[besson3c]

I was bored, so I watched this clip of Bill O'Reilly suggest that Republicans do not bash Obama:

Bill O'Reilly Tells CPAC: Don't Bash Obama! (VIDEO)

I'd like to know what some of these criticisms towards Obama even mean. Liz Cheney says that Obama should "stop apologizing for this great nation and start defending her". What does this mean? What is she talking about? I've heard this kind of thing before.

I also still don't understand the first comment about Socialism, but we've already discussed the Socialism FUD and overreaction in here at length....

[auto_immune]

I don't know about that, but I do know that Acorn and Squash Calzones taste like fried poo.

[hyteckit]

Liz Cheney meant that Pres. Obama should stop apologizing and bowing to foreign countries and foreign leaders and start defending daddy Cheney for torturing and violating international agreements.

[smacintush]

What's funny about the video is that O'Reilly says that political criticisms are fair game, but personal attacks are not...but in the clips he shows the criticisms are all political, policy etc..

None of what they said is out of line. Using his charisma to convince Americans to embrace socialistic policies, speaking with too much of an apologetic tone to foreign audiences, not verbally defending America enough around the world, not not being strong enough on terrorism or national defense…these are all perfectly legitimate criticisms. They may or not be true and accurate, but the issues themselves are not out of line in the least.

Nevertheless, this is America and he is the President. I'd much rather see him unfairly criticized than to have people be silent about things they don't like (err to the side of caution and all). Those who are truly fair and impartial don't get a voice because it doesn't make for entertaining news.

[Dork.]

How about stuff like this:

Wonkette : Black Man Puts His Feet On Desk, Wingnuts Furious

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

How about stuff like this:

Wonkette : Black Man Puts His Feet On Desk, Wingnuts Furious

The "wingnuts" said absolutely nothing of his race, the author of the article in loyal defense of Obama took this as an opportunity to bring race into the equation... as usual.

[Chongo]

a pic is worth 1000 words

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I also still don't understand the first comment about Socialism, but we've already discussed the Socialism FUD and overreaction in here at length....

When you say "Socialism FUD", are you referring to the ideal that "socialism" is not to be feared in general or that it's just not evident anywhere in the US system?

[Chongo]

Bottom line, Obama is a statist.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Bottom line, Obama is a statist.

Meaning what, exactly? That could mean anything from "Obama has slightly more faith in government than Chongo does" to "Obama wants to make sure that nothing goes on in America without his express written consent" to "Obama is spying on us using the Webcams in all of our MacBooks".

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

None of what they said is out of line. Using his charisma to convince Americans to embrace socialistic policies, speaking with too much of an apologetic tone to foreign audiences, not verbally defending America enough around the world, not not being strong enough on terrorism or national defense…these are all perfectly legitimate criticisms. They may or not be true and accurate, but the issues themselves are not out of line in the least.

Define the speaking with too much of an apologetic tone and why this is worth criticism.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Um, no.

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

a pic is worth 1000 words

Umm, YES.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

a pic is worth 1000 words

Not really. I miss Reagan, or the Founding Fathers.

-t

[Orion27]

Cry Babies have very short memories.

[stumblinmike]

That CPAC conference really charged your batteries!

[Osedax]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The "wingnuts" said absolutely nothing of his race, the author of the article in loyal defense of Obama took this as an opportunity to bring race into the equation... as usual.

Agreed. That letter is silly, but what the author turns it into is amazing mis-representation and beyond stupid.

[OAW]

The author didn't directly say anything about Obama's race, but in all honesty I think it was implied. Only the most virulently racist right-wingers will go there directly. OTOH, there are others who might think the same things but are generally smart enough not to verbalize such sentiments publicly. They'll use "code words" that get the message across but retain a certain level of "plausible deniability". For instance, the "arrogant, immature, and self-centered" comment in this particular piece, along with the "elitist" comments that we have seen time and again directed at President Obama feed right into the mindset of those who view him (or any other successful African-American) as "uppity". The latter is a very racially loaded term when directed at blacks. So the former can be construed as a way of saying it without actually saying it.

But again, the "plausible deniability" factor is there. So I certainly won't waste a lot of energy trying to "prove" that the author's intent was racist. I have my personal opinion ... but that's neither here nor there. Regardless of whether or not there was a racial aspect involved, what we see here without question is blatant hypocrisy. The same crowd that has their panties all in a bunch over Obama's feet on the desk didn't have a word to say when Bush did the exact same thing. Is it because one is black and the other white? Or because one is a Democrat and the other a Republican? Or because one is a liberal and the other a conservative? Who knows? In any event, you'd think that there would be more substantive things for these people to concern themselves with.

OAW

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by OAW 

In any event, you'd think that there would be more substantive things for these people to concern themselves with.

OAW

Yeah, like him not wearing a flag lapel pin?

[Osedax]

Originally Posted by OAW 

The author didn't directly say anything about Obama's race, but in all honesty I think it was implied.

Implied by what? Calling Obama an "arrogant, immature & self-centered man" is now suggestive of racism?!

Maybe you think calling Obama a "servant of the people", a phrase that has been used to describe elected politicians since well before Obama (especially in England), is racist?

No way.

Only the most virulently racist right-wingers will go there directly. OTOH, there are others who might think the same things but are generally smart enough not to verbalize such sentiments publicly. They'll use "code words" that get the message across but retain a certain level of "plausible deniability". For instance, the "arrogant, immature, and self-centered" comment in this particular piece, along with the "elitist" comments that we have seen time and again directed at President Obama feed right into the mindset of those who view him (or any other successful African-American) as "uppity". The latter is very racially loaded term when directed at blacks. So the former can be construed as a way of saying it without actually saying it.

So you think he is saying it without saying it and implying it without implying it...?

"Uppity" is your word, not the author of that letter... You had to add that to the discussion because the fact is, none of the verbiage in that letter suggested racism in the slightest.

Ken Layne has taken a very benign and rather silly mail and made it seem like the leader of the KKK himself wrote it. That is aggressively looking for racism in every comment or statement. Ridicule the President? RACIST. Disagree with the President? RACIST.

Yeah... Ken Layne is a clear example of the boy who cried racist and he diminishes real racism with such ridiculous outbursts.

But again, the "plausible deniability" factor is there. So I certainly won't waste a lot of energy trying to "prove" that the author's intent was racist. I have my personal opinion ... but that's neither here nor there.

All of the statements that could be suggestive of racism, "black man", "N word", "slaves", "show these white people respect", "uppity", were created by Ken Layne or you, not the author of that letter. And the fun part is, Ken amazingly even twisted this benign letter into an attack on "Fox News or talk radio". What the hell is wrong with this lunatic?!

Because regardless of whether or not there was a racial aspect involved, what we see here without question is blatant hypocrisy. The same crowd that has there panties all in a bunch over Obama's feet on the desk didn't have a word to say when Bush did the exact same thing. Is it because one is black and the other white? Or because one is a Democrat and the other a Republican? Or because one is a liberal and the other a conservative? Who knows?

And you know this how? How do you know that same author didn't write that same or a similar letter to Bush? Or maybe he simply never saw the particular provided Bush photo? You have no idea if there is hypocrisy and are simply making assumption based on what you want to believe.

Was it a stupid, silly letter? Sure. Hypocritical? We have no idea because we don't have enough facts to draw such a conclusion. But Racist? Hell no.

In any event, you'd think that there would be more substantive things for these people to concern themselves with.

