SC - US Senate candidate: "You have to treat white people like shit"

[Invisible Man]

Were you aware that the number of characters this software allows in thread titles is limited?

Yes. But there's no requirement that the thread title use quotation marks. And the problem didn't really begin with the thread title. The article itself represents the woman's words deliberately to lead people to think that's what she said. A critical reader would see through that and not come away very impressed with the journalist who wrote it or the editors who let it slide. But someone who is already eager for more ammunition to support the conclusion that we're on the brink of a white genocide is going to lap up that story and its baked in conclusions without a second thought, and then turn around and put a quote like what we have in the thread title in quotation marks and not even be aware of how someone else manipulated them to do that.

The woman said, "Play the whole tape ‘PROJECT VERITAS’ so the people will know who I was referring to."

That seems reasonable enough to me. And it's worth asking why they didn't play more of the tape in the first place. Why did they only begin right in the middle of a conversation, starting with the sentence right before the one the thread title paraphrases, instead of playing more sentences leading up to that, so as to leave no room for doubt about what the antecedent of the pronoun was?

I think if we're honest we all know why they didn't. The reason is because playing more of the context leading up to that would have made it harder to supply the words "white people" as the understood antecedent.

 

[TheTexan]

Yes. But there's no requirement that the thread title use quotation marks. And the problem didn't really begin with the thread title. The article itself represents the woman's words deliberately to lead people to think that's what she said. A critical reader would see through that and not come away very impressed with the journalist who wrote it or the editors who let it slide. But someone who is already eager for more ammunition to support the conclusion that we're on the brink of a white genocide is going to lap up that story and it's baked in conclusions without a second thought, and then turn around and put a quote like what we have in the thread title in quotation marks and not even be aware of how someone else manipulated them to do that.

Level of autism: Over 9000

That is all. I am leaving thread lol

 

[RJB]

Level of autism: Over 9000

That is all. I am leaving thread lol

Oh. How is he going to grow if you don't feed him attention?

 

[Anti Federalist]

Yes. But there's no requirement that the thread title use quotation marks. And the problem didn't really begin with the thread title. The article itself represents the woman's words deliberately to lead people to think that's what she said. A critical reader would see through that and not come away very impressed with the journalist who wrote it or the editors who let it slide. But someone who is already eager for more ammunition to support the conclusion that we're on the brink of a white genocide is going to lap up that story and its baked in conclusions without a second thought, and then turn around and put a quote like what we have in the thread title in quotation marks and not even be aware of how someone else manipulated them to do that.

The woman said, "Play the whole tape ‘PROJECT VERITAS’ so the people will know who I was referring to."

That seems reasonable enough to me. And it's worth asking why they didn't play more of the tape in the first place. Why did they only begin right in the middle of a conversation, starting with the sentence right before the one the thread title paraphrases, instead of playing more sentences leading up to that, so as to leave no room for doubt about what the antecedent of the pronoun was?

I think if we're honest we all know why they didn't. The reason is because playing more of the context leading up to that would have made it harder to supply the words "white people" as the understood antecedent.

Her words:

“My district is slightly Republican, and it's heavily white. I'm no stranger to white people, I'm from mostly white town. And let me tell you one thing. You ought to know who you’re dealing with, like you gotta treat them [white people] like shit, like I mean, that’s the only way they’ll respect you,”

It does not matter what was said before or after.

That statement stands on its own, by itself, as an individual thought.

She's desperately trying to spin this statement as moving back, suddenly, to "them" being MAGA Republicans.

Even if true, that doesn't make it any better.

You're running for US senator and you're openly stating that you intend to treat one third of your constituency "like shit"?

 

[A Son of Liberty]

Her words:

“My district is slightly Republican, and it's heavily white. I'm no stranger to white people, I'm from mostly white town. And let me tell you one thing. You ought to know who you’re dealing with, like you gotta treat them [white people] like $#@!, like I mean, that’s the only way they’ll respect you,”

It does not matter what was said before or after.

That statement stands on its own, by itself, as an individual thought.

She's desperately trying to spin this statement

Yep. And, oddly, so is Invisible Man...

What she's saying is as a clear as a Wyoming winter night sky (except when it's snowing like a MF'er!).

 

[Invisible Man]

It does not matter what was said before or after.

Clearly it doesn't matter to you.

It does, however, matter to anyone wanting to know whom she meant by "them."

And if it doesn't matter, then we're back to the question of why those who released that video conspicuously edited it to prevent the audience from hearing what came before. If they could show that what came before wouldn't change the interpretation, then including it would only have helped their case.

If the statement stands on its own, then good. Let it stand on its own. No ellipses, no brackets, no changing words, no use of quotation marks around something that isn't a quote. Nobody who isn't trying to put a different spin on it should have a problem with that.

