(07-18-2019 05:32 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Interesting observation - just noticed that Tanq relies heavily upon the law in his responses. He talks about what is legal, what the Supreme Court has ruled, etc., regardless of whether or not the legality of an issue is of concern. This is a perfect example - we’re talking about a topic that is more concerned with ethics and morality, as opposed to legality. No one is saying that people should be held criminally liable for these chants, using a racial slur in the work place, etc., yet Tanq is relying on the legal system as a way to push back. But society has decided, mostly, that there are plenty of things that are legal, but not necessarily moral or ethical, and speech really falls in that category.

I think that is often where a lot of these disagreements come from.

Mainly because progressivism is fundamentally built on the foundation of enforcing a 'rule de jour' by coercion.

Rule de jour is the tool of despots, whether in the criminal realm, the civil law realm, or in private realm. I am using the Supreme Court case as a tool for those who dont understand the concept of 'vagueness' to do so.

I suggest you read a little more carefully, since none of my comments dealt at all with criminal law, but that is seemingly the crux of your pushback. Pretty much a strawman there, son. The issue I am trying to make isnt that the Supreme Court 'ruled x' or 'ruled y', but to point out the thought process that steered them that way. ANd how the thought process on the subject mirrors our discussions here.

If you think I am saying 'well the Supreme Court said x was legal and it should be applied by rule of law', then that is a very shallow level of that.

(07-18-2019 06:05 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 05:32 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Interesting observation - just noticed that Tanq relies heavily upon the law in his responses. He talks about what is legal, what the Supreme Court has ruled, etc., regardless of whether or not the legality of an issue is of concern. This is a perfect example - we’re talking about a topic that is more concerned with ethics and morality, as opposed to legality. No one is saying that people should be held criminally liable for these chants, using a racial slur in the work place, etc., yet Tanq is relying on the legal system as a way to push back. But society has decided, mostly, that there are plenty of things that are legal, but not necessarily moral or ethical, and speech really falls in that category.

I think that is often where a lot of these disagreements come from.

Mainly because progressivism is fundamentally built on the foundation of enforcing a 'rule de jour' by coercion.

Rule de jour is the tool of despots, whether in the criminal realm, the civil law realm, or in private realm. I am using the Supreme Court case as a tool for those who dont understand the concept of 'vagueness' to do so.

I suggest you read a little more carefully, since none of my comments dealt at all with criminal law, but that is seemingly the crux of your pushback. Pretty much a strawman there, son. The issue I am trying to make isnt that the Supreme Court 'ruled x' or 'ruled y', but to point out the thought process that steered them that way. ANd how the thought process on the subject mirrors our discussions here.

If you think I am saying 'well the Supreme Court said x was legal and it should be applied by rule of law', then that is a very shallow level of that.

But that theory that “rule de jour” is a worthless and evil idea completely ignores societal progress. Based on that theory, it should still be socially acceptable to use a whole host of slurs to describe minorities and be overtly racist, sexist, etc. so long as you don’t discriminate. Those actions have become socially stigmatized but are still, as you would call them, a “rule de jour.” There is a benefit of having a societal “rule de jour” that is not codified in law, but rather by ethical and moral standards.

All of your comments are built on the foundation of them being legal actions or being supported by Supreme Court precedent, and you always completely ignore the societal implications of one’s actions. For example, it’s not illegal to pick your nose and eat your boogers, but the “rule de jour” makes it so that people are shunned for doing it in public. This isn’t to say that all these types of societal norms are correct, as I mentioned, it used to be acceptable to be racist. But it is saying that the you ignore a hugely beneficial aspect of the “rule de jour” idea, and how it benefits society.

(07-18-2019 05:45 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 03:59 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  And what about those that didn’t join in the chorus?
Why do you think they stayed silent?

I dont know, I seemingly dont have that preternatural 'racist or ignorant' superhero radar power that you do. Nor do I have any subjective (or objective) knowledge of why *anyone* in that group chanted (or conversely, didnt chant).

What is your super duper insightful view based on 15 secs of clips tell you of why some didnt chant?

I already answered that above. I can see three rational reasons as to why people chanted that - they’re racist, they’re ignorant of the historical context of chanting “Send her back,” or they wanted to be intentionally inflammatory.

