|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On August 30 2018 07:48 misirlou wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2018 07:09 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2018 06:59 IyMoon wrote:On August 30 2018 06:57 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2018 06:23 Liquid`Drone wrote:
of course if you add 'surprisingly' it has a different connotation because then there's an implication that you expected worse.
What if someone just doesn't know about the racial baggage of 'articulate'? I mean, I am european, so it's hard for me to claim expertise on all things american, but I didn't really know that 'articulate' is a word with racial baggage. To me, it's just a neutral word that you use to describe someone who is better at phrasing him or herself in a persuasive, coherent and understandable manner than what your average person is. It's basically 'eloquent-light' from my perspective - but for a politician who wants to reach as wide an audience as possible, being 'well-articulated' is sometimes even preferable to being 'eloquent'; eloquent implies that there's a beauty to the language used beyond simply conveying meaning.
Like, I get what you guys are saying. I'm not trying to argue that DeSantis didn't know what he was saying. I just think the plausible deniability is too obviously plausible for 'articulate', by itself, to function as a dog-whistle that should get much attention. When you say it in the same sentence as monkeying around, sure. But for me, it's very easy to accept plausible deniability when I know that I myself could genuinely make the same error. Also, people can continue to use it for well-spoken people of all races and not worry about the crowd that sees dog whistle racism everywhere. (And I don’t know DeSantis particularly well for his use of language, in case he actually drops coded hints like some racist spy thriller) The fact that he drops two in a row doesn't make you think there might have been something more than a mistake going on? I haven’t seen the tape and the structure of the quote marks does not imply “in a row.” If I talked about a long, hard pulsating ramrod, it’s entirely different than saying “hard” at the start of a speech and “long” at the end. It's 1 minute long. You've taken way more time trying to defend the position than if u'd just seen the tape. Also I believe some people don't know what an actual dogwhistle is (how it works) and therefore what it means in the new adapted form
After reviewing the tape, it's even a more disingenuous charge.
He is an articulate spokesman for those far-left views and he's a charismatic candidate, and y'know I watched those Democratic debates and none of that is my cup of tea, but I mean he performed better than the other people there.
Lauds his eloquence and charisma. Like he's a tough candidate to challenge.
But I mean he performed better than the other people there. So we've gotta work hard to make sure to continue Florida going in a good direction, let's build off the success we had with Governor Scott. The last thing we need to do is to monkey this up by trying to embrace a socialist agenda
Let's keep the good thing going with the policies of Governor Scott instead of monkeying it up with socialist policies.
Yes, my opinion is that only the race-obsessed and language-obsessed would highlight his diction in that clip. That's my diagnosis. These accusations predate and will last long after Trump and it will anger regular Americans that aren't racists.
|
On August 30 2018 08:09 Uldridge wrote:
I would say the same thing about a white man monkey'ing things up. Stop seeing monkeys in black people Plansix.
I didn’t do that. Hundreds of years of racist in the US called black people monkeys and apes, causing the problem we are dealing with today. I’m just aware of that history because I didn’t sleep through history class.
Edit: 2014 and 2010 plan6 would have given this guy a pass, saying he misspoke and used some language he shouldn’t have. 2018 plan6 has had that good faith burned right out of him by the current political climate. It’s safer to assume malice in the era of Trump.
|
On August 30 2018 07:56 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2018 07:40 On_Slaught wrote:On August 30 2018 07:28 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2018 07:00 NewSunshine wrote:On August 30 2018 06:59 IyMoon wrote:On August 30 2018 06:57 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2018 06:23 Liquid`Drone wrote:
of course if you add 'surprisingly' it has a different connotation because then there's an implication that you expected worse.
What if someone just doesn't know about the racial baggage of 'articulate'? I mean, I am european, so it's hard for me to claim expertise on all things american, but I didn't really know that 'articulate' is a word with racial baggage. To me, it's just a neutral word that you use to describe someone who is better at phrasing him or herself in a persuasive, coherent and understandable manner than what your average person is. It's basically 'eloquent-light' from my perspective - but for a politician who wants to reach as wide an audience as possible, being 'well-articulated' is sometimes even preferable to being 'eloquent'; eloquent implies that there's a beauty to the language used beyond simply conveying meaning.
