When President Obama came to Raleigh to talk health care, the conservatives were ready with their signs, and being conservatives what’s a protest sign without a little racism?
As I’ve noted, conservatives often can’t help themselves from indulging in racism, and Republicans still – inexplicably – see that as a winning political strategy of some sort.
I think their point may be that illegal immigrants can get free healthcare while the new plan would have senior citizens discuss how they want to die. (Yes, I know that’s not in the plan, but many mistakenly believe it is.) In short, non-citizens get care denied to citizens.
So my question is: Would it still be racist if they had made that point more directly and forgone trying to be cute with a pun?
Well, Sean, there’s a lady in Oregon who has a letter from the state saying that they won’t pay for her chemo, but will pay for her assisted suicide. And you also have a big debate going on over whether illegal aliens should be covered or not. It’s not that hard to draw the connection between the two.
It’s a clever pun, but a bad move here. It lets people like Oliver gloss over the actual issues and cry “teh racism!”
And, as he tells us so frequently, it’s something that he hates being dragged into do doing… over and over and over…
J.
Sorry Jay Tea, but it is racist. If she wanted to make her point there were any number of ways to do it without resorting to a doctored photo using a Sombrero and a (bad) stereotypical pancho villa moustache. What… the only illegal immigrants are from mexico????
To pretend otherwise is pretty banal at the very least – especially since you then use it as a means to attempt to launch a personal attack on Oliver.
Get a grip
ps – I suppose next you’ll say the “Obama as bone wearing witch doctor” wasn’t racist ’cause it was a “clever pun”
@Sean Are you asking if their equating of a symbol of Mexican culture (and stereotype) with all undocumented people in the United States racist? My answer, yes. Now, I feel like the word racist gets thrown around a lot so let me be very clear about what I mean. Racism is a *system* of advantage and disadvantage based on race. Being racist means promoting that system.
I grew up in a small town and I had a friend who was half Mexican, she worked as a waitress. One day the mayor came into the restaurant and she was asked by the owner to go home so that the mayor wouldn’t think that the restaurant was employing any undocumented workers.
That being Mexican or displaying any sort of symbols associated with it is wrong and should calls your status as a US citizen into question is definitely a disadvantage – hence racist.
I think the Republicans lose Texas within 10-20 years. The demographics are moving against them.
Don’t you think it’s more than possible that these anti-health care paroxysms (choreographed by pharmaceutical corporations though they may be) are the conservative racism outlet du jour? When was the last time we heard people shrieking this violently? Oh, during Republican campaign rallies, when Obama was a Muslim. It’s fairly obvious to me that “socialist” is a euphemism for another term even some people on Fox News get in trouble for using. As for the Birther epidemic- good old textbook Psych 101 denial- “nope, we don’t have a Black President, uh uh.”
” It lets people like Oliver gloss over the actual issues and cry “teh racism!”
For someone who earns their dollar from Norm Podhoretz, that should be considered a virtue.
Oh man, ever since a few blogs started referencing that story (which is over a year old by the way) I was wondering how long before Copy/Paste Jay was gonna bring it up. It’s always good to mention a story without any of its… you know… whaddaya call ‘em… oh, right, facts.
Like how the reason she was “offered” assisted suicide (translated: assistance for end of life decisions is covered in the plan) is because it’s a legally allowed service in the state. (They told her they can’t cover her chemo, and in the response letter explained what functions the plan does have the ability to provide for, of which end of life assistance is one of them. Though it was nice of the news station first reporting this to give an actual representative of the plan ten seconds out of their three-minute piece to dumbfoundedly try and explain to the reporter this)
Like the reason she was on the state plan is because private insurers rejected her preexisting condition- something that would be alleviated by the Obama plan.
Like that she needed chemotherapy medications that cost over $4,000 a month- something that could be alleviated by the Obama plan.
Like that the incredibly expensive medications were denied because per the plan, her diagnosis was that the medication had a less than 5% chance of prolonging her life.
And of course, how at no point whatsoever was there any explanation of what would have happened had there been no Oregon public plan to begin with, since she couldn’t get private insurance… oh right, she’d have been dead already.
This is the example that you so-called opponents of “socialized medicine” are now hawking as “a glimpse into ObamaCare:” an incident that occurred before Obama was elected, in which you are screaming your heads off that the government did not spend more of taxpayer money, and that would have never even come to place had there been a system that provided a robust, affordable set of health care and prescription options. It’s truly astounding. You don’t want socialized healthcare. You are against the government paying for treatments. You think the government is “wasteful.” And yet here you are, filtering a year-old story, exploiting this poor woman’s tragic case, to bitch about how the government refusing to waste thousands of dollars on something doctors said wouldn’t work because it gives little ignorant shitheels like you a chance to pretend the evil, evil Democrats hate teh babiez or something like that. You just don’t fucking care. At all. You will literally take anything and spin it as long as you think it sounds good when trolling a comments section.
