Mexicans are Dumb and Will Destroy America?

[zippy2006]

No smiley would be necessary. When you realize you're doing something wrong, you usually admit it without qualification, apologize and try to correct it in the future.

I don't know where you reside, but in reality that's simply not true.

If you're repentant, that's what you do. Trad is not.

No, if you're a saint that's what you do. Apparently you haven't met too many human beings in your time on earth. :yawn:

Quote?

Not worth the trouble.

:chuckle: That's what I thought. Unsubstantiated character-assault; this thread is rich with it.

 

[mighty_duck]

No, if you're a saint that's what you do. Apparently you haven't met too many human beings in your time on earth. :yawn:

Yup, you need to be a saint to not call people ni****s or stupid Mexicans. I don't know how I manage to restrain myself lain:

:chuckle: That's what I thought. Unsubstantiated character-assault; this thread is rich with it.

You haven't been paying attention then.:chuckle:

 

[zoo22]

Are you trying to compare such a situation to Trad standing up and hatefully calling the black people n-words, as the racist of old has done? Yes or no? (Anna can answer as well if she likes)

In terms of him tossing it around? To an extent, I do, yes. It's not as simple as you want to make it, zippy. Trad's intentionally saying some of this stuff specifically to get a rise. So yeah, he's using it to hurt people, intentionally. Though I don't think Trad is driven by hate in his racism in ways that others might be.

But, that said, as far as him putting it here in this thread, I don't care about his intent anyway. Because his intent doesn't matter towards the way someone may hear it.

Towards that, I realized I was in a sense, doing an almost identical thing. I'd posted a comment here a couple of days ago, facetiously. But I realized that someone could very easily read it and not understand that. I edited it, and I need to watch that. (I would have deleted it, but it'd been responded to, and I don't like deleting responded to posts, so I just clarified it.)

(In truth an anonymous web forum is hardly comparable to the dining room)

:e4e:

Why? A couple having dinner overhears someone at the other table talking about n****rs. If that's all they hear, who cares what the person's context is, or who the person is? That person's anonymous even though they're right at the next table. You think it really matters? Same with here at TOL. You think it matters that there isn't a face attached to it? You really think everyone that stumbles across TOL reads everything enough to understand someone's intent? You can't even get people who are following the thread to agree.

Consider I usually don't read TOL in public anymore because of that stuff. Thread titles that say Mexicans are dumb and ruining America? Caricatures of Obama eating watermelon? Trad's posts about n****rs in his courtyard? It's not worth having someone catch stuff that over my shoulder.

This is a pubic forum.

 

[bybee]

Well when you take something that is objectively insulting and try to make that point it doesn't work very well, does it?



There's nothing inherently evil about finding the cultural norm amusing. Black people themselves do it. So using this as an example to show that Trad is doing something evil just doesn't prove anything at all. I can justifiably say that I don't think Trad was being disparaging with the comment, because the comment doesn't carry with it intrinsic evil--at which point you try to compare it to something that is intrinsically evil.

So the point is quite relevant, and I would prefer you not do that (bring in something that is intrinsically evil and therefore not analogous in order to support your point that Trad has done something wrong by being amused at the cultural norm). Your point rises and falls on the illegitimate analogy.



Even if I grant that, so what?

Let's imagine Trad is at a restaurant, talking over these issues with two friends of his, and he is easily overheard. Some black people overhear them discussing whether using the n-word in private without hateful intent is a mortal sin.

Are you trying to compare such a situation to Trad standing up and hatefully calling the black people n-words, as the racist of old has done? Yes or no? (Anna can answer as well if she likes)

(In truth an anonymous web forum is hardly comparable to the dining room)

:e4e:

Racists tend to dine with other racists.
What good can come from indulging in racially derogatory terms?
Is the mind elevated? Expanded? Doe's one include such terms in one's prayers? Has The Great Commission's mandate been fulfilled? Is one's spirit pointed toward God Almighty in purity and truth?

 

[Granite]

Sorry you don't believe how i grew up.

