quote:Ousted Agriculture Department employee Shirley Sherrod said Thursday she will sue a conservative blogger who posted a video edited in a way that made her appear racist.
Sherrod was forced to resign as director of rural development in Georgia after Andrew Breitbart posted the edited video online. In the full video, Sherrod, who is black, spoke to a local NAACP group about racial reconciliation and lessons she learned after initially hesitating to help a white farmer save his home.
Speaking Thursday at the National Association of Black Journalists convention, Sherrod said she would "definitely" sue over the video that took her remarks out of context. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack has since offered Sherrod a new job in the department. She has not decided whether to accept.
Sherrod said she had not received an apology from Breitbart and no longer wanted one.
"He had to know that he was targeting me," she said.
Breitbart did not immediately respond to calls or e-mails seeking comment. He has said he posted the portion of the speech where she details her reluctance to help the white farmer to prove that racism exists in the NAACP, which had just demanded that the tea party movement renounce any bigoted elements. Some members of the NAACP audience responded approvingly when Sherrod described her reluctance to help the farmer.
The farmer's wife came forward after Sherrod resigned, saying Sherrod had eventually helped them save their farm.
Vilsack and President Barack Obama later called Sherrod to apologize for her hasty ouster. Obama said Thursday that Sherrod "deserves better than what happened last week."
Addressing the National Urban League, he said the full story Sherrod was trying to tell "is exactly the kind of story we need to hear in America."
- Then Breitbart backpedaled, saying the media took him out of context, that he wasn't out to prove that Sherrod is racist, that he was more focused on the NAACP's reaction to her speech
- Then Breitbart started claiming 'Sherrod's still a racist' and that the US Government was trying to destroy him unfairly as part of a conspiracy that they banked on
- The short copy of the whole story is that Breitbart is a media troll who actively and malevolently distorts, and if you get your news from him (which I know a few of you on this forum do) you're totally a fool at this point.
quote:Lord insinuates that Sherrod is a liar for using the word "lynch" to describe a 1940s murder in Baker County, Georgia. Bobby Hall, a relative of Sherrod, was beaten to death by sheriff's deputies who had come to arrest him for stealing a tire. Lord says Sherrod's characterization of the beating as lynching is dishonest and inflammatory:
quote:It's possible that Ms. Sherrod simply doesn't know the truth...
It's also possible that she knew the truth and chose to embellish it, changing a brutal and fatal beating to a lynching.
The Sherrods are racists, Samp. The fact that the media is bending over backwards to apologize to Shirley after they ran with the original story is pretty hilarious, though.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Yawn. If it quacks like a duck...
If it handwaves like a Dan_Frank ...
quote:The Sherrods are racists, Samp.
Oh, I'd very, very much like to hear the rationale on this one. Tell me how you have come to this conclusion!
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
First, of all, here's Shirley's husband being blatantly racist.
Second of all, the unedited video doesn't show her not being racist, it just shows that she decided Marxism is higher on her list than racism. Specifically, lines like "It's not about black—well, it is about black and white, but it's also about the haves and the have nots," seem to be very telling.
Here's an interesting thought experiment I posted in another thread, reproduced here so it can be ignored again.
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: So let's imagine we've got a conservative, rich, white fellow—we'll call him Peter—who talks about how, twenty years ago, he was prejudiced against a black guy—he can be Paul—who was... I don't know, a partner at his firm. But then Peter realized that Paul was actually a great lawyer and a savvy businessman. He even voted for Ronald Reagan! So they became friends, and Peter realized it wasn't really about black and white after all. Well, no, it is about black and white, says Peter, but its also about how rich and conservative you are!
Why, that story certainly shows how much Peter isn't a racist, doesn't it? He's practically a member of the NAACP already.
Essentially Sherrod is saying "I'm not racist! Look, I've got a white friend!"
Is that really the bar? If so, people should probably stop ragging on Mal and his Jamaican friend.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I haven't offered a counterpoint yet, that was a question. Okay, now I'm really worried I am getting trolled. Sherrod is a marxist? Says who?
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: The argument that Sherrod is not racist seems to be that she eventually helped the white farmer and they're friends today.