But now, here’s the funny part in all this, Jay. You already got spanked on this “Obama wants to kill the elderly” nonsense like, a freaking week ago. I mean, we are still laughing at your idiocy on this. And yet, while this story provided one actual legitimate angle of discussion- that the Oregon public system may not be up to date with current chemotherapeutic technologies (something that yet again robust government funding would solve), you decided not to even go there. Given your track record, and as noted you someone only noticed this year-old story after Hot Air did, I’m gonna just assume you once again read a paragraph, copied the lede, and figured that was all you actually needed. Man, and I bet you felt really good hitting that submit button, too.
How are you not just completely ashamed of yourself at this point? I really don’t understand it at all.
I didn’t say it wasn’t racist. I said it was cleverly phrased. It was also stupidly applied.
The contrasting of “senior” and “senor” is well done, and applies in this context. But the decision to apply it was poor.
I am reminded of a guy I knew years ago who was discussing a punk gangsta wannabe. Someone called the punk in question a “wigger.”
“No, he claims that his father was Colombian. So that makes him a “wic.”
Again, a clever application of a well-crafted pun. But the decision to apply it was inappropriate.
One can recognize the skill, intelligence, or ability of a person or action without sanctioning it. And I don’t. But as someone who enjoys playing with words and is not above truly groan-worthy puns, I acknowledge the intelligence behind the “senior citizen/senor citizen” pun — while still thinking the guy who put it out for display was spectacularly unwise in doing so.
ESPECIALLY since it lets the real issue he wants addressed to be brushed aside so cavalierly.
J.
What… the only illegal immigrants are from mexico????
BEWARE THE UNDOCUMENTED POLACK!!!
Pew Research says Latinos account for 81% of the Illegal population. So while the caricature may be harsh, it’s not entirely unfounded.
I think the Republicans lose Texas within 10-20 years.
The only way that happens is if Illegals are somehow enfranchised. No wonder Liberals are pushing hard for Amnesty.
What health care can the undocumented get that US citizens and residents can’t?
That alleged story out of Oregon seems to only be supported by a story at the Catholic News Agency. Anyone see a real report?
Lets say the right had an honest argument to make about immigration. Would it kill them for five seconds not to ridicule hispanic people to make their point?
That’s what I’m saying.
Kevin: What… the only illegal immigrants are from mexico????
Undoubtedly not, although I suspect the largest number are. In any event, certainly illegals coming into the US from Mexico is the most publicized case and when making a point it is usually best to use a situation most folks would have heard of.
If not a Mexican, what should have been used? An illegal immigrant from Ireland? Would that have been less racist? Would it have been as recognizable as representing an illegal immigrant (and therefore communicated the point she was trying to make)?
I expect I’m going to get lambasted again because I’m not immediately acknowledging the clear racism of it all (I refer folk to the recent Gates discussions). But I honestly am trying to just discuss the issue. At what point is something racist, how much do we have to censor ourselves because certain images or comments just aren’t allowed because of how they will be perceived by others?
At what point is something racist
When it engages in the sort of stereotype seen in the sign above. This is pretty simple, Sean. I don’t know why you keep having trouble with it or – even worse – seem to always excuse it.
Why are winguts so bad at trying to be creative or funny?
It’s kinda funny, regarding this supposed strategy that we conservatives think is a winning one, why is it we only become aware of it from seeing it on liberal blogs?
It’s no mystery who thinks this plays better among and thinks they have the winning strategy.
That girl holding the sign, too bad she’s wearing sunglasses. Can’t tell if she’s wide-eyed about her zealotry or not. Or crazy-faced.
why is it we only become aware of it from seeing it on liberal blogs
So this is the line you’re pushing this week? Weak, even for you.
Anyone offended by this poster, if you’re ever going along I-95 through South Carolina, I suggest you consider an alternative route. There’s a very popular rest stop around Dillon, SC called ‘South of the Border’ and about a thousand signs beforehand each way with all kinds of cute Mexican phrases that would probably be considered worse than the pun on this sign. Been there forever.
OW: Lets say the right had an honest argument to make about immigration. Would it kill them for five seconds not to ridicule hispanic people to make their point?
Would it have been non-racist if the more caricature aspects (sombrero, mustache) were left off, but it was still a Hispanic that was pictured?
Something closer to:![]()
Sean: Maybe. Certainly far less flameworthy than the stereotypical picture.
sigh. Image tags hate me.
http://www.catholicsun.org/assets/images/2008/022108immigration.jpg
What health care can the undocumented get that US citizens and residents can’t?
Whoa, do we have a third Jay at hand?
What health care can the undocumented get that US citizens and residents can’t?
South Carolina being that hotbed of racial tolerance that it is known for.
At what point is something racist, how much do we have to censor ourselves because certain images or comments just aren’t allowed because of how they will be perceived by others?
How about just words on the sign then? Do you have to include the image of some stereotypical ‘jose beaner y sombero’? Is that really necessary? It is when you are trying to appeal to the angry base emotions of the dittoheads.
