Tea-Partiers Spit on "nigger" and "faggot" Congress Critters

[Michael Tee]

<<So the words are more important than the actions. >>

You'll have to explain that to me.  When you think, "Hmm.  Black guy.  Malleable." then that is a thought and the thought is composed of words.  When you shout "nigger" from an angry mob at a black guy, that is no longer a word, that is an action.  I leave it to you to figure out which is the more reprehensible and the more important.  Which one might get you in trouble with the law and which one never can.

<<And individual (Alinsky) demeans blacks by assuming they would be game for his ploy to upset the white guy. >>

He does demean blacks.  Treats them as means but not ends-in-themselves, thereby violating Kant's Categorical Imperative.

<<But the bigger question is Alinksy a white guy or a Jew. >>

I'd say he's both.  But how's that a "bigger question?"  WTF difference does it make if he's white or black, Jewish or Christian?  The bigger question was obviously whether he demeaned blacks.  Good for him if he didn't, shame on him if he did.  Being a white guy or black, a Jew or a Christian, doesn't add to or lessen the shame of a bad action or enhance the lustre of a good deed, does it?  How can it?  I'd have to say you are dead wrong - - the answer to your second question can't possibly affect the moral quality of what he did, demeaning blacks.  It's the FIRST question that is the big one.

<<What group does he really belong to? Would he have been allowed to join Burning Tree Golf Club? Just asking.>>

Probably they'd keep him out because he's a Jew.  But he could have gotten into a segregated whites-only restaurant because he's also a white man.  But in terms of the context of this thread, you've lost me.  WTF diff does it make?

<<So is he more Jew when it benefits him or more a white guy when it benefits him? Or could he be both? You seem to be the expert on groupings s how abut a little help here. 'Splain it to me like I'm a six year old. ( a line from a movie uttered by a black man, does that make it a black statement? )>>

I really don't get it.  How does being a Jew benefit anybody?  Just brings down a shitload of racism and anti-Semitism on his head if he's unlucky and leaves him alone if he's lucky.  It's either down-side or neutral, where's the up-side?  A Jew is a Jew 24/7, how that "benefits"  him is really up to the people around him.  If they're a bunch of fucking Nazis and anti-Semites, I can't see much benefit, but if they're my friends and neighbours, it breaks even.  Nobody ever gets any medals for being a fucking Jew.  AND:  I still don't see where you're going with this.  In terms of the demonstrated racism of the Tea Party, where does any of this fit in?

[BT]

Being a white guy or black, a Jew or a Christian, doesn't add to or lessen the shame of a bad action or enhance the lustre of a good deed, does it?  How can it?

Can you think of any situations where that statement is not true?

[Michael Tee]

Can you think of any situations where that statement ["Being a white guy or black, a Jew or a Christian, doesn't add to or lessen the shame of a bad action or enhance the lustre of a good deed, does it?"] is not true?

Not really.  Torturing a prisoner is bad no matter who is doing the torturing.

[BT]

How about calling a black man a nigger?

[Michael Tee]

<<How about calling a black man a nigger? >>

Well, there are times when a black man can get away with it, if the intent's jocular or affectionate.  It's like a Jew making an antisemitic remark to another Jew, sometimes it's funny.  Depends on the circumstances, the context.

[BT]

Depends on the circumstances, the context.

So the utterance of the words as well as the speaker does make a difference. It depends on the context, the individual, the overall circumstances, whether the words are spoken in jest or in anger.  It really doesn't have much at all to do with membership in a group after all.

Does it?

[Universe Prince]

A Tom betrays his people without giving a shit how they behave.  He sells them out.  He helps Whitey fuck 'em up the ass, as for example, by siding with Whitey's opposition to health-care reform, knowing he's taking a position inimical to the interests of most blacks but by his presence helping Whitey to maintain credibility when he claims that the movement is not racist at all.  His betrayal has nothing to do with expectations of how blacks are supposed to act.  They are supposed to defend their own interests and to oppose white racism.  When Tom joins Whitey's attack on black interests and furthers the cause of white racism, he has betrayed his own people.

Wow, Michael. Could you be more self-contradictory? "His betrayal has nothing to do with expectations of how blacks are supposed to act.  They are supposed to defend their own interests and to oppose white racism." Apparently the "betrayal" has everything to do with how blacks are supposed to act. I guess it's a good thing some whiteys are around to tell them what their interests are supposed to be. Otherwise they might act like, well individuals--gasp!--and bother to decide for themselves what to think. I think I asked the wrong question before. Could you be more racist?

And yes, I believe claiming people as a group determined by skin color are supposed to think and do certain things because of their grouping by skin color is racist. And the racism that disgusts me most is the kind that couches itself in indignation about betrayals of "black interests". It puts people of dark skin color in a box and says "this is what you are supposed to think, what you are supposed to feel and how you are supposed to act; now conform like a good little darkie."

Oh I know. You'll protest that you're not being racist. But from where I stand, you are. And I'm just telling the truth as I see it.

[Michael Tee]

<<So the utterance of the words as well as the speaker does make a difference. It depends on the context, the individual, the overall circumstances, whether the words are spoken in jest or in anger. >>

Well, basically the context can determine the meaning of the words uttered.  That's obvious to all of us.

