Follow up to my post: Dylan Roof’s black friend interviews:
Conservatives have certainly been playing up the “it happened in a church!” angle more than the obvious racism angle.
Rick Santorum Calls Charleston Shooting An Attack On Christians
Fox News Blames “The War on Christians” for Shooting
I wonder if they will backpeddle now that they’ve learned that Roof initially planned to attack a college.
Where does one find this narrative? I’m guessing what you see as “racism no longer exists” is actually a disagreement about how extensive it is (eg, private vs institutional) and what policies need to be put in to place (or not) to deal with it.
If I, for instance, say “I don’t think we need Affirmative Action”, that is not the same as saying “racism doesn’t exist”.
No, it kinda doesn’t do anything like that, but I’m not going to waste time explaining why “I have black friends” is a stupid comeback.
Right; he was delusional, I expect.
But that’s not what you said. You said that the shooting occurring “in a city with streets named after civil war generals, in a state where the confederate flag flies over the capitol” was evidence that the killer was motivated by racism. Now you’re speaking of individuals who put up Confederate flag logos, as if that’s synonymous with people who live in Charleston and/or South Carolina.
Using someone’s city or state of residence as evidence for their racism is, indeed, prejudicial and bigoted. If you’re opposed to racism, you should oppose other forms of bigotry as well. In this case, the underlying thought process is the same: those people are all the same, and are lesser than me. It’s ugly, and should be called out.
Wait – let’s regroup. Your argument is that a white guy saying a bunch of racist stuff to his black “friends” is proof that racism is NOT a problem? Yep, that TOTALLY makes sense. Keep up the good work Socrates.
No. You tried to minimize his political impact by calling him and ex-governor of FL. But it’s not about him, alone. No one politician is going to corrupt the judicial process (although the president might, if he tries hard enough). As they all chime in on this, it does make it more difficult for the prosecution. And you’re focusing too much on this particular crime. My wish is that politicians would STFU about the particulars of crimes while they are still be adjudicated. We don’t always know the facts as well as we seem to do in this case, but EVEN IN THIS CASE, we’re talking about things said just a day or two after the act was committed.
Yes, we have a 24 hour news cycle, but that doesn’t mean politicians need to play into it.
And this can’t wait until the guy is tried and convicted (or not)? Do we HAVE to know that every politician is against this sort of thing?
I’d like them to be leaders 365 days out of the year, not just the few days when they can grandstand and try to score political points off a tragedy. What did we get from all the “leadership” after the incident at Sandy Hook School? Where is Joe Biden’s task force on gun control?
You are missing the point. It doesn’t matter what he meant to say. He tried to politicize this and he fumbled. It’s not anyone’s fault but his that he said what he said.
Besides, these types of tragedies are not what gun control legislation is going to do much about. The lone whack-job is going to find a way to get a gun or a bomb or whatever he needs to carry out his craziness. What gun control legislation needs to address most is the high level of street violence that accounts for the vast majority of gun related deaths in the US. As tragic as this incident was, there were probably 20 other deaths that day due to gun violence that hardly registers on the radar. And there will be 20 more today, and tomorrow, and the day after tomorrow. That is what our leaders need to do something about, and as someone who would gladly see the 2nd amendment repealed, I wish them luck-- they are going to need plenty of it.
Terr’s reply was nothing of the sort you suggested it was.
Only one of the people quoted was asked that, and he did say he thought it was racism, even if he didn’t say it exactly as you wish he had. That is the outrage?
It’s also hardly clear that Scrivon is his “friend” as opposed to just an “acquaintance that occasionally talked to him because he was a neighbor”, not to mention that people will regularly exaggerate to get on TV or get in the newspapers.
That’s the same (black) friend who said Roof wasn’t racist. Should those claiming he was racist also backpedal?
John, stahpit.
I don’t know if he was directly asked by the reporter a question about race, but that is immaterial to anyone but a nitpicker trying to defend a position regardless of truth. Graham is clearly answering a question about race, whether that question be the reporter’s or or one Graham anticipates people are thinking about.
There is little need for me to go through each quote to elucidate which ones were directly answering which questions from what people. The basic pattern is clear. Everyone knows the hypothesis on the table is “the shooter’s motivation was his racism.” Some people are feeling moved to offer alternative hypotheses. For some reason.
First of all, that quote was not in the link you gave. It was in the original source material for the link you gave. But secondly, I think you answer your own question in this case. Why would anyone think racism wasn’t involved? Because he had access to someone who actually knew the accused and who didn’t think he was racist. The same goes for Roof’s black friend, in the link that Terr gave. He had access to information about the guy that the rest of don’t have. They knew him or knew people who knew him. Why wouldn’t that be a reason to question the “racism” hypothesis?
