Sleestak, I am talking to people who will not accept any answer, who will not interpret any information as evidence for my claim, who will pick nits in any formulation of the claim, and are able to do so because the topic is a messy one and there are always nits available to pick.
It is not worth the effort to attempt to satisfy them. They won’t be satisfied.
Jimmy Chitwood provided a very clear answer to the question I was asking. I think his was probably correct. Indeed he rendered the topic practically GQ rather than GD.
I have posted no insults. That you choose to characterize my observation about the thrust of your argument as an insult should indicate to you that your argument has a problem.
Just out of curiosity, I went back and read the OP. Not sure how I missed this:
but I think that might be an explanation of where the disconnect is. Even if it wasn’t racism, you think politicians should label it as racism. No wonder you are having trouble convincing some people of your thesis.
You cannot provide your “evidence” and you cannot even explain what your “evidence” meant.
It took until post 20 for you to even attempt to provide an example of the phenomenon on which you based your OP, (and then only under duress), and that example did not say what you claimed it said. You are looking at this situation through a lens of your own making that appears to be based solely on your desire for a particular situation to be true.
[/QUOTE]
People who know how to be act in response to facts move forward more quickly than those who instead know how to find a justification for not responding to them.
I’m trying to figure out how it’s worth your time to keep posts addressed to me in this thread. Myself, I figured out earlier today that this activity, inane as it may be, is worth more of my time than trying to offer what won’t be accepted.
I’ve been very busy, and I’m just learning all of the details now. I haven’t read this thread but I was actively looking for a topic about this very thing, (I knew there would be one here.)
I just need to say this:
FUCK these people who avoid saying this has to do with race. I’m angry. I don’t know what I can do, other than voice my opinion on here.
“It was in a church, he must hate Christians” -fuck you!
“He played violent video games” -fuck you!
“He was off his meds” -fuck you!
Huckabee calls the shooting an act of racistm on Meet the Press this morning. He volunteered the information-- it was not in response to a question directed at him about racism.
Do we now need to shift the issue to “not calling it racism soon enough”. Did Hillary call it racism soon enough? Looks like she didn’t weigh in with her “racism” speech until yesterday.
Was this some sort of crisis that needed to be labeled by politicians very quickly so as to effectively deal with that problem? That if not labeled “appropriately” right here right now would somehow snowball out of control?
IME the people to say the first the most are often the ones that don’t know WTF they are talking about nor have they actually thought about it enough to have a well thought out plan of how to “deal with it”.
Sounds to me this more like sound bite wars, which colors me unimpressed.
Nope. As far as I know, Huckabee hasn’t hedged, doubted, denied, questioned, offered alternative hypotheses, or anything else. This makes him irrelevant to the thread. Not sure why you’d bring him up.
You are moved to say this by John Mace’s straw-man distraction. What you are asking me has nothing to do with anything I’ve written.
You’re right that there’s a war of sound bites involved, but you should be more impressed by this, since the “u mad they slow” soundbite is has won the battle for your particular mind.
ETA John Mace take a look at those quotation marks and tell me whether they’re quotational or scare quotes. (Hint: They’re neither. Their titular. Just as I indicated about the previous set of quotation marks in question.)
My quotes are not scare quotes nor quotation quotes. They are there to draw attention to the word. Would you like BOLD instead?
I quoted “appropriate” because appropriate means different things to different people and you seem to be the one upset that your standards of “appropriate” were not meet.
How to “deal with it” is in quotes because how the fuck are you (not you you) going to “deal with it”? Particularly given that what’s got you upset is politicians spewing meaningless crap that is not to your liking.
You are the OP. I keep hoping that you will provide evidence that the claim on which your original post was based has any factual support. So far, you have a vague reference by Doocy and a statement by Santorum that may or may not actually support your claim. I have provided reasons for both of those statements–neither of which amounts to doubting or denying the racism of the attack–and you have steadfastly refused to provide any evidence that anyone else has actually taken the position you ascribe to them.
So, since you do not want a debate, now you are complaining that you do not understand why I am attempting to debate you. I am perfectly willing to move this the The BBQ Pit, (where you should probably have posted it, anyway), since you did not actually want to include facts and logic in the discussion and it appears that you were simply seeking a choir to sing the hymns you wrote.
I’m not seeing that his earlier statement is substantively different from Santorum’s. (Sorry, it’s a video, but I don’ have a transcript: Never mentions race, talks about how horrible it was because it happened in a Church.)
Also, speaks to the idea that there is a Republican narrative that racism doesn’t exist.
I thought we were going to drop this until the poster came back to clarify. But, honestly, that sentence is such a grammatical mess that I can’t tell what role the quotes are supposed to play.
Can you please tell me which of those links is to his earlier statement?
Also, there is no republican narrative that racism doesn’t exist, and no one in this thread has said so or would say so. When the phrase has been used, it has been clear hyperbole and was clearly used as a name for a phenomenon there is no need to describe in detail every time it is mentioned.
What there is, the way I’d put it if I had to use the phrase, is “A ‘racism doesn’t exist’ narrative.” “Racism doesn’t exist” has been used here a title for a complex of ideas and inferences, existing all over the place but particularly encouraged by republican thought-leaders, which lead to a phenomenon whereby a very large number of clear cases of racism come to be labeled as not racist or not crucially racist or not centrally racist.
It only becomes irrelevant if you can provide a list of other people who have and have not “doubted or denied” the racism of the attack. While your OP was vague, all your purported examples appeared to be members of the political Right. This makes your thread look very much like a stealth attack on the political Right, (unless you want to pretend that every member on the Left has made the “correct” statements, something you have failed to demonstrate).