[Murray_Smith]

angler57 wrote:

Thank You for the little thought and less time you spent to create your post.

You are welcome, and thank you for capitalizing the pronoun referring to me. I am flattered that you consider me a deity.

Quote:

We write as we speak. Sorry it displeases you. That is the way it is.

How poetic and ignorant. I do not punctuate my sentences erratically, but that is how I speak. It is impossible to infer from a written piece whether its author has a stutter or lisp. The written word has no inflection or body language except that which the author implies or states. To write as one speaks is usually amateurish, as

Quote:

You seem to have understood every word we used? And, that my friend is the purpose
of words.
Ain't words great! Denny

There's a reason why a thousand make a picture.


Fin

[angler57]

Murray Smith; "Fin".
Sounds right to me.
As my grand Pop would say, rifinito.
Sure hope this means, It is fininshed, as my memory is not what it once was.
That being the case will not bother commenting on your opinion. Denny

[Trenacker]

Quote:

ICE chasing a Mexican athlete in the country legally through Boston (It was the Boston Marathon, right?) when millions of illegals are remaining illegally, especially in the southwestern states but also across the country? It seems like a reasonable intrepretation to me.

Do you honestly suspect that Limbaugh was making a dig at Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or are you trying hard to make a philosophical point about subjectivity?

Quote:

"Rightful owners" has stronger ties to communist rhetoric defending the worker than it does to descendants of slaves calling for reparations. And, as I already mentioned, more races than just blacks have sought reparations, and the only real success story of someone getting reparations was the Japanese. Again, it's subjective. Again, you're finding what you're looking for because you're looking for it.

Read in context, Limbaugh's remarks clearly refer to blacks: he mentions the Reverend Al Sharpton. If Limbaugh were talking only about "pure" economics, independent of racial issues, then why mention Sharpton?

Glenn Beck has made similar remarks, and makes very clear his suspicion that Obama's healthcare policies are designed to flatter particular notions about race.

Quote:

Not when you chose someone who is not a racist over someone who is based on his prominence; it shows a bias towards making racism seem more prominent than it is.

No, calling up prominent examples speaks to the fact that opinion leaders in our society continue to display racial insensitivity -- and that, by the millions, we accept or condone it.

Quote:

How many of them also portray the message "We're treating your candidate the way you treated ours?"

The claim of proportionality is false, since the effect of utilizing a particular thought or image is different in either case.

Quote:

That message is best sent by using the common themes used against Bush years earlier against Obama now. That pretty much includes Hitler mustaches and ape depictions.

No, it isn't. The audience (liberals) perceive their swipes against Bush as fully justified, and those against Obama as anything but. These images don't inspire people to stop, think, and respond, "Oh! Well, I guess we sort of deserved that..." There is simply fresh outrage.

Indeed, it is childish to pretend that depictions of a black man as an ape or a primitive are not somehow loaded with enormous socio-political and emotional baggage.

Quote:

Did you read the article? They're his allies, offering it as a compliment. I believe he took it as one.

The entire article is about how Obama fits stereotypes of the black man in America. In that instance, Limbaugh -- but not the LA Times, you are right -- was being insensitive by getting worked up over it. In fact, it's more evidence that we as a society have not moved beyond issues of race.

[Calbeck]

Zipperfish wrote:

Humiliating apology to Calbeck for unwarranted snideness.

Apology accepted. Heck, at least it's entertaining snidery. -:)

[Psudo]

Trenacker wrote:

Do you honestly suspect that Limbaugh was making a dig at Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or are you trying hard to make a philosophical point about subjectivity?

I don't know for sure what Limbaugh's point was, since I have only a second-hand concept of the context. But it's certainly possible he meant that, which clearly makes the point about subjectivity.

Trenacker wrote:

If Limbaugh were talking only about "pure" economics, independent of racial issues, then why mention Sharpton?

Because he was responding to statements by a caller from Al Sharpton's radio show. He took an interest in Sharpton's show as soon as it was announced, offering his expertise and advice as a broadcaster to help Sharpton get established. He even offered to let Sharpton guest-host the Limbaugh show, giving him instant access to an audience of 20 million or so.

Trenacker wrote:

calling up prominent examples speaks to the fact that opinion leaders in our society continue to display racial insensitivity -- and that, by the millions, we accept or condone it.

