As I understand it, a hate crime is identified by either serious injury to a person on the basis of hatred of the group to which that person belongs, or the threat of same. But what about when something symbolic of group hatred just appears? It seems to be inferred that the intent was to threaten or intimidate the specific group even though the perpetrator hasn't been found. If it is that (a hate crime) we would agree that it was a dastardly act that should be punishable. But considering (1) the prevalence of hate crime hoaxes (Wilfred Reilly has studied and published) and (2) the mobilization of reaction to the appearance of the hate crime, why should the motive of the vandal be assumed to be one thing and not the other?
https://dailyprogress.com/news/local/uva-police-rule-noose-on-statue-a-hate-crime/article_fe6bac5c-2fd2-11ed-bbf1-1bd8db8ba530.html
Suppose you call me a shithead, but mean it as a compliment. If we don't share some context in which it's clear that's a compliment, then it's both natural and correct for me to take offense. Language is public and shared, after all. It's the same for symbols.
If you draw a swastika, it's entirely justified to assume you mean it as a reference to nazis. Especially if you're operating in a cultural context where you ought to know better.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on September 25, 2022, 12:03:57 PM
Suppose you call me a shithead, but mean it as a compliment. If we don't share some context in which it's clear that's a compliment, then it's both natural and correct for me to take offense. Language is public and shared, after all. It's the same for symbols.
If you draw a swastika, it's entirely justified to assume you mean it as a reference to nazis. Especially if you're operating in a cultural context where you ought to know better.
There's no question of whether the item is offensive. That's not my question.
I would be offended if a white supremacist put a noose on the statue of Homer in order to frighten black people, and I would also be offended if someone of any color who sees toxic, long lasting white supremacy in every human interaction or artifact placed the noose on Homer because he wants to plunge the campus further into his particular brand of faddish mania.
Hate crime hoaxes are a thing. They make things worse for victims of true hate crimes.
ETA: the campus police are trying to find out who did this. I doubt they will. The student activists who, as usual, stress the white-against-black racial animus narrative are calling for a stronger response from administration. That would be a response against something, the nature of which is only partially known, that needs to be stronger. Hmm...
Little known: statistics show interracial violent crime involving both white and black citizens are something like 84% black perpetrator, white victim. Hate crime hoaxes that attribute racism to whites galvanize left activism, bringing political momentum with it. There is a lot of room for doubt in the certainty of what this represents, that is coming from the student activists.
If any black student or family is frightened by this experience, you have my sorrow and sympathy. I don't say you shouldn't feel that. Hopefully there is no real threat.ETA: some of the students who carry on about social justice can easily be the same ones we catch plagiarizing and cheating on exams. just something to think about.
Any crime *could be* some sort of hoax or set up. I think the police often have that at the back of their minds. But on the surface, it look like a hate crime, so it gets investigated as a hate crime. If that turns up evidence of some sort of hoax, then the direction of investigations turns, but unless that happens, there's no more reason to suspect its fictional, a priori, than for any other crime.
Quote from: Ruralguy on September 25, 2022, 01:21:48 PM
Any crime *could be* some sort of hoax or set up. I think the police often have that at the back of their minds. But on the surface, it look like a hate crime, so it gets investigated as a hate crime. If that turns up evidence of some sort of hoax, then the direction of investigations turns, but unless that happens, there's no more reason to suspect its fictional, a priori, than for any other crime.
As someone who, unexpectedly later in life, began to ponder whether I am the right fit for calling myself conservative, I've recently begun reading a different variety of things. I think there is hate on the political right, but it's not the hate the left portrays. It's not white people hating blacks. That only rarely. It's things like people who don't want their young kids taught presentism history or gender choosing thought processes. They
hate the purveyors of this new thinking, no doubt. But it's not raw racial animus on a personal interaction level, not at all, nor is it a desire for whites only space. But the political left wants to build up the white supremacy specter, because the entrenched ugliness of it resonates. Hitting that target is as easy as throwing a rock at a barn door. Mention Trump and you've got icing on the cake (not that that is even that accurate, but hey, it works). So a few of the more enterprising and unscrupulous among them have been race crime hoaxing themselves into a furor, hoping it will build political clout by bringing out the vote.