Ditto, so don't forget it.

I guess your drunk on koolaid...

Yeah, you've said that what, twice now? Find some new material.

...and think all whites have this wonderful silver spoon in their mouth...

I spent enough time poor in the sticks to know otherwise, so don't make a dumb assumption like this again.

Show me what post of yours that you mentioned assassinations of prominent leaders of anything?

Angel, this remains a real problem for you. You don't actually read my posts, you skim and seem to see only what you want to see.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Angel, this remains a real problem for you. You don't actually read my posts, you skim and seem to see only what you want to see.

Post it, show us all how wrong i was, or better yet, show everyone how you said nothing about what you later said.

 

[doloresistere]

Post it, show us all how wrong i was, or better yet, show everyone how you said nothing about what you later said.

He alluded to it,as I showed you, but he expected you to read his mind. That is what he means by skimming. If you don't read his mind, you are skimming his posts.

 

[Angel4Truth]

He alluded to it,as I showed you, but he expected you to read his mind. That is what he means by skimming. If you don't read his mind, you are skimming his posts.

Thanks, sorry Granite, i am not clairvoyant. You have to actually say what you mean for us slow chicks who cant read your brain waves.

 

[doloresistere]

Come on, zippy. Don't do that. The point is that just because someone isn't insulted by something doesn't mean someone else won't be. And let's not pretend that it's an innocuous comment about enjoying food. Laughing at black people if they like watermelon or fried chicken just isn't the same as talking about a good meal.

And this isn't a private place. You might as well say that having this conversation at a table in a restaurant is a private conversation.

The internet is a whole different situation that a public restaurant. The reaction to this conversation at a restaurant could possibly be anger or shock and the offended parties could confront you at your table.

Here, the offended parties probably just laugh because it just what you would expect "out of racist white boys". They have probably seen this type of talk on the internet hundreds of times and have come to expect it because they know there is a segment of the white population that harbors these kinds of feelings towards blacks and are not afraid to express them on the internet.

 

[zoo22]

The internet is a whole different situation that a public restaurant. The reaction to this conversation at a restaurant could possibly be anger or shock and the offended parties could confront you at your table.

Yes, that's a good example of a difference.

And I figure that's one reason some folks here would never say the things they do here in public. Fear. They'd probably get beaten into the ground. lain:

Here, the offended parties probably just laugh because it just what you would expect "out of racist white boys". They have probably seen this type of talk on the internet hundreds of times and have come to expect it because they know there is a segment of the white population that harbors these kinds of feelings towards blacks and are not afraid to express them on the internet.

I do understand that, but I don't consider it really being all that much of a difference. You could say the same thing of a lot of "real life" places.

I particularly don't consider it really being all that much of a difference in terms of it somehow being more acceptable, as zippy's making it. Maybe more accepted, but I don't think it's more acceptable.

But yes, I do understand that it's not exactly the same as being in a restaurant.

 

[annabenedetti]

Once riding in old Baltimore,
Heart-filled, head-filled with glee,
I saw a Baltimorean
Keep looking straight at me.

Now I was eight and very small,
And he was no whit bigger,
And so I smiled, but he poked out
His tongue, and called me, “N****r.”

I saw the whole of Baltimore
From May until December;
Of all the things that happened there
That’s all that I remember.

--Countee Cullen, Harlem Renaissance poet.

 

[Granite]

Post it, show us all how wrong i was, or better yet, show everyone how you said nothing about what you later said.

I referred to the murder of civil rights leaders and it went over your head. Cut and dry.

 

[Granite]

He alluded to it,as I showed you, but he expected you to read his mind. That is what he means by skimming. If you don't read his mind, you are skimming his posts.

No, not at all. What I said was pretty obvious. You guys don't need to read tea leaves when reading my posts. Stick to what I actually say and you'll be fine.

 

[Paulos]

Here is a link to the Catholic Church's position on Hispanic immigration reform:

http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-act...gration/churchteachingonimmigrationreform.cfm

 

[zippy2006]

But, that said, as far as him putting it here in this thread, I don't care about his intent anyway. Because his intent doesn't matter towards the way someone may hear it.