Like, I get what you guys are saying. I'm not trying to argue that DeSantis didn't know what he was saying. I just think the plausible deniability is too obviously plausible for 'articulate', by itself, to function as a dog-whistle that should get much attention. When you say it in the same sentence as monkeying around, sure. But for me, it's very easy to accept plausible deniability when I know that I myself could genuinely make the same error. Also, people can continue to use it for well-spoken people of all races and not worry about the crowd that sees dog whistle racism everywhere. (And I don’t know DeSantis particularly well for his use of language, in case he actually drops coded hints like some racist spy thriller) The fact that he drops two in a row doesn't make you think there might have been something more than a mistake going on? Lol, like it has to be "some racist spy thriller" for calling a black man a monkey to qualify as racism. The goal posts are ever shifting. Soon, getting caught in a white hood won't be enough. It's a little surprising how fast saying "Florida shouldn't monkey this up" turned into "calling a black man a monkey." I'm pretty pessimistic on the future Democratic race-baiting in America, but sometimes I'm shocked. Are you implying that it couldn't be racist, you dont think it was racist, or that we cant be sure it was racist? For me i return to the notion that "monkey this up" is not a thing people say. Of all the things he could have used to describe a "messed up situation" one must wonder why he choose that one. Still waiting for proof he uses this all the time from his campaign. If he is a public figure who gives a lot of speeches it should be somewhere. I didn't have a unique problem with Trump calling Omarosa a dog because there is evidence he uses that term for a lot of people, males and whites included. I'm implying that saying "Florida shouldn't monkey this up" cannot honestly be compared to "calling a black man a monkey." Now, if you want a society where "She looked cute in that dress" is reported as "he called that woman a whore," then by all means continue. I'm surprised by the pushback on this. Show nested quote +On August 30 2018 07:43 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On August 30 2018 07:28 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2018 07:00 NewSunshine wrote:On August 30 2018 06:59 IyMoon wrote:On August 30 2018 06:57 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2018 06:23 Liquid`Drone wrote:
of course if you add 'surprisingly' it has a different connotation because then there's an implication that you expected worse.
What if someone just doesn't know about the racial baggage of 'articulate'? I mean, I am european, so it's hard for me to claim expertise on all things american, but I didn't really know that 'articulate' is a word with racial baggage. To me, it's just a neutral word that you use to describe someone who is better at phrasing him or herself in a persuasive, coherent and understandable manner than what your average person is. It's basically 'eloquent-light' from my perspective - but for a politician who wants to reach as wide an audience as possible, being 'well-articulated' is sometimes even preferable to being 'eloquent'; eloquent implies that there's a beauty to the language used beyond simply conveying meaning.
Like, I get what you guys are saying. I'm not trying to argue that DeSantis didn't know what he was saying. I just think the plausible deniability is too obviously plausible for 'articulate', by itself, to function as a dog-whistle that should get much attention. When you say it in the same sentence as monkeying around, sure. But for me, it's very easy to accept plausible deniability when I know that I myself could genuinely make the same error. Also, people can continue to use it for well-spoken people of all races and not worry about the crowd that sees dog whistle racism everywhere. (And I don’t know DeSantis particularly well for his use of language, in case he actually drops coded hints like some racist spy thriller) The fact that he drops two in a row doesn't make you think there might have been something more than a mistake going on? Lol, like it has to be "some racist spy thriller" for calling a black man a monkey to qualify as racism. The goal posts are ever shifting. Soon, getting caught in a white hood won't be enough. It's a little surprising how fast saying "Florida shouldn't monkey this up" turned into "calling a black man a monkey." I'm pretty pessimistic on the future Democratic race-baiting in America, but sometimes I'm shocked. He's saying "Florida shouldn't monkey this up [by electing the black opponent, using an uncommon turn of phrase with one of the oldest applicable slurs in it]". This is a political candidate too, they get a bit less leeway on understanding the impact of how they communicate. I think you're monkeying up the quote and turning [I think he implies this] into [he called a black man a monkey and it's weird that it shouldn't qualify as racism]. Re-read NewSunshine's quote.
Sure, if we ignore generations of racist history regarding the term "monkey" we might get to the point where people are overreacting.
