Conservative Ideology: A Big Lie

[MDlaxfan76]

Racists/white supremacists use and used the word 'monkey' to demean African Americans; they did it as Dems back when Dems did include that element and today as Republicans, now that they are found within, and tolerated by, the GOP.

are you suggesting that the intentions matter???

i ask because aFan said it's offensive language.

Just to be clear, Chairman, those are my words in the quote, not Bandito's.

Absolutely, intentions matter.

As others have expressed, DeSantis should have known (if he didn't) that the word should be avoided in that context. He has a plenty wide enough vocabulary to have expressed himself cogently and forcefully without it.

But as I explained, it could simply have been a flub, a stumble, a mistake.

If so, easy peasy to correct with a quick apology. But he chose to go the other way, which means he cares more about appealing to racists than not.

So, intentions matter.

if thats true, then words arent inherently offensive.

I quite agree Chairman, though some words are commonly used with consistent, offensive intent, so we don't automatically need to assume a lack of offensive intent. Rather, we understand their use, in particular contexts, to be most likely reflective of intent.

But as we've seen with the N word, the offensive power of the word can be subverted by its intended targets under some circumstances. And so we need to look at context of use, who is using it and why.

Words like "monkey" or "ape" of "jungle bunny" or...when used in the context of an African American have clear, historically offensive intent. Any remotely intelligent person in today's world knows that to be the case, thus is making a choice when they use such words when referring to an African American today.

As I said, if they make an honest mistake and stumble into such use inadvertently, it's very easy to swiftly apologize for having given offense. If a sincere apology, it'll be obviously so.

Where DeSantis proved his offensive, racist pandering intent was in refusing to apologize. He may well have stumbled at first, (we don't 100% know) but the refusal to apologize was a clear signal as to whose views of him he most cared. He chose to kowtow to actual racists. That dramatically increases the probability that he had offensive intent from the get go.

[ChairmanOfTheBoard]

Racists/white supremacists use and used the word 'monkey' to demean African Americans; they did it as Dems back when Dems did include that element and today as Republicans, now that they are found within, and tolerated by, the GOP.

are you suggesting that the intentions matter???

i ask because aFan said it's offensive language.

Just to be clear, Chairman, those are my words in the quote, not Bandito's.

Absolutely, intentions matter.

As others have expressed, DeSantis should have known (if he didn't) that the word should be avoided in that context. He has a plenty wide enough vocabulary to have expressed himself cogently and forcefully without it.

But as I explained, it could simply have been a flub, a stumble, a mistake.

If so, easy peasy to correct with a quick apology. But he chose to go the other way, which means he cares more about appealing to racists than not.

So, intentions matter.

if thats true, then words arent inherently offensive.

I quite agree Chairman, though some words are commonly used with consistent, offensive intent, so we don't automatically need to assume a lack of offensive intent. Rather, we understand their use, in particular contexts, to be most likely reflective of intent.

But as we've seen with the N word, the offensive power of the word can be subverted by its intended targets under some circumstances. And so we need to look at context of use, who is using it and why.

Words like "monkey" or "ape" of "jungle bunny" or...when used in the context of an African American have clear, historically offensive intent. Any remotely intelligent person in today's world knows that to be the case, thus is making a choice when they use such words when referring to an African American today.

As I said, if they make an honest mistake and stumble into such use inadvertently, it's very easy to swiftly apologize for having given offense. If a sincere apology, it'll be obviously so.

Where DeSantis proved his offensive, racist pandering intent was in refusing to apologize. He may well have stumbled at first, (we don't 100% know) but the refusal to apologize was a clear signal as to whose views of him he most cared. He chose to kowtow to actual racists. That dramatically increases the probability that he had offensive intent from the get go.

just one problem though- you say intentions matter, and now youre saying we can attribute intention based on the context.

which means we dont know the exact intention. which means it cannot possibly matter!

bob dylan said it. racist???

[CU77]

That's not what Mdlaxfan said. He said we can infer intent from the refusal to apologize. I agree with him.

[MDlaxfan76]

That's not what Mdlaxfan said. He said we can infer intent from the refusal to apologize. I agree with him.

Correct. The word has been used many, many times by others with clear racist intent. Long history of such. So, when talking about an African American one knows that the word could be understood to have such demeaning intent. Indeed, someone in politics would/should be aware that it likely will be understood that way by those who have been the subject of such themselves.

