CSS: But that’s what he said… he just said, “a more mixed ethnicity” as if this explains the level of gun violence. Like Lou Dobbs, he quickly realized how racist that is, but too late.

No, he said “we have probably a more mixed ethnicity” offering it as a possible cause and followed it with “I wouldn’t go that far as to say [it's an ethnic thing]… I have no answer.”

He put forth mixed ethnicity as a possible cause but specifically did not agree that it is a sole cause. To me it comes across as someone attempting to answer a question that has no simple answer. To you it simply comes across a complete answer and as an extremely racist statement.

Clearly, we’re going to disagree here. Let’s leave it at that.

Sean: “Again, not what I said. I didn’t say “merely” mixing races will lead to gun violence.”

But that’s what he said.

He didn’t say racial tensions, he just said, “a more mixed ethnicity” as if this explains the level of gun violence. Like Lou Dobbs, he quickly realized how racist that is, but too late.

Again, not what I said. I didn’t say “merely” mixing races will lead to gun violence.

Will mixing races always lead to violence? Of course not.

But there have been situations where mixing races has lead to tension and even violence. Forced busing, for example, did not go over with everyone holding hands and singing kumbayah. Mixing races at lunch counters was received with more closed fists than open arms. To observe these facts, to make note of them, does not make one a racist.

Yes is does. If you think merely having people of difference races mix will increase gun violence, then you are racist.

CSS: And that’s not what he said.

No, it’s not. It response to a question about why we are a country that kills each other on this level with guns his exact words were “Well, we have probably a more mixed ethnicity than other countries, some other countries.” So, yeah, his wording didn’t include the exact phrase “racial tension”. But I think it’s a fair understanding of what he was trying to get at in his answer. What did you think he was saying?

Anyway, if you’d like, I can rephrase my statement (I’m such an accommodating person): Saying mixed ethnicity is the cause of something doesn’t make the speaker a racist.

I suspect you will be waiting a long time.

Sean: “Not the way it seemed to me. But I don’t have that keen ability of yours to know what someone else is actually thinking despite what they may say themselves so I guess I’ll have to defer to you on this one.”

It’s called not being fucking stupid. You would have to be terminally naive to believe some of the spin you’ve come up with. Some people actually believe, ‘Macaca’ isn’t a racist term and Allen didn’t know the connotation when he said it. He claims he didn’t know the connotation when he said it. Just because he claims he didn’t mean to say something bigoted doesn’t mean he didn’t say something bigoted.

Sean: “Now, having responded to your reference to the other thread I will say no more about it here. Leave it over there, C.”

It goes to your credibility. You seem to be willing to swallow any load of bullshit to avoid coming to grips with reality. So no, I will not leave it over there. You don’t like it when I bring up stupid things you’ve said in the past? Then don’t say stupid things.

Sean: “Saying racial tension is the cause of something doesn’t make the speaker a racist.”

And that’s not what he said.

No, because it’s dishonest to compare a member of a statistical sample to outliers.

You ask for apples-and-apples comparisons, but comparing cities of similar size doesn’t accomplish the task. That involves finding cities that have *all* the same crime rate factors except for the one being tested – in this case, gun control.

The truest apples-to-apples comparison one can make is to compare a city to itself, before and after changes in city (or county) gun control laws. I know of no examples where local gun control initiatives were followed by reductions in crime – it tends to go the opposite way, as in DC and New York.

I stand by that. Saying racial tension is the cause of something doesn’t make the speaker a racist. That an American tendency toward gun violence exists because of the history this country has of racial tension is a comment that could be put made by Jesse Jackson as legitimately as by Charlton Heston.

Not the way it seemed to me. But I don’t have that keen ability of yours to know what someone else is actually thinking despite what they may say themselves so I guess I’ll have to defer to you on this one.

And you don’t think calling someone Pia Zadora isn’t an insult, so forgive me if I don’t trust your judgment here.

Calling someone Pia Zadora may indeed be an insult. At the risk of pushing one of your buttons, I have never said otherwise. What I had said, repeatedly, was that I hadn’t yet seen anyone here do that.

Now, having responded to your reference to the other thread I will say no more about it here. Leave it over there, C.

And you don’t think calling someone Pia Zadora isn’t an insult, so forgive me if I don’t trust your judgment here.

“Second, it is not clear that Heston blamed gun violence on ethnic diversity. I transcribed the relevant portion of the clip for you since your browser was having problems with it and Heston is clear that he doesn’t think it’s an ethnic thing.”

Bullshit. Heston blames it on mixed ethnicity, but realized how racist that was and immediately backtracks.

First, again, saying gun violence comes from ethnic diversity is not a racist statement. Second, it is not clear that Heston blamed gun violence on ethnic diversity. I transcribed the relevant portion of the clip for you since your browser was having problems with it and Heston is clear that he doesn’t think it’s an ethnic thing.

Moore: You think it’s an ethnic thing?
Heston: No, I don’t. I wouldn’t go that far as to say that… I have no answer.

Do you have some other place where he’s blaming gun violence on ethnic diversity?

But blaming gun violence on ethnic diversity shows he never did.

You can also simply hate black people, know its wrong to hate black people, and therefore March with MLK to ease your guilt.

Or march with MLK because you recognize your racism and are trying to overcome it.

Sean: “Uh, I don’t quite get that. It appears kinda contradictory to me.”

Yes, but not impossible. In fact, it is not even unlikely.

You can think black people are inferior and therefore need assistance. You can think blacks are more violent and more likely to shot someone, but still think they should have the same rights. You can even believe blacks should have every right and opportunity you have, and still not want to sit next to one at a restaurant. You can also simply hate black people, know its wrong to hate black people, and therefore March with MLK to ease your guilt.

Evidence that he hold non-racist views in some areas doesn’t override evidence that he holds racist views in others.

let it go

Uh, I don’t quite get that. It appears kinda contradictory to me.

Sure, but that doesn’t stop him from being racist. He wasn’t KKK level racist, but he was clearly racist. Everyone’s a little bit racist, and what he said in Bowling for Columbine was his Macaca Moment.

The stunt that Michael Moore pulled was more like what we would expect from the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly. More importantly, he muddied a far more salient point that he had made just moments before in the film. Moore sort of cut off his nose to spite his face.

I don’t actually bear Heston any ill will, even if I didn’t agree with his views. He was a conservative from a different era. Men like him were nothing like Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly are today.

The fact that he played both Taylor and Zaius in both versions of “Planet of the Apes” is very cool, I thought.