And there is something called tact, as in, you can get your point across intelligently without resorting to base impulses
(which wingnutta thrives on, hell, they would die on the vine if they couldn’t rile up the bitter losers on an emotional level)
SaveFarris – you hit on the problem facing a racist GOP: your statement only makes sense if:
- all Latinos are immigrants
- none of the legal immigrants obtain citizenship
- they do not have children in the US
none of these are true, of course, and the projected explosion of latinos in the US comprises a large number of *citizens*, both naturalized and natural born.
I simply love the tactic from wingnuts to always try and find some false equivalence.
Rather than denounce this kind of crap for what it is, dennis goes, well there’s this redneck hamlet called South of the Border in SC that has some lazy mesican as their logo, so it’s all ok. Case closed, end of story, you’re just overreacting.
It’s really pathetic. It reminds me of some kid in third grade during quiet time who gets caught making faces at all the other kids in hopes of getting a reaction. When he got caught, his first defense was “They were looking at me too!, not my fault, waaaaaaaaaaa!”
What mature trolls you garner Oliver.
If not a Mexican, what should have been used? An illegal immigrant from Ireland? Would that have been less racist?
Sean, why are you so completely obtuse on this subject?
If the sign used an offensive caricature of Irish people, yes, it would have been just as offensive.
This isn’t really all that hard.
Would it have been non-racist if the more caricature aspects (sombrero, mustache) were left off, but it was still a Hispanic that was pictured?
Why target one group of illegal immigrants over all others?
Perhaps these oh so clever folks could have some up with a way of getting their point across that doesn’t do that.
Of course, as you point out, Sean, it is easier to use racial stereotypes and caricatures when trying to make points about public policy. So what the hell, right?
It’s kinda funny, regarding this supposed strategy that we conservatives think is a winning one, why is it we only become aware of it from seeing it on liberal blogs?
Uh, because you don’t realize you’re being a bunch of racist morons until it’s pointed out to you?
If the sign used an offensive caricature of Irish people, yes, it would have been just as offensive.
wWhat would such an offensive caricature look like? I ask as an American of Irish ancestry who has never seen an Irish caricature that I found offensive. Mainly, this is because I have the strength of character not to give others the power to offend me.
This isn’t really all that hard.
Does it offend you when Mrs. fafaroo says this to you?
why is it we only become aware of it from seeing it on liberal blogs
Clearly, <a href="why is it we only become aware of it from seeing it on liberal blogs
So this is the line you’re pushing this week? Weak, even for you.
Clearly, this is the strategy, Oliver. At least among the bloggers on the latest Obama conference call with him asking for your assisstance.
“If you can, please attend any town hall meeting in your area and try to bring some sanity to it or expose these phony populists for what they are. If you can, interview the teabaggers and send me the video at crooksandliars@gmail.com”
Pew Research says Latinos account for 81% of the Illegal population. So while the caricature may be harsh, it’s not entirely unfounded.
Uh-huh. And, of course, all Latinos are Mexican. Right?
Why target one group of illegal immigrants over all others?
Because they make up a near monolithic percentage of the group?
I just told you steer clear from there if you’re sensitive to these kinds of things, Burned. If this sign from a Tea Party enrages you, I imagine you’d go completely berserk if you drove down I-95 and saw those signs. Especially if you’ve got kids in the back seat yelling at you to stop there.
I’m trying to save you from yourself.
It’s clearly racist but it’s also clearly wrong. So it’s racist and ignorant. Perfect for a GOPER.
Just because South of the Border uses a ‘lazy mesican’ as their logo, does it make it right Dennis? Does that make it ok if it’s a business and not some protestor
Simple question, dennis, see if you can answer…
Using racial stereotypes of ANY kind in protest, advertising, etc is wrong. Yes or no?
“I ask as an American of Irish ancestry who has never seen an Irish caricature that I found offensive. Mainly, this is because I have the strength of character not to give others the power to offend me.”
Tell that to the early Irish immigrants who were basically shat on by the mainstream.
Your thinking lacks historical perspective. Lacking historical perspective makes your line of reasoning irrelevant. It’s the sad truth.
OW: I don’t know why you keep having trouble with it or – even worse – seem to always excuse it.
Not excusing it. Not failing to recognize it either. But there are times when folks jump to the racism claim a bit readily, or claim it is more than it is. And I’m wary of things that appear knee-jerk; it’s the nemesis of considered views. So, yeah, at times I’ll ask for clarification on what is it about something that makes it racist. (And, frankly, when folks have responded with aspersions rather than even an attempt at an answer it doesn’t, IMHO, make them look any less knee-jerk reactionary. Whether it be cries of racism or denunciations of policy just because it came from Democrats.)
Mainly, this is because I have the strength of character not to give others the power to offend me.
So the fault lies not with people who propagate racist images but with those who are offended by them?
Check.
Burn: Do you have to include the image of some stereotypical ‘jose beaner y sombero’? Is that really necessary? It is when you are trying to appeal to the angry base emotions of the dittoheads.