So, if one does not have a racist intent, it's easy enough to find alternative vocabulary to express oneself.

But mistakes can happen. Flubs, stumbles, whatever.

So, if one does not have a racist intent, a swift apology clears it up.

I don't know for 100% certainty DeSantis' original intent in his use of the word/phrase, but it's very clear from his refusal to apologize that he's choosing to be attractive politically to actual racists. Which provides ample basis to infer what he was likely intending, whether consciously or unconsciously, from the get-go.

[youthathletics]

That's not what Mdlaxfan said. He said we can infer intent from the refusal to apologize. I agree with him.

Correct. The word has been used many, many times by others with clear racist intent. Long history of such. So, when talking about an African American one knows that the word could be understood to have such demeaning intent. Indeed, someone in politics would/should be aware that it likely will be understood that way by those who have been the subject of such themselves.

So, if one does not have a racist intent, it's easy enough to find alternative vocabulary to express oneself.

But mistakes can happen. Flubs, stumbles, whatever.

So, if one does not have a racist intent, a swift apology clears it up.

I don't know for 100% certainty DeSantis' original intent in his use of the word/phrase, but it's very clear from his refusal to apologize that he's choosing to be attractive politically to actual racists. Which provides ample basis to infer what he was likely intending, whether consciously or unconsciously, from the get-go.

Curious MD et al., and this is not all intended to be polarizing. But isn't the fact that we are having this conversation about "monkeying things up" and coupling it to "racisim" the real problem with breaking down racism? TLD used the word snowflakes in a response on the matter about how some are acting, now I know it was tongue and cheek, but he may very well be accurate.

The apology then furthers it, because it implies there was something down wrong. My point.....should he then be apologizing to monkeys or black people, because for some reason, someone has or is trying to force us to draw a correlation between the two....and I just do not.

[Typical Lax Dad]

That's not what Mdlaxfan said. He said we can infer intent from the refusal to apologize. I agree with him.

Correct. The word has been used many, many times by others with clear racist intent. Long history of such. So, when talking about an African American one knows that the word could be understood to have such demeaning intent. Indeed, someone in politics would/should be aware that it likely will be understood that way by those who have been the subject of such themselves.

So, if one does not have a racist intent, it's easy enough to find alternative vocabulary to express oneself.

But mistakes can happen. Flubs, stumbles, whatever.

So, if one does not have a racist intent, a swift apology clears it up.

I don't know for 100% certainty DeSantis' original intent in his use of the word/phrase, but it's very clear from his refusal to apologize that he's choosing to be attractive politically to actual racists. Which provides ample basis to infer what he was likely intending, whether consciously or unconsciously, from the get-go.

Curious MD et al., and this is not all intended to be polarizing. But isn't the fact that we are having this conversation about "monkeying things up" and coupling it to "racisim" the real problem with breaking down racism? TLD used the word snowflakes in a response on the matter about how some are acting, now I know it was tongue and cheek, but he may very well be accurate.

The apology then furthers it, because it implies there was something down wrong. My point.....should he then be apologizing to monkeys or black people, because for some reason, someone has or is trying to force us to draw a correlation between the two....and I just do not.

If I were a monkey I would be offended!...particularly if the person didn’t apologize or say I didn’t mean it that way..

[dislaxxic]

Trump Praises Congressman Who Attacked Reporter As A ‘Fighter’

di·vi·sive·ness
dəˈvīsɪvnəs/Submit
noun
a tendency to cause disagreement or hostility between people.
"transparency will enhance development rather than social divisiveness"

..

[HooDat]

So, if one does not have a racist intent, a swift apology clears it up.

I don't know for 100% certainty DeSantis' original intent in his use of the word/phrase, but it's very clear from his refusal to apologize that he's choosing to be attractive politically to actual racists. Which provides ample basis to infer what he was likely intending, whether consciously or unconsciously, from the get-go.

a refusal to apologize does not prove racist intent. Nor does it even definitively prove a weasely willingness to let the comment hang out there as an unintended but opportunistic "dog whistle" to racists. Although both are possible, and perhaps even likely realities.

A refusal to apologize could instead be a refusal to accept the notion that one must bow down to anyone who claims to be offended and apologize to crazy people who take offense at in-offensive words.