Further, I'd counter that if saying somebody looked cute in a dress had over a century of examples of it being used to call a woman a whore that it too would be inappropriate to say... especially when it is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand, like in this instance with DeSantis.
|
On August 30 2018 08:09 Uldridge wrote:
I would say the same thing about a white man monkey'ing things up. Stop seeing monkeys in black people Plansix.
Edit: and in the end, we're all monkeys anyway, so why even bother with it at all.
I mean, this is kind of why it's a racially charged word in the first place.
There's the ignorant creationists denying evolution by saying "I ain't related to no goddamn monkey."
Then there's the half-assed eugenics version of evolution that says "Okay, maybe we are related to monkeys. But some more than others. Us white folk are the most evolved, while black folks are still apes."
And I don't particularly buy all these Europeans saying it's a distinctly American thing, considering that it's just as much a European originated line of thinking. And while I wouldn't say that kind of pseudo-science led to things like the African apartheid or the holocaust, it was certainly part of the justification.
|
We all know why Trump used the words "they're rapists" in his kickoff speech. It was deliberate to get the media's attention. And of course his supporters argued that it wasn't racist in context. It was not just a coincedental choice of words. This type of thing is real.
By Trump voter logic there is, quite explicitly, no such thing as a dog whistle.
EDIT: We also know why Trump was the birther king. Now his acolytes will follow his playbook.
|
Just want to point out that none of us are monkeys, we are primates. Common misconception.
|
On August 30 2018 14:10 Neneu wrote:
Just want to point out that none of us are monkeys, we are primates. Common misconception.
Technically, I think monkeys are also part of the larger group of primates, which consist of monkeys, apes, and great apes. We (humans) are in the last group.
Sorry, technically correct is the best correct.
|
On August 30 2018 08:57 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2018 08:09 Uldridge wrote:
I would say the same thing about a white man monkey'ing things up. Stop seeing monkeys in black people Plansix.
Edit: and in the end, we're all monkeys anyway, so why even bother with it at all. I mean, this is kind of why it's a racially charged word in the first place. There's the ignorant creationists denying evolution by saying "I ain't related to no goddamn monkey." Then there's the half-assed eugenics version of evolution that says "Okay, maybe we are related to monkeys. But some more than others. Us white folk are the most evolved, while black folks are still apes." And I don't particularly buy all these Europeans saying it's a distinctly American thing, considering that it's just as much a European originated line of thinking. And while I wouldn't say that kind of pseudo-science led to things like the African apartheid or the holocaust, it was certainly part of the justification.
Indeed a lot of the early pseudo-science crap had genesis in European thought but it was imported by racists and those who wanted to make money off racists to the states and sometimes even misreading the work. Blumembach's work for example was used to justify a racial hierarchy. Phrenology is a science born out of this and picked up by Americans such as Morten.
That was a long time ago and the thought become more popular and endured longer in the States. Even when Boas and others showed the nonsense of race rankings and later better understandings of genetics showed that races aren't even a biological thing in humans the thought persists.
What is most troubling is that the last couple of years those that subscribe to such nonsense are having a bit of a resurgence.
|
On August 30 2018 08:57 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2018 08:09 Uldridge wrote:
I would say the same thing about a white man monkey'ing things up. Stop seeing monkeys in black people Plansix.
Edit: and in the end, we're all monkeys anyway, so why even bother with it at all. I mean, this is kind of why it's a racially charged word in the first place. There's the ignorant creationists denying evolution by saying "I ain't related to no goddamn monkey." Then there's the half-assed eugenics version of evolution that says "Okay, maybe we are related to monkeys. But some more than others. Us white folk are the most evolved, while black folks are still apes." And I don't particularly buy all these Europeans saying it's a distinctly American thing, considering that it's just as much a European originated line of thinking. And while I wouldn't say that kind of pseudo-science led to things like the African apartheid or the holocaust, it was certainly part of the justification.
I think i was the only european arguing in that direction, and i just said that there is nothing from an outside perspective that would show this word has baggage. So, from looking in, his first sentence is innocent, he explains why he believes it might become a closer race then he would have against a non charismatic left wing candidate. Of course german culture has these concepts as well but i could not name a single adjective from the top of my head that would instantly show racist intent. So i was skeptical at first that articulate was super obvious to you, especially in the way he used it.
