• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Racist? Texas high school apologizes for fans' 'USA!' chant after basketball game

Gie said:
I'm curious why the fact that a group of adults and children that chant "Alamo Whites" at a group of predominately "white" high school students (for more than 5 seconds) is by default excused. Much less not being "reported" on. Much less so mentioned. Would not that be just as "offensive" to the self professed "liberal " focus? To say nothing of the so called liberals complicit in this thread?
Click to expand...

Care to cite a case of anyone excusing it? The point -- already raised many times by multiple posters -- is that a chant of "Alamo Whites" would have no bearing on whether or not the "USA" chant was/is racist. Two or more wrongs don't make a right, and -- quite consistently -- there is a systematic effort on the part of those who attempt to trivialize racist oppression.

This is done when they skip past direct recognition of racism committed against people of color and jump right into saying things like "well isn't X also racist?" (where "X" is some case of racism by persons of color and nearly always implied as a case of magically canceling out some instance of racism by "whites"). The end result in many cases is a successful attempt to keep things slippery, such that the plain fact of racist OPPRESSION -- which is racist action backed by institutional power -- is never plainly discussed. The diversion of blame games, Oppression Olympics (different genuinely oppressed/targeted groups trying to one-up each other in arguments over who is more oppressed), and placating the privileged (i.e. trying to make "white" people comfortable in discussions of racist oppression, trying to make men comfortable in discussions of sexist oppression, etc.) all end up being successfully used to AVOID rather than foster real discussion.

Witness its use in this thread, which has reached a few hundred posts in length but contains preview few posts honestly acknowledging even the most basic contextual issues (which are kinda important, given that they are what makes the difference between a "USA" chant being annoying but harmless vs. it being virulently racist/jingoist).
 
American said:
CC, I think you need to consider the possibility that being immature teens, that if one group started something, that the other group then got revved up and tried to out do them. Doesn't make it right, but it could explain the escalation.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with you. Doesn't make either group right... however, the issue here is whether what the Alamo kids did was offensive. And it was.
 
Gie said:
I'm curious why the fact that a group of adults and children that chant "Alamo Whites" at a group of predominately "white" high school students (for more than 5 seconds) is by default excused. Much less not being "reported" on. Much less so mentioned. Would not that be just as "offensive" to the self professed "liberal " focus? To say nothing of the so called liberals complicit in this thread?

I was joking of course. Nah. I understand exactly what is at work here, it is quite "by the book" and that is obvious as all get out.
Click to expand...

We know what is at work here. Many conservatives in this thread would much prefer to divert the issue, by ONLY addressing what the other kids did, rather than addressing what the Alamo kids did... trying to justify the behavior. No context and no responsibility.
 
cmakaioz said:
...which has reached a few hundred posts in length but contains preview few posts honestly acknowledging even the most basic contextual issues...
Click to expand...

"preview" should of course read precious...not quite sure how that typo/thinko happened but caught it after the Edit Post timer expired.
 
cmakaioz said:
Care to cite a case of anyone excusing it? The point -- already raised many times by multiple posters -- is that a chant of "Alamo Whites" would have no bearing on whether or not the "USA" chant was/is racist. Two or more wrongs don't make a right, and -- quite consistently -- there is a systematic effort on the part of those who attempt to trivialize racist oppression.

This is done when they skip past direct recognition of racism committed against people of color and jump right into saying things like "well isn't X also racist?" (where "X" is some case of racism by persons of color and nearly always implied as a case of magically canceling out some instance of racism by "whites"). The end result in many cases is a successful attempt to keep things slippery, such that the plain fact of racist OPPRESSION -- which is racist action backed by institutional power -- is never plainly discussed. The diversion of blame games, Oppression Olympics (different genuinely oppressed/targeted groups trying to one-up each other in arguments over who is more oppressed), and placating the privileged (i.e. trying to make "white" people comfortable in discussions of racist oppression, trying to make men comfortable in discussions of sexist oppression, etc.) all end up being successfully used to AVOID rather than foster real discussion.

Witness its use in this thread, which has reached a few hundred posts in length but contains preview few posts honestly acknowledging even the most basic contextual issues (which are kinda important, given that they are what makes the difference between a "USA" chant being annoying but harmless vs. it being virulently racist/jingoist).
Click to expand...
I can't locate a single post that addresses the chant except to immediately dismiss it, which is why I said the "Alamo Whites" chant is excused by default. There is a lot of slippery in that slope.