Now before you light me up, I have acknowledged the historic use of monkey imagery to denigrate blacks, so in this particular instance the defense I lay out may be less applicable, but it is not completely outside two standard deviations of human behavior to hold a view that says "I won't be blackmailed by word police".

[wahoomurf]

This outstanding man who emigrated to "real America" from San Diego California is the kind of person we need in Congress. He puts the "fake news" on their backs whenever he gets the opportunity. He adheres to Trump's philosophy of "knocking 'em out".Violence is the only proven way to silence the idiots of the 4th estate.

Bravo says the Frito Bandito.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/ ... ana-810621

[dislaxxic]

Power struggle looms for House Republicans

Have we talked much about Paul Ryan's departure? Would Paul primary Donald in 2020, or will he wait for 2024?

"Scalise has been busy raising his national profile in ways that some McCarthy allies feel threatens the California Republican’s bid to lead the conference. In recent months, Scalise, the majority whip, has staked out several hard-line positions favored by conservatives. His moves have put McCarthy in the awkward position of having to follow Scalise or anger the far-right, whose support McCarthy needs to become speaker.

Like McCarthy, Scalise has been barnstorming the country raising money for lawmakers, chits that could be quite valuable if there is an opening to lead the conference. His office frequently touts his fundraising, noting that his totals have eclipsed any previous GOP whip. Scalise’s team doesn’t spell out that McCarthy previously held the job, but the message is clear whom they’re comparing him to.

Scalise, who has backed McCarthy for speaker this spring but is considering a bid if McCarthy falls short, recently hired a former political operative for ex-Speaker John Boehner to coordinate his campaign efforts. The Louisiana Republican will name Grant Saunders, Boehner's former deputy executive director, as his political director this week."

..

[CU77]

GOP official resigns after calling kneeling NFL players ‘baboons’

https://nypost.com/2018/09/02/gop-offic ... s-baboons/

[dislaxxic]

Ryan, McConnell try to coax Trump away from shutdown — using props and flattery

Donald wants to shut down government unless he gets the money that he SWORE UP AND DOWN that Mexico would provide for his Wall.

Very Serious Genius.

..

[Typical Lax Dad]

GOP official resigns after calling kneeling NFL players ‘baboons’

https://nypost.com/2018/09/02/gop-offic ... s-baboons/

She was just being honest

[ChairmanOfTheBoard]

That's not what Mdlaxfan said. He said we can infer intent from the refusal to apologize. I agree with him.

same difference. that's context. the context being the intention you infer.

[ChairmanOfTheBoard]

That's not what Mdlaxfan said. He said we can infer intent from the refusal to apologize. I agree with him.

Correct. The word has been used many, many times by others with clear racist intent. Long history of such. So, when talking about an African American one knows that the word could be understood to have such demeaning intent. Indeed, someone in politics would/should be aware that it likely will be understood that way by those who have been the subject of such themselves.

So, if one does not have a racist intent, it's easy enough to find alternative vocabulary to express oneself.

But mistakes can happen. Flubs, stumbles, whatever.

So, if one does not have a racist intent, a swift apology clears it up.

I don't know for 100% certainty DeSantis' original intent in his use of the word/phrase, but it's very clear from his refusal to apologize that he's choosing to be attractive politically to actual racists. Which provides ample basis to infer what he was likely intending, whether consciously or unconsciously, from the get-go.

well that's convenient.

now i can say something patently racist, apologize for it six days later, and all is forgiven.

agreed with hoodat on this topic.

[laxman3221]

That's not what Mdlaxfan said. He said we can infer intent from the refusal to apologize. I agree with him.

Correct. The word has been used many, many times by others with clear racist intent. Long history of such. So, when talking about an African American one knows that the word could be understood to have such demeaning intent. Indeed, someone in politics would/should be aware that it likely will be understood that way by those who have been the subject of such themselves.

So, if one does not have a racist intent, it's easy enough to find alternative vocabulary to express oneself.

But mistakes can happen. Flubs, stumbles, whatever.

So, if one does not have a racist intent, a swift apology clears it up.