As much as you keep trying to dance around it and rationalize it, “go back where you came from” is a phrase/concept said to people of many ethnicities over the years that was built on racism/nativism.

(07-18-2019 05:59 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 05:22 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 05:16 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The idea of firing for criminal activity and incompetence is fairly objective, the latter a little less so.

The funny thing is that 93 just validated the entire ethos of progressivism with his comment there. Perfectly fine with firing for a 'racial slur'.

Funny how a 'racial slur' is a constantly moving target. In fact, it is utterly and completely subjective, to be honest. Not just by individual variance, but by temporal variance. One that was, surprise, surprise, visited by the Supreme Court last year.

The prime example of how leftists wanted to ixnay the trademark Redskins for years; and when it came down to it, the Supreme Court didnt do the 'rule de jour' method that is lapped up like fresh mead by the leftists, they expressly ruled that the ability of the Trademark Office to deny "disparaging" marks was so amazingly vague that they told the Trademark Office to stop. But the core in their is that the progressives fought tooth and nail to impose a 'rule de jour' on that practice.

93 seems perfectly at home at creating a society ruled by 'rule de jour' in the workplace. Rule by vagueness. Yay. A progressive's wet dream.

And somehow they are either blind to that 'vagueness doctrine', or simply dont give a flip.

If bad -- -mob rule prevails. Get the state involved. Get the workplace involved. With a rulebase that can change with the vagaries of what is deigned to be double ungood speak (at that time, at that place). I mean, who the fk should care abut any form of objectivism if the goal is stamping out bad thought.

It almost *always* boils down to a rule de jour over a rule of law system for them. 93 gave us a great case in point of that just there. <clap>

Thank you for that telling insight.

But the entire concept of 'rule de jour'

So you’re against an employer being able to fire an employee over the use of a racial slur?

I am certainly against him having to.

Most employment is "at will", so I guess you could equally fire them for being democrats or calling the President a traitor.

I would be OK with it if he used the slur toward another employee. As in any personal conflict between employees, it needs to be handled.

I am not sure what I should do if he said something like "that sure is some white people stuff". What do you think? What if he said it to a black man? A white man? An Asian woman?

I am definitely against it if the slur was was far in the past.
WE would have an empty Congress by that standard. 93 would be unhireable, since by his own admission, he used slurs in the past toward gay classmates.

I would fire Rep. Ilhan for her slurs. Hers are heartfelt.

Did 93 say he had to? Or he was OK with it?

The House passed the minimum wage law today. Seems certain to die in the Senate.

I don’t know how to feel about this one. I am not up enough on the economics of how this works to give this one a thumbs up or a thumbs down. Looking back on my days as a small business owner, this law would have had an affect on our bottom line albeit a small one (I’m guessing). It seems that there are many small businesses that could struggle under this law.

(07-18-2019 07:44 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  The House passed the minimum wage law today. Seems certain to die in the Senate.

I don’t know how to feel about this one. I am not up enough on the economics of how this works to give this one a thumbs up or a thumbs down. Looking back on my days as a small business owner, this law would have had an affect on our bottom line albeit a small one (I’m guessing). It seems that there are many small businesses that could struggle under this law.

When the pay of the lowest level is pushed up, everybody eventually gets pushed up.

Say your lowest level employees were making $12, and the next level wAs making $16, and the next level $20. The second and third tier employees will want raises to preserve their higher levels. Then the mid management will need raises, and eventually everybody is liftted.

I may take a couple of years, but the impact on your former bottom line would be much more than you think.

So the solution is to raise the price of whatever it is that you were providing. That way you profitability is restored. But at least while your profitability was down, you paid less taxes. The Treasury would have to make up the reduced corporate profits with taxes on wages. Thank goodness the increased income would be taxed at higher rate.

We could raise the minimum wage to $100, and in a couple of years people would be saying "How can you raise a family of four on only $200K/year"?

Think of the income levels as a pyramid. Raise the pyramid 10 ft in the air, and the bottom level will still be the bottom level.

But yes, the initial response to a higher MW would be to reduce employment. I guess a given business that had 5 employees earning $12 would cut back to 4 if forced to pay $15. 5 x 12 = 4 x 15. If they could not cut back, raise prices.