How about 'sherrod's speech was actually about how she learned she had to put aside her difference and not have race matter or influence her decisions,' which is both
1. completely different, and 2. not surprising that you would miss in favor of the irrelevant argument you have constructed on Sherrod's benefit.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: Okay, now I'm really worried I am getting trolled.
Dan_Frank is probably being serious. He actually does this, and he probably actually believes that Sherrod is a Marxist, purely on the virtue of a site/pundit about as credible as Breitbart & biggovernment.com
edit: i am super excited to have hit the jackpot. "If [sherrod] quacks like a [racist]."
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Um. Has anyone who watched the video got a different take on her explanation? Cause if she claimed poor trumped white in the end, that sure sounds racist.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by AvidReader: Um. Has anyone who watched the video got a different take on her explanation? Cause if she claimed poor trumped white in the end, that sure sounds racist.
Why?
It was her job to give aid to poor farmers. She was talking about how she learned to overcoming her own racist stereotype -- a stereotype that said that white farmers were rich because of unfair advantages but black farmers were poor because of historic discrimination. The point she was trying to make was that she learned to overcome that prejudice and see individual circumstances and not just racial groups.
If people can't make that kind of admission about their past without being blackballed and labeled racist, then our society has no hope for progress.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:If people can't make that kind of admission about their past without being blackballed and labeled racist, then our society has no hope for progress.
Seriously. I hate this aspect of our society.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: She was talking about how she learned to overcoming her own racist stereotype -- a stereotype that said that white farmers were rich because of unfair advantages but black farmers were poor because of historic discrimination.
Ok, that's different from Dan's explanation of it. I'm fine with that.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by AvidReader: Um. Has anyone who watched the video got a different take on her explanation? Cause if she claimed poor trumped white in the end, that sure sounds racist.
quote:On July 19, Andrew Breitbart’s BigGovernment.com website posted a short video clip from a speech Sherrod had delivered to an NAACP gathering in March.
In the clip, Sherrod confessed to having deliberately declined on racial grounds to help a white farmer faced with a foreclosure on his farm. She was immediately terminated by the USDA and condemned by the national NAACP.
But a second look at the tape made it obvious that the tape had been severely edited, abruptly cut short. Within hours it emerged that the story on the tape was exactly the opposite of the story Breitbart had wanted to tell.
Sherrod was telling a story about overcoming her own racial antagonisms. She had repented, had helped the white farmer, had saved the farm, had formed a friendship with the farmer and his family that lasts to this day. Besides which: The episode in question dates back to 1986, long before Sherrod ever went to work at the USDA.
By the morning of July 20 the Sherrod-as-racist narrative had collapsed.
What is most fascinating about that second day, however, was the conservative reaction to the collapse. At midday on the 20th, Rush Limbaugh was still praising Breitbart: "I know that Andrew Breitbart's done great work getting this video of Ms. Sherrod at the U.S. Department of Agriculture and her supposed racism and so forth saying she's not gonna help a white farmer."
By the evening of the 20th, however, conservatives were backing away, acknowledging that an innocent women had been defamed.
Here's Glenn Beck.
Here's Rich Lowry, editor of National Review.
Here's Instapundit.
Here's the popular Anchoress blog at First Things.
Even the racially incendiary Eric Erickson tweeted his disquiet, and then posted this on his RedState website.
quote:- Then Breitbart backpedaled, saying the media took him out of context, that he wasn't out to prove that Sherrod is racist, that he was more focused on the NAACP's reaction to her speech
posted
I haven't followed this story or watched any of the videos and really don't care at all but I want to clarify something with the posters.
Sherod's original video basically consists of her admitting that she had been racist but has changed her ways correct?
Breitbart's edit makes it look like she is still a racist correct?
So to me the argument is not whether or not she was a racist, that part is admitted. The question is has she really reformed or not?
