When did I say you said they were mine? I said “those are your words, not mine.”
You’re doing it again. I never said court of law.
Don’t play games with me.
Is this the right room for a monologue?
So there was a black camerawoman at the RNC with two guys holding peanuts, and one of them was assaulted…
…peanut.
Oh I see. What you want to do is parse the word from its usage, when it’s inextricably linked to the incident. " Animal" is uttered as the assault is occurring, so it’s not rocket science to deduce that the perpetrators are actually contextualizing *their *definition of the word, ANIMAL for us.
So please tell me, in what “other ways” can the word ANIMAL be used in this specific instance? You have the facts of the exchange, you know the history of how this word has been used specifically to advance racisim, and this sure as hell isn’t a term of endearment, so I’d be real interested to know what else they could have meant.
You can’t imagine any other way someone could call someone an “animal” without it being racist? Really?
We’ve already discussed this above.
Stay on topic lance. This SPECIFIC instance. Nobody cares how “Animal” is used in other contexts
It could have been sexist. It could have been an attack on the news medium. It could be a comment on the “outsider,” not a member of the convention but someone watching, the way some animals will watch people at a picnic.
lance strongarm is right here: it very probably was racism, but it isn’t an open-and-shut case. “Animal” is too broad. It isn’t a standard racist term. The case would be stronger if the word had been “monkey,” which has more history in racist use, but even then, it wouldn’t be absolutely certain.
If the matter were to arise in a court of law, I think there is a “reasonable doubt.” In any case, it’s a damn stupid thing to have done.
This specific instance is no different from any other. It matters how it would be used in other contexts, because there is nothing special about this one. It’s entirely unfair to insist that context determines racism. If that were true, ALL insults of blacks by whites would be racist.
I’ve already explained this.
They are Republicans - they could have been throwing peanuts, because they had them handy, at a member of the media. Republicans hate the “liberal media.” Then one thought to say something about feeding animals, since they were throwing food.
Or it could be something else we haven’t thought of. We weren’t there, and we can’t read the minds of the people who did this.
“Animal” is simply not exclusively a racial slur. You can’t conclude it was. Like I said, if you had heard that this happened but didn’t know the victim was black, would you automatically say “obviously the victim must have been black since that’s clearly a racial slur.” No, I don’t think a reasonable person would.
Okay Lance, try to spin it all you want. If it walks like a duck and this one is quacking.
You’re the one who is spinning.
It’s not walking like a duck. A bird, perhaps. Not quite a duck. It’s quite possibly a duck, but it’s just not an open and shut case.
Again, my test - if you didn’t know the race of the victim, would you have been certain it was racist? Is calling someone an “animal” always racist? You know you would answer no, even if you won’t admit it.
I’m a Democrat, and a committed one too. I have no reason to spin this. I just happen to be capable of overcoming my biases. You know, kind of like how you’re suppose to not be racist too.
I vote “racist”. Sorry, Lance, Occam calls.
quack.
Lance by your standard what percentage of racist actions and statements do you think you are allowed to call racist? It must be vanishingly small. I notice it’s popular with conservatives to always excuse what to the rest of us are obviously racist things by coming up with some archaic non-racist explanation to something. Why do you think that is? I don’t ENJOY calling things racist, in fact I would prefer it if there was no racism. So when I see what undoubtedly IS racism like this case, I condemn it, I don’t let people off.
Do you get something out of minimizing the racism present in our society? Because by your standard you’re going to let a LOT of racist stuff pass because the person didn’t say “All N-words are worse than my race!” or something. The vast majority of racists are slimy little scumbags who float by something with a double meaning since they are cowards. They use code-words and weasel words like “urban” when they mean black. It doesn’t make you a hero nor a fair handed person to give such slimy lowlifes a pass because they don’t say exactly what they mean.
Silly question. 100%.
Not all statements are clearly racist.
I’m a liberal, so don’t accuse me of that.
I condemn racism too. All I’m saying is that this isn’t “undoubtedly” racism, which you’d know if you read the thread.
I am careful with my accusations because to make them without clear evidence just weakens them when they are more clear. It plays into their hands.
I’m not.
Yes, actually, it does make me a fair handed person in this case.
“Animal” is not a known code word for black, nor a common racial slur.
When I call out racism, nobody can accuse me of jumping the gun. Right wingers LOVE to accuse liberals of doing that. I won’t let them. I have credibility when I say it.
Anyone can believe anything they want.
I hope that you are falsely accused of racism or something like that someday. It will serve you right.
Quack!
I’ve been falsely accused of racism before. It’s not nearly as bad as some racist douche getting away with it.
Well, no… Being wrong in a debate shouldn’t be punished in that way. Heck, it shouldn’t be punished at all.
It is still a principle of law that it is better for ten guilty persons to go free than one innocent person be convicted. This is why I agree with you in the point you are making: the “feed the animals” line was very probably racist…but it isn’t 100% certain it is.
So you didn’t protest that you were falsely accused?
Yeah, you probably did. And that makes you a hypocrite for coming here and telling ME not to avoid false accusations of racism.
I have the feeling you didn’t think that when you were being accused. I’ll bet you protested loudly. And if someone said then “too bad, we have to assume you’re racist because we can’t risk you getting away with it” that would have pissed you off even more.
If you are ever accused of racism again, simply apologize for your racism and move on, since it’s the price you pay for not letting racist douche bags get away with it.
It’s not punishment for that. It’s punishment for not respecting the right of others not to be accused of something without good evidence.
I did. I let the person know I was part of the same group as them that they thought I was being racist against.
Does not follow.
That hasn’t ever been what I’ve been saying here. The racists who threw peanuts and called someone an animal are free to explain themselves the way I did, by giving an explanation of how what was obviously racist, was in fact not. I welcome their explanation.
This is some bizarre thinking. False dichotomy.
Yeah, Here’s my litmus test, the words of the camerwoman. The CNN employee in question, Patricia Carroll said these two old white guys were pelting her with peanuts because being from the south she realizes the motivation for them was she was doing something they thought she shouldn’t do. To preclude any woman from doing a job because some old fart thinks that’s not her role is of course sexist. But there is not even a question in my mind that a white woman would not be told that she’s an animal to be fed.. She may have been taunted with go home and cook dinner or something like that, but being fed like an animal ? No way. That’s where it breaks from simple sexism to blatant racism. There’s absolutely no way around it.
http://mije.org/richardprince/cnn-camerawoman-not-surprised-peanut-throwing