You're running for US senator and you're openly stating that you intend to treat one third of your constituency "like shit"?

But that's not the point you or the authors of the article you quoted were trying to make by "clarifying" her words.

 

[acptulsa]

And if it doesn't matter, then we're back to the question of why those who released that video conspicuously edited it to prevent the audience from hearing what came before. If they could show that what came before wouldn't change the interpretation, then including it would only have helped their case.

Maybe the edited it that way for other reasons, and simply didn't expect to have to put "their case" before the Spanish Inquisition.

If the statement stands on its own, then good. Let it stand on its own. No ellipses, no brackets, no changing words, no use of quotation marks around something that isn't a quote. Nobody who isn't trying to put a different spin on it should have a problem with that.

Is holding conservative opinion to a standard that is above reproach a TownHall priority? And if so, since when?

 

[Invisible Man]

Maybe the edited it that way for other reasons, and simply didn't expect to have to put "their case" before the Spanish Inquisition.

That's correct. They were aiming at a sympathetic audience and needing to be able to stand up to scrutiny as to the facts was not a concern they had.

Is holding conservative opinion to a standard that is above reproach a TownHall priority?

No, it isn't. I just wanted to point it out.

It's one of my peccadilloes that I like to hold journalists to standards like that and to think that those who are more credulous of what their favored purveyors of opinion tell them could benefit from having those types of transgressions pointed out.

Sometimes, even when they are pointed out, those who insist on believing certain conclusions still can't see them.

Edit: It hit me that we used to be able to count on Zippy to inject critical thought into threads with sensationalized titles and confirmation biases. We're all the worse for the lack of his keen eye for those things to keep us in check.

 

[Anti Federalist]

But that's not the point you or the authors of the article you quoted were trying to make by "clarifying" her words.

What was that point?

What point was I trying to make?

Because of all the smoke you just laid, that point was lost.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

That's correct. They were aiming at a sympathetic audience and needing to be able to stand up to scrutiny as to the facts was not a concern they had.




No, it isn't. I just wanted to point it out.

It's one of my peccadilloes that I like to hold journalists to standards like that and to think that those who are more credulous of what their favored purveyors of opinion tell them could benefit from having those types of transgressions pointed out.

Sometimes, even when they are pointed out, those who insist on believing certain conclusions still can't see them.

Edit: It hit me that we used to be able to count on Zippy to inject critical thought into threads with sensationalized titles and confirmation biases. We're all the worse for the lack of his keen eye for those things to keep us in check.

I remember when I was young enough and naïve enough to actually consider that maybe a post like this was sincere... now I just recognize it as ordinary gaslighting... and not even very good gaslighting, at that.

She referred to WHITE people THREE times before she switched to "them" ("them" being those who need to be "treated like sh!t"). You might have some success convincing some of the folks lurking this thread that there is some doubt as to whom she's referring, but you're not getting anywhere with me.

Again, just READ the sentence. AGAIN, she referred to WHITE people THREE times before saying "they need to be treated like sh!t". If she really meant "MAGA Republicans, then she is REALLY bad a communicating. Because anyone speaking with her would safely and rightly assume that, given the context, she was referring to white people.

And I'm not even into this race thing - I think it's all a divide-and-conquer strategy... but for you to push this nonsense that she wasn't really talking about what she was CLEARLY talking about is just absurd, elementary, and transparent. You're peddling in some really D-grade gaslighting here. It's actually embarrassing.

 

[luctor-et-emergo]

Seriously...you're going to grammar Nazi me over that?

Seriously?



So, what's your purpose here?

To prove I'm an asshole? Too fucking late, that's a given, even the wife thinks I'm an asshole.

To correct a blatant misrepresentation? You saw and heard her with your own eyes and ears. Are you claiming the PV video is ginned up or fake?

Or to throw up a bunch of FUD to protect this woman's statement because you agree with it? That wouldn't surprise me. What would be a career ending gaffe for a white man is nothing more than speaking truth to power if done by a colored woman, amirite?

We should all have assholes. Lets keep it there.

I think language is art and culture, it's a way to communicate. Everybody has their own way of saying things... Based on where they are from, what they have done, who they have met, etc.

It says something about you. Language is very individualistic. Punctuation is the same. Some say you cannot start the first sentence of a letter with a capital or you absolutely have to. I must say I have forgotten because I do not think it's that important, I'll do as I please. And if that means putting things in brackets if I feel like it, then it will be so.

This really is not the place to argue about these things. Language should be a means to communicate and as long as that is clear, the rest can only give further distinction and a deeper meaning to what is said.

[Fuck the haters] [ ] [[][ ><>< ^ $$@