Posts: 891 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think there is a difference between the "I have a white friend" versus "I changed because of my white friend." When I went to college, I was pretty neutral on gay rights, perhaps a little more on the negative side (I believed legal things like anti-sodomy laws were wrong, but that was more of an extension of my libertarian views than out of social justice). However, having a gay friend at college, who was actually stabbed at one point when leaving a club made me really think about my views and made me much more in favor of gay rights- not just as a sure, everyone should have rights, but I understood why it mattered a bit more and had a personal stake in it. I would hate for telling that story to make everyone label me as a homophobe. And my reason I am not a homophobe is not because I have a gay friend, but that having a gay friend made me rethink my positions.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: I would hate for telling that story to make everyone label me as a homophobe. And my reason I am not a homophobe is not because I have a gay friend, but that having a gay friend made me rethink my positions.
I agree but here is the problem. Once someone gets the "racist" label attached to them, it never goes away.
I mean if David Duke or someone like that came out tomorrow and said "my jewish, afro-american friend has convinced me of the error of my ways and I am no longer a racist" do you think the NAACP would accept him? Would all be forgiven? Maybe but I doubt it. And would anybody be raising a stink about anyone that posted any of his vids spouting racist slogans? I suspect they would be applauded rather then sued.
Posts: 891 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:I mean if David Duke or someone like that came out tomorrow and said "my jewish, afro-american friend has convinced me of the error of my ways and I am no longer a racist" do you think the NAACP would accept him? Would all be forgiven? Maybe but I doubt it. And would anybody be raising a stink about anyone that posted any of his vids spouting racist slogans? I suspect they would be applauded rather then sued.
That's not a fair analogy. Sharrod isn't someone who had been labeled a racist until Breitbart tagged one on her. Breitbart didn't post an old video of Sharrod spouting racist slogans. He posted a new video of her telling a story about how she overcame her own prejudices and stripped the context to make her look racist.
Sharrod wasn't speaking as a former bigot seeking acceptance. She was speaking to a black audience with the message that poor and underprivileged people need to work together regardless of race and she told a personal story about overcoming ones own prejudices.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fair points there Rabbit, and all probably true.
All I was trying to say is that there is definitely a double standard in play when it comes to racism. This is a FACT. Now unlike some, I make no claims as to that double standard being wrong or right, I don't really care. I just wish more people would make the point to acknowledge its existence once in a while.
Posts: 891 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: The argument that Sherrod is not racist seems to be that she eventually helped the white farmer and they're friends today.
How about 'sherrod's speech was actually about how she learned she had to put aside her difference and not have race matter or influence her decisions,' which is both
1. completely different, and 2. not surprising that you would miss in favor of the irrelevant argument you have constructed on Sherrod's benefit.
But this is simply wrong. She never says she's not going to let race influence her decisions anymore. She just says that being poor trumps being white.
Once again, she's saying that the rich/poor dichotomy is more important than the black/white dichotomy.
Man, Samp, for somebody who gets extremely up in arms with Breitbart and his selective video editing, you sure do a lot of selective quoting.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
PS Thank you for not calling me a troll. I know, I know, being a conservative and being a troll are practically the same thing, but it's good of you to allow that there are slight differences between the two.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: ... it just shows that she decided Marxism is higher on her list than racism.
It appears Marxists have *really* lowered their admission standards.
I may have been indulging in a smidgen of hyperbole.
Really just using Marxism as shorthand for "views rich and poor as an us v. them scenario." I'm not actually making any specific claims about where she may stand on actual Marxism. I wouldn't exactly be surprised if she turned out to be a Marxist, but I also wouldn't be surprised if she claimed she wasn't.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: PS Thank you for not calling me a troll. I know, I know, being a conservative and being a troll are practically the same thing, but it's good of you to allow that there are slight differences between the two.
It IS possible to be a conservative without SOUNDING like a troll. You should try it.
And the martyr complex clashes with sarcasm. Just so you know.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, Bill O'Reilly claims that his apology for unfairly attacking Sherrod was the first time he's ever publicly apologized for making a mistake.
Really emphasizes the ridiculous rush-to-judge that went into this debacle on all sides. Rush to demonize, rush to disavow, but no rush to defend, no rush to fact check. I think more than the lessons of racial progress in this story, that's the real observation to focus on from this thing as far as recognizing serious problems that need fixing in our civic methodology.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: PS Thank you for not calling me a troll. I know, I know, being a conservative and being a troll are practically the same thing, but it's good of you to allow that there are slight differences between the two.