And there is something called tact, as in, you can get your point across intelligently without resorting to base impulses
Yeah, I agree that the message gets lost in the image. I wonder at what point a national symbol or traditional garb becomes a racist stereotype. (The Mexican in sombrero, the German in lederhosen, etc.) How it’s used in the depiction, I suppose. If the message is denigrating it’s racist, but if the same picture is used with a positive message it isn’t, perhaps?
fafaroo: Sean, why are you so completely obtuse on this subject?
I don’t believe I am, and trying not to come across that way. I am interested in people’s perceptions of race, the limits that get placed on discourse, and in having a reasoned discussion on race that doesn’t end up with one side resorting to “well, you just don’t get it” when asked to elaborate.
Of course, as you point out, Sean, it is easier to use racial stereotypes and caricatures when trying to make points about public policy. So what the hell, right?
Don’t believe I’ve ever expressed that cavalier view.
matt621: What would such an offensive caricature look like? I ask as an American of Irish ancestry who has never seen an Irish caricature that I found offensive. Mainly, this is because I have the strength of character not to give others the power to offend me.
Someone looking drunk in a bar with lots of empty glasses around them and yet another Guinness heading for their lips? Given the “No Irish Need Apply” attitude once prevalent in parts of the US, certainly there are images similar to the droopy-mustached sombrero Mexican for the Irish.
fafaroo,
you can waste energy being offended by racist imagery, or you can go about your business.
It’s entirely up to you. Speaking strictly for myself, I can find an infinite number of better ways to spend my time.
I’m trying to save you from yourself.
We told your pinch-hitter Gabe and we’ll tell you: We’ll be okay, but thanks for your concern.
you can waste energy being offended by racist imagery, or you can go about your business.
It’s entirely up to you. Speaking strictly for myself, I can find an infinite number of better ways to spend my time.
To be completely honest, I tend to agree. I can look at a picture like this, say to myself “what a bunch of assholes” and move on.
you can waste energy being offended by racist imagery, or you can go about your business.
And yet taking the time to scold people for being offended by racist images is a perfectly good use of your time?
Racism is patriotism to the righties
Better than being offended by a caricature that doesn’t have anything to do with me or my ethnic background.
But Oliver’s dull like that. And he’s not the only one.
Don’t believe I’ve ever expressed that cavalier view.
You’re Sean. You didn’t say it was easier.
You said it was “best” to skip the truth about immigrants and immigration and pick one race and nationality out of the many who make up the illegal immigrant population to make your point.
Great.
Better than being offended by a caricature that doesn’t have anything to do with me or my ethnic background.
What a wonderfully self-centered view of the world you have, Matt.
I am interested in people’s perceptions of race, the limits that get placed on discourse, and in having a reasoned discussion on race that doesn’t end up with one side resorting to “well, you just don’t get it” when asked to elaborate.
But, Sean, you don’t get it.
The issue with the sign is not that it’s a racist caricature of a Mexican.
The issue is that it’s a racist caricature.
Swapping a racist caricature of an Irish immigrant doesn’t change the fact that this particular protester is trafficking in racist imagery to make her point.
The fact that you think this:
is some kind of opening to “dialogue” tells me that you didn’t put two seconds of thought into your comment before posting it.
In fact, it tells me you engaged in the very kind of”knee-jerk” response you say you so abhor.
If you want to enter into a “reasoned discussion on race” you might want to put a little more thought into your own comments, don’t you think?
Pathetic ad hominem strawmen – coincidentally enough, right next door the perpetual outrage on the list of things I prefer not to waste my time on.
Unfortunately in cyberspace, one must announce to people like fafaroo that he is being ignored, or he’ll mistake the lack of response for victory.
Don’t be that fool, fafaroo.
Swapping a racist caricature of an Irish immigrant doesn’t change the fact that this particular protester is trafficking in racist imagery to make her point.
Okay, agreed. Would the message have been just as racist if no imagery was used?
Matt, you certainly seem inclined to engage in behavior you claim to abhor.
Oops! Sorry, Matt, now I guess you’re compelled to respond this comment to, lest I be mistaken in my “victory”.
matt621 – “Better than being offended by a caricature that doesn’t have anything to do with me or my ethnic background.”
Thing is it did have something to do with your ethnic background. It was precisely the image of the no good drunk Irishman that kept him from gainful employment and ridiculed by the status quo at the time. Ascendant ethnic groups don’t feel slurs the way the new comers do. They’re also not affected by them economically.
fafaroo: You said it was “best” to skip the truth about immigrants and immigration and pick one race and nationality out of the many who make up the illegal immigrant population to make your point.
Skip which truth? That the largest number of illegal immigrants come from Mexico? Would it have made more sense to pick, say, a Frenchman as a representative illegal immigrant. Surely there must be one in the US.
From your comment you seem to suggest that picking one group, even the decidedly largest one, to make a point is bad. Are you going to PC that it’s unacceptable unless a crowd is shown, with each group represented in appropriate proportion?