So...the thing that intrigues me is, while we know the police and the administration are obligated to speak and proceed in the ways of their protocol, we also know that race crime hoaxing has been on the rise, and that the intended framed party is just about always 'white people.' Society is being trolled by race hustlers.
So the part that intrigues is the 'what do people really think when they read about this?' And, how are we affected each time. None of it looks pleasant at all.
I can see why Charlottesville would be particularly sensitive to this issue. They know from the events of several years ago that there is a lot of hate to go around, even if lots of it comes from the outside. If they just find a noose, and have no other evidence (handwriting, testimony of people who saw someone there, potentially video) I agree that the entire thing will probably have to be dropped. But if they have a trail to somewhere, then they have to see where that goes. Maybe its a hate crime, maybe its vandalism, maybe its a hoax. but as someone else said, the highly suggestive symbolism of nooses, especially in that region is not lost on anybody. Therefore, they start with hate crime. If nobody ever gets charged or convicted, then it goes away. I don't understand exactly why this is controversial.
Well, it would be controversial because a quick look at the coverage of say seven or eight of new sources shows in the comments that quite a few people suspect it is a hate crime hoax. And while one may certainly choose to write it off to 'oh, those southern white racists again...we brilliant academics and journalists already know everything about how they always think' I sense that the dyanamic is those readers are wondering if it is a hoax already because of the other recent hate crime hoaxes that have been in the news. Which would be like, you know...applying logic.
And, if someone is committing a hate crime hoax, they are doing something very injurious and irresponsible and they should be called out on it, and I think it's safe to say that if that turns out to be the case, this crowd of student activists never will. They would be much more likely to take a bow for their assessment of their own good intentions.
None of this means it is a hoax. But that's the point also...this is what happens when people do carry off hoaxes and there's no real penalty. Other hoaxers would be emboldened, and more citizens who are just trying to keep informed don't know what to believe any more.
And it's controversial because the student activists have stated in so many words that they want to make a spectacle of any white person who is not as enraged as they are. The university is not doing enough to protect them, they claim. As if someone has a magic wand that erases all hostility from the planet, but is simply too lazy to pick it up. I find it, frankly, unbecoming.
Quote from: Ruralguy on September 25, 2022, 06:46:37 PM
I can see why Charlottesville would be particularly sensitive to this issue. They know from the events of several years ago that there is a lot of hate to go around, even if lots of it comes from the outside. If they just find a noose, and have no other evidence (handwriting, testimony of people who saw someone there, potentially video) I agree that the entire thing will probably have to be dropped. But if they have a trail to somewhere, then they have to see where that goes. Maybe its a hate crime, maybe its vandalism, maybe its a hoax. but as someone else said, the highly suggestive symbolism of nooses, especially in that region is not lost on anybody. Therefore, they start with hate crime. If nobody ever gets charged or convicted, then it goes away. I don't understand exactly why this is controversial.
These 2 statements together are the problem. If it gets
assumed to be a hate crime, and no-one is ever proven to be responsible, then it
never goes away because it will remain
categorized as a hate crime.
I was on a campus that kept suffering racist "graffiti" scratched on various surfaces around campus. It received a lot of press in the student newspaper, a march on campus, and a denunciation from the chancellor. Almost certainly it was one student, and probably it was a prank, although I suspect one would not prank in this manner unless one harbored some of the sentiments expressed in the graffiti. As far as I know, no one was ever caught.
So, I think this event could count as a "hate crime hoax." If it was a "hate crime," it was ineffectual as a criminal enterprise except to make people mad. The graffiti only agitated the anti-racists, although I suppose one could make the argument that the racist underground was emboldened somehow.
