Why is the Confederate flag still flying high over the SC statehouse?
The notion that racism is “a fringe issue” does not stand up to any scrutiny at all, sadly.
I guess what Jeb Bush is trying to say is when a white man shoots up a church full of black people in South Carolina you need to WAIT TO GET ALL THE FACTS, because, you know, nothing racist ever happens in South Carolina.
He didn’t deny it. He’s just asking questions. He’s showing appropriate concern.
But it’s not my “job” to provide links to what I’m referring to in the OP. Perhaps it would be nice if I did, but this is literally all over the news. If someone isn’t familiar with it, perhaps someone has more important things to be concerned about. That is certainly how I explain it to myself when I’m ignorant of something that is all over the news. I’ve got way more important things to think about.
I thought Stewart had quit The Daily Show
Yup. I don’t take the Bush example to be the clearest example out there, but it is an example. The question to be asked is, why in light of the photos of the shooter with the flags and what-not, why with all the information that leads Bush to say “it looks to me like it is,” what is it that leads him–that is, if I dare say it, pressuring him–to hedge even then? What is the incentive structure at work here? I don’t know the answer, but I’m afraid whatever the answer is, it indicates something the politicians know about their constituencies that I haven’t wanted to believe.
He has a few months left, then a hiatus, then Trevor Noah takes over right in time for the primaries.
He has; his last show is August 6th.
I agree. I don’t think racism in the US is a “fringe issue” at all.
I’m merely stating that the motive you attribute doesn’t make sense. I agree there are lots of ways to demonstrate racism isn’t a “fringe issue” (you have stated one - continued use of Confederate symbols).
Denying that an ‘lone nut’ gunman was racist, though, is neither here nor there. Assuming for the sake of argument one happened to believe that racism was a fringe issue, a lone nut racist isn’t going to shake that belief any.
That’s some pretty sloppy journalism. None of those guys said it wasn’t racism, which is what the headline says.
So in order to not be considered racist, you had better condemn racism before you are sure it exists.
By the way, why haven’t **you **said that the shooting is due to racism? What are you waiting for? Are you trying to appeal to racists?
Regards,
Shodan
I’m not seeing any of those explicitly “doubting or denying racism is involved” somehow, just that they’re ignoring racism and looking to other factors instead (for whatever difference that might make).
In some cases, it sounds like they’re saying something along the lines of “Racism doesn’t kill people: people kill people.” That is, they’re reluctant to blame this on something or someone other than the individual who actually committed the act.
From what I’ve now read about the guy who did it, it’s pretty damn obvious he was motivated by racism. But without knowing any of that, I’d hesitate to jump to that conclusion, given that we’ve seen all too many other mass shootings that weren’t about race.
Answering your question for the sake of anyone who might be confused by your misdirection: The headline is irrelevant to the substance of the point and the question I asked in my OP. (I was careful not to assert anyone had denied it, since I haven’t seen a clear denial myself, only various degrees of hedging and doubting all the way up to the very line of denial as per the fox news link I provided).
I am asking why there is any felt need at all to say anything other than “yup, guy’s a racist” when asked “was this guy acting on racist motivations”?
We can’t be sure there was a racial motive. I mean, a white supremacist did shoot up a black church while saying he was doing it for racist reasons, but let’s not jump to conclusions.
There is nothing rationally recommending any kind of hedging here. The information we have makes it clear this was racially motivated. If someone is “not sure it exists” someone is thinking in a very motivated way, to put it as gently as possible.
This is stupid.
I think the average person reading your OP would think you DID believe people were denying it. Otherwise, why use that word twice?
Weirdly enough, you seem to be politicizing my attempt at a factual answer to the OP.
[QUOTE=Frylock]
Yup. I don’t take the Bush example to be the clearest example out there, but it is an example. The question to be asked is, why in light of the photos of the shooter with the flags and what-not, why with all the information that leads Bush to say “it looks to me like it is,” what is it that leads him–that is, if I dare say it, pressuring him–to hedge even then? What is the incentive structure at work here?
[/QUOTE]
You know how, when primed properly, poll respondents will say something of almost arbitrary extremity about the candidates they don’t favor? Like if you say who had a worse policy on human rights, (current president) or Pol Pot, some percentage of people who don’t like the president will say it’s him even though they can’t possibly really believe that? They don’t really mean it, they just treat it as if they’ve been given the opportunity to participate in a referendum on the current president: pro or con. You see the same stuff on this message board, even - even in one edge case, plenty of people will step up to defend something unsupportable not because they really believe it, but because they see it as a contest, and why give the other side the satisfaction?
I think it’s just that phenomenon in effect. Regardless of the extremity of the response in context, these guys, who are participating in a highly charged contest to be the best conservative, have been given the opportunity to comment on “Racism: big deal or no?”. It’s politically valuable to say no. It’s a tiny concession to the other side to say “yes, in this case, clearly, what we’re dealing with is a racist piece of shit,” but it’s a concession. It’s one point for them. You can expect better gains from “sure, that’s what it looks like, but hey,” because you’re not being a piece of shit yourself, but you’re also not siding with the opposition.
Interesting you actually went ahead and threw the word “explicitly” in there. A good hedge but it kind of gives you away. What this (you knowing to hedge) shows (implicitly, natch!) is that you know that when someone offers an alternative hypothesis, it is natural to assume (and a politician or someone with a lot of experience in the public eye knows this) that the person is implicitly doubting or denying the hypothesis that’s already on the table. That hypothesis already on the table being, of course, “this happened because racism.”
Hey while we’re at this, people in this thread, let me ask you: True or false, this guy shot those people in Charleston because he is a racist.
??
That’s fine, John.
This is a good answer.
You’re objecting to the presence of politics in a thread about politics? Okay then …