Plus, we’re still talking about statements made a day or so after the incident. I personally question why any prominent person should be shooting off his mouth about something that is still evolving. At least Graham had the excuse of some insider knowledge, but I’d still rather he not feed the insane 24-hour hews cycle. What good is coming out of all this blather? Nothing. Just manufactured outrage like what we’re seeing in this thread.
ETA: And yes, there is a reason for you you to go thru the quotes you give and explain why each one supports your hypothesis. We don’t generally accept Google Dumps as proof around here. Maybe other MBs you post on do, but not here.
His black friend obviously doesn’t know what “racism” is. That’s sad, but 100% irrelevant to whether Roof was planning to attack a college.
If this guy is so stupid he doesn’t know what racism is, then I would discount pretty much anything he said. But frankly, that’s a rather bold statement about someone you’ve never met. Someone who, as a black person, almost certainly knows what racism is because he almost certainly has been the victim of it.
I discount what a lot of conservative Dopers have to say about anything, because they also don’t know what racism is.
A LOT of people don’t know what racism is. The default setting in the USA is “durr what is racism? Isn’t that like KKK stuff?”
So Roof’s black friend is not that unusual.
What does that have to do with anything? You didn’t make a claim about what was in the link I gave, and I didn’t respond with any information concerning what was in the link I gave.
Is my question “why would anyone think racism wasn’t involved?” I haven’t really been thinking, or intending to ask, about what any of these people “think.” As with all politicians, I make no assumptions at all about the relationship between what they say and what they think. I’m talking about political moves, not thoughts or beliefs.
In the Graham case, for example, suppose that what you imagine is in fact the case–that the reporter hadn’t asked about racism, that Graham just brought it up himself and then answered his own question. So then, we have a case where someone looked at the situation and immediately thought ‘people are going to think about race, and I have got to say something to make sure they don’t think that.’
Why would someone do this?
It’s very interesting if you think I disagree with this. If that’s what you think, then this makes me wonder what you’ve been reading because it hasn’t been my posts.
Though I share your sentiment, I would nevertheless characterize your choice to express it in this particular context as a kind of concern trolling.
This would be a good point if there were any reasonable need for “proof”. Your need for proof in this case is not reasonable. The pattern is clear, such that it is legitimate to feel no further need to provide proof, and such that anyone making claims to the contrary should feel that burden instead.
No, that mischaracterizes our exchange. You said that members of the executive and legislature ought not talk about a pending criminal prosecution, suggesting this went against principles of a fair trial. I pointed out that we were discussing the comments of someone who was not only the governor of a completely different state, but not even in that role any more.
A more sensible version of your argument would be that the governor of South Carolina should be circumspect about this pending prosecution. Even that is a reach. The executive isn’t the judiciary. Prosecutors often talk about their cases, framing them from their own perspectives. I very much doubt you’ve ever criticized that practice before now. There is no sensible argument that comments from the likes of Santorum, Graham, Bush, or Clinton prejudice the criminal trial.
No. It can’t wait years. We need leadership on this issue now. We can safely assume that every politician opposes mass killings. We cannot, sadly, safely assume that every politician is willing to publicly acknowledge white supremacy, much less say something meaningful about it or talk about how we ought to think about and deal with it as a society.
If an Islamic extremist had shot 9 people in a Synagogue, and a presidential candidate said, “let’s wait a couple years until he’s convicted before we say anything definitive about whether this was motivated by Islamic extremism, or how our society should respond to it,” that candidate would be rightly castigated. By you too, I suspect.
Where “score political points” is defined as “propose policy responses”–a truly odd view of what politicians are supposed to do and not do.
Yeah, what did happen to those gun control proposals, John? I guess cynical politicians just abandoned them, right? Must have just been trying to score political points, since it’s not like they introduced any legislation or made any regulatory changes.
No. He didn’t say what you claim he said. Your interpretation of it what he said is completely unreasonable. You’ve cherry-picked a clause that only looks bad if you ignore the very next clause, and argued that we should ignore that next clause because…reasons.
I agree. As I said in the post you were responding to. But you seem to just be on a roll without much regard to what I’m actually typing.
I consider us board buddies, John. I respect your intellect and think you are a reasonable person. But this whole exchange has been a bunch of bullshit. I doubt we will be able to steer it back onto some productive track, so I’ll give you the last word.