(10-08-2012 03:40 PM)texd Wrote:  

(10-08-2012 02:13 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  How many movies have been made about assassinating Obama?

And how many of you expressed similar indignation about Death of a President?

I had to google it.

Me too. Hard to get indignant about something you've never heard of. That said, it is a pretty repugnant topic for a movie.

(10-08-2012 03:25 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-08-2012 01:15 PM)FanViaThresherSports09 Wrote:  

(10-08-2012 01:25 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

FanViaThresherSports09 Wrote:  .

Also, putting Bush's face on a chimp CLEARLY carries less offensive connotations than putting Obama's on an aborigine.

I see little difference, and find neither acceptable. Both images are meant to demean a person and meant to demean the then current President. If you think Bush on a chimp is more acceptable, OK, that's your opinion and we all have a right to one of those.

Lincoln was also compared to an ape, so maybe this isn't so new.

Regardless of your defense of Kantian moral theory, the history of race relations in this country clearly creates a hierarchy of offensiveness that you're apparently unwilling to accept. Unlike Bush's face on a chimp, Obama's on an aborigine carries the context of centuries of slavery and subjugation of African Americans in this country, and, quite frankly, I find it ludicrous that one would equate the two.

So, would Obama's face on a chimp be less offensive than Obama's face on an aborigine? Just trying to discern if the difference to you is the President demeaned or the method of demeaning.

Personally, I find the comparison to a beast a tad worse than the comparison to another human. But that is just my opinion.

I am not familiar with Kantian moral theory. I guess I got there independently, wherever that is.

I'm inclined to think that's a false choice. I tend to find racially-charged insults especially distasteful, regardless of the president on the receiving end of them. When you put a white person's face on a chimp you get a, "Hey, look, that guy is an idiot," kind of thing. When you put a black person's on a chimp or aborigine, then combine it with all of the birther stuff, you get a, "Hey, that's one of those exotic jungle savages" implication, with centuries of discrimination giving it context.

(10-08-2012 05:47 PM)FanViaThresherSports09 Wrote:  

(10-08-2012 03:25 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-08-2012 01:15 PM)FanViaThresherSports09 Wrote:  

(10-08-2012 01:25 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

FanViaThresherSports09 Wrote:  .

Also, putting Bush's face on a chimp CLEARLY carries less offensive connotations than putting Obama's on an aborigine.

I see little difference, and find neither acceptable. Both images are meant to demean a person and meant to demean the then current President. If you think Bush on a chimp is more acceptable, OK, that's your opinion and we all have a right to one of those.

Lincoln was also compared to an ape, so maybe this isn't so new.

Regardless of your defense of Kantian moral theory, the history of race relations in this country clearly creates a hierarchy of offensiveness that you're apparently unwilling to accept. Unlike Bush's face on a chimp, Obama's on an aborigine carries the context of centuries of slavery and subjugation of African Americans in this country, and, quite frankly, I find it ludicrous that one would equate the two.

So, would Obama's face on a chimp be less offensive than Obama's face on an aborigine? Just trying to discern if the difference to you is the President demeaned or the method of demeaning.

Personally, I find the comparison to a beast a tad worse than the comparison to another human. But that is just my opinion.

I am not familiar with Kantian moral theory. I guess I got there independently, wherever that is.

I'm inclined to think that's a false choice. I tend to find racially-charged insults especially distasteful, regardless of the president on the receiving end of them. When you put a white person's face on a chimp you get a, "Hey, look, that guy is an idiot," kind of thing. When you put a black person's on a chimp or aborigine, then combine it with all of the birther stuff, you get a, "Hey, that's one of those exotic jungle savages" implication, with centuries of discrimination giving it context.

I try to be color blind. I just see two Presidents being demeaned. But I can understand where you could see things differently.


Why do you think I am a birther? You keep bringing up birther stuff. FTR, I am not a birther. Never have been.

I think you must be using aborigine in the Australian manner, but doesn't it refer to indigenous peoples of all races?

In any case, I think we have established that disrespect of sitting Presidents is not something new.

(10-08-2012 03:44 PM)Owl-88 Wrote:  

(10-08-2012 03:40 PM)texd Wrote:  

(10-08-2012 02:13 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  How many movies have been made about assassinating Obama?

And how many of you expressed similar indignation about Death of a President?

I had to google it.

Me too. Hard to get indignant about something you've never heard of. That said, it is a pretty repugnant topic for a movie.

Me too.

So are you saying that it's inappropriate to offer any such expressions attacking any president?
Or are you saying some things are okay but some aren't?
And if it's the latter, exactly what would be appropriate with regard to the current president?
And is that the same as, or different from, the standard regarding any other president?
And if different, why?