(07-18-2019 06:36 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 05:45 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 03:59 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  And what about those that didn’t join in the chorus?
Why do you think they stayed silent?

I dont know, I seemingly dont have that preternatural 'racist or ignorant' superhero radar power that you do. Nor do I have any subjective (or objective) knowledge of why *anyone* in that group chanted (or conversely, didnt chant).

What is your super duper insightful view based on 15 secs of clips tell you of why some didnt chant?

I already answered that above. I can see three rational reasons as to why people chanted that - they’re racist, they’re ignorant of the historical context of chanting “Send her back,” or they wanted to be intentionally inflammatory.

As much as you keep trying to dance around it and rationalize it, “go back where you came from” is a phrase/concept said to people of many ethnicities over the years that was built on racism/nativism.

You havent been in business long.

I agree it *can* be used in racial sense. But all your squawking overlooks a significant other usage of it.

As much as you squawk it to death, I have heard that in form or another for a quarter of century solely in high pressure, high stakes negotiations, and/or litigation. I have used it for more than that quarter of century, even in the businesses I was in prior to the legal world.

Main context is a kind of a big point the other side wants, and there has been deadlock..... well, why dont you go back where you came from

Or the added ask is a deal breaker ---- well, you why go back where you came from.

Some pipsqueak know it all starts tossing a fit because 'they' know the way and no one else could *ever* do it --- go back to where you came from, do it, then get back to us on it.

Its abrupt, short, pithy, and tells the other side to 'pound sand' on an issue. Not really a 'lets get this done somehow' message.

Are you actually that ignorant of that usage? Whether or not, seriously, cut with mumbo-jumbo that absolutely and completely overlooks lacks a very real alternative grounded in the real world.

I would assume a New York developer has heard it a time or two, perhaps even used it as much as me or more from that context.

Jump up and down and squawk to heart's content on this one. Your freneticism on this is getting somewhat tiresome.

You want to think the only usage is 'racial'? Knock yourself out, son.

You want to tell me it has zero other usage? Well, in that case, this seems a perfect context: go back to where you came from, son.

You want to impliedly tell me you are *the* world class entomologist, sociologist, and expert on the phrase? go back to where you came from, write a report on it, and get back to me on it.

(07-18-2019 06:36 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 05:45 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 03:59 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  And what about those that didn’t join in the chorus?
Why do you think they stayed silent?

I dont know, I seemingly dont have that preternatural 'racist or ignorant' superhero radar power that you do. Nor do I have any subjective (or objective) knowledge of why *anyone* in that group chanted (or conversely, didnt chant).

What is your super duper insightful view based on 15 secs of clips tell you of why some didnt chant?

I already answered that above. I can see three rational reasons as to why people chanted that - they’re racist, they’re ignorant of the historical context of chanting “Send her back,” or they wanted to be intentionally inflammatory.

As much as you keep trying to dance around it and rationalize it, “go back where you came from” is a phrase/concept said to people of many ethnicities over the years that was built on racism/nativism.

Weren't you the one trying to sell the idea a few weeks ago that a liberal audience that booed a speaker's rejection of socialism was not actually thereby expressing support for socialism? That their motivations were actually layered and complex and involved pushing back against the supposedly false narrative that Democrats are embracing socialism?

(07-19-2019 08:36 AM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 06:36 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 05:45 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 03:59 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  And what about those that didn’t join in the chorus?
Why do you think they stayed silent?

I dont know, I seemingly dont have that preternatural 'racist or ignorant' superhero radar power that you do. Nor do I have any subjective (or objective) knowledge of why *anyone* in that group chanted (or conversely, didnt chant).

What is your super duper insightful view based on 15 secs of clips tell you of why some didnt chant?

I already answered that above. I can see three rational reasons as to why people chanted that - they’re racist, they’re ignorant of the historical context of chanting “Send her back,” or they wanted to be intentionally inflammatory.

As much as you keep trying to dance around it and rationalize it, “go back where you came from” is a phrase/concept said to people of many ethnicities over the years that was built on racism/nativism.

Weren't you the one trying to sell the idea a few weeks ago that a liberal audience that booed a speaker's rejection of socialism was not actually thereby expressing support for socialism? That their motivations were actually layered and complex and involved pushing back against the supposedly false narrative that Democrats are embracing socialism?