People concern themselves with the difference in taste between New Coke and Coke Classic, so no, I don't think people have more substantive things to concern themselves with.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Osedax 

Implied by what? Calling Obama an "arrogant, immature & self-centered man" is now suggestive of racism?!

:::::: sigh ::::::::

Against my better judgement I'll try to expound upon my earlier comments a bit. Let's connect the dots shall we?

arrogant - having or revealing an exaggerated sense of one's own importance or abilities.

uppity - self-important; arrogant

Now this is straight out of the dictionary, so clearly the terms are synonymous from a denotative standpoint.

So now the question becomes what is the meaning of the term from a connotative standpoint? Well historically in the US the term "uppity" when used by whites to describe black people referred to African-Americans who were either more successful than them and/or those who they felt did not show the proper respect or deference to white people. So even if an African-American was highly educated and/or economically prosperous, there was a segment of the white population that deemed that the poorest, high-school dropout white person was still socially superior to him/her simply because they were white. Especially among the redneck crowd. It's the same mentality that led white people (even children) to refer to grown black men old enough to be their grandfathers as "boy". The same mentality that put that life of any black person who dared to look a white person directly in the eye in peril. The same mentality that led to black men hanging from trees with their genitals cut off and their body set on fire if they didn't display total and complete subservience at all times to whites in both their speech and demeanor.

Originally Posted by Osedax

So you think he is saying it without saying it and implying it without implying it...?

Indeed. As I said above ... "uppity" is a very racially loaded term in this context. "Arrogant" is a synonymous term that ostensibly doesn't have the same racial baggage.

Originally Posted by Osedax

"Uppity" is your word, not the author of that letter...

A keen observation of the obvious.

Originally Posted by Osedax

You had to add that to the discussion because the fact is, none of the verbiage in that letter suggested racism in the slightest.

Which brings me back to my original point. The use of "code words" by definition involves "plausible deniability". Ostensibly political debates in the past about "states rights", "busing", and/or "welfare" were about the topics in general, but only the most deliberately obtuse would deny the racial undercurrents that were often involved. Now is this particular example with Obama in the same category? Perhaps. Perhaps not. Certainly the author said nothing that was explicitly racist from a denotative standpoint as I indicated before. But ultimately, only the original author knows his true intent. As for the rest of us, it boils down to personal opinion when it comes to the connotative implications that his words may or may not carry.

Originally Posted by Osedax

Ken Layne has taken a very benign and rather silly mail and makes it seem like the leader of the KKK himself wrote it. That is ridiculous, that is aggressively looking for racism in every comment or statement. Ridicule the President? RACIST. Disagree with the President? RACIST.

Yeah... Ken Layne is a clear example of the boy who cried racist and he diminishes real racism with such ridiculous outbursts.

Well since you are being all technical about "verbiage", then it is certainly true that the author of the blog post never used the word "racist" or "racism" or "KKK" in the post itself. N'est-ce pas?

Originally Posted by Osedax

All of the statements that could be suggestive of racism, "black man", "N word", "slaves", "show these white people respect", "uppity", were created by Ken Layne or you, not the author of that letter. And the fun part is, Ken amazingly even twisted this benign letter into an attack on "Fox News or talk radio". What the hell is wrong with this lunatic?!

Yeah well look at it like this. When Rush Limbaugh makes his little racial comments his supporters always defend him by saying his schtick is just "satire". I see no reason why Mr. Layne can't be extended the same benefit of the doubt in this instance. Besides, that "But don’t worry, it’s still okay if the white guy does it." line followed by Bush with his feet on the desk was freaking hilarious!

OAW

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by OAW 

directed at President Obama feed right into the mindset of those who view him (or any other successful African-American) as "uppity". The latter is a very racially loaded term when directed at blacks. So the former can be construed as a way of saying it without actually saying it.

What a load of bullshit.

Along those lines, calling any black person an idiot, moron, dimwit or else would construe "racially loaded" comments ? WTF ?

You know what this tells me ? That people like you always suspect that racism is the reason behind EVERYTHING.

-t

[kido331]

Originally Posted by OAW 

But ultimately, only the original author knows his true intent.

[Osedax]

Originally Posted by OAW 

:::::: sigh ::::::::

Against my better judgement I'll try to expound upon my earlier comments a bit. Let's connect the dots shall we?

arrogant - having or revealing an exaggerated sense of one's own importance or abilities.

uppity - self-important; arrogant

Now this is straight out of the dictionary, so clearly the terms are synonymous from a denotative standpoint.

You call that connecting the dots?

So, you've just said you believe it is racist to call any African-American "arrogant"... And you don't see anything wrong or twisted with that logic...?

Heck, by your logic nobody can ever use any word that would suggest an African-American is arrogant because any such word would be synonymous with uppity.

Question for you : Do you believe it is impossible for African-Americans to be arrogant and as such it is racist to use any word that would suggest they are arrogant as it's obviously just a mask for "uppity"?

Listen, ::sigh:: all you want but your logic is so far gone from reasonable that it would be a laughing joke if it weren't also demeaning and reducing real instances of racism by it's shear stupidity.

So now the question becomes what is the meaning of the term from a connotative standpoint? Well historically in the US the term "uppity" when used by whites to describe black people referred to African-Americans who were either more successful than them and/or those who they felt did not show the proper respect or deference to white people.

Wait, wait, wait stop right there. You've already gone completely off the edge.

The author of that letter did not say "uppity", that is your word and should only be associated with you. Without that change you made, if you don't replace the entire word, you have absolutely nothing to say. So your entire argument is based solely on alterations to the letter that you made.

You created this completely stupid argument by substituting an everyday common word out for a racially charged word then calling the author racist. That is not the basis of a sound argument. It's not even sound logic.

That's like me replacing "African-American" in your statements with any word that could be considered synonymous but also derogatory and calling you racist - that's exactly what you've done.

So even if an African-American was highly educated and/or economically prosperous, there was a segment of the white population that deemed that the poorest, high-school dropout white person was still socially superior to him/her simply because they were white. Especially among the redneck crowd. It's the same mentality that led white people (even children) to refer to grown black men old enough to be their grandfathers as "boy". The same mentality that put that life of any black person who dared to look a white person directly in the eye in peril. The same mentality that led to black men hanging from trees with their genitals cut off and their body set on fire if they didn't display total and complete subservience at all times to whites in both their speech and demeanor.

Uppity has lots of negative connotations. Good thing the author didn't use it or his letter would have been racist.

Indeed. As I said above ... "uppity" is a very racially loaded term in this context. "Arrogant" is a synonymous term that ostensibly doesn't have the same racial baggage.

You can not simply replace one word with another because they are synonymous.

"Uppity" is a racially loaded term, "arrogant" is not. You can not load "arrogant" with the racial baggage of "uppity" simply because they are synonymous.

There is a reason "uppity" is racially loaded as you described above. However, arrogant is not at all racially loaded because it does not have that same history. So you can call anyone that you consider arrogant "arrogant" without being racist, no matter their race, color or culture and regardless of what words it is synonymous to.

In other words, they are synonymous in meaning, not in racial history.

audacious
bossy
bragging
cavalier
cheeky
cocky
conceited
egotistic
haughty
high and mighty
high falutin
know-it-all
overbearing
pompous
presumptuous
pretentious
puffed up
self-important
smug
snobbish
snooty
snotty
stuck up
superior
vain

By your twisted, terrible logic, all of those words are racist because they are synonymous with uppity.