Then again, even with the language barrier, monkeying it up seems super obvious to me, so danglars arguing for both to be completely innocent is ridiculous to me. It's like a german politician saying gassing might be a solution to a political problem and then explaining that he uses that phrase all the time.
|
Watched the clip, seemed totally fine to me, didn't seem in anyway racist. I believe some people are just chomping at the bit to call anyone they disagree with a racist.
|
On August 30 2018 16:41 Broetchenholer wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2018 08:57 WolfintheSheep wrote:On August 30 2018 08:09 Uldridge wrote:
I would say the same thing about a white man monkey'ing things up. Stop seeing monkeys in black people Plansix.
Edit: and in the end, we're all monkeys anyway, so why even bother with it at all. I mean, this is kind of why it's a racially charged word in the first place. There's the ignorant creationists denying evolution by saying "I ain't related to no goddamn monkey." Then there's the half-assed eugenics version of evolution that says "Okay, maybe we are related to monkeys. But some more than others. Us white folk are the most evolved, while black folks are still apes." And I don't particularly buy all these Europeans saying it's a distinctly American thing, considering that it's just as much a European originated line of thinking. And while I wouldn't say that kind of pseudo-science led to things like the African apartheid or the holocaust, it was certainly part of the justification. I think i was the only european arguing in that direction, and i just said that there is nothing from an outside perspective that would show this word has baggage. So, from looking in, his first sentence is innocent, he explains why he believes it might become a closer race then he would have against a non charismatic left wing candidate. Of course german culture has these concepts as well but i could not name a single adjective from the top of my head that would instantly show racist intent. So i was skeptical at first that articulate was super obvious to you, especially in the way he used it. Then again, even with the language barrier, monkeying it up seems super obvious to me, so danglars arguing for both to be completely innocent is ridiculous to me. It's like a german politician saying gassing might be a solution to a political problem and then explaining that he uses that phrase all the time.
Really? How about when talking about migration, a politician were to say: "a final solution to this problem would simply be to seal all our borders". Would that not be a very suspect adjective, yet "entirely innocent"? This hypothetical person clearly doesn't want to murder all immigrants in gas chambers and you're a crazy SJW for suggesting that "final" in there is a dogwhistle to that!
And someone not familiar with the historical connotation would be in your German forum arguing that "final" there is indeed a rather innocent adjective...
E: although I see your point. In German those are two different nouns, not the presence or absence of adjectives, but the general idea is there, let's not pick syntactic nits.
|
On August 30 2018 18:05 Taelshin wrote:
Watched the clip, seemed totally fine to me, didn't seem in anyway racist. I believe some people are just chomping at the bit to call anyone they disagree with a racist.
It’s more that we are afraid of giving racist power. Like right now the racist in the justice department war trying to strip Hispanic US citizens of their citizenship and deport them.
|
Zurich15363 Posts
On August 30 2018 18:33 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2018 16:41 Broetchenholer wrote:On August 30 2018 08:57 WolfintheSheep wrote:On August 30 2018 08:09 Uldridge wrote:
I would say the same thing about a white man monkey'ing things up. Stop seeing monkeys in black people Plansix.
Edit: and in the end, we're all monkeys anyway, so why even bother with it at all. I mean, this is kind of why it's a racially charged word in the first place. There's the ignorant creationists denying evolution by saying "I ain't related to no goddamn monkey." Then there's the half-assed eugenics version of evolution that says "Okay, maybe we are related to monkeys. But some more than others. Us white folk are the most evolved, while black folks are still apes." And I don't particularly buy all these Europeans saying it's a distinctly American thing, considering that it's just as much a European originated line of thinking. And while I wouldn't say that kind of pseudo-science led to things like the African apartheid or the holocaust, it was certainly part of the justification. I think i was the only european arguing in that direction, and i just said that there is nothing from an outside perspective that would show this word has baggage. So, from looking in, his first sentence is innocent, he explains why he believes it might become a closer race then he would have against a non charismatic left wing candidate. Of course german culture has these concepts as well but i could not name a single adjective from the top of my head that would instantly show racist intent. So i was skeptical at first that articulate was super obvious to you, especially in the way he used it. Then again, even with the language barrier, monkeying it up seems super obvious to me, so danglars arguing for both to be completely innocent is ridiculous to me. It's like a german politician saying gassing might be a solution to a political problem and then explaining that he uses that phrase all the time. Really? How about when talking about migration, a politician were to say: "a final solution to this problem would simply be to seal all our borders". Would that not be a very suspect adjective, yet "entirely innocent"? This hypothetical person clearly doesn't want to murder all immigrants in gas chambers and you're a crazy SJW for suggesting that "final" in there is a dogwhistle to that! And someone not familiar with the historical connotation would be in your German forum arguing that "final" there is indeed a rather innocent adjective... E: although I see your point. In German those are two different nouns, not the presence or absence of adjectives, but the general idea is there, let's not pick syntactic nits.