And for those who have never heard of "Death of a President," why do you suppose that is?
And now that you are aware of it, how does your level of outrage about that compare to your level of outrage about this?
And if different, why different?

69, I see your point. But here's the countervailing point: we can discriminate (no pun intended) between different situations and contexts. Would you agree there is a difference between calling a white man "boy" versus calling a black man "boy"? Or hanging Obama in effigy as opposed to Bush? Or calling Bush a monkey versus calling Obama one? Does our history and shared culture not give different meanings to certain attacks on Obama versus the same attacks on Bush, where one taps into a long history of ugliness/racism while the other doesn't?

Surely no one here is advocating that our cultural understanding allows for one size to fit all.

P.S. I find the Death of a President in really poor taste, for whatever president. Now, if there were one for Bush and one for Obama, and both films used the same method of death--lynching--I'm not going to lie to you: I'd find the Obama one more outrageous. And I think it would be unreasonable, in that situation, to put both movies on equal cultural footing.

(10-09-2012 08:23 AM)Barrett Wrote:  69, I see your point. But here's the countervailing point: we can discriminate (no pun intended) between different situations and contexts. Would you agree there is a difference between calling a white man "boy" versus calling a black man "boy"? Or hanging Obama in effigy as opposed to Bush? Or calling Bush a monkey versus calling Obama one? Does our history and shared culture not give different meanings to certain attacks on Obama versus the same attacks on Bush, where one taps into a long history of ugliness/racism while the other doesn't?
Surely no one here is advocating that our cultural understanding allows for one size to fit all.
P.S. I find the Death of a President in really poor taste, for whatever president. Now, if there were one for Bush and one for Obama, and both films used the same method of death--lynching--I'm not going to lie to you: I'd find the Obama one more outrageous. And I think it would be unreasonable, in that situation, to put both movies on equal cultural footing.

But there's not a movie about lynching Obama. That's where your hypothetical fails. As for the distinctions you are attempting with your other examples, I am not at all convinced that those are appropriate in a color-blind society. Perhaps they have some validity during transition to that color-blind society, perhaps not.

What I see here is an expression of greater moral indignation over a pictorial representation morphing Obama's face onto what appears to be the body of a Pacific Islander than over a movie about assassinating Bush. And no, I don't put those on an equal cultural footing.

While I will agree that there may be some rationale for differentiation between calling Obama a monkey and calling Bush a monkey (although as noted above, I'm not certain whether that argument should prevail), I clearly would not extend any differentiation to the point that saying anything about Bush is okay, but there's no criticism that can be offered of Obama without invoking racism. And that's where I think a number of people are attempting to draw the line.

What I'm trying to do is get some idea of where folks think the line should be drawn for each.

For me, that is an easy question. I think the same criteria should be used regardless of race. Do we judge foreign policy or tax issues differently with regard to race? Regardless of the answer, we shouldn't. The proposals should be judged on their merits, and so should people,

I said earlier I try to be color blind. That is an ideal we all profess to, but in actual practice it is ignored by most people, as they try to be extra nice or considerate of this group or that. Or extra mean.

I don't think Presidents or plumbers should be held to different standards based on race, and that goes for their supporters and detractors, too.

There is a certain derogatory word used for black people that peoplel of my racial background are not allowed to use. We can refer to it only by its initial. If we try to to write it here, it will be starred out. But words like honky, cracker, white trash,, etc, are perfectly fine for public use by anybody.

There is still a double sttandard in this country, just a different one than 60 years ago. I think there should be only one standard. That is way more idealistic than pragmatic. But it is my opinion.

I just think the sooner we start treating everybody the same, the sooner the country really does become colorblind. I think as long as we treat the races differently and as separate entities, we will be divided by race.

One place we could start is by by giving the Presidency proper respect, regardless of the race of the officeholder.

Here's something to consider:

In the next 30-50 years, the situation will change in this country as far as demographics. Groups that have heretofore been in the minority will suddenly find themselves equal in number to or greater than groups that have been in the majority. That is a function of things like more minority group children in grade schools for the first time ever, which happened this year.

Now, will all these laws and quotas designed to protect minorities apply to the previous group's members who were formerly in the majority? My feeling based upon the national dialog the last several decades is 'probably not, and maybe never.'

The problem with these 'customs', 'standards', 'quotas', whatever you wish to call them is that they were born out of resentment. Not saying some things did not need to be changed, as there was of course a tremendous inequality and discrimination that was immoral, and inconsistent with the ideals of this country. But I think Dr. King had more of the right ideal as his belief was that society should work toward race not mattering either way, under any cirumstance. That would include, for example, having the same reaction to putting anyone's face on anything, regardless of their racial makeup.