Well since you are being all technical about "verbiage", then it is certainly true that the author of the blog post never used the word "racist" or "racism" or "KKK" in the post itself. N'est-ce pas?

I'm being "all technical about "verbiage"?

You're the one that's using "synonymous", "denotative" and "connotative" to fabricate an argument from nothing, not me. I'm simply pointing out how terrible your logic is for it.

Yeah well look at it like this. When Rush Limbaugh makes his little racial comments his supporters always defend him by saying his schtick is just "satire". I see no reason why Mr. Layne can't be extended the same benefit of the doubt in this instance.

I never defend Rush Limbaugh - he's an idiot. And using the stupidity of one idiot to justify the stupidity of another idiot is a terrible argument.

Besides, that "But don’t worry, it’s still okay if the white guy does it." line followed by Bush with his feet on the desk was freaking hilarious!

The pictures are funny when considered with the letter, no doubt. It's the boys, you and Layne, crying racist that is the insanity.

These pictures could have been presented with that letter in lots of different amusing ways, but "racist" was an unbelievably stupid choice.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

What a load of bullshit.

Along those lines, calling any black person an idiot, moron, dimwit or else would construe "racially loaded" comments ? WTF ?

You know what this tells me ? That people like you always suspect that racism is the reason behind EVERYTHING.

-t

Are we supposed to pretend that a certain historical context doesn't exist? I'm all for not automatically presuming racist intent, but you also have to recognize that certain terms are "loaded" in the minds of other people for perfectly valid reasons, whether from history or personal experience. Your righteous indignation doesn't outweigh their righteous indignation, and vice-versa.

It's called empathy.

[Osedax]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Are we supposed to pretend that a certain historical context doesn't exist? I'm all for not automatically presuming racist intent, but you also have to recognize that certain terms are "loaded" in the minds of other people for perfectly valid reasons, whether from history or personal experience. Your righteous indignation doesn't outweigh their righteous indignation, and vice-versa.

It's called empathy.

I agree, "uppity" is a racially charged word. But you can't extrapolate that racial charge to every synonym of "uppity" as OWA did...

[Dork.]

Getting beyond the Wonkette piece (and as a long time Wonkette reader, I'll admit that they cheerfully go overboard all the time, for the lulz), let's consider this:

Fearing an Obama Agenda, States Push to Loosen Gun Laws - NYTimes.com

I remember during and after the election, folks were convinced that Obama would take away all their guns. They even stocked up on guns and ammo just in case. There were widespread ammo shortages because of the impending demise of the 2nd Amendment!

Now, a year later, Obama has not taken your guns away. The 2nd Amendment has not been repealed (yet!). It is obvious that he doesn't consider gun control a high priority. And yet, there are still folks who are convinced that MaObama is up to no good:

“The watchword for gun owners is stay ready,” said Wayne LaPierre, chief executive of the National Rifle Association. “We have had some successes, but we know that the first chance Obama gets, he will pounce on us.”

Really? Does LaPierre think that the only reason that Obama hasn't sent his stormtroopers to confiscate his arsenal is because he hasn't had a chance yet? When will the NRA and gun rights advocates stop bashing Obama over positions he hasn't taken, and finally admit that they totally read Obama wrong here?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Osedax 

I agree, "uppity" is a racially charged word. But you can't extrapolate that racial charge to every synonym of "uppity" as OWA did...

I recognize that. I don't want to claim that the email referenced is deliberately making a racist argument. But I think the distinction you make is ultimately not very meaningful. It doesn't really matter if the term "uppity" is specifically used. The distinction of a white executive behaving a certain way and a black executive behaving the same way but being called "arrogant" for it speaks to the double-standard underlying the historical significance of the "uppity" charge, if not the word itself. I think it's perfectly understandable if someone perceives a racial double-standard here.

The idea that we should rely on some kind of comprehensive list of racially-coded phrases in order to verify intent or whether someone is "allowed" to say they perceive something as racist speaks again to the fact that some people are just tone-deaf when it comes to this stuff, and can't empathize with others on the actual issues, beyond the words themselves.

[Osedax]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

Getting beyond the Wonkette piece (and as a long time Wonkette reader, I'll admit that they cheerfully go overboard all the time, for the lulz), let's consider this:

Fearing an Obama Agenda, States Push to Loosen Gun Laws - NYTimes.com

I remember during and after the election, folks were convinced that Obama would take away all their guns. They even stocked up on guns and ammo just in case. There were widespread ammo shortages because of the impending demise of the 2nd Amendment!

Now, a year later, Obama has not taken your guns away. The 2nd Amendment has not been repealed (yet!). It is obvious that he doesn't consider gun control a high priority. And yet, there are still folks who are convinced that MaObama is up to no good:



Really? Does LaPierre think that the only reason that Obama hasn't sent his stormtroopers to confiscate his arsenal is because he hasn't had a chance yet? When will the NRA and gun rights advocates stop bashing Obama over positions he hasn't taken, and finally admit that they totally read Obama wrong here?

I'm not sure what this has to do with bashing Obama?

He's made statements and taken actions that go both ways, so of course some people are going to be worried.
Barack Obama on Gun Control

[Osedax]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

I recognize that. I don't want to claim that the email referenced is deliberately making a racist argument. But I think the distinction you make is ultimately not very meaningful. It doesn't really matter if the term "uppity" is specifically used. The distinction of a white executive behaving a certain way and a black executive behaving the same way but being called "arrogant" for it speaks to the double-standard underlying the historical significance of the "uppity" charge, if not the word itself. I think it's perfectly understandable if someone perceives a racial double-standard here.

You're making huge, baseless assumptions based on pre-conceived ideas that end up drastically effecting your conclusion.

Do you know for a fact that the author did not send the same or a similar letter to the Bush administration? Of course you don't.

Do you know for a fact that the author even saw the picture of Bush with his feet on the desk? Of course you don't.

Do you know for a fact that the author would be a-ok with Bush putting his feet on the desk? Of course you don't.

Yet you assume all of these assumptions are true and from those baseless, fact less assumptions, you draw a conclusion that can't be anything other then baseless and fact less. That's horrible logic.

The fact is, we have one stupid, silly letter from a guy that was upset by seeing Obama's feet on the desk - and not an ordinary desk - an iconic piece of American history which he obviously knows something about, and he got upset by it and wrote a letter.

Beyond a few other minor facts that don't lead to racism, that's all we know.

Think about this... Did you know off the top of your head that the Presidents desk was a gift from Queen Victoria to President Rutherford B. Hayes in 1880 and that it's called the "Resolute Desk"? Because I sure didn't. Do you think he looked all that up just to help mask a veiled racist remark against the President? I'm gonna guess, and it's just a guess, that no, he didn't look it up. I bet he knew very well what the history of that desk was and was honestly appalled to see feet on it.

I admit I don't have facts to support my guess, but my guess makes a hell of a lot more sense then assuming he went and looked all that info up just so he could make exceedingly veiled racist references against Obama.

The idea that we should rely on some kind of comprehensive list of racially-coded phrases in order to verify intent or whether someone is "allowed" to say they perceive something as racist speaks again to the fact that some people are just tone-deaf when it comes to this stuff, and can't empathize with others on the actual issues, beyond the words themselves.

There's a difference between "tone-deaf" and looking for racism in every comment. Ken Layne's article, this discussion, crossed that line a long time ago.

[andi*pandi]

Researching wouldn't be hard. I believe that desk was one of the major plot points of National Treasure II. Nick Cage is pissed now.