You could easily lump that description in under “ignorant that their booing could be misconstrued as supporting socialism,” and I wouldn’t argue against that idea.

(07-19-2019 04:23 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 06:36 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 05:45 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 03:59 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  And what about those that didn’t join in the chorus?
Why do you think they stayed silent?

I dont know, I seemingly dont have that preternatural 'racist or ignorant' superhero radar power that you do. Nor do I have any subjective (or objective) knowledge of why *anyone* in that group chanted (or conversely, didnt chant).

What is your super duper insightful view based on 15 secs of clips tell you of why some didnt chant?

I already answered that above. I can see three rational reasons as to why people chanted that - they’re racist, they’re ignorant of the historical context of chanting “Send her back,” or they wanted to be intentionally inflammatory.

As much as you keep trying to dance around it and rationalize it, “go back where you came from” is a phrase/concept said to people of many ethnicities over the years that was built on racism/nativism.

You havent been in business long.

I agree it *can* be used in racial sense. But all your squawking overlooks a significant other usage of it.

As much as you squawk it to death, I have heard that in form or another for a quarter of century solely in high pressure, high stakes negotiations, and/or litigation. I have used it for more than that quarter of century, even in the businesses I was in prior to the legal world.

Main context is a kind of a big point the other side wants, and there has been deadlock..... well, why dont you go back where you came from

Or the added ask is a deal breaker ---- well, you why go back where you came from.

Some pipsqueak know it all starts tossing a fit because 'they' know the way and no one else could *ever* do it --- go back to where you came from, do it, then get back to us on it.

Its abrupt, short, pithy, and tells the other side to 'pound sand' on an issue. Not really a 'lets get this done somehow' message.

Are you actually that ignorant of that usage? Whether or not, seriously, cut with mumbo-jumbo that absolutely and completely overlooks lacks a very real alternative grounded in the real world.

I would assume a New York developer has heard it a time or two, perhaps even used it as much as me or more from that context.

Jump up and down and squawk to heart's content on this one. Your freneticism on this is getting somewhat tiresome.

You want to think the only usage is 'racial'? Knock yourself out, son.

You want to tell me it has zero other usage? Well, in that case, this seems a perfect context: go back to where you came from, son.

You want to impliedly tell me you are *the* world class entomologist, sociologist, and expert on the phrase? go back to where you came from, write a report on it, and get back to me on it.

And this would still make them ignorant of the racial component of that chant...

Apparently doesnt change the issue of your complete non-understanding of the non-racial aspect, or your abject refusal to consider it. Looks like y'all are in an ignorance tie on that. That works for me.

It could be fun having the person ignorant of a non-racial aspect calling anyone who uses in any form as ignorant. Sounds like quite the fing party me. What a great idea for a term paper that no one would read. Call it 'Confederacy of Ignoramuses'.

Why dont you go back home, write it, and come back to us with the results?

(07-19-2019 09:09 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-19-2019 08:36 AM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 06:36 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 05:45 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 03:59 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  And what about those that didn’t join in the chorus?
Why do you think they stayed silent?

I dont know, I seemingly dont have that preternatural 'racist or ignorant' superhero radar power that you do. Nor do I have any subjective (or objective) knowledge of why *anyone* in that group chanted (or conversely, didnt chant).

What is your super duper insightful view based on 15 secs of clips tell you of why some didnt chant?

I already answered that above. I can see three rational reasons as to why people chanted that - they’re racist, they’re ignorant of the historical context of chanting “Send her back,” or they wanted to be intentionally inflammatory.

As much as you keep trying to dance around it and rationalize it, “go back where you came from” is a phrase/concept said to people of many ethnicities over the years that was built on racism/nativism.

Weren't you the one trying to sell the idea a few weeks ago that a liberal audience that booed a speaker's rejection of socialism was not actually thereby expressing support for socialism? That their motivations were actually layered and complex and involved pushing back against the supposedly false narrative that Democrats are embracing socialism?

You could easily lump that description in under “ignorant that their booing could be misconstrued as supporting socialism,” and I wouldn’t argue against that idea.