What was the campus supposed to do, however? Not reacting might have been the better tack, but then overt racism is not overtly challenged.
What is your point, Mahag?
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on September 26, 2022, 06:34:48 AM
I was on a campus that kept suffering racist "graffiti" scratched on various surfaces around campus. It received a lot of press in the student newspaper, a march on campus, and a denunciation from the chancellor. Almost certainly it was one student, and probably it was a prank, although I suspect one would not prank in this manner unless one harbored some of the sentiments expressed in the graffiti. As far as I know, no one was ever caught.
So, I think this event could count as a "hate crime hoax." If it was a "hate crime," it was ineffectual as a criminal enterprise except to make people mad. The graffiti only agitated the anti-racists, although I suppose one could make the argument that the racist underground was emboldened somehow.
What was the campus supposed to do, however?
Clean it up?
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 26, 2022, 07:16:53 AM
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on September 26, 2022, 06:34:48 AM
I was on a campus that kept suffering racist "graffiti" scratched on various surfaces around campus. It received a lot of press in the student newspaper, a march on campus, and a denunciation from the chancellor. Almost certainly it was one student, and probably it was a prank, although I suspect one would not prank in this manner unless one harbored some of the sentiments expressed in the graffiti. As far as I know, no one was ever caught.
So, I think this event could count as a "hate crime hoax." If it was a "hate crime," it was ineffectual as a criminal enterprise except to make people mad. The graffiti only agitated the anti-racists, although I suppose one could make the argument that the racist underground was emboldened somehow.
What was the campus supposed to do, however?
Clean it up?
Um, Marshy, my friend, duh.
And?
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on September 26, 2022, 06:34:48 AM
I was on a campus that kept suffering racist "graffiti" scratched on various surfaces around campus. It received a lot of press in the student newspaper, a march on campus, and a denunciation from the chancellor. Almost certainly it was one student, and probably it was a prank, although I suspect one would not prank in this manner unless one harbored some of the sentiments expressed in the graffiti. As far as I know, no one was ever caught.
So, I think this event could count as a "hate crime hoax." If it was a "hate crime," it was ineffectual as a criminal enterprise except to make people mad. The graffiti only agitated the anti-racists, although I suppose one could make the argument that the racist underground was emboldened somehow.
What was the campus supposed to do, however? Not reacting might have been the better tack, but then overt racism is not overtly challenged.
What is your point, Mahag?
The campus is doing the right thing and the student activists are full of themselves by demanding more. This is the kind of pressure that results in extra, mandatory diversity training modules for 'white' faculty who were not racist to begin with, and often including rude exercises such as interrogating them over their ethnic background, creating expense and more wasted time, and maybe resentment.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on September 26, 2022, 07:22:48 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 26, 2022, 07:16:53 AM
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on September 26, 2022, 06:34:48 AM
I was on a campus that kept suffering racist "graffiti" scratched on various surfaces around campus. It received a lot of press in the student newspaper, a march on campus, and a denunciation from the chancellor. Almost certainly it was one student, and probably it was a prank, although I suspect one would not prank in this manner unless one harbored some of the sentiments expressed in the graffiti. As far as I know, no one was ever caught.
So, I think this event could count as a "hate crime hoax." If it was a "hate crime," it was ineffectual as a criminal enterprise except to make people mad. The graffiti only agitated the anti-racists, although I suppose one could make the argument that the racist underground was emboldened somehow.
What was the campus supposed to do, however?
Clean it up?
Um, Marshy, my friend, duh.
And?
Does every drawing on a wall, building, etc. of an item of male anatomy indicate entrenched misogyny and "rape culture", or does it often represent an adolescent who thinks it's edgy to draw? (Given that there are ancient artifacts including exaggerated organs, and given that there are cultures where they dress to have that effect, it's not a recent thing, and it's not going to disappear.)
There will always be a small fringe who like to do transgressive things, and they will get off on publicity that it generates. That doesn't reflect society as a whole in any way, shape, or form, but the publicity will
encourage the individuals to continue.
