LaxPower Back-Up Stick

ChairmanOfTheBoard wrote:

MDlaxfan76 wrote:

CU77 wrote: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.

Absolutely!

youthathletics wrote:

MDlaxfan76 wrote:

CU77 wrote: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.

We've had these discussions before, youth, fundamentally whether being 'politically correct' means being a 'snowflake' or whether it's simply about having empathy for others.

I 100% believe you that, in your mind, there's no special "correlation" between monkeys and black people. Obviously there shouldn't be.

But here's the problem: For many, many generations that "correlation" was repeatedly drawn, sometimes simply to demean and degrade, but in many cases guised as 'scientific' theory to justify white supremacy. This line of 'thinking' was used to further justify all sorts of individual and government actions that we rightfully abhor today, yet the underlying conceptions of racial differences remain disappointingly pervasive in society even now.

So, for those of us whose families/ancestors did not/do not face these particular injustices and denigrations, we need to use powers of imagination in order to be empathetic about how reminders of that legacy are experienced by others. We need to make a conscious choice to use that imagination.

Are people 'snowflakes' when they step up, object and take a stand?

Again, I don't know for 100% certainty what DeSantis intended initially, so, had he swiftly apologized for the offense unintentionally given, I'd have assumed the positive about him. But he chose to go the other way and doubled down.

BTW, I do think that it's quite possible to take PC to such an extreme that it dilutes the importance of the most serious matters. And it can discourage those who would otherwise be pulling in the direction of social justice that they are unappreciated, critiqued to such an extent that it exhausts their good will.

That really does happen.
However, I don't think the DeSantis matter, and certainly not our POTUS' many racial dog whistles, are examples of where folks are unreasonably objecting to speech.

MDlaxfan76 wrote:

youthathletics wrote:

MDlaxfan76 wrote:

CU77 wrote: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.

We've had these discussions before, youth, fundamentally whether being 'politically correct' means being a 'snowflake' or whether it's simply about having empathy for others.

I 100% believe you that, in your mind, there's no special "correlation" between monkeys and black people. Obviously there shouldn't be.

But here's the problem: For many, many generations that "correlation" was repeatedly drawn, sometimes simply to demean and degrade, but in many cases guised as 'scientific' theory to justify white supremacy. This line of 'thinking' was used to further justify all sorts of individual and government actions that we rightfully abhor today, yet the underlying conceptions of racial differences remain disappointingly pervasive in society even now.

So, for those of us whose families/ancestors did not/do not face these particular injustices and denigrations, we need to use powers of imagination in order to be empathetic about how reminders of that legacy are experienced by others. We need to make a conscious choice to use that imagination.

Are people 'snowflakes' when they step up, object and take a stand?

Again, I don't know for 100% certainty what DeSantis intended initially, so, had he swiftly apologized for the offense unintentionally given, I'd have assumed the positive about him. But he chose to go the other way and doubled down.

BTW, I do think that it's quite possible to take PC to such an extreme that it dilutes the importance of the most serious matters. And it can discourage those who would otherwise be pulling in the direction of social justice that they are unappreciated, critiqued to such an extent that it exhausts their good will.

That really does happen.
However, I don't think the DeSantis matter, and certainly not our POTUS' many racial dog whistles, are examples of where folks are unreasonably objecting to speech.

DeSantis isn't stupid.

seacoaster wrote:This is the GOP's direction:

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

Bankrupt.

And all this time we were told that New York city values meant "Jewish" values. See Ted Cruz slants from 2016, and so many others.

"A racist ad released Wednesday in Upstate New York has doctored images showing Democratic congressional candidate Antonio Delgado, an African American, rapping. It says he has “extreme New York City values” and shows an image of two white people who would pay “higher taxes” if he has his way. “He’s still New York City’s voice, not ours,” it says of Delgado — a Rhodes scholar and Harvard Law School graduate. CLF did this despite complaints about racism in previous versions of the ad."