You can continue to intentionally misunderstand and misrepresent what I’m saying despite my attempts (left out of what you quote from my comments) to be clear. Or you can debate what I’m actually asking about. Your choice.
Sean, is the problem illegal Mexicans or illegal immigrants?
Even more to the point, is the problem illegal immigrants or just Mexicans, period?
I’m suprised liberals have such a weak stance on illegal immigration. Low skilled uneducated labor. Aren’t they taking the type of jobs Democratic voters would usually take?
I thought we were a bunch of ivory tower Harvard elitists? I can’t keep the Republican b.s. straight nowadays.
wWhat would such an offensive caricature look like? I ask as an American of Irish ancestry who has never seen an Irish caricature that I found offensive.
P. J. O’Rourke once said that, as a son of Eire, he was horribly offended by the pugnacious leprechaun that symbolizes Notre Dame. Mainly because it was a near-perfect likeness of his Uncle Mike.
J.
“I thought we were a bunch of ivory tower Harvard elitists? I can’t keep the Republican b.s. straight nowadays.”
Democrats claim to care about the “little guy”, and yet won’t stand up against low skilled uneducated (and illegal) labor? Doesn’t make sense.
According to CNN exit polls Barack Obama won the under 15,000 income bracket: 73% to John McCain’s 25%.
And the 15-30,000 income bracket: 60-37%.
So you’re basically arguing in favor of screwing over your own base.
fafaroo: But, Sean, you don’t get it.
The issue with the sign is not that it’s a racist caricature of a Mexican.
And, again, I don’t believe I’ve said anything that would suggest it would be OK as long as it wasn’t specifically a Mexican.
The fact that you think this:
is some kind of opening to “dialogue” tells me that you didn’t put two seconds of thought into your comment before posting it.
I really wish you’d put a little more thought into my comments before posting a reply. That wasn’t an opening of a discussion, it was clearly a reply to what Kevin in an exchange that had already started. And was about which nationality would make sense when trying to depict an illegal immigrant. (Note: not how they are depicted.) Unless you want to suggest ANY picture of a Mexican is racist, I don’t see a problem, when the topic is illegal immigration, to refer to Mexicans as they do make up the majority of illegal immigrants in the US.
SDM: I expect I’m going to get lambasted again because I’m not immediately acknowledging the clear racism of it all
Yeah, got that one right.
matt621: Better than being offended by a caricature that doesn’t have anything to do with me or my ethnic background.
fafaroo: What a wonderfully self-centered view of the world you have, Matt.
So… shame on him for not being offended on behalf of someone else? That could be interpreted as a rather patrician attitude. Having to look out for those poor folks who can’t stand up for themselves.
I presume that isn’t what you intended to suggest. Perhaps you didn’t put two seconds of thought into your comment before posting it.
Unless you want to suggest ANY picture of a Mexican is racist, I don’t see a problem, when the topic is illegal immigration, to refer to Mexicans as they do make up the majority of illegal immigrants in the US.
You don’t see a problem with directing political anger at a specific ethnic group?
Wow.
fafaroo: Sean, is the problem illegal Mexicans or illegal immigrants?
Even more to the point, is the problem illegal immigrants or just Mexicans, period?
And when did I stop beating my wife?
And you’re still trying to suggest I defend positions I haven’t expressed. You’re suggesting I have something specifically against Mexicans and I’ve never said that.
Is the particular image used with the caricature of a sombrero’d mustachioed Mexican offensive? Clearly to many it is.
But do Mexican’s comprise the majority of illegal immigrants in the US? Yes. So is using any picture of a Mexican as a representative of illegal immigrants an inherently racist thing to do? I’d argue it isn’t.
Republicans are really good at propaganda. It works and the Dems can’t match them. Rachel Maddow and Keith Oberman are good but they can’t fight Fox. They are not as willing to use propaganda.
So is using any picture of a Mexican as a representative of illegal immigrants an inherently racist thing to do? I’d argue it isn’t.
In other words, it’s okay to single out a single group of people as representative of a problem in order to stoke political anger.
You’ve gone from defending caricatures to supporting race baiting.
Nice work.
Gabriel McKee: Democrats claim to care about the “little guy”, and yet won’t stand up against low skilled uneducated (and illegal) labor? Doesn’t make sense.
Wouldn’t “low skilled uneducated” folks be “the little guys”? Then why would Democrats stand against them.
It’s your question that doesn’t make sense.
Sean, if you’re going whine like this:
Please don’t try to score cheap points like this:
And yes, Sean, shame on him for believing that he has no obligation to defend the civil rights and simple common decency of his fellow citizens because it doesn’t effect him.
What a wonderful civic discourse you’ve aspired to.
It’s your question that doesn’t make sense.
Oh the irony.
fafaroo: You don’t see a problem with directing political anger at a specific ethnic group?
Again, you are intentionally or ignorantly misrepresenting what I’ve said. And I’ve said nothing even suggesting anything should be directed towards Mexicans (or any other particular group for that matter).