The best way to discourage this behaviour is by quietly and consistently cleaning it up just like a spilled garbage can, with no more fanfare.
Also, it's really time to begin educating students about hate crime hoaxes and the damage they do. But I don't expect it, because hate crime hoaxes are generally done with the intent to frame people, anonymous normal citizens as white supremacists, transphobes, homophobes (can you actually believe that tired riff is still circulating? Yet, it definitely is) which, as Marshy points out, linger as perceptions. This feeds into the political activism capital that the democrats want, so it's OK with most of the people who run higher ed.
UVA Incidents:
1. The first incident took place last month, when rocks were thrown through the window of a building on Dawson's Row that houses the Office for African American Affairs. Campus police investigated and charged a student for the act of vandalism.
In the email sent this week, university officials said that the student was known to Office for African American Affairs staff members and was motivated by factors unrelated to racial bias.
2.The FBI and campus police found the act was done by an alumnus who is a part of a philanthropic organization that conducts random acts of kindness for students.
3. But university officials said an incident that took place on Sept. 7 appeared to be a hate crime. A person left a noose around the Homer statue. Security footage from the time shows someone climbing a statue, placing a noose around its neck and leaving the scene by foot, according to campus police.
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 26, 2022, 07:49:45 AM
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on September 26, 2022, 07:22:48 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 26, 2022, 07:16:53 AM
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on September 26, 2022, 06:34:48 AM
I was on a campus that kept suffering racist "graffiti" scratched on various surfaces around campus. It received a lot of press in the student newspaper, a march on campus, and a denunciation from the chancellor. Almost certainly it was one student, and probably it was a prank, although I suspect one would not prank in this manner unless one harbored some of the sentiments expressed in the graffiti. As far as I know, no one was ever caught.
So, I think this event could count as a "hate crime hoax." If it was a "hate crime," it was ineffectual as a criminal enterprise except to make people mad. The graffiti only agitated the anti-racists, although I suppose one could make the argument that the racist underground was emboldened somehow.
What was the campus supposed to do, however?
Clean it up?
Um, Marshy, my friend, duh.
And?
Does every drawing on a wall, building, etc. of an item of male anatomy indicate entrenched misogyny and "rape culture", or does it often represent an adolescent who thinks it's edgy to draw? (Given that there are ancient artifacts including exaggerated organs, and given that there are cultures where they dress to have that effect, it's not a recent thing, and it's not going to disappear.)
There will always be a small fringe who like to do transgressive things, and they will get off on publicity that it generates. That doesn't reflect society as a whole in any way, shape, or form, but the publicity will encourage the individuals to continue.
The best way to discourage this behaviour is by quietly and consistently cleaning it up just like a spilled garbage can, with no more fanfare.
I kind of thought the same thing. This was probably some young adult clinging to adolescent urges and getting his (I always thought it was a dude because it just seemed like a young guy's sort of behavior) jollies watching everyone react.
At the same time, what our graffiti artist generated was a real show of support for the few minorities on campus and a complete rejection of racism in a very public way----don't underestimate how important that is. Racists rarely react to rational discourse.
In regards to your earlier, very subjective post about "liberals" using "hate crimes" for political purposes, I would counter that "conservatives" are far, far more likely to race bait and use denial of racial animus as a political tactic. That works quite well on a certain segment of the population. This is why Trump is so popular with some people. There are countless examples of Republican politicians implying or outright encouraging people to indulge in their stereotypes and bigotries. This tactic has really invigorated the Left which, I readily concede, is a bit too willing to jump down the rabbit hole.
But that is no excuse to be in denial yourself.
You've heard about the increase in actual racial violence in the last six years, right?
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on September 26, 2022, 06:34:48 AM
I was on a campus that kept suffering racist "graffiti" scratched on various surfaces around campus. It received a lot of press in the student newspaper, a march on campus, and a denunciation from the chancellor. Almost certainly it was one student, and probably it was a prank, although I suspect one would not prank in this manner unless one harbored some of the sentiments expressed in the graffiti. As far as I know, no one was ever caught.