CaptainCourtesy said:
We know what is at work here. Many conservatives in this thread would much prefer to divert the issue, by ONLY addressing what the other kids did, rather than addressing what the Alamo kids did... trying to justify the behavior. No context and no responsibility.
Click to expand...
Indeed we do know what is at work here. Most if not all of the liberals in this thread have refused to address much less condemn the (reported at this point 3 minute long) racist "Alamo Whites" chant and instead focus on the 5 second "USA" chant. The fact that the "USA" chant has been heard at every game all season long, even at games against fellow all white affluent schools? No context and no responsibility at all, you are correct. Just a lot of hypocritical lazer beam like focus upon the convenient and the usual shuck jive around the inconvenient.

You and cmakaioz can probably spare us all the insights you think your clairvoyance gives you into everyone's mindset and inner thoughts on that matter. IMO you should stick to what is actually said by posters versus what you think they are thinking. Though if you really can't help but psychoanalyze posters, you could turn your attention to the inner thoughts and motivations of all the posters in the thread trying to paint the actions of a handful of teenagers (average age at the game was about 14) for 5 seconds into examples of "racism" and all the other salacious pockets of hot gas being shared in the thread, that are at odds with all the facts on the table, er presented in the thread.
 
Last edited:
Gie said:
Indeed we do know what is at work here. Most if not all of the liberals in this thread have refused to address much less condemn the (reported at this point 3 minute long) racist "Alamo Whites" chant and instead focus on the 5 second "USA" chant. The fact that the "USA" chant has been heard at every game all season long, even at games against fellow all white affluent schools? No context and no responsibility at all, you are correct. Just a lot of hypocritical lazer beam like focus upon the convenient and the usual shuck jive around the inconvenient.
Click to expand...

More conservative diversion. Of course most of the conservative posters in this thread don't want to address the issue... context is difficult for them to understand as we have seen.

You and cmakaioz can probably spare us all the insights you think your clairvoyance gives you into everyone's mindset and inner thoughts on that matter. IMO you should stick to what is actually said by posters versus what you think they are thinking. Though if you really can't help but psychoanalyze posters, you could turn your attention to the inner thoughts and motivations of all the posters in the thread trying to paint the actions of a handful of teenagers (average age at the game was about 14) for 5 seconds into examples of "racism" and all the other salacious pockets of hot gas being shared in the thread, that are at odds with all the facts on the table, er presented in the thread.
Click to expand...

One does not need to psychoanalyze anything. All one has to do is read the thread. Liberal posters have agreed that both groups were offensive. Conservative posters have mostly avoided condemning the Alamo kids... lack of the ability to see context. It's all here and has been pointed out repeatedly. Of course, those conservative posters who can't see context in the situation, also can't see context in this thread.
 
Gie said:
I can't locate a single post that addresses the chant except to immediately dismiss it,
Click to expand...

Oh really? Here...I can do it for you:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaking-news-mainstream-media/120633-racist-texas-high-school-apologizes-fans-usa-chant-after-basketball-game-34.html#post1060288874


That's a link to the post where I clearly and explicitly stated:

IF such a chant was ALSO done, then it's also an instance of racism. So what? That has no bearing on whether or not the "USA" chant was/is a case of racism.

Let's see -- using my advanced math skills to count things up here --

1+1 doesn't equal ZERO.

1+1 would equal TWO.

I must be getting old; I find myself longing for the Good Ol' Days when I remember arguments being based upon some kind of substantive difference of principle instead of dramatic basic failures at logic and math.
Click to expand...

So if you "can't locate a single post that addresses the "Alamo Whites" chant except to immediately dismiss it,"

then you are either functionally illiterate (either from being unable to read the post in question, or displaying a basic confusion about what 'dismiss' means), or you are lying (in which you are pretending such a post was never written). Which is it?

Yes or No: do you acknowledge or deny the FACT that there actually IS a post in this thread which does not dismiss the "Alamo Whites" chant?
Yes or No: do you acknowledge or deny the FACT that the "Alamo Whites" chant is not the topic of the thread?

If No, then thank you for declaring your dishonesty; it makes sorting posters out much easier.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
More conservative diversion. Of course most of the conservative posters in this thread don't want to address the issue... context is difficult for them to understand as we have seen.