I don’t see a problem with using a representative of the majority component to depict a group. If I were drawing a political cartoon, for example, showing Republicans and Democrats facing off against each other I would probably use a white male to represent the Republicans. Why? Because I want to use a single figure to represent the Repubs and the largest group of Republicans are white males.
fafaroo: In other words, it’s okay to single out a single group of people as representative of a problem in order to stoke political anger.
And again, you are ascribing to me things I’ve never said.
You’ve gone from obnoxious to flat out lying.
Nice work.
I don’t care if some white trash don’t have health care as long as them ni..er, blacks and gre..I mean Mexicans can’t have it.
Sincerely,
Your Average Wingnut on Truth Serum
SDM: “I presume that isn’t what you intended to suggest.”
fafaroo, paraphrased from just about every post: “In other words,” you’re in favor of something you never said.
Note the contrast.
fafaroo: And yes, Sean, shame on him for believing that he has no obligation to defend the civil rights and simple common decency of his fellow citizens because it doesn’t effect him.
I don’t see that not being offended for them is the same as oppressing them.
I don’t see that not being offended for them is the same as oppressing them.
You think that letting racist behavior pass is okay because, as we all know, racism is not a form of oppression?
Really, Sean. You’re going to have to flesh this one out for me.
And again, you are ascribing to me things I’ve never said.
Sean, correct me where I’m wrong then.
What we have here in this situation is a woman who is angry that illegal immigrants get “free health care” while seniors do not.
She makes a sign designed to express that anger.
In that sign directs that anger to a specific target–Mexicans–because they are the most visible members of the immigrant population.
You don’t have a problem with any of this.
Hence, you think it’s okay to aim political anger at a specific ethnic group.
“Wouldn’t “low skilled uneducated” folks be “the little guys”? Then why would Democrats stand against them.
It’s your question that doesn’t make sense.”
But they aren’t you know….Americans. Silly thing called citizenship.
fafaroo: Really, Sean. You’re going to have to flesh this one out for me.
Lemme see if I can.
It started with Matt saying he didn’t get offended by a caricature that doesn’t have anything to do with him or his ethnic background.
You considered that a self-centered view and seemed to be bothered that he wasn’t offended on behalf of other folks. And then you equated not being offended on behalf of others (a view I still see as condescending and patrician) as a refusal to defend their civil rights.
The crux of our differing takes on this probably lies in what how we respond to the caricature. I can see a caricature as offense to group X but, if I’m not a member of group X, I’m not personally offended by it. To be offended by it I’d have to be doing so on behalf of someone else, and I find THAT offensive. To presume that they need me to take offense for them.
This doesn’t mean I wouldn’t understand their being bothered by it and, if I agreed that they had reason to be offended (they had reason to be offended), I would object to it and work to have it removed/changed/whatever.
If a friend gets dumped I can understand and sympathize with their pain and want to make it better and work with them to do so because I want to help alleviate their pain, but I don’t feel the pain myself because I’m not the one who got dumped.
To be offended by it I’d have to be doing so on behalf of someone else, and I find THAT offensive. To presume that they need me to take offense for them.
So racism in itself is not offensive to you?
And the only way it would offend you is if it was directed to to you?
Otherwise, if you got offended it would have to be on behalf of some other group, which is really offensive because you’re assuming that they can’t defend themselves, so it’s best not call out someone for their racism unless you’re the victim?
I’m sorry Sean. That’s a shitty fucking philosophy that makes you kind of a really crappy fucking human being.
This doesn’t mean I wouldn’t understand their being bothered by it and, if I agreed that they had reason to be offended (they had reason to be offended), I would object to it and work to have it removed/changed/whatever.
And this is just too fucking rich.
I’m being condescending and patrician by being offended at racism in general, whether it’s directed at me or not, but you’re fucking super awesome because you’ll defend someone against racism ONLY IF YOU DEEM THAT THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO BE OFFENDED.
Sean, you’re a fucking moron.
Sean, racism is morally offensive, always, to everybody. I’m not offended because it’s directed at me, I’m offended because it’s offensive.
And, by the way, comparing racism to getting dumped? Yeah, that’s pretty offensive.
The GOP is dying due to simple demographics.
I couldn’t be happier.
Jaim, before you get all het up about “demographics,” you might wanna Google up the “Roe Effect…”
But that’s probably beyond you. It’s the observation that pro-lifers tend to have more children than pro-choicers… and those children are growing up with pro-life attitudes themselves.
J.
Jaim, before you get all het up about “demographics,” you might wanna Google up the “Roe Effect…”
Yup. Google that up, Jaim. It’s a “social theory” based on the rock solid observation (from the first link on google” that:
Jay being a dumbfuck is nothing new. What is new are demonstrable demographic trends that favor Democrats and/or progressives.
To put it another way, do you really think many blacks, women, hispanics, or gays would ever vote for the party of Limbaugh? And since getting their asses beat in 2006, has the GOP done anything of substance to invite non-white males into the tent?