(I know, I know... why did I see such a lousy film? Um...)

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Osedax 

You're making huge, baseless assumptions based on pre-conceived ideas that end up drastically effecting your conclusion.

Do you know for a fact that the author did not send the same or a similar letter to the Bush administration? Of course you don't.

Do you know for a fact that the author even saw the picture of Bush with his feet on the desk? Of course you don't.

Do you know for a fact that the author would be a-ok with Bush putting his feet on the desk? Of course you don't.

Yet you assume all of these assumptions are true and from those baseless, fact less assumptions, you draw a conclusion that can't be anything other then baseless and fact less. That's horrible logic..

In fact, I'm assuming none of those things. Let me be clear: I'm not making any kind of claim about the author's intent. You can offend people by accident. It doesn't mean that these people's reactions are "wrong." My intent in responding to turtle777 was to say that the feelings of those who might be offended are legitimate, and it serves no purpose to minimize them (in this case, not minimizing them is not the same thing as somehow admitting you are a racist, which seems to be the hang-up of many people).

It also serves no purpose for those who are offended to make baseless claims about the intent of others. Both sides here have a role to play in improving discourse about race in the United States.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by Osedax 

I'm not sure what this has to do with bashing Obama?

He's made statements and taken actions that go both ways, so of course some people are going to be worried.
Barack Obama on Gun Control

They are bashing Obama because they are projecting positions that he has never held onto him, and then saying "Watch Out, we can never really be sure what he's going to do next". While his stance on the Assault Weapons ban and on local gun control regulations are matters for legitimate debate, there's a big gap between that and law-abiding citizens being scared into thinking they need to stock up on Ammo because Obama would outlaw it. He has enough actual positions that can be criticized that I fail to see why folks find the need to make stuff up. And even a year into his Presidency, when all these fears have been proven to be unfounded, folks still can't admit it.

[Osedax]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

Researching wouldn't be hard. I believe that desk was one of the major plot points of National Treasure II. Nick Cage is pissed now.

True it's not hard, but it's not likely that is something someone that wants to make racist comments about the President would do. I mean of all the ways you could be racist, you decide to research the desk he uses and chastise him for putting his feet on it as a veiled racist statement?

(I know, I know... why did I see such a lousy film? Um...)

Because the first one wasn't as bad... at least that's my excuse, and you're free to borrow it.

[Osedax]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

In fact, I'm assuming none of those things. Let me be clear: I'm not making any kind of claim about the author's intent. You can offend people by accident. It doesn't mean that these people's reactions are "wrong." My intent in responding to turtle777 was to say that the feelings of those who might be offended are legitimate, and it serves no purpose to minimize them (in this case, not minimizing them is not the same thing as somehow admitting you are a racist, which seems to be the hang-up of many people).

When it comes to "uppity", you're correct, as I've said, there is a history there and I agree people can be offended. But he did not say uppity...

But we moved past that when you said this:
The distinction of a white executive behaving a certain way and a black executive behaving the same way but being called "arrogant" for it speaks to the double-standard underlying the historical significance of the "uppity" charge, if not the word itself. I think it's perfectly understandable if someone perceives a racial double-standard here.

Again, it is not "perfectly understandable if someone perceives a racial double-standard" in this letter. There is nothing in it the letter that is racist unless you look at it with many pre-conceived notions and bad assumptions.

For example, the author never said "white executive" - you said that then assumed that's what the author meant.

My point is, I don't know the guy, he could be racist as hell, but he wrote an extremely non-racist letter and it really bothers me that people try to twist what he wrote to mean something racist against the President. It's just not there and you and OWA and Ken Layne have all time and again failed to show there is any racism without falling back on added or changed words.

We're not even talking about dual meaning words here where it could be read one way or another, we're talking about very "safe" words being twisted into racism by directly adding them to the discussion.

white, N word, black man, uppity, slaves, "show these white people respect" were all ... ALL ... added by the people that have tried to say there could be racist undertones here.

If there are racist undertones, they should speak for themselves, not need word substitution and long drawn out explanations that require bizarre, ridiculous logic and synonyms to connect the "dots".

Arrogant is a synonym of uppity. Because of that we can assume the author meant uppity which has negative racial connotations. And so because the author used "arrogant" we can assume, by connecting these dots, that he is racist or that he was making a racist statement... That's the insane logic at play here. You can't just substitute words around to create an argument.

And I have one more question - if he actually believes Obama is arrogant for putting his feet on a 100+ year old national treasure, how exactly is he supposed to say that without being racist?

It also serves no purpose for those who are offended to make baseless claims about the intent of others.

I disagree. I think it serves a very negative purpose when you cry racism at stuff like this - it is so outlandish and ridiculous that it adds callousness to real race issues. when Jimmy Carter says most white people oppose Obama because he's black or someone makes a stupid article like the above, people simply start not taking such claims seriously.

It really is just like the boy who cried wolf. Keep crying wolf and people keep caring less.

Both sides here have a role to play in improving discourse about race in the United States.

The problem is that this letter isn't a "race" issue in the first place, there's nothing to indicate that it is. Let's focus on the real race issues in this country, which there are plenty of, and we might actually add to the dialog instead of detracting from it.

[SpaceMonkey]

I think this is an interesting conversation, because it demonstrates how the broader context that one person may have internalized informs their reaction to a statement that, on its face, may be innocuous.

Originally Posted by Osedax 

When it comes to "uppity", you're correct, as I've said, there is a history there and I agree people can be offended. But he did not say uppity...

But we moved past that when you said this:
The distinction of a white executive behaving a certain way and a black executive behaving the same way but being called "arrogant" for it speaks to the double-standard underlying the historical significance of the "uppity" charge, if not the word itself. I think it's perfectly understandable if someone perceives a racial double-standard here.

Again, it is not "perfectly understandable if someone perceives a racial double-standard" in this letter. There is nothing in it the letter that is racist unless you look at it with many pre-conceived notions and bad assumptions.

For example, the author never said "white executive" - you said that then assumed that's what the author meant.

This is what the author wrote: "While this posture is disrespectful in any culture, it is absolutely never done in any executive setting."

Here are some interesting statistics from 2007:

"While 15 percent of college graduates are African-American and Hispanic, John Rice, president of M.L.T., said, they only represent 8 percent of M.B.A. students at the top 25 business schools, only 3 percent of senior management positions and 1.6 percent of Fortune 1000 chief executives."

I believe that someone reading the author's statement, with this in mind, might infer that his idea of an "executive setting" contains primarily (perhaps even exclusively) of white people. Is that "correct" in some kind of objective way? Quite possibly not. We certainly can't confirm it. But the topic of racial dichotomies and insensitivity within corporate executive suites is a legitimate phenomenon, and in the public discourse. What I'm describing is simply one person's hypothetical reaction, informed by that particular context. Does this give that person the right to call the author a racist? No. But it's equally ridiculous, in my opinion, to say that this person is somehow "wrong" to be offended.

My point is, I don't know the guy, he could be racist as hell, but he wrote an extremely non-racist letter and it really bothers me that people try to twist what he wrote to mean something racist against the President. It's just not there and you and OWA and Ken Layne have all time and again failed to show there is any racism without falling back on added or changed words.

Again, this is not my point. I have no idea whether the author wrote the letter to mean something racist against the President. I don't care if he did or not. And I'm certainly not offended by what he wrote. For all I know the author is black. My point is simply that someone could read it and be offended.

