COULD have been racist. Doesn’t mean it was.
Guilt by association.
Mind-reading straw manism.
I’m a Democrat. I’m happy whenever Republicans have a bad day. But I believe in fairness. If I don’t extend it to them, I can’t expect them to extend it to me.
Is calling someone an animal ONLY a racist thing? Is it not possible or common in any other context? If you heard a white person call another white person an “animal” would you say “don’t use that term, it’s racist” the way you might if you heard a white person call another white person the n-word? (a nod to the mods)
“Animal” is just not closely associated with racism enough to declare without a doubt that it’s racist.
Don’t be stupid. “Animal” is hardly as specifically racist as that. That’s my point.
I cannot think of a single example of media criticism that equates it with animals (except maybe lemmings).
Certainly not enough to represent a meme or common construction or anything. If you don’t see racism here, you’re one of those who never sees it.
ETA: Yes, in the absence of any other remotely reasonable explanation, yes the racist history of calling African Americans animals is the first and best interpretation. Otherwise it’s just willful ignorance or partisan contortions. The RNC saw no room for doubt. Understanding why you do is an exercise left up to the reader.
No, magellan01 quite clearly meant the target of the peanuts were boorish:
Try again please.
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.
I’ve lived my whole life in the South. I have this down pretty well, thanks.
No, I think my interpretation of what he said is correct. I think he was imprecise.
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.
No, it’s called fairness. The same fairness you would demand. And I’m a Democrat.
The RNC didn’t call it racist either!
Maybe the camerawoman pulled a knife on him and he threw peanuts at her to defend himself. Maybe she asked him to do a zookeeper impression. Maybe he was a spy, passing microfilms to her inside peanut shells and the “animals” comment was the code phrase.
We just don’t know.
“Imprecise” in the sense of “saying the complete opposite”? Your interpretation does not remotely follow from what he said.
Stupid response.
My speculation was perfectly reasonable.
I don’t go around accusing people of racism unless I’m pretty sure. And I do that to protect my credibility as well as my integrity. I demand the same respect from others.
Yes, it does. You’re the one connected two sentences that aren’t connected.
Again, we don’t know for sure, so we don’t go assuming. We’ll need to ask him. It’s a good lesson in life that you should learn.