I give up.
Hey. If you come up with any actual evidence, feel free to present it. A vague reference to some Facebook posts does not cut it. Your Huffpost link does not show that any of the quoted people were responding to the question “Was this racist?” It is simply a list of comments talking about the deranged nature of an obviously deranged person.
There’s lots to object to in your lengthy posts in this thread. But I think the two most significant things are:
You completely mischaracterize most of the comments that you claim are frankly acknowledging the racist motivations of the attack. Doocey’s comments, for example, cannot be fairly characterized as acknowledging the racist motivation while speculating about other possible motivations. He specifically says that the notion that this was a racial hate crime would be “extraordinary,” and any reasonable viewer of that segment could see that he was pooh-poohing the notion that this might have been motivated by racism in favor of an anti-Christian theory. Similarly, effectively replying “I don’t know, maybe” in response to a direct question about whether race played a role is clear obfuscation on Jeb Bush’s part. You even mischaracterize Obama’s comments, which talked extensively about race.
You also misunderstand completely the reason for wanting political and opinion leaders to openly acknowledge the undeniable and obvious racist motivations. First, failure to acknowledge it is evidence (not conclusive, but evidence) of their own desire to pander to racists or their own racism. That deserves attention in and of itself. And second, acknowledging that very important aspect of this crime is an essential first step toward discussing appropriate responses, if you’re someone who believes that more should be done about white supremacy. Your diminishing those goals–whether you agree with them or not–as people just wanting to make themselves feel better is just a very thinly veiled insult aimed at people who disagree with you.
I still think it’s unreasonable to expect every politician to sing the same tune within just a day or so of these types of incidents. Santorum clarifies:
Can we maybe give the whole thing a few days before we go off blasting people for what they do or don’t say?
Sufficient evidence is on display. What I give up on is you.
The only mischaracterization I see is your weird interpretations of what Doocy, Bush, and Obama’s earliest comment.
Nah. This is just your desire to impose your views of the world on the rest of us.
Your claim of “failure to acknowledge” is based on far too little evidence. Provide a lengthy comment from any of them where they avoid any mention of race and we can reconsider your claim. Beginning with Obama’s second (and later) remarks, that were longer and more fully developed, he addresses the racial issue, but you are judging the others on too little evidence. Where was the reference to race from the black pastor interviewed on Fox? Where are the all the initial, short statements from Democrats and why have they not been held up as (allegedly) “good” counter-examples?
As to opposing white supremacy, you appear to want to make them into a bogeyman that is larger and more powerful than reality indicates. They are a serious problem in prisons, but they are a joke in the rest of the country. If you want to point at them and declare that they are responsible for Roof, go ahead. I suspect that if you presented that claim in that manner, you could get pretty much everyone in politics, (even Santorum) to agree with you. You would also accomplish nothing more than getting people to agree that bad things are bad. (Even Santorum would agree that white supremacists are bad; he would just think you were mistaken for not paying more attention to the terrible attack on religion.) Now that everyone has said that white supremacists are bad, what do you want them to do about it?
This is still nothing more than recreational outrage.
Why? Santorum clarifying his original bullshit response due to being “blasted” for it is probably the healthiest thing any of these guys have done.
I have pointed out why your evidence is inadequate. If you are quitting that easily, it demonstrates that you had nothing better and have been motivated by your desires rather than facts.
How do you know he needed to be “blasted”? Give folks some time before jumping all over them. Would it really hurt to behave civilly for just a few days?
I don’t care whether he needed to be “blasted” or not. I’m not the one remonstrating about the question.
But he’s a professional politician and he was responding to criticism. He said something false originally; now he’s said something true. It seems like an odd thing to bring up to chide people about how they should have left him alone about it.
What did he say originally that was false?
You know just exactly when he heard about the murders, just what he heard about the murders, and just when he was asked for a comment? I’d love to see the evidence for that.
It was Thursday afternoon before I heard that a white had committed the murders, although on Wednesday night I had heard that an attack had occurred in a church. I really dislike Santorum, but your claim is just odd. He did not “say something false.” He drew a wrong conclusion, but a conclusion that might have been based on his limited information. Unless you know that he had all the facts before his first statement, your claim is not accurate.
Your rampant (misguided) speculation about my motivations is the key tell here. I’ll pass.
Oh, this is about the “assault on religious freedom” comment. AFAICT, that was something he said while being interviewed on the radio less than 24 hours after the incident occurred. I think “bad speculation” is a better characterization than “false”. It did, after all, take place in a church.
And again, all the more reason to STFU until we know the details.
But I guess it WOULD kill us to be civil about the whole thing for just a few days and let people digest the facts before we jump all over them.
You just broke my brand new irony meter.
What a stupid conversation this has turned out to be. I went out of my way to avoid any suggestion that Santorum had lied or tried to mislead anybody or had done anything but just happened to have said a thing that wasn’t true. He said a thing that was false, is what I said. Unless there was an unprecedented “assault on our religious liberty” that occurred, and about which the only possible conclusion about the rationale was the above, then in fact he said something false, and this is a stupid conversation.
Yes, tomndebb, I do know what he was asked, and when he was asked, to the minute. What’s your next question. Just kidding, there will be twelve of them, and they’ll be passive aggressive, and I won’t read them.
Of course, you used “false” instead of “inaccurate” (after initially calling it “bullshit”), so there is no possible way that anyone should have been able to infer that you were being derogatory toward him.
Except, and I can’t believe I have to tell this to a mod, insulting speculation about my motives is generally not permitted in GD, while insulting speculation about Steve Doocey’s motives is.
I obviously don’t agree with that characterization of what I’m doing with Doocey, but even if you were correct you would still be out of line here.
Horseshit. You made a claim. You were asked to back it up. That is the way this whole ‘debate’ thing works.
But you didn’t want a debate. You want an unchallenged ad hominem hatefest for those you disagree with politically.
It is a cheap tactic. Works well of the 'Dope but it is a cheap tactic none the less.
Slee
But you were wrong, and it is not worth the effort to continue to speak to you about it.
Here you put on display what you think “demonstrates” means.