Whites set to Lynch Blacks again?

[SunsetBengal]

(10-19-2018, 11:06 AM)GMDino Wrote: While the "bfine school of repeating what you said wrong hoping it will suddenly be true" method is appreciated...you are still wrong.

Poor phrasing?  Should he have said "unshackled" and "shackled" instead? Maybe.  Dog whistle?  Only to republicans who overlook every racial statement made by their own and want to take one line out of context to say "the other side" is more racist.


If you read the entire thing and think he meant republicans would literally put black (and white) people in chains you can't be more wrong.  If you read him talking about unchaining businesses and putting people in chains as racial at all you can't be more wrong.

And your response say you are fine with the lynching ad, so there's that.

I know I should stop expecting more but that's what these boards have become.

I thought that racist was an absolute, and not subject to gradation?

[fredtoast]

(10-19-2018, 09:12 AM)michaelsean Wrote: I think I was calling it equal.  

You were, and you were wrong.

Unless you think the conservatives who talk about regulations "shackling" business are being racist.  Is that your position?

[*michaelsean*]

(10-19-2018, 12:06 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You were, and you were wrong.

Unless you think the conservatives who talk about regulations "shackling" business are being racist.  Is that your position?

No and that's not even close,  but when you tell black people they will put them back in chains it is. There were white people there as well. Why did he exclude them from what was going to happen? Maybe you guys can only hear Republican dog whistles.

[GMDino]

(10-19-2018, 01:16 PM)michaelsean Wrote: No and that's not even close,  but when you tell black people they will put them back in chains it is. There were white people there as well.  Why did he exclude them from what was going to happen? Maybe you guys can only hear Republican dog whistles.

So when it said to a white crowd with black people in it he only meant the black people? 

Even if you believe that you are still completely ignoring the rest of his speech.  Which is kind of par for the course.  "What difference does it make?"

[*michaelsean*]

(10-19-2018, 01:27 PM)GMDino Wrote: So when it said to a white crowd with black people in it he only meant the black people? 

Even if you believe that you are still completely ignoring the rest of his speech.  Which is kind of par for the course.  "What difference does it make?"

Of course it's only for the black people.  That's why he said "back in chains".  And the rest of the speech doesn't matter.  Remember when I asked about dog whistles and you told me they hide them in deniability?  You've taught me a lot about dog whistles, and now I'm able to recognize them. And all you have to do is say it. Everything that is brought up to go against it being a dog whistle is what makes it a dog whistle. It's goddamn genius and I can't believe it took me this long.

when I posted it I really didn't think anyone would think it was a perfectly reasonable thing to say. But par for the course.

[fredtoast]

(10-19-2018, 01:32 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Of course it's only for the black people.  That's why he said "back in chains".  And the rest of the speech doesn't matter. 

You are just being willfully ignorant to ignore this comment in the speech

Romney wants to let the -- he said in the first hundred days he's going to let the big banks once again write their own rules -- unchain Wall Street.


So you honestly believe that when Romney was talking about Wall Street being "unchained" he was talking about businesses that had been in slavery?

This is beyond absurd.  Biden never mentioned race when talking about the businesses or the people.

[*michaelsean*]

(10-19-2018, 02:10 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You are just being willfully ignorant to ignore this comment in the speech

Romney wants to let the -- he said in the first hundred days he's going to let the big banks once again write their own rules -- unchain Wall Street.


So you honestly believe that when Romney was talking about Wall Street being "unchained" he was talking about businesses that had been in slavery?

This is beyond absurd.  Biden never mentioned race when talking about the businesses or the people.

He never mentioned race?  Who was Biden talking about when he said "back"?  Are white people commonly thought of as having been in chains?  That's how dog whistles work.  Are you honestly saying his remarks there weren't directed at black people?  

[Mike M (the other one)]

(10-19-2018, 09:39 AM)GMDino Wrote: That is called "context".  It helps a listener/reader understand the words before and after.

Or we can just take one line out of an entire speech and create our own narrative.  "What difference does it make?" 

Is that how it works?
I thought for sure you didn't understand it. But now that you have admitted to understanding it, I guess that 90% of your threads have now become BS.

[fredtoast]

(10-19-2018, 02:17 PM)michaelsean Wrote: He never mentioned race?  Who was Biden talking about when he said "back"?  Are white people commonly thought of as having been in chains?  That's how dog whistles work.  Are you honestly saying his remarks there weren't directed at black people?  

I will answer this question as soon as you admit that Romney had to be talking about black people in slavery when he said "unchain" Wall Street.

His point was very simple to understand.  The right had claimed that Wall Street was put "in chains" by regulations, but the left had claimed that wall Street had to be regulated to keep people from being oppressed i.e. "put in chains" by Wall street like they were BEFORE regulation.  So if Wall street became unchained then the common people would be the ones going back into chains.

It had NOTHING to do with race unless you admit that Romney's comments were also about race.

[*michaelsean*]

(10-19-2018, 02:29 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I will answer this question as soon as you admit that Romney had to be talking about black people in slavery when he said "unchain" Wall Street.

His point was very simple to understand.  The right had claimed that Wall Street was put "in chains" by regulations, but the left had claimed that wall Street had to be regulated to keep people from being oppressed i.e. "put in chains" by Wall street like they were BEFORE regulation.  So if Wall street became unchained then the common people would be the ones going back into chains.