As long as one can trot out the "yeah, but what about history?" argument, equality is lost and racism perpetuates. If you go far enough back into history, you will find that every group has suffered unjustly at one time or another under the hands of someone or another. The issue is that many are selective in how far back they go, and what they tend to look for and focus on.

Witness the Poles and the Albanians and their struggles over centuries, even being considered the lowest European minorities in the American educational assessments of the 19th and early 20th centuries. Yet the Poles gave us John Paul II, and Coperincus. The Albanians gave us Mother Theresa and John and Jim Belushi.

Poles, Albanians, Jews have suffered atrocities and slavery and genocide that rival and even surpass what has been done in America, That's not a justification or rationalization, that's just an inconvenient fact. Taiwanese and Koreans and Vietnamese and more have suffered great discrimination and genocide as well. But it doesn't fit the narrative here, so many conveniently forget or ignore that as well. In Africa today, tribes still fight , discriminate against and brutally murder eachother for racial and religious distintions many outside would be lost to notice.

Interesting that the Supreme Court will again take up a racial and quota issue as top schools and discrimination in the current term. On the day that the court turns against race-based quotas, you will hear a huge shrieking across the country about discrimination and turning back the clock. Yet, rationally, the natural progression of a discimination-free society is one where there is no discrimination or bias either way.

I have run into many people who feel that certain minority groups are "incapable" of racism, by the nature of their belonging to certain minorities. That is the most racist sentiment of all, and one I think Dr. King would find offensive and abhorrent.

Putting anyone's picture on a monkey or any kind of human figure generates the same reaction to many enlightened people without being race dependent.

I remember specifically being at Rice with some of the BB players using the forbidden word freely with eachother. I remember being shocked at how it was seemingly used as a term of endearment by many. It was @#$ed up, no other word for it. When they noticed I was bothered by it, a few of them started to tease me quite forcefully by asking me to call them the word, proclaiming that is what they called themselves. I had been raised that that was an evil word, never to be used for ANYONE, not only reserved for certain folks to use with eachother. I was quite offended, and I will never forget a couple of the players laughing at me about it.

There were other players of the same background as the offenders who, recognizing the wrong, then interceded and told the others to stop, that it was wrong what they were doing to me. I truly believe the first two thought that they did nothing wrong. That is racism. Ignorance, and a willingness to perpetuate and recind responsiblility when the wrong is pointed out. That was the first time I ever really felt racially separated from individuals, as I had grown up in diverse schools when I was young and had friends across races.. But I also realized that racism can and does go both ways, and is an attitude, not a fact of one's being.

Dr. King's attitude was to try an raise people up to equality and promote the positive aspects of humanity. Hence, the focus in the civil rights era on education and family. Today, the same culture has been turned away from that ideal, toward one of ignorance, contempt for education, and acceptance and celebration of the good of coming from broken families, and the legitimizing ability of crime, violence and going to prison.

You know where the "pants on the ground" look came from? It came from prisoners having their belts taken away as they were being used as weapons and for abuse among the prisoners. Once they had no belts, their pants of course sagged down. Since going to prison was being promoted as a rite of passage for young males, wearing your pants down out in the free world came to be seen as a sign you were legitimate, that you had already been to prison, and thus understood and were successful and comfortable within the norms of that culture. Most people who sport this look today probably have little idea of its origins, and only do it to fit in and look cool.

Today, you have a president who celebrates for others the normalcy and acceptability of broken families, enacts legislation protecting and promoting family destruction, who uses a distinctly different dialect when addressing groups closer to his own background thatn the general public, who tries to have it both ways. While he himself chooses to go towards a traditional American family. To some, that is equally offensive, suggesting that "private racism" is acceptable in any community, and further hurts the American ideal of eqyuality for all regardless of background.

We have a long way to go, and slowly moving there, but as lonmg as we have separate standards based on whatever "history" instead of emphasizing the shared history and suffering of all mankind, we will still have racial divide. History goes back more than 400 years. History goes back to the beginning of time. Look back far enough and we are all the same people. Look back only a few generations and you will perpetuate hate.

(10-09-2012 11:34 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  Today, you have a president who celebrates for others the normalcy and acceptability of broken families, enacts legislation protecting and promoting family destruction, who uses a distinctly different dialect when addressing groups closer to his own background thatn the general public, who tries to have it both ways. While he himself chooses to go towards a traditional American family. To some, that is equally offensive, suggesting that "private racism" is acceptable in any community, and further hurts the American ideal of eqyuality for all regardless of background.