It’s really not about political correctness, although I’m sure Jay thinks it is. It’s about winning elections. The GOP doesn’t seem capable of doing it these days, and they definitely don’t want to change their ways. The longer this remains the case, the longer they stay in the wilderness.
It’s really not about political correctness, although I’m sure Jay thinks it is. It’s about winning elections.
Only to the assholes. For others, it’s about principles and issues and the benefit of the nation as a whole.
Thanks for making your partisan myopia so clear.
J.
No, no, no Oliver; those sign bearers are White Americans, the traditional and systemic VICTIMS of racism.
‘I think their point may be that illegal immigrants can get free healthcare while the new plan would have senior citizens discuss how they want to die.’
Well considering that your statement is not accurate or true, you clearly haven’t thought any more about it than they have.
‘I didn’t say it wasn’t racist. I said it was cleverly phrased. It was also stupidly applied.
The contrasting of “senior” and “senor” is well done, and applies in this context. But the decision to apply it was poor.’
So you’re admiring and denouncing it at the same time.
WTF?
Yes racism is alive and well today, unfortunately. Big O is trying to deflect the real issue reflected in the polls…Obamacare is not popular. Big O is using one person with a sign to project racism on Republicans,right wingers, ‘tea baggers’, etc. I am quite convinced now there are no racists in the democrat party because Oliver hasn’t pointed them out.
fafaroo: That’s a shitty fucking philosophy that makes you kind of a really crappy fucking human being.
Do you really want to get into parsing the definition of “offended by” vs “bothered by”, “opposed to” etc.? I was trying not to have to get into that. You asked for me to “flesh out” what I meant further (an admirable near-first for you since you general tactic has been to insistently misrepresent what I have said and then insult me for that which I didn’t say) and I endevour to do so.
But because, despite my saying I would work to remove/fix/whatever something that folks were offended by, because I don’t feel about it the way you deem I should (or, more accurately, because I don’t use the word you would use to describe those feelings) I’m a crappy fucking human being.
Let me respond like you would: So, fafaroo. You’re saying it doesn’t matter what one does, only how they feel about it. So you wouldn’t have an objection to someone beating the crap out of gays, as long as they properly express how they feel bad about it. And that makes you a pathetic excuse for a human.
I’m being condescending and patrician by being offended at racism in general
No, you’re condescending for deciding what others should feel offended by and being offended on their behalf.
you’ll defend someone against racism ONLY IF YOU DEEM THAT THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO BE OFFENDED.
You’re like someone who has decided the other guy is going to say “Grass is purple” and when he actually says “Grass is green, sometimes bluish” you hear “It’s purple I tell you!”. There is clearly no point in trying to discuss anything in this area with you since you won’t hear anything other than what you want, regardless of how far off it may be from what is actually said.
tim: Sean, racism is morally offensive, always, to everybody. I’m not offended because it’s directed at me, I’m offended because it’s offensive.
Absolutely agreed that racism is a bad thing and to be opposed wherever it actually exists. Beyond that, we’re arguing over definitions of words.
And, by the way, comparing racism to getting dumped? Yeah, that’s pretty offensive.
Just trying to talk in simple examples fafaroo might understand.
Yes, funk, I am.
Deal with it.
J.
SDM: ‘I think their point may be that illegal immigrants can get free healthcare while the new plan would have senior citizens discuss how they want to die.’
jrfunkenstein: Well considering that your statement is not accurate or true, you clearly haven’t thought any more about it than they have.
Did you stop there and not the rest of the paragraph where I noted they were mistaken in that belief? Perhaps you “clearly” didn’t put any more thought into understand what you read than they.
jrfunkenstein: So you’re admiring and denouncing it at the same time.
WTF?
Dr Doom is brilliant, motivated, and a strong defender of his country. He’s also petty, tolerates no dissent and kills those who oppose him. A mix of admirable and repulsive traits.
Yes, it’s a fictional character but it’s clear real people are always a mix of admirable and objectionable traits.
No, you’re condescending for deciding what others should feel offended by and being offended on their behalf.
Sean, racism offends me personally no matter who it’s directed at. I do not feel it’s necessary to check with someone else before I call someone on it. Nor do I feel it has to be directed at me personally before I say something.
You, apparently, do.
You said specifically that: “I can see a caricature as offense to group X but, if I’m not a member of group X, I’m not personally offended by it.”
Your follow up statement — “To be offended by it I’d have to be doing so on behalf of someone else, and I find THAT offensive.”– is simply a rationalization for a morally pathetic position.
I don’t think it’s unreasonable to say, based on what you’ve written, as a result that you do not find racism offensive unless it is directed at you personally.
Of course, if someone turns to you for support against a racist attack, you’ve said that you will first have to be convinced by this person that they have a justifiable reason for being offended.
Nothing really wrong with that but, of course, if they fail to convince you, you will not render whatever aid/comfort might be requested, since you you yourself were not targeted and their justification does not rise to yours.
In fact, you might actually defend the offending person, as you have done through out this thread and others.
