Me too. That’s why I’m totally willing to give them the benefit of the doubt as soon as I hear a remotely plausible explanation.
I don’t think that’s how “benefit of the doubt” works.
And if they’d thrown watermelon and fried chicken instead of peanuts, I’m sure there’d be a reasonable explanation that had nothing to do with race. After all, don’t white people eat watermelon and fried chicken too? I’d even bet that in the United States, more watermelon and fried chicken are consumed by white people than black every year. How can it be racist if we do it more than they do? You people are seeing a Klansman lurking behind every corner. It’s all innocent fun.
Not from me.
I expect an apology if that’s what you were implying. Do not speak for me.
Don’t put words in my mouth and don’t play strawman games. Read through the thread for my actual words instead.
I’d give you a peanut for that logic, but I’m afraid I’d only consider it racist of me, so how about just a golf clap instead? You have earned the watermelons I’m going to give for that insightful bit of mind-bending logic. Truly, yours is a special kind of mind, able to bend reality to its will and shape facts as you imagine them. If you were a superhero, you’d be Bullshit Man and your powers would be to be able to convince bad guys to give up through scintillating debate. Though I shudder to think what would happen if you use your powers for evil, I know that you could simply convince us that you’re doing good through the power of dry wit and puppetry
You do realize that Ham’s descendents were cursed in the bible because he was a sexual deviant. The 18th and 19th century pervasive thought was Blacks were sexual deviants because of the curse of their ancestor, or that being black identified them as Ham’s descent, therefore sub-human as evidenced by Ham’s sexual deviance.
So you’re splitting hairs because in this context, calling a black woman an animal is more likely racist, than the conotation of being a sexual deviant.
I am sure others have been called animals for being perverts or on suspicion of being pervs, but specifically identifying a person of color as an animal has direct roots in biblical racism.
It’s too bad you don’t take this seriously. I do. So if you don’t have anything serious to say, don’t bother.
Any slur that requires a long diatribe on its biblical roots isn’t automatically a slur.
I’m glad you said “more likely” instead of “definitely.” That’s all I’m asking. If you are not sure it was racist, then we agree.
I’m not sure what lance is trying to prove here. By acting like boorish asses, the peanut throwers abdicated the ability to “define” what their motives were. That’s why, you know, you shouldn’t act like a boorish ass. People will make determinations about your motives that might not be true, and you can’t do a damn thing about it.
Anyway, why are you so invested in defending peanut throwing assholes?
I think between having peanuts thrown at you and being called an animal and being called a racist, one is worse than the other. Especially given that one is entirely the result of behaving in a disgusting manner.
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?
I’m not.
I’m defending the principle of innocent until proven guilty.
It’s a good policy to never interpret anyone else’s behavior until they’ve been tried in a court of law, or until they tell you directly that they meant to offend.
That’s courageous considering the fact they aren’t facing charges, there isn’t going to be a trial, and to the best to my knowledge their names aren’t even known.
If they were on trial you’d have a point, but this isn’t a criminal court.
Unless I’ve missed them, the two ejected attendees haven’t offered any alternative explanations. If the people who actually engaged in the boorish behavior won’t stand up and tell us exactly what they meant to communicate, we’re left to speculate on their motives. It’s extremely naive to leave racism out of that speculation.
It’s either sexist or racist, and in this context it’s racist. That I’m sure of, and I don’t care that we agree, just that you know that 19th century racism is alive and well in Tampa.
You have to have actual doubt before you can give someone the benefit of it.
Why are you sure?
Well I care.
And this talk about Tampa is silly too. The people on the floor of the convention were from all 50 states. We don’t know where these peanut-throwing two yahoos came from.
No, this is a free-for-all, that’s true.
My standards are higher.
Doesn’t mean we can assume what they would say.
Of course it’s possible, but we don’t have enough to speculate that racism was definitely the motive. So we must simply be content not to know for sure. That’s all.
Georgia?
Still, I think the principle of treating people with respect by not declaring them guilty of something without good evidence applies. I expect the same treatment from others, so I give it, even to Republicans.
Well, no. If they give you good evidence, like a well-known racial slur, that’s enough.