<<It really doesn't have much at all to do with membership in a group after all.>>

Sure it does - - the group membership is another element in the general context.  If the "nigger" remark is made by one black to another in locker-room banter, there you have one meaning of the word, and if it's shouted out by an angry all-white mob at a passing black man, there you have a different context and a different meaning.  The group affiliations of the speaker and the person so addressed are important elements of the context.  In a totally different scenario, say a university professor discussing the use of the N-word in Huckelberry Finn, the group affiliations of the professor and his or her students are not at all significant in the context.

[sirs]

Wow, Michael. Could you be more self-contradictory? "His betrayal has nothing to do with expectations of how blacks are supposed to act.  They are supposed to defend their own interests and to oppose white racism." Apparently the "betrayal" has everything to do with how blacks are supposed to act.  Could you be more racist?

And yes, claiming people as a group determined by skin color are supposed to think and do certain things because of their grouping by skin color is racist.  And the racism that disgusts me most is the kind that couches itself in indignation about betrayals of "black interests".  It puts people of dark skin color in a box and says "this is what you are supposed to think, what you are supposed to feel and how you are supposed to act; now conform like a good little darkie."

SPOT ON

[BT]

If the "nigger" remark is made by one black to another in locker-room banter, there you have one meaning of the word, and if it's shouted out by an angry all-white mob at a passing black man, there you have a different context and a different meaning.

So were the words hurled at John Lewis from a mob, like "kill the bill" was or were they spoken by an individual ?

[Michael Tee]

<<So were the words hurled at John Lewis from a mob, like "kill the bill" was or were they spoken by an individual ?>>

We can't be sure, but here are what I think are the likeliest answers:

1.  "Kill the Bill" was chanted in unison by many people in the mob many times, which is why it is the only phrase and in fact the only words that we can distinguish on tape from the general din.

2.  "Kill the Bill" in addition to being chanted in unison, may have been shouted out many times by many different individuals in the mob, but if it was, we couldn't have heard it on the tape.

3.  "Nigger" was shouted out about 15 times and heard by the people it was being shouted at, but each time by an individual, most likely by different individuals but not necessarily one individual per shout.  It could have three or four persons, some shouting more times than others.  These are the shouts reported by the eye-witnesses, which had to be individual shouts, as they did not appear on tape.

4.  It's very likely that in addition to the "nigger" shouts heard by the four or five eyewitnesses quoted in a previous post, there were hundreds more shouted by the individual members of the mob and just lost in the general din, not picked up by the tapes (which, as is pretty clear by now - - see kimba's post in that regard and our own observation of the tapes, that not a single distinguishable word can be picked up unless chanted in unison)  - - and not heard by any other witnesses either, due to the general background crowd noise.

5.  It's very unlikely that the N-word would have been chanted in unison, as the crowd organizers are desperate to keep the true racist nature of their movement disguised from the American people generally.  Racism if overt will turn off more people than it attracts.  The whole genius of the GOP since the days of Barry Goldwater and the Southern Strategy has been to appeal to the underlying racism of white America without appearing on the surface to be doing so.  Much like the kind of advertising that depends on sex appeal without overtly enlisting it.

[Christians4LessGvt]

remember people... pretty much anyone that disagrees with the Leftist agenda
is sooner or later going to be called a racist..even if they have to lie about it.....
thats always one of their first natural responses...but it actually shows they
are the real racists.....and of course any and all African Americans
like Dr. Condi Rice, Michael Steele, Clarence Thomas, Dr.Thomas Sowell, Dr. Walter
Williams, JC Watts...well if they decide to not tote the leftist line then they are
deemed Uncle Tom's. But when Democrats utter racist comments....
well dats different!  

Demorcat Joe Biden describes Obama as "the first mainstream
African-American [presidential candidate] who is articulate and bright
and clean and a nice-looking guy".

Dan Rather about Obama: Barack Is Articulate, But He Couldn't Sell Watermelons...

Demorcratic leader Harry Reid who compared Republicans to slavemasters
described Obama as "light-skinned African American with no Negro dialect"

Democrat Bill Clinton describing Obama: "A few years ago, this guy would have
been getting us coffee".

[BT]

We can't be sure

If you are not sure, why blame the group?

[kimba1]

If you are not sure, why blame the group?


because that`s how it`s done

people here often blame the group for the actions of an individual.

if you think about it is kinda rare when somebody did something wrong he or she is not called somekind of party affiliate.

you can`t really say it`s not common

[Michael Tee]

<<If you are not sure, why blame the group?>>

Love the way you take my quotes out of context.  Here's the remark in context:

<<We can't be sure, but here are what I think are the likeliest answers:>>


That answer your question? 

And BTW - - It's probably too much to expect you to appreciate the distinction, but I wasn't "blaming" the group for each shout of "Nigger," I was using the shouts of "Nigger" to show the nature of the people who are attracted to this group, namely, hate-filled,  racist bigots.  Not necessarily that the leaders are that way, although it can't be ruled out either, but for sure that the Tea Party groups attract way more than their normal share of hate-filled, racist bigots.