So, I think this event could count as a "hate crime hoax." If it was a "hate crime," it was ineffectual as a criminal enterprise except to make people mad. The graffiti only agitated the anti-racists, although I suppose one could make the argument that the racist underground was emboldened somehow.
What was the campus supposed to do, however? Not reacting might have been the better tack, but then overt racism is not overtly challenged.
I really do wonder what would be the wisest course of action in such cases. I understand the desire to take a zero-tolerance approach and not let
any clearly hate-inspired piece of vandalism go un-denounced by the administration and community. But it has become fairly clear from the way these things keep happening that for some minute group of trolls out there--maybe just one or two or so for any given campus at any given time--provoking these reflexive displays of political theater is its own reward. They like the attention. It seems like college communities are letting these few trolls and knuckleheads have far, far more power and attention than they deserve. Which kind of plays into their hands.
QuoteIn regards to your earlier, very subjective post about "liberals" using "hate crimes" for political purposes, I would counter that "conservatives" are far, far more likely to race bait and use denial of racial animus as a political tactic.
I couldn't possibly disagree more.
QuoteYou've heard about the increase in actual racial violence in the last six years, right?
I suppose you figure the George Floyd riots don't count...?
Quote from: mahagonny on September 26, 2022, 11:11:22 AM
QuoteIn regards to your earlier, very subjective post about "liberals" using "hate crimes" for political purposes, I would counter that "conservatives" are far, far more likely to race bait and use denial of racial animus as a political tactic.
I couldn't possibly disagree more.
QuoteYou've heard about the increase in actual racial violence in the last six years, right?
I suppose you figure the George Floyd riots don't count...?
I suppose the Floyd riots are a different sort of criminality.
But what is it with conservatives who must always play the one-up game? Seriously, I've had so many of these conversations in which conservative commentators cannot stay on topic but must play the victim. Why?
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on September 26, 2022, 06:13:36 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on September 26, 2022, 11:11:22 AM
QuoteIn regards to your earlier, very subjective post about "liberals" using "hate crimes" for political purposes, I would counter that "conservatives" are far, far more likely to race bait and use denial of racial animus as a political tactic.
I couldn't possibly disagree more.
QuoteYou've heard about the increase in actual racial violence in the last six years, right?
I suppose you figure the George Floyd riots don't count...?
I suppose the Floyd riots are a different sort of criminality.
But what is it with conservatives who must always play the one-up game? Seriously, I've had so many of these conversations in which conservative commentators cannot stay on topic but must play the victim. Why?
We're frightened. Seven hundred police injured, little things like that. When you get hurt by someone who intended to hurt you, you feel the same way, regardless of what someone thinks the sort of criminality was.
BTW, aren't you worried that you wrote 'Floyd riots' instead of 'mostly peaceful protests?' Are your liberal friends going to like that?
Although I notice a few lately who are edging out of the closet and seem ready to admit they are the party of violence.
If I simply tell you I disagree, how is that one-upsmanship? I call it candor.
A crowd of people with their arm up and one finger pointed in the air frighten me.
Quote from: nebo113 on September 27, 2022, 05:11:10 AM
A crowd of people with their arm up and one finger pointed in the air frighten me.
Well, again, I passed up two chances to vote for DJT, but that falls in the category of 'you're looking for trouble? guess what? You found it.'
How do you promote surgical, irreversible transgender options to other people's children, children with parents who
don't want that for their children, and not understand you're playing with fire?
Quote from: apl68 on September 26, 2022, 10:39:01 AM
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on September 26, 2022, 06:34:48 AM
I was on a campus that kept suffering racist "graffiti" scratched on various surfaces around campus. It received a lot of press in the student newspaper, a march on campus, and a denunciation from the chancellor. Almost certainly it was one student, and probably it was a prank, although I suspect one would not prank in this manner unless one harbored some of the sentiments expressed in the graffiti. As far as I know, no one was ever caught.
