I think the idea is that in the face of tragedy normal rules of political discourse should be set to the side and that people, all people, should speak plainly and honestly. Also, tragedy should not be used to hijack the events into your political agenda. Common people speak plainly but politicians never do.
It’s partisans looking for a “gotcha”. Oh, he won’t call it terrorism! Oh, he won’t call it racism! The Republicans started this nonsense, and they look like idiots doing it. I don’t know why Democrats would want to lower themselves to that level.
Even though he did. :rolleyes:
It frames the problem as something outsiders, foreigners, non-Americans do, just because they’re inferior and jealous, not as something done by some of us, something that stems from our *own *problems and our *own *society. Seizing on the word helps absolve the user of responsibility for recognizing and fixing our problems, and lets us enjoy the fierce joy of denunciation instead.
wait a minute, you think it’s wrong to criticize politicians who do not explicitly label this as caused by racism?
OMG!! Obama did not call it racism.
I’m happy to criticize anyone who makes an affirmative claim that racism wasn’t involved. Whether or not they explicitly make a point of calling it racism is not important to me. Many have called it a “crime of hate”, which is fine with me.
If Obama really had refused to call Benghazi an act of terror, then that would have been a valid criticism of him. The reason that criticism was bullshit was not because the way we categorize and characterize tragic events doesn’t matter. The criticism was bullshit because it was 100% factually wrong!
No one is saying that failure to use the precise word “racism” is the problem. The problem is the refusal to acknowledge or to obfuscate the obvious fact that this was a crime motivated by racism. You can say that in a dozen ways. But those ways don’t include calling the crime an anti-Christian attack, or saying “I don’t know, maybe” in response to being directly asked about whether racism was involved.
If a politician refused to call 9/11 Terrorism would it really be fine with you???
As far as I can tell, the only one directly asked if it was racism said “I don’t know. Looks like to me it was, but we’ll find out all the information.” What is wrong with that?
I actually prefer our politicians not make claims about crimes that have yet to be adjudicated. The best answer is: It will come out in the trial. We should let the wheels of justice turn.
If a politician said he affirmatively knew it wasn’t terrorism, I’d think he was nuts.
If some reporter tried to badger him and force him to use the word “terrorism”, I’d say good for him if he didn’t take the bait.
Are you a made up personality that you use just to “fuck” with people. Or are you really that politically dense that in one of the MOST OBVIOUS racist attacks in American history, you want to “wait for the matter to be adjudicated” before you decide whether or not the attack was racist.
- survivor testimony says he was talking about killing black people as he was shooting them
- friends and associates said he claimed “black people were taking over”
- friends and associates said he had made comments about wanting to harm/kill black people
- he was know to wear racist/supremacist insignia on his clothes
- he attacked a black church that has traditionally been a civil rights activism center
- in a city with streets named after civil war generals
- in a state where the confederate flag flies over the capitol
— do you dispute any of these facts?
— if you do not dispute, then why do we need to “wait and see” if it was caused by racism?
Exactly what unanswered question do you expect to be answered? How much clearer of a case of racism could you get that guy who wears white supremacist symbols and goes into a black church and shoots people while explaining that he’s doing it for racist reasons?
Can you construct an example of racism more obvious than that? What fact could possibly come out through further investigation that would change this view?
Saying you’re going to wait and see after knowing these facts is exactly like saying the jury is still out on whether the earth is flat. You only do it if you have an agenda.
why should he “not take the bait” if the charge is indeed true???
Please, oh please let this idiot become the Republican nominee.
As you are probably well-aware, the choice to avoid using any word related to “racism” in connection with the attack is a pure dollars-and-cents strategy for the GOP.
GOP victories at the national level (and some at the state and local level) depend upon denying the vote to people likely to vote for Democrats. Black people are notably more likely to vote for Democrats.
The Supreme Court has gutted voting-rights legislation on the pretext that “racism is over.” I’m over-simplifying radically, but that’s the gist. This has already had the effect of keeping some black people from voting, in elections taking place since the SCOTUS decision.
If any GOP figure says something that creates a sound bite implying that racism ISN’T over, then that weakens the GOP in general in its efforts to restrict the right to vote to those likely to vote for the GOP. And of course any GOP figure doing harm to that cause (by saying something that implies that racism isn’t over) will be committing career suicide.
There is no mystery here.
I think everyone who was not at the crime scene would be wise to STFU* until the case is tried. What is to be served by having our legislators and executives declare the accused guilty two days after the crime is committed? Fortunately, we don’t drag they guys out of their holding cells and string them up anymore.
*Stick to the usual: this is a tragedy and I grieve for the victims and their families
I don’t think the ex-governor of Florida’s comments about this crime make any difference as to whether the accused is going to receive proper due process.
And even if some kind of abstract skepticism work justified in this case, it would be very easy to say something like “if the fax as we know them are true” then this is an obvious case of racism.
Really?
Are you ignoring me or are you too busy to answer given multiple postings on this thread? Which of the following facts to you dispute:
- survivor testimony says he was talking about killing black people as he was shooting them
- friends and associates said he claimed “black people were taking over”
- friends and associates said he had made comments about wanting to harm/kill black people
- he was know to wear racist/supremacist insignia on his clothes
- he attacked a black church that has traditionally been a civil rights activism center
- in a city with streets named after civil war generals
- in a state where the confederate flag flies over the capitol
that this person needs his day in court to be rightfully convicted of 9 counts of murder, I agree, but there is NO DOUBT his motivation was racist
He’s running for president of the US, which is all the more reason to STFU. Why do we need politicians to butt in on this anyway? Most of them are just trying to score political points anyway.
Obama tried to score some gun control political points and made a fool of himself claiming things like this didn’t happen in other advanced countries.
Is that really what he said?
He said it doesn’t happen as frequently in other countries. Which is 100% true. The only people who look foolish here are the ones trying to take a clear statement out of context to misrepresent what he said.