We're not even talking about dual meaning words here where it could be read one way or another, we're talking about very "safe" words being twisted into racism by directly adding them to the discussion.
white, N word, black man, uppity, slaves, "show these white people respect" were all ... ALL ... added by the people that have tried to say there could be racist undertones here. If there are racist undertones, they should speak for themselves, not need word substitution and long drawn out explanations that require bizarre, ridiculous logic and synonyms to connect the "dots".

Arrogant is a synonym of uppity. Because of that we can assume the author meant uppity which has negative racial connotations. And so because the author used "arrogant" we can assume, by connecting these dots, that he is racist or that he was making a racist statement... That's the insane logic at play here. You can't just substitute words around to create an argument.

And I have one more question - if he actually believes Obama is arrogant for putting his feet on a 100+ year old national treasure, how exactly is he supposed to say that without being racist?

This again goes back to my larger point. It's not about the words. It's about the combination of words, intent, perceived intent, historical significance, modern significance, and personal experience. Regarding your question: Whether or not you are "racist" (which I don't really believe the author demonstrates) might be related but it's fundamentally a different question than whether or not you have offended someone. I wasn't offended, so I can't tell you for sure. Maybe just say simply that the desk is a historical treasure and you are worried that sitting with your feet on it sends the wrong message about the presidency and might damage the desk.

I disagree. I think it serves a very negative purpose when you cry racism at stuff like this - it is so outlandish and ridiculous that it adds callousness to real race issues.

I agree, which is why I don't agree with those who are saying the author had a racist motivation. I'm arguing more abstractly that those who are offended by the letter also have a point, given the wider context (with the letter author might not be aware of). Which is why I said that both sides have a role to play here.

[Osedax]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Does this give that person the right to call the author a racist? No.

This is my point. Both Ken Leyna and OWA have made statements that at the very least strongly suggested the author is racist.

But it's equally ridiculous, in my opinion, to say that this person is somehow "wrong" to be offended.

can someone be offended? Frankly I don't care - people are often offended by the most innocuous and stupid things. I don't believe I've suggested it's impossible for someone to be offended by the letter, in fact I think many could find it offensive for different reasons, some more legitimate then others. But again, that does not mean there is grounds for crying racist, which I now see we agree on.

Again, this is not my point. I have no idea whether the author wrote the letter to mean something racist against the President. I don't care if he did or not. And I'm certainly not offended by what he wrote. For all I know the author is black. My point is simply that someone could read it and be offended.

I don't disagree that people could be offended, but that was never my point.

I wasn't offended, so I can't tell you for sure. Maybe just say simply that the desk is a historical treasure and you are worried that sitting with your feet on it sends the wrong message about the presidency and might damage the desk.

The fun thing about people who are so easily offended is that they are not usually nearly so reserved.

I'm arguing more abstractly that those who are offended by the letter also have a point, given the wider context (with the letter author might not be aware of). Which is why I said that both sides have a role to play here.

I don't disagree, it's simply divergent from the point i was making.

[OAW]

Osedax,

We aren't going to see eye to eye on this issue and that's fine. I specifically said that there was nothing explicitly racist about the letter. I also said that it was my personal opinion that there was a racial aspect to the situation. Not the letter per se, but perhaps the motivation behind the letter ... namely, the very obvious double-standard involved. And for the record, a racial aspect being involved is not necessarily indicative of a person being KKK or something. So hopefully you can dispense with the hyperbole going forward. Having said that, even my opinion isn't definitive ... I'm just saying that if I had to bet money on it I think that it is more likely than not to be a winner. But I also said earlier I wasn't going to waste a lot of energy trying to "prove" that my opinion is true because I recognize that I couldn't even if I wanted to. It's quite admittedly conjecture, which by definition is a conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information.

What I will say is that discussions like this involving race tend to go down this road because those who see the situation as you do tend to be very myopic (and I don't mean that in a pejorative sense) in their assessment of it. That is, their judgement of the situation is focused on the specifics of the incident itself. That's not a criticism ... just an observation. Whereas those who see the situation like me tend to judge the incident itself in light of the larger historical and social context. Now for me, since the historical record of right-wing politics in the US is steeped in anti-minority sentiment, I'm admittedly inclined to toss foolishness like this into the same category. Just look at a few of the comments and how some of these people have worked themselves into a frenzy ....

And as a muslim,, showing the soles of his shoes is supposed to be a sign of disrespect, isn’t it?

Ok which one of you white guys did such a p9*ss poor job shining my shoes!

This low-rent bone-thug is an embarrassment and a disgrace. The Founding Fathers are weeping at this brazen pissant's dishonoring of everything so many fought and died for.
I know that we are to forgive him his trespasses as we want to be forgiven our own, but he really makes that hard. This country will need to be scrubbed raw with Lysol and steel wool to get rid of the stench when he's finally out of the White House.

2012 can't get here soon enough. The ass-puppet rump-swab media is responsible for the free ride this puke got lying his way into the Oval Office, and their shameful complicity in this apetard's con-job should be prosecuted in the court of public opinion.

OK, I'll be the first to comment that our first half-white President has an ALL white brain trust guiding him.

This is the same "Obama's a Muslim", "socialist", "birther", "he's not one of us" nonsense that has become all the rage among many on the right. And IMO ... the true motivation behind all that is rooted fundamentally in race. There are those who just can't fathom an African-American being the POTUS. So they will attempt to delegitimize him in ways that are ostensibly not about race, but it's pretty obvious what the real issue is for these people if you just sit back and let them blather on long enough. Eventually they slip up and true colors are revealed. After all, comments like these about Obama are easy to find and remarkably commonplace. This is what I mean when I talk about the larger historical and social context. It's not just about the author's email ... it's also about who it's being sent to and how it's being received by that audience. The types of comments and responses that it generates. The patterns over time of such rhetoric begins to emerge and the picture becomes pretty clear. And it's not just random knuckleheads posting on forums. Even the "respectable" Glenn Beck decided to perpetuate the BS by feeding into this asinine mentality:

I mean, just the history of the Resolute desk. I would be, I would be afraid to put a cup on the Resolute desk. And the day that I wasn't afraid of putting a cup on the Resolute desk is the day I should leave office! He's sitting back, he's got his feet up on the Resolute desk and he's sit I mean, the guy doesn't understand stewardship. And he is surrounded by people that also idolize him to the point of being a little frightening. This guy is not the Messiah. He is a president. And there will be another president after him if you haven't done too much damage. And he will retain a space. There will be a painting of Barack Obama in the White House. They will probably have to find space for it because there's 300 photos of him now. They are probably going to have to only pick one. And maybe leave a little extra room for George Washington, Thomas Jefferson or Ben Franklin or James Madison or Thomas Paine or Alexander Hamilton. You know, I could go on for a while. There might be, there might be a few other pictures that you might want to have up in the White House.

So for me, what else would motivate someone to get their panties all up in a bunch over something as petty as a man putting his feet on the desk in his own office? Especially when a bit of common sense and a simple Google search ought to give one pause? Race and blind partisanship top the list. Not necessarily in that order.

OAW

[Osedax]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Osedax,
We aren't going to see eye to eye on this issue and that's fine. I specifically said that there was nothing explicitly racist about the letter. I also said that it was my personal opinion that there was a racial aspect to the situation.

And you explained the root of your "personal opinion", which is down right laughable, a synonym of a racially chard word could maybe mean racism? Please, the number of dots you have to draw and the gaps between them is absurd.

Not the letter per se, but perhaps the motivation behind the letter ... namely, the very obvious double-standard involved.