Language does play a role though. German is more precise and explicit ("we have a word for everything") making phrases that are ambivalent and controversial much rarer. Final solution vs Endlösung is the perfect example.
|
final solution is a better example than you think. though americans too should just never use the phrase, unfortunately many wouldn’t understand why. or even if they understood, they may still use it just by accident and then cringe when they hear it out their mouths(i watched this happen live just last week.)
‘articulate’ imo is similar in this instance. and that lack of understanding is on display from americans and non americans alike here. in this way, he certainly said something racist. maybe he cringed and it was not on purpose.
if i had to bet on whether DeSantis is a racist, i wouldn’t go all in by any means. but i’d definitely put a hundred or two on it.
|
It was most definitely on purpose. There's no downside for him, it appeals to racists, it puts his name out there, and he knows he'll be able to play the victim card off of it because all his party will be ready to jump to his defense, honestly or not, because the left is so mean calling everyone racist; and when you're seen as victimized it's likely that you get a better turnout.
|
On August 30 2018 18:05 Taelshin wrote:
Watched the clip, seemed totally fine to me, didn't seem in anyway racist. I believe some people are just chomping at the bit to call anyone they disagree with a racist.
it's always hard to tell; since it's true that there always are some people calling racist regardless of the merit; and that there are also people trying to hide racism in code words and speak to it indirectly. makes navigating between those to find the truth (if objective truth even exists in this context) rather difficult.
and of course there's the complicated continuum on which racism lies.
|
"Articulate" might get a pass. An accidental slip of the tongue from a politician from a team of advisors. "Monkey this up" does not, especially from watching the video, the way he said it and the complete change in tone when he said it. The head nod, the deliberate lower pitch of the voice to draw attention to the phrase; it isn't a dog whistle, it is a blaring foghorn.
Don't know why some posters are arguing otherwise to be honest.
Heck the phrase doesn't even make sense and even less in context. He says, "So, we got to work hard to make sure that we can continue Florida going in a good direction. Let's build off the success we've had on Governor Scott. The last thing we need to do is to monkey this up by trying to embrace a socialist agenda with huge tax increases and bankrupting the state. "
The insertion of the phrase is so awkward. It makes no sense. First "we" clearly means the Republican Party, but now he claims that "we" apparently means Florida. It's pretty clear that he decided to use monkey in his speech somewhere, couldn't find a way to insert it in natural, and decided to just go ahead and do it anyways.
|
Yeah, the combination of two racially-coded phrases eliminates any real benefit of the doubt. Either that or him and his team are truly that blind to this sort of issue. I'm not sure I can trust Hanlon's razor here.
|
On August 30 2018 19:55 brian wrote:
final solution is a better example than you think. though americans too should just never use the phrase, unfortunately many wouldn’t understand why. or even if they understood, they may still use it just by accident and then cringe when they hear it out their mouths(i watched this happen live just last week.)
I knew all my math teachers were nazis.
|
On August 31 2018 00:22 Godwrath wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2018 19:55 brian wrote:
final solution is a better example than you think. though americans too should just never use the phrase, unfortunately many wouldn’t understand why. or even if they understood, they may still use it just by accident and then cringe when they hear it out their mouths(i watched this happen live just last week.)
I knew all my math teachers were nazis.
I guess they were not talking about immigrant in a context where they are demonized and portrayed in a way that is so similar to the way people were seeing the jews in the early XXth century that it’s uncanny.
If someone doesn’t see how talking of a final solution to limit or get rid of a minority is a problem, he is either too stupid or too ignorant from even approach a job in politics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