It had NOTHING to do with race unless you admit that Romney's comments were also about race.

No Romney's were not, and yes Biden's were, but that was a valiant attempt at trying to come up with an alternative.  Which is exactly how dog whistles are designed.  He slipped it in there nicely.

[fredtoast]

(10-19-2018, 02:34 PM)michaelsean Wrote:   No Romney's were not, and yes Biden's were, but that was a valiant attempt at trying to come up with an alternative.  

How is that possible when they were talking about the exact same thing?

Before Wall Street was "put in chains" by government regulation they were exploiting an oppressing the common man i.e. "putting them in chains".  It has nothing to do with race.

This is getting ridiculous.  You are judging the exact same comments differently just because you favor one party over the other.

[*michaelsean*]

(10-19-2018, 02:54 PM)fredtoast Wrote: How is that possible when they were talking about the exact same thing?

This is getting ridiculous.  You are judging the exact same comments differently just because you favor one party over the other.

They were talking about the same thing.  Then Biden as libbed.  Any idea why there were groans in the audience?  

I routinely criticize Republicans for behavior. Including on this thread topic.  

[GMDino]

(10-19-2018, 02:22 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Is that how it works?
I thought for sure you didn't understand it. But now that you have admitted to understanding it, I guess that 90% of your threads have now become BS.

That's so cute!

I wonder if the club votes on these percentages or if everyone gets to make up their own? 

[fredtoast]

(10-19-2018, 02:59 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I routinely criticize Republicans for behavior. Including on this thread topic.  

Then why not criticize Romney for his racist comments about Wall Street being "unchained"?

[*michaelsean*]

(10-19-2018, 03:09 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Then why not criticize Romney for his racist comments about Wall Street being "unchained"?

Because he was talking about Wall Street and not suggesting others want to put black people in chains. I don’t even know why you are arguing it. You all think there are a good amount of Republicans who would like to do it. He’s just saying it.

But off topic if it makes anyone feel better I will be voting for Biden if he ever runs. Hopefully it’s 2020 if he does. That would make it easy.

[Dill]

(10-19-2018, 01:32 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Of course it's only for the black people.  That's why he said "back in chains".  And the rest of the speech doesn't matter.  Remember when I asked about dog whistles and you told me they hide them in deniability?  You've taught me a lot about dog whistles, and now I'm able to recognize them.  And all you have to do is say it.  Everything that is brought up to go against it being a dog whistle is what makes it a dog whistle.  It's goddamn genius and I can't believe it took me this long.

when I posted it I really didn't think anyone would think it was a perfectly reasonable thing to say.  But par for the course.

Mike, I do think you are making a reasonable case here. 

The question I would raise concerns the definition and practice of "dog whistle." The Merriam-Webster and other dictionaries define it as a coded message only understood by certain audiences. Central to its definition and operation is that the "code" tells the positive target group what you REALLY mean when you say that a negative, euphemized, target, for example the "urban poor," need to take responsibility for themselves, while leaving plausible deniability ("WHAAAA??? I never said "black"! You are CRAZY!! Race card Race card!) 

So, in practice, in every bona fide instance of dog whistlism I can think of, the intent was to demean the euphemized group, to target it for mean policies or just slurs.  I can't think of an incident previous to Biden in which the euphemized group and the "whistler" are assumed to be on the same side; the whistler wants the VOTES of the euphemized group.  The bad guys in this case are those Romney Republicans, who are not euphemized at all.  

Thus, I would say that allusions to race and slavery, however, subtle, do not automatically qualify as dog whistles if there is no intent to slur the euphemized group or send some coded message to another target.  I would like to know how Biden responded to critics. If the response is "WHAAAA??? I never said "black"! then I'll grant, something is not quite right. But I can't yet figure out what it is yet.

[*michaelsean*]

(10-19-2018, 06:24 PM)Dill Wrote: Mike, I do think you are making a reasonable case here. 

The question I would raise concerns the definition and practice of "dog whistle." The Merriam-Webster and other dictionaries define it as a coded message only understood by certain audiences. Central to its definition and operation is that the "code" tells the positive target group what you REALLY mean when you say that a negative, euphemized, target, for example the "urban poor," need to take responsibility for themselves, while leaving plausible deniability ("WHAAAA??? I never said "black"! You are CRAZY!! Race card Race card!) 

So, in practice, in every bona fide instance of dog whistlism I can think of, the intent was to demean the euphemized group, to target it for mean policies or just slurs.  I can't think of an incident previous to Biden in which the euphemized group and the "whistler" are assumed to be on the same side; the whistler wants the VOTES of the euphemized group.  The bad guys in this case are those Romney Republicans, who are not euphemized at all.  

Thus, I would say that allusions to race and slavery, however, subtle, do not automatically qualify as dog whistles if there is no intent to slur the euphemized group or send some coded message to another target.  I would like to know how Biden responded to critics. If the response is "WHAAAA??? I never said "black"! then I'll grant, something is not quite right. But I can't yet figure out what it is yet.

I appreciate the insight about the dog whistle, and I apologize for taking your thread off topic. Sometimes you throw things out there that you don’t mean to take on a life.

Like I said, if they truly mean lynching as in hanging someone then that’s horrible.

Biden 2020!