Again, for the third time now, your double-standard is a completely baseless assumption.

You do not know, you do not know, if the author sent the same or a similar letter to Bush. You do not know if the author even saw the Bush pictures. You are simply making assumptions to fit what you want to believe then drawing conclusions based on those assumptions.

So while you can try to hide behind it being your "personal opinion", what you can't hide or cover up is the clear fact that you are making huge assumptions to come to that "personal opinion". And any time someone makes huge assumptions to reach a conclusion or an opinion, they can and should be called out on it, especially when that conclusion or opinion is suggestive of racism.

And for the record, a racial aspect being involved is not necessarily indicative of a person being KKK or something. So hopefully you can dispense with the hyperbole going forward.

When you stop trying to claim calling someone "arrogant" means they are racist because it's a synonym of "uppity", I'll dispense withe the hyperbola. Deal?

Having said that, even my opinion isn't definitive ... I'm just saying that if I had to bet money on it I think that it is more likely than not to be a winner. But I also said earlier I wasn't going to waste a lot of energy trying to "prove" that my opinion is true because I recognize that I couldn't even if I wanted to. It's quite admittedly conjecture, which by definition is a conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information.

There's two things wrong with this.

First, the problem isn't that the information isn't incomplete, it's rare if ever we would have complete information. The problem is that you fill in the incomplete information with all negative assumptions that support your belief. It's making assumptions to directly support your argument. That's deceitful.

Second, if you don't have enough information to make an informed conclusion, then you have no business assuming the man is a racist or that there are any racist undertones. "We don't know so let's assume the worst" is not logical thinking.

What I will say is that discussions like this involving race tend to go down this road because those who see the situation as you do tend to be very myopic (and I don't mean that in a pejorative sense) in their assessment of it. That is, their judgement of the situation is focused on the specifics of the incident itself. That's not a criticism ... just an observation. Whereas those who see the situation like me tend to judge the incident itself in light of the larger historical and social context.

Declaring yourself the world viewer with history and social context on your side and me as the myopic single minded simpleton is nothing but self aggrandizing garbage.

The fact is you can't defend the stupid statements you've made in this thread because they are based on arrogant self service assumptions. So instead you lash out by calling me myopic for not understanding what you consider to be your near omnipotent understanding of the way the things "really are".

This is the same "Obama's a Muslim", "socialist", "birther", "he's not one of us" nonsense that has become all the rage among many on the right. And IMO ... the true motivation behind all that is rooted fundamentally in race.

Just wow, I am blown away at the lengths you will go as you try to justify your total garbage argument. Once again you are using words that don't exist in the letter as your "proof". Why don't you find all those big red light words in the actual letter instead of making them up? Oh, right, you tried with "arrogant" as racist because it's a synonym with "uppity".

What you believe about this author, what you hold as your personal opinion, is stupid. it's based on bad assumptions and terrible logic.

There are those who just can't fathom an African-American being the POTUS. So they will attempt to delegitimize him in ways that are ostensibly not about race, but it's pretty obvious what the real issue is for these people if you just sit back and let them blather on long enough.

And there are those that strongly disagree with a Democrat being POTUS. You seem to have no ability whatsoever to differentiate the two. And you say I'm myopic? Please.

[BadKosh]

After today's pompous and snotty attitude from the POTUS The bashing should continue. What a joke. Next the Dems will Rahm the bill through with reconciliation and then we'll see if Pelosi will see those 400,00 jobs created almost instantly. They are a parody of themselves. It reminds me of "Professional Wrestling" and all the bogus theatrics. I wonder how loud they will laugh in November.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Osedax 

And you explained the root of your "personal opinion", which is down right laughable, a synonym of a racially chard word could maybe mean racism? Please, the number of dots you have to draw and the gaps between them is absurd.

Actually I said a lot more than that when it comes to what forms my "personal opinion". You just choose to conveniently ignore it.

Originally Posted by Osedax

Again, for the third time now, your double-standard is a completely baseless assumption.

You do not know, you do not know, if the author sent the same or a similar letter to Bush. You do not know if the author even saw the Bush pictures. You are simply making assumptions to fit what you want to believe then drawing conclusions based on those assumptions.

Really now? I stated earlier that a bit of common sense and a simple Google search would reveal the double-standard. Is it your contention that no one ... neither the author nor the legions frothing at the mouth over the situation could manage to do this? I submit that it is a much bigger assumption to think that the hoopla being spewed across the internet about this is being done by such a large group of people, all of whom were genuinely unaware of Bush (or Ford for that matter).

Originally Posted by Osedax

So while you can try to hide behind it being your "personal opinion", what you can't hide or cover up is the clear fact that you are making huge assumptions to come to that "personal opinion".

Who's hiding? I said that from jump street.

Originally Posted by Osedax

When you stop trying to claim calling someone "arrogant" means they are racist because it's a synonym of "uppity", I'll dispense withe the hyperbola. Deal?

Excuse me ... but when did I say the author was "racist"? See that's the term you've been tossing around. Again, I specifically said that I didn't see anything explicitly "racist" in the email. But I also said that it was my opinion that race was implied. I said that I thought there was a racial aspect to it. Which, for the record, could have been done intentionally or subconsciously if my opinion is correct. Suffice it to say that there is a difference. Certainly nuanced ... but a difference nevertheless.

Originally Posted by Osedax

There's two things wrong with this.

First, the problem isn't that the information isn't incomplete, it's rare if ever we would have complete information. The problem is that you fill in the incomplete information with all negative assumptions that support your belief. It's making assumptions to directly support your argument. That's deceitful.

Second, if you don't have enough information to make an informed conclusion, then you have no business assuming the man is a racist or that there are any racist undertones. "We don't know so let's assume the worst" is not logical thinking.

Well I don't think the sampling of the forum comments I posted ... you know the ones you chose to conveniently ignore ... was a "negative assumption that supports my belief". When I stated that the historical record of right-wing politics in the US is steeped with anti-minority sentiment ... that also was not a "negative assumption". That's a fact that all but the most obtuse of individuals can see. I listen to enough right-wing radio and read enough right-wing commentary TODAY to see that a lot of this persists, though it is generally expressed in more thinly veiled manner. That is the historical and social context that I'm talking about.

Originally Posted by Osedax

Declaring yourself the world viewer with history and social context on your side and me as the myopic single minded simpleton is nothing but self aggrandizing garbage.

The fact is you can't defend the stupid statements you've made in this thread because they are based on arrogant self service assumptions. So instead you lash out by calling me myopic for not understanding what you consider to be your near omnipotent understanding of the way the things "really are".

Again with the hyperbole I see. No one said you were a "single minded simpleton". Or even implied it. Which is why I said that I didn't mean "myopic" in a pejorative sense. What I said was that those of your mindset tend to focus on the specifics on the incident itself. And what you have done is further prove my point. Your fundamental argument is rooted in the specifics of what the author said or didn't say. The specifics of what the author knew or didn't know. And you've repeated those arguments in that very manner.

I would encourage you to look at the mailing lists and forums where this email is making the rounds and generating all the wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth. A large percentage of them are far right-wing, white nationalist in nature. The "myopic" approach would be to ignore that context and only focus on the specific words stated in the email itself. And if that's how you want to roll ... so be it.

Originally Posted by Osedax

And there are those that strongly disagree with a Democrat being POTUS. You seem to have no ability whatsoever to differentiate the two. And you say I'm myopic? Please.