Your argument is only true if Limbaugh is a racist; if you are twisting his meaning to invent imaginary racism rather than taking clearly racist comments from less prominent figures, that would be lying for rhetorical effect.

Trenacker wrote:

The claim of proportionality is false, since the effect of utilizing a particular thought or image is different in either case.

So, if I understand correctly, you think Obama should be immune to certain criticisms due to his race? If so, you're advocating unequal treatment based on race, something I'd call racism. Granted, you're trying to negate a greater cultural racism as you perceive it, which would almost be commendable if you demonstrated some reasonable judgment about how much racism is in our society. Since you instead demonstrate a willingness to exaggerate the prominence of racism, you're overcorrecting, inciting backlash, and generally making a bad situation worse.

Trenacker wrote:

The audience (liberals) perceive their swipes against Bush as fully justified, and those against Obama as anything but.

Why is the audience liberals? I'd have thought it was an attempt to stir the politically apathetic to join the protester's ideology and advocacy, the same as any protest.

Why should I judge the tea partier's actions based on liberal perceptions of it? Can I use that same reasoning to judge Obama based on conservatives' perceptions of him?

Trenacker wrote:

Indeed, it is childish to pretend that depictions of a black man as an ape or a primitive are not somehow loaded with enormous socio-political and emotional baggage.

Guilty until proven innocent, eh?

Trenacker wrote:

The entire article is about how Obama fits stereotypes of the black man in America. In that instance, Limbaugh -- but not the LA Times, you are right -- was being insensitive by getting worked up over it. In fact, it's more evidence that we as a society have not moved beyond issues of race.

Limbaugh's airing of Shanklin's skit demonstrated that people see racism (or don't) based on the messenger, not the message. Shanklin's skit consists of Al Sharpton bemoaning the election confidence Obama is getting that he never did; that the LA Times and others see Obama as the first great black presidential candidate, or "Magic Negro" in the LA Times' words, whereas Sharpton opened the door to the possibility by running in the previous presidential election.

The fact that you think the LA Times is not racist for describing how Obama fits a racial stereotype, but Limbaugh is racist for pointing out the difference in public perception of two different black US Presidential candidates, demonstrates the very double-standard Limbaugh hoped to expose. Incidentally, the only times in this thread that you have NOT perceived racism in a quoted comment have been when you've applied that same double-standard.

I don't think the LA Times article or Shanklin's skit from the Limbaugh show are racist, but the LA Times article fits the stereotype of what racism is more closely. If you're going to be imagining racism where it doesn't exist (which you demonstrably are), the LA Times should receive your ire first.

[Trenacker]

Psudo, you are entirely missing the point. My argument is true only so long as Limbaugh and others like him are being racially insensitive. Your rear-guard action to defend Limbaugh means nothing so long as you leave the other quotations -- from Biden, from Reid, from Beck, from others -- unchallenged. That litany reflects the fact that this nation still has a distance to go in rooting out racial insensitivity.

If you understood me correctly, you'd recognize that I think that certain symbols and images convey a different message, depending on the context in which they are transmitted, including the audience and/or target. Depicting George Bush as a simian does not carry the same socio-cultural baggage as does depicting a black man as a simian. Attempts to defend those who cannot be bothered to avoid giving such offense are not honorable or right-thinking: they are at best willfully ignorant, and at worst harmful. By your own admission, the object of using such depictions is to send two messages: (1) a criticism of Obama's competence as our leader; (2) the riposte to liberals that, "What goes around, comes around." I've pointed out there the criticism of Obama's competence is often lost due to misapprehension. Some -- many -- receive a signal you didn't send. As for the riposte, it flies right past them. There can be no point in making a gesture that is either misinterpreted or consistently misunderstood. Therefore, why do it?

The LA Times article was reporting on a socio-political phenomenon: the title of the piece was firmly tongue-in-cheek. This wasn't a liberal institution begin handed a free pass -- this was a liberal institution making a commentary that Mr. Limbaugh clearly either misunderstood, or knowingly manipulated in order to suit his own rhetorical purposes.

[Psudo]

Trenacker wrote:

Psudo, you are entirely missing the point. My argument is true only so long as Limbaugh and others like him are being racially insensitive. Your rear-guard action to defend Limbaugh means nothing so long as you leave the other quotations -- from Biden, from Reid, from Beck, from others -- unchallenged. That litany reflects the fact that this nation still has a distance to go in rooting out racial insensitivity.