I'm not sure this is really related, but it's one of these stories that's still a bit of a head-scratcher, 20 years after the fact:
Remember when some DC politicians got upset because someone from the Mayor's office described a proposed budget using a Norse-derived word that means "stingy"?
Julian Bond, then chairman of the NAACP, reacted to the kerfuffle as follows: "You hate to think you have to censor your language to meet other people's lack of understanding."

(07-19-2019 09:32 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Apparently doesnt change the issue of your complete non-understanding of the non-racial aspect, or your refusal to consider it. Looks like y'all are in an ignorance tie on that. Sounds good to me.

I think it is a refusal to understand. Something like the intentional cluelessness that 93 accused me of.

I've lost track. Are we dissing Trump still, or just his supporters?

I certainly would like AOC, Omar, and Tlaib to go back where they came from - the Bronx, Minnesota, and Minnesota, respectively. I think they are unfit to serve in Congress. Impeach them.

Same for Nadler, Pelosi, Schumer, Wilson, and Waters,

Pressley, I know nothing about, not even why she is part of the discussion.

Wilson is a leader in trying to make opinions illegal. I am sure 93 and Lad are proud to follow in her footsteps. She is, after all, a leader of their party.

prosecute them

(07-19-2019 09:32 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Apparently doesnt change the issue of your complete non-understanding of the non-racial aspect, or your abject refusal to consider it. Looks like y'all are in an ignorance tie on that. Sounds good to me.

It could be fun having the person ignorant of a non-racial aspect calling anyone who uses in any form as ignorant. Sounds like quite the fing party me. Sounds like a great idea for a term paper that no one would read.

Why dont you go back home, write it, and come back to us with the results?

Tanq, take a step back for a second and think about the comment that there may have been people who were chanting “Send her back” who were ignorant of the racist context of it.

If they were ignorant of the context, then we could deduce that they were not chanting it specifically because Omar is a POC, since they were unaware that it has its roots in racist/nativist ideology...

I’ve definitely been exposed to the saying that says, basically, prove it. I’ve never seen the go back to your country of origin component attached to it, but if it will make you feel better, I’ll explicitly tell you that there are likely people there who didn’t chant “Send her back” as a way to show racial prejudice, that they were just ignorant of the way that this phrase is most frequently used, and meant to express the idea that Omar should prove that her ideas work elsewhere.

I do forget, though. At some point, were you also arguing that they could have been chanting that because she was critical of the government, and therefore she should “love it or leave it?”

(07-19-2019 09:47 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(07-19-2019 09:09 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-19-2019 08:36 AM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 06:36 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 05:45 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I dont know, I seemingly dont have that preternatural 'racist or ignorant' superhero radar power that you do. Nor do I have any subjective (or objective) knowledge of why *anyone* in that group chanted (or conversely, didnt chant).

What is your super duper insightful view based on 15 secs of clips tell you of why some didnt chant?

I already answered that above. I can see three rational reasons as to why people chanted that - they’re racist, they’re ignorant of the historical context of chanting “Send her back,” or they wanted to be intentionally inflammatory.

As much as you keep trying to dance around it and rationalize it, “go back where you came from” is a phrase/concept said to people of many ethnicities over the years that was built on racism/nativism.

Weren't you the one trying to sell the idea a few weeks ago that a liberal audience that booed a speaker's rejection of socialism was not actually thereby expressing support for socialism? That their motivations were actually layered and complex and involved pushing back against the supposedly false narrative that Democrats are embracing socialism?

You could easily lump that description in under “ignorant that their booing could be misconstrued as supporting socialism,” and I wouldn’t argue against that idea.

I'm not sure this is really related, but it's one of these stories that's still a bit of a head-scratcher, 20 years after the fact:
Remember when some DC politicians got upset because someone from the Mayor's office described a proposed budget using a Norse-derived word that means "stingy"?
Julian Bond, then chairman of the NAACP, reacted to the kerfuffle as follows: "You hate to think you have to censor your language to meet other people's lack of understanding."

I think it’s related.

There are certainly terms and phrases that can be used that carry significant weight for certain people (be it groups or individuals), and while we shouldn’t walk around on egg shells, worried that a single instance of a slip of the tongue could cause ruin, I think it’s important to take into consideration someone’s perspective if that does happen, and someone is offended. We shouldn’t immediately respond to that offense by digging into our bunker and saying “**** your feelings” and the person being offended shouldn’t also immediately go on the attack. Often situations like that are because of someone’s ignorance on either side of the comment.