Really? And I suppose where I said "Race and blind partisanship top the list. Not necessarily in that order." didn't cover that? Uh huh. Yeah.

OAW

[Big Mac]

I'll say the president acquitted himself reasonably well today, but I don't think he did much to move public opinion in any substantial way. Most people will see it as more of the same argument they've been having.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

After today's pompous and snotty attitude from the POTUS The bashing should continue. What a joke. Next the Dems will Rahm the bill through with reconciliation and then we'll see if Pelosi will see those 400,00 jobs created almost instantly. They are a parody of themselves. It reminds me of "Professional Wrestling" and all the bogus theatrics. I wonder how loud they will laugh in November.

How nice it must be to distill 7.5 hours of discussion down to this! I wish the world I lived in was as simple as yours...

[BadKosh]

7.5 hours of BS. Lies and misconceptions stated as fact. Ignoring parts he didn't want to discuss, like the real financial picture. The Dems will attempt to rham it through and kill the Democratic party at the same time. The Dems proved they were not there to listen but to continue in the vacuum they've been in for the last several years. It was clear that 0bama had memorized his catch phrases but when trying to comment on specifics he again was even less articulate than Bush. I guess listening through that liberal filter you heard what you wanted to hear, and not what was actually said and discussed in chronological order.

[Orion27]

I watched a good portion of meeting. My impression of the President was he was knowledgeable on this complex issue and collegial in moderation of the debate. But the facts were just not on his side. The image which stuck with me the most was when one of the Republicans broached the subject of tort reform and the President's reaction was a visceral negative. I thought Pelosi and Reid harmed the President. I thought the Republicans showed a lot more class than the Democrats. We all have medical horror stories but that is all the Democrats, it seemed, had to say on the subject. I believe Reid and Pelosi are leading the Democrats over a cliff. Democrats have never brought up the subject of reconciliation? Now Mr. Speaker let's go to the video tape. The Democrats just were not credible.

[BadKosh]

I laughed when I heard the woman from NY stating that a woman was using her dead sisters false teeth, and asserted that millions are in the same boat. This tugs at the liberals emotions, but its a pile of BS. That the Dems would have her use this example illustrates how out of touch and in a make-believe world they exist in.

[smacintush]

[Osedax]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Actually I said a lot more than that when it comes to what forms my "personal opinion". You just choose to conveniently ignore it.

Actually, you really haven't said a lot more then that. Your first response to the thread started and all but ended with the "uppity" argument and you went on to push it from there.

Sure, you say it's not "blatant", but so far you argument has very much revolved around how "arrogant" is a "synonym" for "uppity" as the basis of your statement. Everything else is just outside "context".

Really now? I stated earlier that a bit of common sense and a simple Google search would reveal the double-standard. Is it your contention that no one ... neither the author nor the legions frothing at the mouth over the situation could manage to do this? I submit that it is a much bigger assumption to think that the hoopla being spewed across the internet about this is being done by such a large group of people, all of whom were genuinely unaware of Bush (or Ford for that matter).

You believe it's a much bigger assumption that he didn't know because you want to believe whatever supports your argument. You're trying to sell your argument is all.

I admit I don't know. But the difference between you and me is that I'm not going to start claiming it's tinged with racism when I know I don't know. You on the other hand are clearly more then willing to assume someone is guilty simply because the possibility is there, no actual evidence needed.

Excuse me ... but when did I say the author was "racist"? See that's the term you've been tossing around.

In your first post you said that in your personal opinion, the authors intent was racist. Here it is, clear as day:

http://forums.macnn.com/95/political...a/#post3940712
So I certainly won't waste a lot of energy trying to "prove" that the author's intent was racist. I have my personal opinion ... but that's neither here nor there. Regardless of whether or not there was a racial aspect involved

And you had just spent the entire previous paragraph trying to explain how the author was masking the racist intent. So yeah...

I must say, I'm amazed that you are now trying to claim it's somehow my word instead of yours...

Again, I specifically said that I didn't see anything explicitly "racist" in the email. But I also said that it was my opinion that race was implied. I said that I thought there was a racial aspect to it. Which, for the record, could have been done intentionally or subconsciously if my opinion is correct. Suffice it to say that there is a difference. Certainly nuanced ... but a difference nevertheless.

You did far more then simply say it was your opinion, you connected the "dots" with all sorts of garbage assumptions. Really you're just splitting hairs now.

Well I don't think the sampling of the forum comments I posted ... you know the ones you chose to conveniently ignore ... was a "negative assumption that supports my belief".

Hey, if you feel there is some specific text you've written that I've ignored which would show how you didn't make stupid assumptions, go ahead and post it.

And let's take a look at the "facts" you did supply:

When I stated that the historical record of right-wing politics in the US is steeped with anti-minority sentiment ... that also was not a "negative assumption". That's a fact that all but the most obtuse of individuals can see.

Nobody denied your statement. The problem, again, is that you ASSUME the author is racist based on this statement and that is TERRIBLE LOGIC.

Just because there are racist people that don't agree with the President does NOT mean all people that disagree with the President are racist.

I listen to enough right-wing radio and read enough right-wing commentary TODAY to see that a lot of this persists, though it is generally expressed in more thinly veiled manner. That is the historical and social context that I'm talking about.

Well when your as "sensitive" to racism as you clearly are, I bet every other comment is racist in your very biased opinion.

Again with the hyperbole I see. No one said you were a "single minded simpleton". Or even implied it. Which is why I said that I didn't mean "myopic" in a pejorative sense.

Oh, so you meant I was short sighted and lack understanding in the best possible way? Please, spare me the backhanded "compliments". And don't try to justify them, that's just stupid.

Your fundamental argument is rooted in the specifics of what the author said or didn't say. The specifics of what the author knew or didn't know. And you've repeated those arguments in that very manner.

There is a difference between understanding and considering the context and making a conclusion based solely on the context.

I know very well what the context is but I am not going to come to a conclusion based exclusively on that context because I recognize there are far to many unanswered and unanswerable questions.

You on the other hand consider nothing but the context - you read "uppity" in to "arrogant" and you actively look for hate. Heck, you've even admitted as much - listening to right-wing commentary, scanning it for racist comments. Your perspective is so bias, you conclusion so forgone, that it doesn't matter what that letter says, it was pre-decided by you that it's intent was racist.

And this is just more evidence of that:

I would encourage you to look at the mailing lists and forums where this email is making the rounds and generating all the wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth. A large percentage of them are far right-wing, white nationalist in nature.

Just more "context" you use to damn anyone or anything that doesn't support the President.

The "myopic" approach would be to ignore that context and only focus on the specific words stated in the email itself. And if that's how you want to roll ... so be it.

Again, just because I don't pass judgment based on context alone, as you have done, does not mean I am myopic. It simply means I have some sort of standards when it comes to calling someone racist.

I've never said the guy was or wasn't racist, I've only said I don't know. You don't know either, you just assume you do and believe it too.

[OAW]

Osedax,

Let's wrap this up shall we? Because we can go around like this all day.

Originally Posted by Osedax

Sure, you say it's not "blatant", but so far you argument has very much revolved around how "arrogant" is a "synonym" for "uppity" as the basis of your statement. Everything else is just outside "context".

Well apparently you think that because you see what you want to see. The context factors into the argument. It's not some separate and distinct thing that has no relevance to what I'm saying. You want to dismiss the context? Fine. Knock yourself out. Again, I said you would do that from the very beginning. But consider this ...