So, I think this event could count as a "hate crime hoax." If it was a "hate crime," it was ineffectual as a criminal enterprise except to make people mad. The graffiti only agitated the anti-racists, although I suppose one could make the argument that the racist underground was emboldened somehow.
What was the campus supposed to do, however? Not reacting might have been the better tack, but then overt racism is not overtly challenged.
I really do wonder what would be the wisest course of action in such cases. I understand the desire to take a zero-tolerance approach and not let any clearly hate-inspired piece of vandalism go un-denounced by the administration and community. But it has become fairly clear from the way these things keep happening that for some minute group of trolls out there--maybe just one or two or so for any given campus at any given time--provoking these reflexive displays of political theater is its own reward. They like the attention. It seems like college communities are letting these few trolls and knuckleheads have far, far more power and attention than they deserve. Which kind of plays into their hands.
Exactly. It's kind of surprising how little people learned from Trump. To that kind of person, their ego is the flame and attention is
oxygen. They don't care that you hate them (or maybe even enjoy it), but they are ecstatic that you can't stop talking about them.
It's like the 2 year old who throws a tantrum in the store; bigger audience, bigger potential reward. Or the 4 year old saying "poop" when company comes over. If
pre-schoolers get it, adults (and especially highly educated ones) should be able to grasp it, but unfortunately they don't.
Quote
I was on a campus that kept suffering racist "graffiti" scratched on various surfaces around campus. It received a lot of press in the student newspaper, a march on campus, and a denunciation from the chancellor.
I wouldn't assume, just because he denounced the act, that the chancellor really minds a public stunt that creates the impression to some of the more ignorant progressives (a large group) that the KKK is in their backyard, thus potentially motivating them to vote blue. Not these days. The democrats being worried about losing their senate majority and all. Is Biden's student loan forgiveness a done deal?
Quote
Exactly. It's kind of surprising how little people learned from Trump. To that kind of person, their ego is the flame and attention is oxygen. They don't care that you hate them (or maybe even enjoy it), but they are ecstatic that you can't stop talking about them.
It's like the 2 year old who throws a tantrum in the store; bigger audience, bigger potential reward. Or the 4 year old saying "poop" when company comes over. If pre-schoolers get it, adults (and especially highly educated ones) should be able to grasp it, but unfortunately they don't.
A political reason for the stunt seems more likely given the timing.
Officially flouncing from any thread with Mahoganny in it. Said poster is a brick wall, so attempting to engage with said poster is simply a waste of time. Mahog.....Please accept your victory with any gloating you wish to evince
Quote from: nebo113 on September 27, 2022, 04:28:47 PM
Officially flouncing from any thread with Mahoganny in it. Said poster is a brick wall, so attempting to engage with said poster is simply a waste of time. Mahog.....Please accept your victory with any gloating you wish to evince
I did post this upthread, so you could decide to consider that it does occur to me from time to time that people on either side of the debate are genuinely frightened. But simultaneously, I am astonished as to how 'progressives' today can speak with such suspicion and bellicosity, and also appear not to understand how they would be seen as waging war.
QuoteIf any black student or family is frightened by this experience, you have my sorrow and sympathy. I don't say you shouldn't feel that. Hopefully there is no real threat.
Quote from: mahagonny on September 27, 2022, 05:33:40 PM
appear not to understand how they would be seen as waging war.
Pot meet kettle, Mahag.
Or, conversely, the Right feels victimized and complains bitterly whenever someone points out how irrational, volatile, and sectarian it has become.
NBC: Man Accused of Punching 67 Year Old Asian Woman Please Guilty to Hate Crime (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/man-accused-punching-67-year-old-asian-woman-125-ny-pleads-guilty-hate-rcna49744)
Professor: why you're linking that I don't know. Horrible incident. A Black man pummels an Asian woman while saying racist slurs. There again though they had a history together, so who knows exactly, everything that contributed to the violence. It might be different from a pure 'hate crime' wherein someone attacked or threatens strangers because of their obvious or assumed group membership. I'm not getting how that fits in to our discussion.