I think I would have an easier time taking you seriously at all if you didn't jump in with handwaving and disdain and really poorly constructed arguments and then immediately proceed to martyr complexes and sarcasm. If you don't want to be called a troll, don't seriously act like one, because your participation in this thread makes you represent your own conservative viewpoint in the most trollish light.
This is what you do. You jump in, obviously incensed, and you don't give anyone much reason to give you the benefit of the doubt. you just took what is already a controversial side and, for all intents and purposes, made it look like the product of an indignant and short-sighted fool. It's your M.O. in at least the past three of my threads about anything politically controversial.
That people start actively wondering whether or not you're trolling them is of little surprise. using "marxist" as a shorthand descriptor of an already unfairly slandered Sherrod makes you look, for all intents and purposes, so entrenched in a discredited narrative that you'll come up with different pejoratives just to make the original labels sound fair.
quote:But this is simply wrong. She never says she's not going to let race influence her decisions anymore. She just says that being poor trumps being white.
Once again, she's saying that the rich/poor dichotomy is more important than the black/white dichotomy.
Again, absolutely wrong. here's a part of the complete transcript.
quote:But I've come to realize that we have to work together and -- you know, it's sad that we don't have a room full of white and blacks here tonight, 'cause we have to overcome the divisions that we have. We have to get to the point where, as Tony Morrison said, "Race exists but it doesn't matter." We have to work just as hard.
She's not saying that she needs to put her racist priorities over her "Marxist" priorities (if, in this case, "Marxist" priority means 'wanting to help poor people as part of a career or position where you help people experiencing financial crisis'), she's saying that she personally came to the conclusion that race should not matter, she found she had to overcome her own personal biases, and that there shouldn't be divisions between the races.
Oh wow, what a racist marxist.Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:- Then Breitbart backpedaled, saying the media took him out of context, that he wasn't out to prove that Sherrod is racist, that he was more focused on the NAACP's reaction to her speech
quote:So, let's review the Breitbart gang's allegations:
When … she expresses a discriminatory attitude towards white people, the audience responds with applause. False. The NAACP … is cheering on a person describing a white person as the other. False. The NAACP audience seemed to have approved of her actions when she talked about not helping the white farmer. False. They weren't cheering redemption; they were cheering discrimination. False.
As Ms. Sherrod recounted the first part of her parable, how she declined to do everything she could for the farmer because of his race, the audience responded in approval. False.
First Breitbart and his acolytes falsely accused Sherrod of discriminating against whites as a federal employee, despite having no evidence for this charge in the original video excerpt. Strike one.
Then they misrepresented Sherrod's story as an embrace of racism, when in fact she was repudiating racism. They later pleaded ignorance of this fact because they didn't have the full video. Strike two.
Now, with the full video in hand and posted on their Web site, they're lying about the reaction of the NAACP audience.
The excuses are all used up, Mr. Breitbart.
That's a good article. Thanks for bringing that up, I hadn't read completely into breitbart's posted counter-argument that tried to change the subject to that.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: liberalism clashes with honesty
Whew, potential issue of conservative trollishness has been averted with this assuredly completely non-trollish soundbite. Thank you for contributing!
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: liberalism clashes with honesty
Whew, potential issue of conservative trollishness has been averted with this assuredly completely non-trollish soundbite. Thank you for contributing!
it might appear trollish but it was the first thing to come to mind when i read kweas post. this is why:
i dont see any honesty in reverting to attacking the general conservatism of another person after failing to present convincing arguments or to address the points of a discussion (referring to previous posts. not kweas). the 'conservative troll' attack is well overplay (3rd post in this thread). but come on, this thread is full of hyperbole, no?. i indulged.. calme-toi.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: This is what you do. You jump in, obviously incensed, and you don't give anyone much reason to give you the benefit of the doubt. you just took what is already a controversial side and, for all intents and purposes, made it look like the product of an indignant and short-sighted fool. It's your M.O. in at least the past three of my threads about anything politically controversial.
this is incredible! this is exactly what you do every single time you disagree with someone. in fact, if i had to define you as a poster, i would use these words exact. brilliant.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:i dont see any honesty in reverting to attacking the general conservatism of another person after failing to present convincing arguments or to address the points of a discussion (referring to previous posts. not kweas).