Let's keep in mind that this is one of those "forward" emails that is being sent within certain "circles". And as we all know, the origins of such emails are typically a mystery. It may not even be a single author. Could have been some PAC opposed to Obama. Or perhaps some staunch conservative who just can't stand to see a Democrat in the White House. Could be anybody. Who knows? More on this later ....

The point that's not registering with you is that it's not as simple as "arrogant" is a synonym for "uppity" therefore any use of the former in reference to Obama is racist. The only one saying that is you! And turtle777 I suppose. In no shape, form, or fashion have I stated an across the board position like that. So strawman aside .... the issue here is about what, if any, connotation may be intended by the use of the term "arrogant" in this particular context. Now just so we are clear ...

connotation: an idea or feeling that a word invokes in addition to its literal or primary meaning

And recall what I initially said ...

Originally Posted by OAW

For instance, the "arrogant, immature, and self-centered" comment in this particular piece, along with the "elitist" comments that we have seen time and again directed at President Obama feed right into the mindset of those who view him (or any other successful African-American) as "uppity".

So my position is that the relative likelihood of the term "arrogant" being intended to have a connotation of "uppity" is significantly higher IMO when the audience is comprised of those for whom the shoe fits. And it's not a stretch to think that the shoe fits when said "circles" are filled with comments like these:

And as a muslim,, showing the soles of his shoes is supposed to be a sign of disrespect, isn’t it?

Ok which one of you white guys did such a p9*ss poor job shining my shoes!

This low-rent bone-thug is an embarrassment and a disgrace. The Founding Fathers are weeping at this brazen pissant's dishonoring of everything so many fought and died for. I know that we are to forgive him his trespasses as we want to be forgiven our own, but he really makes that hard. This country will need to be scrubbed raw with Lysol and steel wool to get rid of the stench when he's finally out of the White House.

2012 can't get here soon enough. The ass-puppet rump-swab media is responsible for the free ride this puke got lying his way into the Oval Office, and their shameful complicity in this apetard's con-job should be prosecuted in the court of public opinion.

OK, I'll be the first to comment that our first half-white President has an ALL white brain trust guiding him.

And again, like I said earlier this sort of rhetoric is easy to find and remarkably commonplace in such "circles". I mean in this particular forum alone we have the following obvious racial stereotypes:

- A play on the "black man as a shoe shiner" stereotype.
- The "black man is a criminal" stereotype. Taken even further with "bone thug" to toss Hip Hop in the mix with a play on the Bone-Thugs-N-Harmony rap group.
- The "black man is an ape" stereotype.
- The "black man is less intelligent than a white man" stereotype.

One could also include the whole "Obama is a Muslim" thing seeing as how many in such "circles" derisively refer to them as "sand-n*ggers". Jeez, the only thing missing was some silly comment about his d*ck size!

So it's not at all unreasonable ... certainly not a stretch ... to conclude that those who express such sentiments quite openly also view Obama as "uppity". Hence, the use of the term "arrogant" is much more likely to convey a connotation of "uppity" TO THEM. In other words, in that context the word "arrogant" in reference to Obama might come off differently than it would in other contexts. For instance, if one of the Republicans in yesterday's Healthcare Summit had said "Mr. President it is arrogant of you to presume that you know what's best for the American people when the polls consistently show that they don't want this bill passed." .... that would NOT convey any connotations of "uppity" ... because the context is very different.

So context matters. The bottom line is that I'm not forming an opinion based upon context alone as you claimed. It's based upon the statement itself in conjunction with the context.

Originally Posted by Osedax

I admit I don't know. But the difference between you and me is that I'm not going to start claiming it's tinged with racism when I know I don't know. You on the other hand are clearly more then willing to assume someone is guilty simply because the possibility is there, no actual evidence needed.

....

In your first post you said that in your personal opinion, the authors intent was racist. Here it is, clear as day:

http://forums.macnn.com/95/political...a/#post3940712
So I certainly won't waste a lot of energy trying to "prove" that the author's intent was racist. I have my personal opinion ... but that's neither here nor there. Regardless of whether or not there was a racial aspect involved

....
And you had just spent the entire previous paragraph trying to explain how the author was masking the racist intent. So yeah...

I must say, I'm amazed that you are now trying to claim it's somehow my word instead of yours...

Again, it appears that you see what you want to see. Let's look at what I said again in light of the discussion thus far:

Originally Posted by OAW

The author didn't directly say anything about Obama's race, but in all honesty I think it was implied. Only the most virulently racist right-wingers will go there directly. OTOH, there are others who might think the same things but are generally smart enough not to verbalize such sentiments publicly. They'll use "code words" that get the message across but retain a certain level of "plausible deniability". For instance, the "arrogant, immature, and self-centered" comment in this particular piece, along with the "elitist" comments that we have seen time and again directed at President Obama feed right into the mindset of those who view him (or any other successful African-American) as "uppity". The latter is a very racially loaded term when directed at blacks. So the former can be construed as a way of saying it without actually saying it.

But again, the "plausible deniability" factor is there. So I certainly won't waste a lot of energy trying to "prove" that the author's intent was racist. I have my personal opinion ... but that's neither here nor there. Regardless of whether or not there was a racial aspect involved, what we see here without question is blatant hypocrisy.

Now looking at the highlights above, the first thing I said was that I thought Obama's race was implied. I did NOT say that the author's intent was racist. Then I said that the use of the term "arrogant" feeds into the mindset of those who view Obama as "uppity". Followed by saying that I wasn't going to try to prove that the author's intent was racist. I said I had my personal opinion about it (i.e the author's intent) ... but then steered away from there to focus on the hypocrisy of it all. Now apparently it's at this point where you ASSUME that my opinion about the author's intent ... which I never revealed ... was that it was "racist" simply because I said I wasn't going to try to prove that to be the case.

Now you'll recall when I said "More on this later .... " above? In reference to origins of the email? Well ... for the record ... I think I'll reel you back in before you go even further off the deep end and state what my personal opinion about what the author's intent may very well have been:

Imagine if the origin of the email was an Obama supporter who sent it anonymously into said "circles" ... knowing how it would be perceived and take off like wild fire ... in a (successful) attempt to make them look silly.

Now as soon as I got wind of this "controversy", that was the first thing that came to mind for me. I gave it a good 70-30% chance ... because after all, the wingnut crowd can be so easy! Of course, this is all conjecture like I said and I could easily be all wet on that. Maybe it was someone who just didn't like the idea of a black guy in the Oval Office with his feet on the desk. Maybe it was just someone who just didn't like the idea of anyone in the Oval Office with his feet on the desk. Who knows? All I know is that I was just thinking that if some Democratic activist/blogger pulled this off it would not only be freaking hilarious ... it would also be political genius!

Remember when I said "a racial aspect being involved is not necessarily indicative of a person being KKK or something"? That was your first hint.

Unfortunately you just chose to take the ball and run with the whole "arrogant / uppity" thing. Mistakenly thinking that because I thought certain "circles" would get connotations of "uppity" from the use of the term "arrogant" ... that was automatically an indication that I thought the author's intent was racist in and of itself.

Originally Posted by Osedax

Just because there are racist people that don't agree with the President does NOT mean all people that disagree with the President are racist.

Another keen observation of the obvious. But at no point did I say anything of the sort.

I'll end this with what I said earlier. We aren't going to see eye to eye on this issue and that's fine. Really. It is. Like ... seriously.

OAW

[CreepDogg]

All I can say is, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, well, it's probably...