There's a lot to ponder in your post (e.g., I don't have to go back in our collective history very far to get to de jure, de facto segregation, slavery, the response to desegregation in certain southern metro areas), but for the moment:

Curious about your take that Obama celebrates broken families?

Enacts legislation that promotes family destruction?

Are you talking about non-discrimination against gay folks?

Some larger philosophical stance about the role of government?

Do you have examples of this, 'cause I missed it.

(10-09-2012 11:34 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  Today, you have a president who . . . uses a distinctly different dialect when addressing groups closer to his own background thatn the general public.

And, of course, you also have Mitt: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXGMi7a53...ults_video

Also, presumably you're aware of the linguistic concepts of "register" and "code switching"? Wikipedia can help you out with that if you're striving to understand why someone might change how he speaks when entering various social settings.

Of course, this switching is generally unconscious, as contrasted with, say, purposefully attempting to throw in vocabulary you read on Urban Dictionary during a "diversity" photo shoot.

(10-09-2012 06:34 PM)FanViaThresherSports09 Wrote:  

(10-09-2012 11:34 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  Today, you have a president who . . . uses a distinctly different dialect when addressing groups closer to his own background thatn the general public.

And, of course, you also have Mitt: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXGMi7a53...ults_video

Also, presumably you're aware of the linguistic concepts of "register" and "code switching"? Wikipedia can help you out with that if you're striving to understand why someone might change how he speaks when entering various social settings.

Of course, this switching is generally unconscious, as contrasted with, say, purposefully attempting to throw in vocabulary you read on Urban Dictionary during a "diversity" photo shoot.

When I came to Rice all those years ago from my little country school, I started talking much more "country" than I had before. Is this what you mean?

(10-10-2012 01:19 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-09-2012 06:34 PM)FanViaThresherSports09 Wrote:  

(10-09-2012 11:34 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  Today, you have a president who . . . uses a distinctly different dialect when addressing groups closer to his own background thatn the general public.

And, of course, you also have Mitt: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXGMi7a53...ults_video

Also, presumably you're aware of the linguistic concepts of "register" and "code switching"? Wikipedia can help you out with that if you're striving to understand why someone might change how he speaks when entering various social settings.

Of course, this switching is generally unconscious, as contrasted with, say, purposefully attempting to throw in vocabulary you read on Urban Dictionary during a "diversity" photo shoot.

When I came to Rice all those years ago from my little country school, I started talking much more "country" than I had before. Is this what you mean?

That's a slightly different phenomenon. What I'm talking about is the unconscious shift in grammar, syntax, and lexicon (and even physical gestures) that occurs in our speech when we move through various social settings. One of the prerequisites, of course, is familiarity with both settings, such that you're aware (subconsciously, usually) of the proper conventions - how appropriate it is to interrupt someone, what length of silence indicates that it's someone else's turn to speak, whether it's ok to slap someone on the back as you talk, how close you stand to someone during conversation, etc.

(10-10-2012 07:07 AM)FanViaThresherSports09 Wrote:  

(10-10-2012 01:19 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-09-2012 06:34 PM)FanViaThresherSports09 Wrote:  

(10-09-2012 11:34 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  Today, you have a president who . . . uses a distinctly different dialect when addressing groups closer to his own background thatn the general public.

And, of course, you also have Mitt: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXGMi7a53...ults_video

Also, presumably you're aware of the linguistic concepts of "register" and "code switching"? Wikipedia can help you out with that if you're striving to understand why someone might change how he speaks when entering various social settings.

Of course, this switching is generally unconscious, as contrasted with, say, purposefully attempting to throw in vocabulary you read on Urban Dictionary during a "diversity" photo shoot.

When I came to Rice all those years ago from my little country school, I started talking much more "country" than I had before. Is this what you mean?

That's a slightly different phenomenon. What I'm talking about is the unconscious shift in grammar, syntax, and lexicon (and even physical gestures) that occurs in our speech when we move through various social settings. One of the prerequisites, of course, is familiarity with both settings, such that you're aware (subconsciously, usually) of the proper conventions - how appropriate it is to interrupt someone, what length of silence indicates that it's someone else's turn to speak, whether it's ok to slap someone on the back as you talk, how close you stand to someone during conversation, etc.

My wife and I did a similar thing when we lived in England, back when I was WarwickshireOwl. American friends would tell us we had picked up mild English accents. Our English co-workers would have found that absurd. What we were really doing was picking up English phrases and dropping some Americans ones, and taking the edge off some of the (to the English) more jarring American pronunciations so that we could focus on communicating with our coworkers about work, instead of our accents.

There were other places though, where I selectively played up my "Americaness". Maybe that's similar to OO's example.