No, I already addressed this point when I said:

Psudo, last paragraph, wrote:

I'm not saying racism doesn't exist or doesn't cause harm. I'm saying that oversensitivity to anything that could possibly be taken as racist even when other, benign interpretations exist, constitutes a "guilty until proven innocent" mindset that makes racism seem more prevalent than it is and causes harm all it's own.

You keep treating my arguments contradictions to yours when they are more like amendments. Yes, racism exists. I've conceded that before, and I hereby do it again. But you're making it worse with your oversensitive, finger-pointing approach to race issues.

Trenacker wrote:

I think that certain symbols and images convey a different message, depending on the context in which they are transmitted, including the audience and/or target. Depicting George Bush as a simian does not carry the same socio-cultural baggage as does depicting a black man as a simian. Attempts to defend those who cannot be bothered to avoid giving such offense are not honorable or right-thinking: they are at best willfully ignorant, and at worst harmful.

Your point here is "Walk on eggshells around minorities! Pay extra attention to the social connotations, the secret meanings other races may derive from your every comment. You might be insulting them with the wrong word, the wrong gesture, the wrong look. Be constantly on guard around other races!"

Don't you see how that promotes fear and social awkwardness around minorities? Don't you see how that requirement of racial identification and background knowledge before you can even speak comfortably around a person ensures exclusion and division? That whole mindset, the mindset you're actively promoting, acts contrary to racial tolerance and acceptance.

That's the mindset Rush Limbaugh attacks with his observations on social perceptions of race. He's right to do so. That's what you're attacking when you choose to throw his quotes out as examples of prominent racism when there are actual racists that are better, but less famous, examples. Your mistake in choosing him shows you care more about convincing people of the horrors of modern racism than getting your facts straight. It demonstrates your harmful bias.

[Trenacker]

Quote:

But you're making it worse with your oversensitive, finger-pointing approach to race issues.

It is one thing to say, "Rush Limbaugh is not a racist, and the quotations often used to prove the contrary are lifted from proper context." It is another to prove that I have an "oversensitive, finger-pointing approach to race issues."

Quote:

Your point here is "Walk on eggshells around minorities! Pay extra attention to the social connotations, the secret meanings other races may derive from your every comment. You might be insulting them with the wrong word, the wrong gesture, the wrong look. Be constantly on guard around other races!"

"Secret meanings?" You know without my having to tell you the sordid history of wrongheaded comparisons between the black man and the ape. You knew without my having to tell you that the image of the primitive, heathen black has had long and unfortunate play in this country and elsewhere in the Western world. Let's not pretend otherwise, shall we?

In my previous post, I made extensive remarks on the difficulty of communication across the political divide. Why is it so necessary that people not be called out for drawing comparisons between Obama and apes? Is it really an imposition on anybody to take care not to mislead, discourage, or alarm their neighbors? We're not talking about inflammation -- we're talking about subtle messages about the potential value of minorities in our society.

[Quantum_Wizard]

Trenacker wrote:

If you understood me correctly, you'd recognize that I think that certain symbols and images convey a different message, depending on the context in which they are transmitted, including the audience and/or target. Depicting George Bush as a simian does not carry the same socio-cultural baggage as does depicting a black man as a simian.

Even considering this, saying that Obama should be exempt from this kind of ridicule whereas Bush is fair game solely because of their races, is a terribly unfair proposition and in my opinion untenable.

[Trenacker]

Quote:

Even considering this, saying that Obama should be exempt from this kind of ridicule whereas Bush is fair game solely because of their races, is a terribly unfair proposition and in my opinion untenable.

What intrinsic value has depicting Obama as an ape? To convey to the Democrats that one can lampoon "their man" on a 1:1 basis? They haven't received that message at all. Instead, all they perceive is racist sentiment. And indeed, it is at the least racially insensitive.

The idea that Obama should be spared certain depictions isn't about shielding one man; it's about avoiding the miscommunication that arises when certain symbols are used in connection with people of color. It is an acknowledgment of the emotionally potent historical context of race relations in this country, not a blind, pointless sop to race for its own sake.