Republicans 'sectarian?' I don't see it. If you take republican voters' positions on crime, immigration, gun ownership rights, gender and race questions, how college ought to be paid for, inflation, economy, foreign policy, free market capitalism, they're mainstream, not sectarian or fringe. On abortion it's true most Americans believe there should be some rights to access to legal abortion, that doesn't mean they think the Supreme Court is a bunch of partisan lunatics like the democrats say. Ruth Bader Ginsburg did not like the way the things decided. It's up to the states now. She should be cancelled by the left now.
That wider America is more aligned with republicans than with democrats today only becomes apparent when you look at what people actually believe in the USA. Not when you go by what Americans should believe as decreed by the most visible and outspoken among the media, Hollywood, pro sports, late night TV, entertainment culture, academia.
I really can't be bothered to spend any significant time reading short postings about intractable problems. Nothing ever accomplished. Agreement never reached. The status quo prevails.
But from what I have glanced at in this thread, it does appear that some people have not learned much from their 3 months in a time out.
Quote from: mahagonny on September 28, 2022, 10:46:53 AM
Professor: why you're linking that I don't know. Horrible incident. A Black man pummels an Asian woman while saying racist slurs. There again though they had a history together, so who knows exactly, everything that contributed to the violence. It might be different from a pure 'hate crime' wherein someone attacked or threatens strangers because of their obvious or assumed group membership. I'm not getting how that fits in to our discussion.
Republicans 'sectarian?' I don't see it. If you take republican voters' positions on crime, immigration, gun ownership rights, gender and race questions, how college ought to be paid for, inflation, economy, foreign policy, free market capitalism, they're mainstream, not sectarian or fringe. On abortion it's true most Americans believe there should be some rights to access to legal abortion, that doesn't mean they think the Supreme Court is a bunch of partisan lunatics like the democrats say. Ruth Bader Ginsburg did not like the way the things decided. It's up to the states now. She should be cancelled by the left now.
That wider America is more aligned with republicans than with democrats today only becomes apparent when you look at what people actually believe in the USA. Not when you go by what Americans should believe as decreed by the most visible and outspoken among the media, Hollywood, pro sports, late night TV, entertainment culture, academia.
Well, my friend, I am not a professor.
It would be pointless to debate this point (no play on words) but if we had the popular vote instead of the Electoral College there would be a landslide of voters aligned with the Democrats; this is why the Repubs adamantly oppose an amendment.
Republicans may be American mainstream individuals and basically moral people.
But I always refer to the Jan. 6th insurgency as the perfect synecdoche of the party as a whole, including the support the insurgents are receiving.
Other examples might be "the Biden crime family" while the last Republican president is actually under investigation for so many charges from both his time as president and before that I have lost track. A certain percentage of the population simply ignores, denies, or deflects these realities rather than examine them (very much as people do when deflecting onto George Floyd rather than actually discussing the racism of their own party).
Not to mention the charges against Steve Bannon and Jared Kushner (and no, Hilary did not sell plutonium to the Rooskies and Zuckerberg is not a government agent in disguise----those are conservative media confabulations; you have no room to talk about media manipulation).
But there is no point in talking about those things. For all your rhetoric, my friend, your mind is very closed and you are a wee bit zealous. I hope you are getting the help.
Quote from: marshwiggle on September 27, 2022, 08:07:31 AM
Exactly. It's kind of surprising how little people learned from Trump. To that kind of person, their ego is the flame and attention is oxygen. They don't care that you hate them (or maybe even enjoy it*), but they are ecstatic that you can't stop talking about them.