1. Nobody is "reverting to attacking the general conservatism" of Dan_Frank. Nobody is attacking his 'general conservatism.' I haven't even inferred he is a conservative at all. So you are 'not seeing any honesty' in something which isn't taking place. This is a really contrived invention to try to justify making that childish retort to kwea.
2. Which brings up the question as to why it was a response to kwea if kwea is apparently not guilty of whatever you're inferring was the excuse for your backbite response in this thread?
/edit
ALSO TO NOTE
quote:but come on, this thread is full of hyperbole, no?. i indulged.. calme-toi.
Yes, dan frank's silly slanderous use of Marxism definitely counts as hyperbole. I guess that's an excellent personal justification to engage in some worse hyperbole?
???
Man, I sure can pick the right topics these days. They really bring out the best in people.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: liberalism clashes with honesty
Whew, potential issue of conservative trollishness has been averted with this assuredly completely non-trollish soundbite. Thank you for contributing!
it might appear trollish but it was the first thing to come to mind when i read kweas post. this is why:
i dont see any honesty in reverting to attacking the general conservatism of another person after failing to present convincing arguments or to address the points of a discussion (referring to previous posts. not kweas). the 'conservative troll' attack is well overplay (3rd post in this thread). but come on, this thread is full of hyperbole, no?. i indulged.. calme-toi.
Nobody is attacking dan frank's conservatism. They are attacking his tone. Also I like your strategy of saying that this is all a resoponse based on "failing to address" dan franks argument, a completely asinine idea which requires one selectively read or NOT read the thread.
You waded into this thread with a dumb comment. Just admit it and move on.
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think I should confess that as I have sat and watched this forum since I first looked in on it I have grown more and more frustrated with it and was all but ready to just dismiss it, but now I think my real problem isn't with the community at large, it is with a small handful of users which poison everything. Here is an excellent example. This thread is about a clear and practically undeniable vilification of a woman that she did not deserve but was subject to because Breitbart wanted to use her as a tool in his war against the institutional left, as he calls it. There are many links demonstrating this in the first post. An argument is made and cited. A position is taken. What is the first word in response? "Yawn". And at first I think it is just hatrack being hatrack but it takes me a while to see that it is just dan frank being ridiculous and inbetween his backbite there are other posts that get lost, that I should pay attention to while ignoring the predictble responses of some people. But at the same time, I enjoy watching them be challenged when they are aggressive and arrogant in their ignorance.
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: I enjoy watching them be challenged when they are aggressive and arrogant in their ignorance.
proud to perform a public service
but seriously I had no idea that Sherrod would be subject to more personal slander here when I posted the thread. I expected controversy over the issue of whether Breitbart deserved to be sued, not the idea that he had falsely painted Sherrod as a racist.
I doubly did not expect "the unedited video doesn't show her not being racist, it just shows that she decided Marxism is higher on her list than racism."
But hey what's life without the little surprises
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Wingracer: Fair points there Rabbit, and all probably true. Now unlike some, I make no claims as to that double standard being wrong or right, I don't really care. I just wish more people would make the point to acknowledge its existence once in a while.
I find those who wish to remind us all, to provide us with that constant point of perspective, are often more interested in harping on the unfairness of a double standard and how that may affect them. In my personal experience, and I think it's a common one, people who are so very interested in bringing up this supposed double-standard that supposedly disadvantages racial majorities feel put upon by political correctness not because they are above or beyond concerns of race, but because they are insecure about their own feelings on the subject.