That's right. The ad doesn't even say stupid things like "he'll take our guns." It says: this is a downstate black guy you shouldn't vote for because he's black. This is what the GOP stands for now: success through division. They learned something from Marshall Tito.

runrussellrun wrote:

seacoaster wrote:This is the GOP's direction:

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

Bankrupt.

And all this time we were told that New York city values meant "Jewish" values. See Ted Cruz slants from 2016, and so many others.

This is the year 2018.....like I have said, this is a young country and who knows what America will ultimately become. We may be witnessing the beginning of the fall of the American empire. Time will tell.

seacoaster wrote:"A racist ad released Wednesday in Upstate New York has doctored images showing Democratic congressional candidate Antonio Delgado, an African American, rapping. It says he has “extreme New York City values” and shows an image of two white people who would pay “higher taxes” if he has his way. “He’s still New York City’s voice, not ours,” it says of Delgado — a Rhodes scholar and Harvard Law School graduate. CLF did this despite complaints about racism in previous versions of the ad."

That's right. The ad doesn't even say stupid things like "he'll take our guns." It says: this is a downstate black guy you shouldn't vote for because he's black. This is what the GOP stands for now: success through division. They learned something from Marshall Tito.

It's obama's fault....he had the audacity to be black! I saw him on TV talking high and mighty and he had the nerve to still be black! He is too damned uppity....Trump talks like Joe down the block...a real American

Exactly, and coming from a Kenyan it really pissed folks off.

Trump’s asking where we keep the cudgels.

MDlaxfan76 wrote:

ChairmanOfTheBoard wrote:

MDlaxfan76 wrote:

CU77 wrote: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.

yeah, so if it's inadvertent, then words can't really be inherently offensive.

ChairmanOfTheBoard wrote:

MDlaxfan76 wrote:

ChairmanOfTheBoard wrote:

MDlaxfan76 wrote:

CU77 wrote: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.

yeah, so if it's inadvertent, then words can't really be inherently offensive.

Chairman,
We already established that most words aren't "inherently offensive" though it could be argued that a few are exclusively used to demean and denigrate their target. But even a word such as the N-word can have much of its power flipped when used in particular contexts and with clear intent.

Not sure why you're grinding on attempting to establish this point. It's already obvious.

But that point in no way provides cover from an examination of the context in which a word is used and various indications of intent.

In the case of the word "monkey", it would indeed be the case that in the most frequent contexts that word is used there would be no demeaning, racist intent. However, when used to describe or in association with an African American the context of such prior use cannot be ignored. But it's indeed plausible that despite such context, the use in any individual instance may not have originally been intended as a racial slur. But that context is easily understood by anyone bothering to do so, thus the need to swiftly apologize for having given offense, regardless of whether it was just inadvertent.

Again, the choice to not apologize is clearly a conscious one, not just a flub of speech.

bob dylan said it (sang it). racist?

nah, he didnt really mean it.

____ sang it in a rap song. racist? no, (s)he's black.

chris rock said it on stage. racist? no, he's joking.

____ said it or wrote it. not racist; that's art.

cosmo kramer said it, and he's racist, because he wasnt joking. because intentions matter.

so the question is- how can a word be inherently offensive when all of the above applies? it's clearly not. as long as you fit into the right use case.

a fan wrote:

ChairmanOfTheBoard wrote: 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?

yes, but racism wasnt.

ChairmanOfTheBoard wrote:bob dylan said it (sang it). racist?

nah, he didnt really mean it.

____ sang it in a rap song. racist? no, (s)he's black.

chris rock said it on stage. racist? no, he's joking.

____ said it or wrote it. not racist; that's art.

cosmo kramer said it, and he's racist, because he wasnt joking. because intentions matter.

so the question is- how can a word be inherently offensive when all of the above applies? it's clearly not. as long as you fit into the right use case.

So...what's your point?
You keep saying the same things as if there really is something revelatory to be said, but I can't discern what the heck it is supposed to be.

r's are doing some crazy a$$ s417, even for them!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/vi ... db038dbc3d

Seriously, What the heck?