Maybe the term ignorant carries some unwanted connotations with it, but in reality, many of us are ignorant of a heck of a lot of topics, especially as it pertains to the experience and perspective of others.

(07-19-2019 09:47 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-19-2019 09:32 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Apparently doesnt change the issue of your complete non-understanding of the non-racial aspect, or your refusal to consider it. Looks like y'all are in an ignorance tie on that. Sounds good to me.

I think it is a refusal to understand. Something like the intentional cluelessness that 93 accused me of.

I've lost track. Are we dissing Trump still, or just his supporters?

I certainly would like AOC, Omar, and Tlaib to go back where they came from - the Bronx, Minnesota, and Minnesota, respectively. I think they are unfit to serve in Congress. Impeach them.

Same for Nadler, Pelosi, Schumer, Wilson, and Waters,

Pressley, I know nothing about, not even why she is part of the discussion.

Wilson is a leader in trying to make opinions illegal. I am sure 93 and Lad are proud to follow in her footsteps. She is, after all, a leader of their party.

prosecute them

I have 0 idea who Wilson is.

(07-19-2019 10:03 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-19-2019 09:47 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-19-2019 09:32 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Apparently doesnt change the issue of your complete non-understanding of the non-racial aspect, or your refusal to consider it. Looks like y'all are in an ignorance tie on that. Sounds good to me.

I think it is a refusal to understand. Something like the intentional cluelessness that 93 accused me of.

I've lost track. Are we dissing Trump still, or just his supporters?

I certainly would like AOC, Omar, and Tlaib to go back where they came from - the Bronx, Minnesota, and Minnesota, respectively. I think they are unfit to serve in Congress. Impeach them.

Same for Nadler, Pelosi, Schumer, Wilson, and Waters,

Pressley, I know nothing about, not even why she is part of the discussion.

Wilson is a leader in trying to make opinions illegal. I am sure 93 and Lad are proud to follow in her footsteps. She is, after all, a leader of their party.

prosecute them

I have 0 idea who Wilson is.

Maybe when you see the hat

She is from a district gerrymandered to be safe for her. Some of the worst Congresspeople come from safe districts, like Waters and AOC. AOC will be a congresswoman until she is elected Senator.

(07-19-2019 10:09 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-19-2019 10:03 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-19-2019 09:47 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-19-2019 09:32 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Apparently doesnt change the issue of your complete non-understanding of the non-racial aspect, or your refusal to consider it. Looks like y'all are in an ignorance tie on that. Sounds good to me.

I think it is a refusal to understand. Something like the intentional cluelessness that 93 accused me of.

I've lost track. Are we dissing Trump still, or just his supporters?

I certainly would like AOC, Omar, and Tlaib to go back where they came from - the Bronx, Minnesota, and Minnesota, respectively. I think they are unfit to serve in Congress. Impeach them.

Same for Nadler, Pelosi, Schumer, Wilson, and Waters,

Pressley, I know nothing about, not even why she is part of the discussion.

Wilson is a leader in trying to make opinions illegal. I am sure 93 and Lad are proud to follow in her footsteps. She is, after all, a leader of their party.

prosecute them

I have 0 idea who Wilson is.

Maybe when you see the hat

She is from a district gerrymandered to be safe for her. Some of the worst Congresspeople come from safe districts, like Waters and AOC. AOC will be a congresswoman until she is elected Senator.

Ah, I do recognize the cowboy hat. And agreed about gerrymandering - it creates a situation where people move towards their respective end of the spectrums. You see a lot of that for both parties (even though you only focused on Dems, unsurprisingly). Ironically, it’s likely that Wilson was gerrymandered into that district by a Republican legislator.

Yes, I think that many, perhaps most, of the chanters were equating that chant, rightly or wrongly, to 'America, love it or leave it.' The problem is that with 10 syllables, it is about 3.33x too long for a crowd chant. So they adopted a variation, that happily coincided with the beat, syllables, and words of another chant that drove their political opposites bat **** crazy. 'Lock her up' has a neat ring with 'Send her back'.

And I will grant you utterly terrible optics, because the absolute thin skinned Junior Detectives who cry racism at each and every turn, no doubt.

Perhaps some were thinking very specifically 'Omar is a ******, send her back'; perhaps some were thinking 'Talbi is a raghead, send her back'; perhaps some were thinking 'Pressly is a coon, she should *go* back'; perhaps some were thinking AOC is bred from ship-wrecked Mexicans, and she too should go back. Could be, all of them.

But as to *any* of the above: I dont have a clue. I dont have the super duper Jr Brown Ace Boy Detective super power that deduces motives, intent, and knowledge from the 15 fing second clip I saw on Rachel Maddow, and opined on by Rachel Maddow. Sorry I just dont have that.

And this dachshund needs to get some work done, and needs to be waiting on an international call. Hopefully I wont tell them to go home and come back to us with their actual working solution (instead of the continued bleating why they dont meet the specs), but it looks like this juncture might be the time to do this. How will that work in a racial context with a bunch of Germans, who are phoning from Germany? Oh no, my brain is going to explode....

Have fun with your continued noodle spinning on this.

Holy **** there is a squirrel the size of a house cat who just took a flying gainer into the pool after being chased by a much, much smaller squirrel. Now *this* is far more entertaining than all the noodle spinning *everyone* has done on this. Im going to drop and watch this fattie of squirrel make landfall --- how do they jump with nothing to push off of? I guess I will learn something out of this time, no doubt.

(07-19-2019 09:59 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-19-2019 09:47 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(07-19-2019 09:09 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-19-2019 08:36 AM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 06:36 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I already answered that above. I can see three rational reasons as to why people chanted that - they’re racist, they’re ignorant of the historical context of chanting “Send her back,” or they wanted to be intentionally inflammatory.

As much as you keep trying to dance around it and rationalize it, “go back where you came from” is a phrase/concept said to people of many ethnicities over the years that was built on racism/nativism.

Weren't you the one trying to sell the idea a few weeks ago that a liberal audience that booed a speaker's rejection of socialism was not actually thereby expressing support for socialism? That their motivations were actually layered and complex and involved pushing back against the supposedly false narrative that Democrats are embracing socialism?

You could easily lump that description in under “ignorant that their booing could be misconstrued as supporting socialism,” and I wouldn’t argue against that idea.

I'm not sure this is really related, but it's one of these stories that's still a bit of a head-scratcher, 20 years after the fact:
Remember when some DC politicians got upset because someone from the Mayor's office described a proposed budget using a Norse-derived word that means "stingy"?
Julian Bond, then chairman of the NAACP, reacted to the kerfuffle as follows: "You hate to think you have to censor your language to meet other people's lack of understanding."

I think it’s related.

There are certainly terms and phrases that can be used that carry significant weight for certain people (be it groups or individuals), and while we shouldn’t walk around on egg shells, worried that a single instance of a slip of the tongue could cause ruin, I think it’s important to take into consideration someone’s perspective if that does happen, and someone is offended. We shouldn’t immediately respond to that offense by digging into our bunker and saying “**** your feelings” and the person being offended shouldn’t also immediately go on the attack. Often situations like that are because of someone’s ignorance on either side of the comment.

Maybe the term ignorant carries some unwanted connotations with it, but in reality, many of us are ignorant of a heck of a lot of topics, especially as it pertains to the experience and perspective of others.

Does the admonition for sensitivity you are proposing also apply to those who cry "racist!" at people who, at bottom, just simply have a political dispute with a person who happens to be a POC? I mean, you did say that what crowds do can be misconstrued, did you not? Isn't that's what's going on here -- the casting of simple political opposition to progressive views as racist? And has been going on in some form or fashion for decades now?

Or is it only progressive crowds that can be misconstrued?

No sane person would dispute that if Ilhan Omar had a miraculous conversion experience, like Paul on the road to Damascus, and suddenly started espousing conservative views, she'd be adored at the same rallies where she is now excoriated. Ergo, the opposition to her isn't racist. If some people throw in some ad hominem component to their opposition, well, I'm sorry, but political rallies aren't salon debates and I'd chalk that up to simple, universal (and universally flawed, to be sure) human nature.