It's an essentially weird complaint to harp on, in my view. Essentially it looks like this: PC culture is all about fairness, and that's not fair to *me*. Often this is concomitant with a lack of understanding about what racial sensitivity is or should be when people talk about it; that it's not: "pretend ethnicity doesn't exist," but "understand and put forth an effort to appreciate your differences rather than letting them bother you so much." If *that* all is bothering you, it's a problem, and I don't think it's a problem that has been thrust upon you, I think it's one *you* have to deal with.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: I find those who wish to remind us all, to provide us with that constant point of perspective, are often more interested in harping on the unfairness of a double standard and how that may affect them. In my personal experience, and I think it's a common one, people who are so very interested in bringing up this supposed double-standard that supposedly disadvantages racial majorities feel put upon by political correctness not because they are above or beyond concerns of race, but because they are insecure about their own feelings on the subject.
It's an essentially weird complaint to harp on, in my view. Essentially it looks like this: PC culture is all about fairness, and that's not fair to *me*. Often this is concomitant with a lack of understanding about what racial sensitivity is or should be when people talk about it; that it's not: "pretend ethnicity doesn't exist," but "understand and put forth an effort to appreciate your differences rather than letting them bother you so much." If *that* all is bothering you, it's a problem, and I don't think it's a problem that has been thrust upon you, I think it's one *you* have to deal with.
Many people bringing up the subject are exactly as you have described but I do not consider myself one of those. What I mean by a double standard is that in many people's view, it is completely acceptable for a minority to spew hateful, racists comments at majorities. My point is that I don't care who you are, that is not right.
Posts: 891 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:What I mean by a double standard is that in many people's view, it is completely acceptable for a minority to spew hateful, racists comments at majorities. My point is that I don't care who you are, that is not right.
I hate that double-standard, by the by. I dont think it's a very widespread view that if you're a racial minority you get a free pass for hatespeech though.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I hate that double-standard, by the by. I dont think it's a very widespread view that if you're a racial minority you get a free pass for hatespeech though.
Perhaps not widespread, but it definitely exists.
edit:
And then whenever someone tries to point it out, they get attacked as either a racist themselves or at least insensitive.
quote:If people can't make that kind of admission about their past without being blackballed and labeled racist...
Don't get me started. Van Jones was, if not a personal friend of mine, at least a respected acquaintance. I have never forgiven Obama for rolling over on that one.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Wingracer: And then whenever someone tries to point it out, they get attacked as either a racist themselves or at least insensitive.
I'm willing to risk it!
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: I think I should confess that as I have sat and watched this forum since I first looked in on it I have grown more and more frustrated with it and was all but ready to just dismiss it, but now I think my real problem isn't with the community at large, it is with a small handful of users which poison everything. Here is an excellent example. This thread is about a clear and practically undeniable vilification of a woman that she did not deserve but was subject to because Breitbart wanted to use her as a tool in his war against the institutional left, as he calls it. There are many links demonstrating this in the first post. An argument is made and cited. A position is taken. What is the first word in response? "Yawn". And at first I think it is just hatrack being hatrack but it takes me a while to see that it is just dan frank being ridiculous and inbetween his backbite there are other posts that get lost, that I should pay attention to while ignoring the predictble responses of some people. But at the same time, I enjoy watching them be challenged when they are aggressive and arrogant in their ignorance.
I've changed my own views on many things as a result of a decade on Hatrack, but have been pretty turned off by the aggressive, no compromise, no apology tone many discussions have slipped into these past few years. Time was when the majority was much more polite and respectful here despite the wide spectrum of views on politics, religion, and other perennially hot-button topics. Even when someone popped in with a trollish post, they were talked down gently, not blasted. Nowadays Hatrack resembles more like trench warfare than debate. I am sure I am not the only one here who, even when presented with a fairly convincing argument against their initial stance, would be loathe to admit they've changed their mind, or even backed off on some point or another. At best they'll be met with smarmy condescension. At worst, accusations of being two-faced or flaky. It's no way to carry on a discussion. Seriously. We're better than this.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Samp: If she doesn't think race matters, then why does she say it is about black and white, but also about rich and poor? (or have and have not or whatever the line is.) Why is she still married to a racist?
Mouthing a few platitudes is not enough to prove anything.