[Psudo]

Trenacker wrote:

It is one thing to say, "Rush Limbaugh is not a racist, and the quotations often used to prove the contrary are lifted from proper context." It is another to prove that I have an "oversensitive, finger-pointing approach to race issues."

You also accused the LA Times article of racism and had to correct yourself. You also accused tea partiers based on dubious evidence. You also chose to criticize Rush over more legitimate choices based on prominence, a separate mistake from simply being wrong about Rush. There's evidence enough of your bias in this thread alone. Want me to check the forum for predisposition to accusation in other threads?

Trenacker wrote:

"Secret meanings?" You know without my having to tell you the sordid history of wrongheaded comparisons between the black man and the ape.

If that were the only example of cultural connotation you expect people to know about, you'd have a point. Even setting aside ape depictions, there are multitudes of topics with cultural ramifications you've demanded people everywhere be aware of and avoid. How many have you mentioned in this thread alone?

Is the wording the problem? Would you prefer I use your term "subtle messages" rather than "secret meanings"? They seem identical to me, but maybe one is more racist than the other for invisible reasons.

[Trenacker]

Quote:

You also accused the LA Times article of racism and had to correct yourself.

I accused the LA Times of racism because it was stated that they called Obama "the Magic Negro." In fact, the article discussed the concept, and indicated that Obama seemed in the eyes of many whites to fulfill it.

Quote:

You also accused tea partiers based on dubious evidence.

The evidence isn't at all dubious. Those tea partiers who carry posters talking about a "lyin' African," an ape, and a witchdoctor are either racist, or racially insensitive. You yourself acknowledge that these images are potentially harmful; you simply deny that anybody in this country has any responsible or incentive to avoid sending unhelpful or potentially injurious signals.

Quote:

If that were the only example of cultural connotation you expect people to know about, you'd have a point. Even setting aside ape depictions, there are multitudes of topics with cultural ramifications you've demanded people everywhere be aware of and avoid. How many have you mentioned in this thread alone?

Would you like a match to burn that strawman? I expect that people will pay attention to whether or not their messages are being understood in the intended manner. Clearly, those who believe that depicting Obama as an ape is usefully instructive for liberals are quite wrong: liberals only conclude that the message is about race, not the lampooning of political figures generally. Those who perceive that they are sending a message strictly about competence are also wrong. If they value harmonious relations with their neighbors of every background, they would do well to reconsider their form of free speech. Please address these issues.

Awareness isn't necessarily research. The idea that I've called for deep research is neat, but ultimately wrong. The point is that one should be receptive to what one learns. You knew what apes and witchdoctors implied without my having to tell you.

[Quantum_Wizard]

Trenacker wrote:

Quote:

Even considering this, saying that Obama should be exempt from this kind of ridicule whereas Bush is fair game solely because of their races, is a terribly unfair proposition and in my opinion untenable.

What intrinsic value has depicting Obama as an ape? To convey to the Democrats that one can lampoon "their man" on a 1:1 basis?

Probably not that. At least one doesn't need such "retaliatory" motivation for lampooning. I'd suspect that the reasons are similar as in the case of lampooning Bush, such as creating simple minded humor.

Trenacker wrote:

The idea that Obama should be spared certain depictions isn't about shielding one man

I don't claim that you are aiming to shield one man, but that is nonetheless the consequence of your proposition. I find that unacceptable.

[Calbeck]

Trenacker wrote:

What intrinsic value has depicting Obama as an ape?

Precisely the same as depicting Bush as a chimp.

Much of your argument revolves around an insistence on eliminating possible ambiguity in comments made about a given individual solely due to that person's race. You state that it is not so much that various given comments are actually racist, but that they can be reasonably interpreted as racist by someone else. This subjects objectivity to subjectivity: one may influence, but cannot control, how someone else chooses to interpret a given statement.

Professional race-baiters across the whole of the color spectrum routinely exploit this fact in order to derive benefit for themselves and their organizations by inciting both the fear of, and actuality of, racial tensions. This "Cry Wolf Effect" has largely eliminated the value of subjective interpretations regarding racism.

The result? People who are not in fact racist are now often accused of racism, with the effect that they and persons who like them are less inclined to credit new cries of racism against others. This in turn insulates actual racists from public scorn.

[Psudo]

I'm done repeating myself. Enjoy your discussion with Quantium_Wizard and Calbeck.