CU88 wrote:r's are doing some crazy a$$ s417, even for them!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/vi ... db038dbc3d

Seriously, What the heck?

Must be something in the water in the DC metro area......mass hypnosis.

Typical Lax Dad wrote:

runrussellrun wrote:

seacoaster wrote:This is the GOP's direction:

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

Bankrupt.

And all this time we were told that New York city values meant "Jewish" values. See Ted Cruz slants from 2016, and so many others.

This is the year 2018.....like I have said, this is a young country and who knows what America will ultimately become. We may be witnessing the beginning of the fall of the American empire. Time will tell.

Just watched the ad. It's racist ? How? It is truly pathetic that this is the outcry. Please reply as to how the CLF ad is racist? BTW, Have any of you read Delgado's lyrics? I often pen 'cheap ass hoes' when referring to woman in my lyrics too. Founding fathers as white supremisists? but it's all just taken out of context , right? Surely don't understand how our current dirtbag president gets slammed for hypothetical, but Delgado, gets pass. And to call his "lyrics" out means you are racist? They are his words. Doubt seacoaster has Painfully Free or read the lyrics. But, sure does have an opinion.

runrussellrun wrote:

Typical Lax Dad wrote:

runrussellrun wrote:

seacoaster wrote:This is the GOP's direction:

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

Bankrupt.

And all this time we were told that New York city values meant "Jewish" values. See Ted Cruz slants from 2016, and so many others.

This is the year 2018.....like I have said, this is a young country and who knows what America will ultimately become. We may be witnessing the beginning of the fall of the American empire. Time will tell.

Just watched the ad. It's racist ? How? It is truly pathetic that this is the outcry. Please reply as to how the CLF ad is racist? BTW, Have any of you read Delgado's lyrics? I often pen 'cheap ass hoes' when referring to woman in my lyrics too. Founding fathers as white supremisists? but it's all just taken out of context , right? Surely don't understand how our current dirtbag president gets slammed for hypothetical, but Delgado, gets pass. And to call his "lyrics" out means you are racist? They are his words. Doubt seacoaster has Painfully Free or read the lyrics. But, sure does have an opinion.

You must have meant to reply to Seacoaster.

seacoaster wrote:"A racist ad released Wednesday in Upstate New York has doctored images showing Democratic congressional candidate Antonio Delgado, an African American, rapping. It says he has “extreme New York City values” and shows an image of two white people who would pay “higher taxes” if he has his way. “He’s still New York City’s voice, not ours,” it says of Delgado — a Rhodes scholar and Harvard Law School graduate. CLF did this despite complaints about racism in previous versions of the ad."

That's right. The ad doesn't even say stupid things like "he'll take our guns." It says: this is a downstate black guy you shouldn't vote for because he's black. This is what the GOP stands for now: success through division. They learned something from Marshall Tito.

runrussellrun,

The ad does not use racist language. But it communicates a racist tone/message.

The racial message of the ad was understood by those it was intended to influence, upstate white voters. It misrepresents the opposing candidate, repeatedly emphasizing what he looks like (black young man) and makes clear who he should be rejected by (two older white people).

Here's another article that may help explain a bit more.
http://www.dailyfreeman.com/article/DF/ ... /180719714

EDIT: ahhh, you added some more text to your post. Clearly you aren't going to understand.

Why won't I understand? Because I am too stupid? To racists? WHy? 90% of the district is white, so they should have put images of "otherisms" in the ad?

And, please respond to his lyrics and content. But you won't, and mostly can't, because they are scrubbed. Sorry, but Delgado made it about race when he chose to make the Painful CD. But, what is REALLY important is Delgado's corporate lawfirm, Akin Gump, and who it represents. He's sad that GE is gone? And yet has worked at a law firm that has helped, and continues to, ship US jobs to slaves overseas. Oh, and defended Paul Manfort