I remember David Letterman showing a clip of current Tottenham and former Blackburn and Aston Villa GK Brad Friedel speaking with an accent and then pointing out "he's from Ohio" to many laughs. But I saw him recently on Match of the Day and the idea that he had anything other than an American accent was absurd. Don't know if it's a matter of context, or if he's toned down the adopted accent now that he's in cosmopolitan London instead of Norf England.

I came to Rice from a small school (122 in my graduating class) in a rural setting. I went from being the intellectual kid in a country setting to being the country kid in the company of kids more intellectual and better educated than I was. I found myself saying things like "Reckon I'll jist mosey on down to the commons and get me some victuals", waaaaay more country than anything anyone in my hometown would have said. I guess it was a reaction to the "smartkids" - I was no longer longer exceptional, just average, and in the end that was one of the things I loved about Rice - the depth of expressionI could achieve while discussing things with other people more like me.


In my post-Rice life, I still talk with a country twang, and I usually have to dumb down my vocabulary (friends complain sometimes about my "fifty cent words"), but it is not anywhere nearly as bad as it was that first semester.

I watch a lot of BBC America, and find myself picking up some British phraseology now.

(10-09-2012 01:02 PM)ausowl Wrote:  Curious about your take that Obama celebrates broken families?

Enacts legislation that promotes family destruction?

Are you talking about non-discrimination against gay folks?

Some larger philosophical stance about the role of government?

Obama has regularly celebrated single-motherhood (I don't recall hearing him talk about single fathers who try to raise their kids, but that's an issue most want to pretend doesn't exist, even though it is harder as you don't have the support systems that women do.)

In addition, Obama's general philosophy and far-left policies help promote easier family destruction by encouraging (here we go) murder of innocent children. Over 53 MILLION children have been murdered this way since (again, here we go) Roe v Wade removed states' rights. That's quite a few Holocausts. Plus, by making it easier to dispose of these people who have no voices, Obama and the far left have reduced one of the primary functions of the family: reproducing and perpetuating the human race.

The AFCA (obamacare) institutionalizes this further, and infringes upon individuals rights to freedom of religious beliefs by making it unlawful for many to remain true to their religious beliefs by not providing contaception, as has been the custom heretofore. By discriminating against religions, and infringing upon religious liberty, making it a crime not to adhere to government poicy, this administration has crossed into a dangerous new frontier of government control, and reduction of liberty central to the core values of the founding of this nation.

The communist philosophy of control of the masses is to replace the family with the state (and (not so) great society and new-deal programs encourage this dependence on government, which almost always leads to unsustainable borrowing and debt through "entitlement" over time, finally helping lead to the financial collapse of that society. By removing the personal accountability and stigma of being on the dole, it is much harder to wean a person once hooked, similar to a drug dealer offering freebies to new users in order to get them hooked.

The second pillar of the communist philosophy of control of the masses is to replace religion with the party. (Again, here we go). By discouraging and in some cases outlawing the free practice of an individual's religion, and/or stigmatizing that in favor of a positive encouragement of participating in the cult of the party, more central control of the masses is obtained without the influence of outside influences which are harder to control, sometimes diametrically opposed to the "values" of the government.

As to your other question, I was pointing out the fact that genocide, discrimination and culture-bashing has taken place around the world against many other ethnic communities, such as Poles, Albanians, Taiwanese, Vietnamese, Jews, etc...that are still less regarded than the primary ones based on skin color. Indeed, with the community of "people who are darker than blue" (As Curtis Mayfiield liked to identify) there is also severe prejudice and discriminatiion between those of differing skin tones. It is less a homogenous community today than some would suppose. And it is often more useful to look at economic stratification than racial-based ones.

Some believe this country was founded toward the ideal of freedom, liberty and equality for all. Originally that only applied to landed, white males. But the documents that set America's history allowed for those ideals to become fuilly manifested over time to include all its citizens.

It seems that our founding fathers may well be revolted by the tangents our society has shifted towards, especially with the severity of government largesse and control in the average citizens' lives. (Perhaps not, but I find it difficult to believe so.)

As to the dialect thing, it is painful to watch when any high-ranking politico does it. I understand where it comes from, and the theory of human tendency to adopt it in situations, but it can be disconcerting to witness, when it shifts back and forth. That is a minor complaint, and is true of all politicans who do it, on both sides, not just Obama.

You're kidding right?

If showing support for single mothers = celebrating broken families, does showing support for burn victims = celebrating arson?

TexD made me chuckle.

(10-10-2012 09:36 PM)Barrett Wrote:  TexD made me chuckle.

You have kids, Barrett?