Since you pivot to Trump somewhat out of the blue, you prompt me quote this: 'Sometimes a man can be judged favorably by the kinds of people who oppose him.' - Bill Clinton
*my italic
QuoteIt's like the 2 year old who throws a tantrum in the store; bigger audience, bigger potential reward. Or the 4 year old saying "poop" when company comes over. If pre-schoolers get it, adults (and especially highly educated ones) should be able to grasp it, but unfortunately they don't.
Huh. I dunno. A person who's been elected POTUS has the attention of the public due to the importance of the job.
I would think they have the same rights to ego, and the temptation to enjoy it, as anyone. but they don't have a choice about whether or not to be the center of attention. I doubt if it's that different where you live.
Specifically, about Trump, he couldn't have been more different from a sneaky hate crime or trollish stunt perpetrator. He stood out in the open and said 'the political establishment and the media are our, our enemy.' He put the target on his own back.
Sometimes certains folks will resort to calling someone a troll, egomaniac, or attention seeker because they're worried that that person is saying something that is true that they don't want heard.
But as for your indentifying a possible motive for a childish person hanging a noose around the neck of a statue, and maybe without any political thing in mind, but just for the fun of generating the reaction, I agree that could be what happened in Virginia.
QuoteWell, my friend, I am not a professor.
QuoteI hope you are getting the help.
I'll thank you to cool it with the cheap shots then, friend.
Not a cheap shot, my friend Mahag. I would never cheap shot you. I think there may be some issues you want to deal with. I only wish you the best.
Do you really think that most Americans line up with GOP rather than Dem viewpoints on most significant issues? Some of those you mentioned, perhaps, but certainly not all, such as gun control. And in any case, you know full well that any given Voter X's opinions can be shown to be more or less what you want 'em to be, if you frame the poll questions correctly. But the fact that the GOP is running to retake the congressional majorities this year whilst more or less openly telling the voters nothing about what they would do, what their plan/ platform for governance would be, if restored to that majority, says a great deal in and of itself. And when GOP candidates, at least those outside hard-red districts, those candidates who actually have to campaign against serious Demo opposition, start to talk about their views, try to differentiate themselves from their Demo opponents (these would be places where resorting to strident MAGA-style culture war appeals would be losers for said candidates), these GOPers generally speak in vague platitudes, such as that espoused by Alan Fung, a semi-MAGAish Repub candidate for an open House seat in RI (Fung has previously been mayor of a decent sized city there, and twice an unsuccessful GOP governor nominee-- he pointedly did not seek a third try at that job this year). Fung pledges, as many similar GOP candidates nationwide have this year, to fight to eliminate 'wasteful spending'. Now where exactly is the caucus or cheering section for 'wasteful spending'-- who thinks it is a good idea? But no one seems to ask such candidates to define things in the federal budget that they think qualify *as wasteful spending*, because, well, generally one of the following things would be revealed in any such clarification answers: 1) they do not really have any specifics about what things which they would want to eliminate (just using 'wasteful spending' as a buzzword), 2) they would list things to be eliminated that *they know* most Americans would not want to have eliminated. Methinks, further, that on many other issues the GOPers use such vague platitudes to sub for serious commentary on, in order to obfuscate their true thinking, were they to clarify and expound upon what they really think of these issues, they would find, ahem, lots of 'nein danke' responses from all but MAGA hardliners.
Well, it should be easy to campaign against wasteful spending without offering specifics these days, since Joe Biden eeked out a win yet took it as a mandate to pull another FDR 'New Deal' type agenda, and now inflation is the worst in 40 years. I agree the republicans don't show a lot of inspiring, specific platform lately, but to my mind, they're the only hope we've got. Unless one wants the nihilism the democrats are selling.
I have watched Joe Biden try to be president for some 35 years and during that time I can't recall anyone who stood out in the open and said 'he will be a great president' and sound like they mean it. And now we know why. He's a professional career politician, in all the worst aspects of what that means.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on September 29, 2022, 04:29:25 PM
Not a cheap shot, my friend Mahag. I would never cheap shot you. I think there may be some issues you want to deal with. I only wish you the best.
I have that same type of concern for you, colleague.