You don't care about his intent? :AMR: You've proving my entire point here. The fact that someone may misunderstand Trad does not justify the way he has been treated in this thread. Period.

If you don't want to look at his intent, then the harshest sort of thing you could charge him with is negligence, and yet you've done much more than that. So either address my points about his intent, or stop making a mountain out of a molehill. This really seems fairly simple.

(In truth an anonymous web forum is hardly comparable to the dining room)

Why?

Because of the definition of anonymity.

A couple having dinner overhears someone at the other table talking about n****rs.

...which is precisely what has not happened in this thread. It's another fiction you've dreamed up. Talking about how a word ought to be used is hardly "Talking about n****rs."

If that's all they hear, who cares what the person's context is, or who the person is? That person's anonymous even though they're right at the next table.

No, they're not anonymous.

Consider I usually don't read TOL in public anymore because of that stuff.

That's because when you read TOL in public you're not anonymous.

 

[zoo22]

You don't care about his intent? :AMR: You've proving my entire point here. The fact that someone may misunderstand Trad does not justify the way he has been treated in this thread. Period.

For year after year here, Trad the philosopher king has put forth his racist, fascist, ego-driven, superiority spiel. It's always all about him, at the expense of anything. His laughter about the Aurora shooting was bad enough, his need to drive in why his laughter was acceptable was the end of it for me. If you want to support and defend poor Trad as misunderstood and mistreated, that's fine. I don't.

And since I've proven your entire point anyway, we might as well leave it there.

 

[bybee]

For year after year here, Trad the philosopher king has put forth his racist, fascist, ego-driven, superiority spiel. It's always all about him, at the expense of anything. His laughter about the Aurora shooting was bad enough, his need to drive in why his laughter was acceptable was the end of it for me. If you want to support and defend poor Trad as misunderstood and mistreated, that's fine. I don't.

And since I've proven your entire point anyway, we might as well leave it there.

I believe Zippy may be experiencing a temporary lapse of reason.
There is no defense for racists statements.

 

[Town Heretic]

I believe Zippy may be experiencing a temporary lapse of reason.
There is no defense for racists statements.

I believe that zip believes he's doing a good. He's the possessor of a keen intelligence and an admirable zeal. He's also young and carries the pitfalls that go with that...so don't be too hard on him. His intentions are admirable, even if he isn't always tactful or consistent in approach or even right in the broader perspective/scheme of things. He'll shake out just fine, I suspect.

 

[bybee]

I believe that zip believes he's doing a good. He's the possessor of a keen intelligence and an admirable zeal. He's also young and carries the pitfalls that go with that...so don't be too hard on him. His intentions are admirable, even if he isn't always tactful or consistent in approach or even right in the broader perspective/scheme of things. He'll shake out just fine, I suspect.

He is one of my favorites on here. I would never be too hard on him.
He attends the same college that two of my nephews attend.
I do not doubt for a minute that in about ten or more years from now when I shall be gone from this mortal coil he will raise a glass to me and say "Bybee, you were right!"

 

[zippy2006]

For year after year here, Trad the philosopher king has put forth his racist, fascist, ego-driven, superiority spiel. It's always all about him, at the expense of anything. His laughter about the Aurora shooting was bad enough, his need to drive in why his laughter was acceptable was the end of it for me. If you want to support and defend poor Trad as misunderstood and mistreated, that's fine. I don't.

Right: Trad must be a racist because he did racist things in the past. Forget the fact that he publicly disowned those actions. This is another bad argument. All of the arguments you've given are unsound, and I've explained why.

The fact that none of your points show Trad to be a (strong) racist is not a coincidence. He isn't. Nothing you've presented demonstrates the contrary, and I'd advise you to stop assuming the worst on the part of Trad even when the reasons you once believed substantiated such a belief are shown to be incorrect.

I'd advise all of you to stop assuming the worst. :sigh: