Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Leafsnail]

Unless you were just pointing out that you can't generalize kaijyuu's statement to mean that intent is all that matters, in which case sorry for the completely beside your point reply, because that's actually pretty true.

Yes.

Incidentally, I'd also agree with G-Flex's post - he probably isn't actively supporting the KKK, and may not have even known about their slogan, but he is using the exact same xenophobic tactics to appeal to voters.

[Necro910]

Not to some people! Intent is irrelevant compared to what they want to hear.

Because obviously you have no responsibility at all to check that what you're saying isn't offensive or giving off completely the wrong message.  It's entirely the listeners' fault if they hear what you actually said instead of magically knowing what you intended them to hear.

When the listeners are upset because if you add a letter to what you actually said it's a slogan for a famous group of white supremacists (and not a slogan that's universal knowledge), then yeah, I don't think you're the most at fault. This isn't even a situation that demands an apology, unless some evidence of intentional support for the KKK comes up.

  Sorry, but that smacks of "That's not Die, Bart Die....it's German for 'The Bart, The'". If your slogan is one letter difference from something with negative connotations (and not a letter that drastically changes the message), then I think it's a fair cop to raise the question.

I believe bart means beard.

THE BEARD, THE

[kaijyuu]

Not to some people! Intent is irrelevant compared to what they want to hear.

Because obviously you have no responsibility at all to check that what you're saying isn't offensive or giving off completely the wrong message.  It's entirely the listeners' fault if they hear what you actually said instead of magically knowing what you intended them to hear.

1) You're very quick to forget the debate we had on this sort of thing... a week ago or less? I realize miscommunication exists and it is the responsibility of the speaker to prevent that.
2) You conveniently didn't quote the part of my post where I aimed the vitriol of my post solely on those who realized the speaker's intent but still chose to be offended rather than rational. If someone doesn't realize there was a miscommunication, I've no qualms with people being offended over it. I've only a problem with those who know the speaker's intent, chose to ignore it, and then put their own meaning in other people's mouths.


As a side note dude, you really need to stop quoting small parts of people's posts and launch condescending quips at people. You're often taking stuff out of context, not to mention sarcastic insults in general are pretty lame. If you want to join a debate here and elsewhere, do more than point out how dumb you think other people are.

EDIT: Oooh, I've a fun idea.

If you ever quote a single line from one of my posts again, take out the context, and proceed to attack it, I'm going to add the context back in. Watch in awe.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Not to some people! Intent is irrelevant compared to what they want to hear.

Not pointing at anyone in this thread, but it happens all too often. People love getting offended and will take any opportunity even if they know the insult was unintentional or misheard.

Because obviously you have no responsibility at all to check that what you're saying isn't offensive or giving off completely the wrong message.  It's entirely the listeners' fault if they hear what you actually said instead of magically knowing what you intended them to hear.

Breaking this down...
Full original statement: "People who take offense at things they know weren't intended to be offensive are silly."
Your answer:
1) The speaker has responsibility to prevent miscommunication.
2) I'm claiming the listener always knows what the speaker intended and miscommunication doesn't exist

1 is fine but irrelevant because I never claimed otherwise. Strawman.
2 is a non-sequitur as I specifically pointed at those who already knew speaker intent, not those who didn't. Another strawman.

Sorry, but that smacks of "That's not Die, Bart Die....it's German for 'The Bart, The'". If your slogan is one letter difference from something with negative connotations (and not a letter that drastically changes the message), then I think it's a fair cop to raise the question.

It'd be like posting a sign saying "No dogs or Jews aloud", and then protesting that you're not anti-Semitic, you just like a nice quiet neighborhood.

Fair to raise the question, but it's also pretty easy to answer that's not what he meant at all. As has been said, the KKK is anti-mormon. He's got all the reason in the world to dislike them.

Should he avoid that slogan in the future? Probably. Does this situation give any weight to the idea that he's secretly supportive of the KKK? Hell no.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Oh what the hell. I leave the thread for seven hours and come back to "Mitt Romney is using the slogan to secretly show support for racism, xenophobia, and the KKK".

That's it, I quit. Believe whatever you want.

[G-Flex]

Oh what the hell. I leave the thread for seven hours and come back to "Mitt Romney is using the slogan to secretly show support for racism, xenophobia, and the KKK".

That's it, I quit. Believe whatever you want.

I think the conversation is a little more complex than you give it credit for.

However: What makes you think racism and xenophobia aren't at least an implicit part of the social conservative Republican platform? It wouldn't exactly be the first time. Or have you forgotten about the whole "birther" issue?

[Leafsnail]

If you ever quote a single line from one of my posts again, take out the context, and proceed to attack it, I'm going to add the context back in. Watch in awe.

I didn't intend to quote you out of context (I quote what's relevant, if people want context they can click the link and go back to the actual post).  I saw more of a disconnect between your first and second line and misinterpreted your use of the word "even" (ie "This is a particularly bad subset of the behaviour I'm describing" rather than "This is all of the behaviour I'm describing").  I was gonna say I was sorry for misreading your post and move on, but if you want to keep editing your post to be more and more insulting to me that's fine.

[Willfor]

Oh what the hell. I leave the thread for seven hours and come back to "Mitt Romney is using the slogan to secretly show support for racism, xenophobia, and the KKK".

That's it, I quit. Believe whatever you want.

I think the conversation is a little more complex than you give it credit for.

However: What makes you think racism and xenophobia aren't at least an implicit part of the social conservative Republican platform? It wouldn't exactly be the first time. Or have you forgotten about the whole "birther" issue?

No one is arguing against that point. That is not the point that is being argued. The point that is being argued is not the one you are talking about in your post.

[kaijyuu]

I didn't intend to quote you out of context (I quote what's relevant, if people want context they can click the link and go back to the actual post).

Fair enough, but most of the time more than 1 or 2 lines are relevant. Admittedly I usually talk about the same thought over multiple paragraphs, so there might be some confusion there.

I saw more of a disconnect between your first and second line and misinterpreted your use of the word "even" (ie "This is a particularly bad subset of the behaviour I'm describing" rather than "This is all of the behaviour I'm describing").

Fair enough, again.

I was gonna say I was sorry for misreading your post and move on, but if you want to keep editing your post to be more and more insulting to me that's fine.

If criticizing your posting style is insulting you, I don't know what to say.

[fqllve]

Romney isn't even particularly xenophobic by GOP standards anyway. Remember Cain's electrified fence comment?

[G-Flex]

Oh what the hell. I leave the thread for seven hours and come back to "Mitt Romney is using the slogan to secretly show support for racism, xenophobia, and the KKK".

That's it, I quit. Believe whatever you want.

I think the conversation is a little more complex than you give it credit for.

However: What makes you think racism and xenophobia aren't at least an implicit part of the social conservative Republican platform? It wouldn't exactly be the first time. Or have you forgotten about the whole "birther" issue?

No one is arguing against that point. That is not the point that is being argued. The point that is being argued is not the one you are talking about in your post.

My point is that the slogan showing support for racism/xenophobia (on some level) shouldn't be treated as implausible or at all surprising.

[Willfor]

Oh what the hell. I leave the thread for seven hours and come back to "Mitt Romney is using the slogan to secretly show support for racism, xenophobia, and the KKK".

That's it, I quit. Believe whatever you want.

I think the conversation is a little more complex than you give it credit for.

However: What makes you think racism and xenophobia aren't at least an implicit part of the social conservative Republican platform? It wouldn't exactly be the first time. Or have you forgotten about the whole "birther" issue?

No one is arguing against that point. That is not the point that is being argued. The point that is being argued is not the one you are talking about in your post.

My point is that the slogan showing support for racism/xenophobia (on some level) shouldn't be treated as implausible or at all surprising.

Sorry, but that smacks of "That's not Die, Bart Die....it's German for 'The Bart, The'". If your slogan is one letter difference from something with negative connotations (and not a letter that drastically changes the message), then I think it's a fair cop to raise the question.

It'd be like posting a sign saying "No dogs or Jews aloud", and then protesting that you're not anti-Semitic, you just like a nice quiet neighborhood.

Fair to raise the question, but it's also pretty easy to answer that's not what he meant at all. As has been said, the KKK is anti-mormon. He's got all the reason in the world to dislike them.

Should he avoid that slogan in the future? Probably. Does this situation give any weight to the idea that he's secretly supportive of the KKK? Hell no.

Maybe I'm just a little bit weird, but I think there are enough reasons in this world not to like any of the Republican candidates that you don't have to manufacture ones that don't make sense from the candidate's own perspective.

[RedKing]

Sorry, but that smacks of "That's not Die, Bart Die....it's German for 'The Bart, The'". If your slogan is one letter difference from something with negative connotations (and not a letter that drastically changes the message), then I think it's a fair cop to raise the question.

It'd be like posting a sign saying "No dogs or Jews aloud", and then protesting that you're not anti-Semitic, you just like a nice quiet neighborhood.

Fair to raise the question, but it's also pretty easy to answer that's not what he meant at all. As has been said, the KKK is anti-mormon. He's got all the reason in the world to dislike them.

Should he avoid that slogan in the future? Probably. Does this situation give any weight to the idea that he's secretly supportive of the KKK? Hell no.

I agree that he's most likely not supporting the KKK. However, the phrase goes back further and broader than the KKK. I was thinking more of the Know-Nothing Party (aka the American Party), to which the modern Tea Party movement has been repeatedly compared (not just by liberals but by mainstream conservative pundits such as Bill Kristol). The original Know-Nothings were anti-Catholic and anti-immigrant. This did not stop some Catholics from joining their ranks when certain regional branches of them became more "anti-non-white" than anything else (as in San Francisco, where the focus was anti-Chinese sentiment), or immigrant German Protestants from joining their ranks in New England where the focus was primarily anti-Catholic.

What's one of the Republican constituencies that least trusts Romney? The Tea Party. What better way to try and wink at them that "Hey, I'm just like you...I want to build a fence and kick out all the foreign weirdos too" than by referencing an "America for Americans" type nativism?

You can call it grasping for straws all you want. This sort of stuff is deliberately crafted to be ambiguous so there's plausible deniability if it backfires. That's why it's so pernicious. It's like Palin and Bachmann's type of comments about "Second Amendment remedies". It's a wink and a nod at the "I'm going to shoot me a libruhl" GOP blowhards, and then when an actual Congressional representative got shot, they acted aghast and indignant that anyone dare suggest their comments might possibly have played a role.

I don't care if he said America or American...either way, the implication is that foreign influences are somehow destroying or corrupting the country (the core premise of nativism).

[Andir]

I think people are over analyzing a rather harmless statement.  (ie: Tinfoil hat type over analyzing.)

[freeformschooler]

Man, I get to vote for the first time this coming year and I don't even like any of the candidates from either main party, which is weird even for anti-bi-partisan freeformschooler. That's the most progressive irritation I can think of.

[G-Flex]

What exactly does "anti-bi-partisan" mean?