I was going to address all the other meta-crap but I think it's probably not worth it. All I'll say is it's kind of cute that Samp can be as sarcastic and flippant as he likes without any repercussions, but when other people do it they're called trolls or martyrs or whatever. But I guess them's the breaks.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The phrase, "it is about black and white" is ambiguous. It could either be:
a) that race ought to matter in people's personal judgments, or
b) that regardless of whether or not it ought to, in a country where blacks are on average poorer, less educated, and less healthy than whites, race does in fact matter.
I'm inclined to think that, in a speech about trying to look past race, she included that line as an acknowledgment that, yes, race does matter in a very real way.
I suppose that, alternatively, she could have just slipped that line in there as a wink to the audience. Like, "hey don't pay any attention to the rest of what I said. it's still totally cool to hate on whitey." So the rest of the speech would be...what, cover? That's pretty devious. And it's been simmering all these 20 years, while Sherrod prepares herself for the limelight?
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The whole point was that race does matter in our society and we haven't gotten to a place where it doesn't.
And Dan, why on earth should somebody else dictate how you behave? Who cares how many people you think are dog piling you. They only really accomplish something when you elect to act in an inappropriate fashion. Samp, myself, and every other poster has strengths and weaknesses, so do you. What weaknesses they happen to exhibit at any given time has absolutely no bearing on the behavior you ought to exhibit. If somebody getting on your back bugs you, alright, say that it's bugging you. But don't reciprocate, you can do it, I promise.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Samp: If she doesn't think race matters, then why does she say it is about black and white, but also about rich and poor?
Let's see a part of the transcript where she concludes this in exactly the way you describe. My guess based on your consistent patterning is that you are either misreading her, or have just accepted that argument on faith from another person's transcript
Secondly, when you say "If she doesn't think race matters," do you mean "If she's not a racist?"
quote:Mouthing a few platitudes is not enough to prove anything.
If you actually believed that and applied it consistently, then she hasn't proved that she IS racist, either.
quote:I was going to address all the other meta-crap but I think it's probably not worth it. All I'll say is it's kind of cute that Samp can be as sarcastic and flippant as he likes without any repercussions, but when other people do it they're called trolls or martyrs or whatever. But I guess them's the breaks.
Yes, I'm super sure that the forum is just nice to me via double standards. I'm glad you find it cute, because it certainly doesn't get in the way of an actual argument I can levy against you (or anyone).
Here's an alternate answer: If you don't want to be called a troll, don't jump into a thread like this one with dismissive platitudes and continue to act like, well, YOU, in a matter of ideological conflict like this.
If you want a REALLY BIG HINT about how to do this, I could offer you a lost of words you could strike from your initial response (Like "Yawn." being your stunning opener) and then what pejorative silliness you could also avoid (like essentially also calling Sherrod a Marxist before being forced to backpedal from that line). You could follow my quick twelve-step program and watch people's comments about your trollishness vanish. you wouldn't even need to insinuate that it's just because of a 'cute' double standard!
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The fact that you continue to get away with talking to people that way is pretty flabbergasting.
There's an obvious double-standard at work on this forum, Samp. Nobody minds when someone says reality has a liberal bias, but capax saying liberalism clashes with honesty is offensive.
And as far as the standard I'm applying to Sherrod... hey, maybe I'm just applying the standards you use to tar the tea party. One person at a rally with a racist sign makes them racists, so why doesn't her racist husband make her racist?
Here are two quotes of her indicating that her biggest priority should be helping poor people against evil rich people.
quote: That's when it was revealed to me that, y'all, it's about poor versus those who have, and not so much about white -- it is about white and black, but it's not -- you know, it opened my eyes, 'cause I took him to one of his own and I put him in his hand, and felt okay, I've done my job.
quote: Well, working with him made me see that it's really about those who have versus those who don't, you know. And they could be black, and they could be white; they could be Hispanic. And it made me realize then that I needed to work to help poor people -- those who don't have access the way others have.
When someone says "it is about white and black," in the same breath that they set up an us versus them rich versus poor dichotomy, it seems pretty clear that's supposed to be another dichotomy. She's certainly saying she realized the rich versus poor dichotomy is more important than the white versus black, but I'm still skeptical that she's completely let go of the white versus black.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