The implication is that you have superior skills to judge when someone else has reason to be offended, despite lacking entirely the personal life experiences of the offended person, and in many cases, not even knowing the historical context of certain words, phrases or representations. It’s the old excuse: “Oh come on, are you telling me that watermelons on the White House lawn is offensive? But everyone loves water melon!”
At the same time, you are not offended by racism, in itself, only racism that is directed at you.
And, of course, if you’re offended by something said to you, can we assume that your reasons for taking offense are always justified? If not, how is it that you came to be offended in the first place?
If any of this is off the mark, please let me know.
You can also let me know if I’m at all off mark when I say that you don’t have any problem with directing political anger at a specific ethnic group.
As noted above:
1. The woman holding the sign is angry about illegal immigrants getting “free healthcare”
2. She wants to convince others that they should be angry about this, too, hence the sign.
3. She choose as the specific representative target for this anger, Mexican immigrants, or, given the vagueness of the sign, Mexicans in general.
4. You think that this is the “best” way for her to get her point across given that Mexicans represent a significant portion of illegal immigrants in this country.
So you really don’t have any problem with someone directing political anger at a specific ethnic group.
Or do you? If you do, perhaps you can clarify this statement:
In your argument for presumably shorthand communication, you are endorsing EXACTLY what you claim you aren’t: targeting political anger at a particular group.
You clearly do not see that you are valuing shorthand communication over sensitive, indeed, even accurate, communication, with, again, the consequence being that political anger is directed at one ethnic group above all others.
I think the above is a reasonable and accurate assessment of everything you’ve said in this thread.
Sean,
This:
is not the same as this:
Sean, if racism is a bad thing, why does it only offend you when it’s directed at you?
Sean, please explain how this:
Is any different than this:
Love to hear it.
fafaroo: Nothing really wrong with that but, of course, if they fail to convince you, you will not render whatever aid/comfort might be requested, since you you yourself were not targeted and their justification does not rise to yours.
“That other guy’s picking on me. All I did was punch him in the face and he called me a bully. I’m offended! Go get him!”
I wasn’t targeted and he’s failed to convince me that I should go after the other guy. If that makes me a “really crappy fucking human being” in your eyes, I can live with that.
I don’t subscribe to the view that I have to see something as wrong just because someone else does. (Nor that they have to agree with me.)
I reserve the right to use my own experiences and opinions to decide for myself what I determine to be an injustice and which actions if any I take.
If any of this is off the mark, please let me know.
Been there. Tried that. Losing interest in making the attempt.
and yet won’t stand up against low skilled uneducated (and illegal) labor? Doesn’t make sense.
Those patio tiles ain’t gonna lay themselves, you know.
“That other guy’s picking on me. All I did was punch him in the face and he called me a bully. I’m offended! Go get him!”
I think a better example might be:
“That woman is holding a sign with a racist caricature that’s specifically targeting my ethnicity/nationality as an object of political anger.”
I think we already know what you’re response to that one is.
fafaroo: I think we already know what you’re response to that one is.
No, you probably don’t.
No. Sean. I do.
Kevin,
You seem to have the money to pay for it, so perhaps you should pay the trillions it’s going to cost. I take care of my husband, my children and me-and that is all I am required to do. I only have money to pay the health insurance for my family. I am happy with the insurance that I have. WHY SHOULD THE GOVERNMENT TAKE A HIGHER TAX OUT OF MY HUSBANDS CHECK. After all, he works 60 hours a week and bust his ass! As for as racism is concerned, I don’t know if you are white or black and I don’t care but for you to complain about a stupid sign honey you need to get a life. COME AND VISIT SOUTH AFRICA WHERE WHITES ARE MURDERED ON A DAILY BUSINESS- then maybe you will learn to shut up for once.
If it pleases you to think so, far be it from me…
[...] anti-health care protesters, like the one in this photo (from here), cast their objections to health care reform in rather explicitly racist terms. As Maggie Mahar [...]
I was there at the rally. Sorry, but this was an ordinary slice of America protesting. I think unless you spoke to the woman and know her, are you not prejudging her thoughts? Are you thus prejudiced against this woman and presuming she is racist in her thinking? She might be, she might not. No doubt her sign could be taken the wrong way, so perhaps she was not concerned with how some might take it. Signs are notorious for coming across wrong or as blanket statements, afterall, when you try to pen your thoughts in one picture or slogan, it is more convenient to draw upon images people recognize quickly – which are by definition, stereotypes. I find it interesting that you drew upon one of the few images you saw as racist, rather than looking at the sum total of the messages there. Perhaps you need to reflect that your worldview sees what it wants to see…
“As I’ve noted, conservatives often can’t help themselves from indulging in racism” … often?
“and Republicans still – inexplicably – see that as a winning political strategy of some sort….” … really, do you know any Republicans? Do you ask them or assume that?
Food for thought.
[...] Plan: White Slavery. Or others who have carried overtly racist signs to frame their message: signs suggesting that Obama hopes to provide care for all brown-skinned illegal immigrants, while simultaneously [...]