I don't know for 100% certainty DeSantis' original intent in his use of the word/phrase, but it's very clear from his refusal to apologize that he's choosing to be attractive politically to actual racists. Which provides ample basis to infer what he was likely intending, whether consciously or unconsciously, from the get-go.

well that's convenient.

now i can say something patently racist, apologize for it six days later, and all is forgiven.

agreed with hoodat on this topic.

Are you surprised? These are the same people who said a Mexican jew was flashing white power signs. And the same who like a racist stereotype character someone is using as an avatar.

[a fan]

well that's convenient.

now i can say something patently racist, apologize for it six days later, and all is forgiven.

An entire religion was built around this idea, remember?

[seacoaster]

This is the GOP's direction:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... af78c102a7

Bankrupt.

[MDlaxfan76]

So, if one does not have a racist intent, a swift apology clears it up.

I don't know for 100% certainty DeSantis' original intent in his use of the word/phrase, but it's very clear from his refusal to apologize that he's choosing to be attractive politically to actual racists. Which provides ample basis to infer what he was likely intending, whether consciously or unconsciously, from the get-go.

a refusal to apologize does not prove racist intent. Nor does it even definitively prove a weasely willingness to let the comment hang out there as an unintended but opportunistic "dog whistle" to racists. Although both are possible, and perhaps even likely realities.

A refusal to apologize could instead be a refusal to accept the notion that one must bow down to anyone who claims to be offended and apologize to crazy people who take offense at in-offensive words.

Now before you light me up, I have acknowledged the historic use of monkey imagery to denigrate blacks, so in this particular instance the defense I lay out may be less applicable, but it is not completely outside two standard deviations of human behavior to hold a view that says "I won't be blackmailed by word police".

I appreciate this line of rational argument, HooDat.

However, we know a huge amount about someone's character and lack of empathy, if he refuses to look at something he has said through the lens of the person being spoken about.

In this case, through the lens of a someone who has experienced overt racism throughout their life and/or has had the experiences of their relatives shared with them, that particular word has clear, loud meaning.

If someone has empathy, they recognize that they have given painful offense (which may have been inadvertent) and it's very easy to apologize for having given offense. That needn't be, as another poster suggests, an admission that they "did something wrong" more than just a flub, an inadvertent mistake. It's very easy to be clear that it had not been one's intent to give that sort of offense, while also acknowledging the offense given.

If someone in politics instead takes the angry position of "I won't be blackmailed by word police" they are making clear that they wish to actually appeal to racists by demonstrating a willingness to reject empathy for those who have suffered racial bias in their lives and their family's lives.

The choice to not apologize has the benefit of time and consideration. While it should be an immediate recognition and response to demonstrate empathy, a refusal to do so provides a clear read on intent.

[MDlaxfan76]

That's not what Mdlaxfan said. He said we can infer intent from the refusal to apologize. I agree with him.

Correct. The word has been used many, many times by others with clear racist intent. Long history of such. So, when talking about an African American one knows that the word could be understood to have such demeaning intent. Indeed, someone in politics would/should be aware that it likely will be understood that way by those who have been the subject of such themselves.

So, if one does not have a racist intent, it's easy enough to find alternative vocabulary to express oneself.

But mistakes can happen. Flubs, stumbles, whatever.

So, if one does not have a racist intent, a swift apology clears it up.

I don't know for 100% certainty DeSantis' original intent in his use of the word/phrase, but it's very clear from his refusal to apologize that he's choosing to be attractive politically to actual racists. Which provides ample basis to infer what he was likely intending, whether consciously or unconsciously, from the get-go.

well that's convenient.

now i can say something patently racist, apologize for it six days later, and all is forgiven.

agreed with hoodat on this topic.

Hmmm, is that really what I said, Chairman?

What I said is that if someone actually makes an inadvertent mistake in wording, unintentionally giving offense, a swift recognition and apology, clears it up easily.

But a refusal to do so, doubling down angrily, makes it clear who you wish to appeal to and who you don't care about. Pretty simple.

If someone says something "patently racist" with no question as to intent (I assume from your hypothetical) and then takes 6 days to issue an apology, do we believe the apology? Or do we look at prior patterns of behavior?

I do think people can say and do awful things and later honestly seek and receive forgiveness and redemption. But it typically involves a major conversion of thinking, a "coming to Jesus" sort of moment that truly changes the trajectory of their life.

Far as I can tell, your hypothetical doesn't include such a conversion.