One does not need to psychoanalyze anything. All one has to do is read the thread. Liberal posters have agreed that both groups were offensive. Conservative posters have mostly avoided condemning the Alamo kids... lack of the ability to see context. It's all here and has been pointed out repeatedly. Of course, those conservative posters who can't see context in the situation, also can't see context in this thread.
Click to expand...

So, we only see context in this thread of we agree with you that chanting USA is racist?
 
X Factor said:
So, we only see context in this thread of we agree with you that chanting USA is racist?
Click to expand...

I think we went through this last week. I do not see that chanting "USA" in this context as racist. I see it as offensive.
 
cmakaioz said:
Oh really? Here...I can do it for you:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaking-news-mainstream-media/120633-racist-texas-high-school-apologizes-fans-usa-chant-after-basketball-game-34.html#post1060288874


That's a link to the post where I clearly and explicitly stated:



So if you "can't locate a single post that addresses the "Alamo Whites" chant except to immediately dismiss it,"

then you are either functionally illiterate (either from being unable to read the post in question, or displaying a basic confusion about what 'dismiss' means), or you are lying (in which you are pretending such a post was never written). Which is it?

Yes or No: do you acknowledge or deny the FACT that there actually IS a post in this thread which does not dismiss the "Alamo Whites" chant?
Yes or No: do you acknowledge or deny the FACT that the "Alamo Whites" chant is not the topic of the thread?

If No, then thank you for declaring your dishonesty; it makes sorting posters out much easier.
Click to expand...
No I did not miss it, it is just as you don't self identify as a liberal, I did not include you in my comment about most if not all liberals. Though I'm more than happy to acknowledge your comment. Did you happen to notice mine about both chants being offensive? Or does this make you functionally illiterate?
 
Last edited:
CaptainCourtesy said:
I think we went through this last week. I do not see that chanting "USA" in this context as racist. I see it as offensive.
Click to expand...
Well so do I. Of course at this point I'd like to share with you, via one of my favorite character actors, exactly what I think about your, mine or anyone else's right to be offended.
fry.jpg
 
Gie said:
Well so do I. Of course at this point I'd like to share with you, via one of my favorite character actors, exactly what I think about your, mine or anyone else's right to be offended.
Click to expand...

Which is irrelevant to the point. The issue isn't whether someone has the right to not be offended. The issue is whether the comments were offensive or not.

Btw... one of my favorite things to say is... "you have no right to NOT be offended."
 
X Factor said:
So, we only see context in this thread of we agree with you that chanting USA is racist?
Click to expand...

Anyone who denies that interpreting the "USA" chant as racist in the situation under discussion to be a normal and reasonable interpretation -- is indeed actively ignoring obvious context on at least two scales.

The repeated diversionary tactics:

  • Implication that an additional racist chant by the opposing team somehow cancels out the racism of the "USA" chant;
  • Pointing to the habitual use of the "USA" chant as if that in any way makes the interpretation of the "USA" chant as racist to be any less plausible;


constitute evidence of a commitment (if conscious) or at least complicity in (if unconscious) the attempt to discuss anything BUT the actual topic (i.e. the reasonable interpretation of the "USA" chant as racist).

So yes...actively denying context is indeed in conflict with seeing (and acknowledging) context.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Which is irrelevant to the point. The issue isn't whether someone has the right to not be offended. The issue is whether the comments were offensive or not.

Btw... one of my favorite things to say is... "you have no right to NOT be offended."
Click to expand...
You mean to say that we both find both phrases offensive? Because just for snigs and gigs, is there somewhere in the thread that you have expressed your offense at the "other" chant?
 
Last edited:
Gie said:
You mean to say that we both find the phrases offensive? OK, what the hell. WHO thus far, does not?
Click to expand...

Early in the thread, there were certainly some who said that chanting "USA" was not offensive. One poster who comes to mind is j-mac.

What is your point? Amorphous who says what which is irrelevant to what point? Seriously, please clarify.
Click to expand...

We are not discussing whether someone has the right or not right to be offended. We are discussing whether or not the chant WAS offensive.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Early in the thread, there were certainly some who said that chanting "USA" was not offensive. One poster who comes to mind is j-mac.



We are not discussing whether someone has the right or not right to be offended. We are discussing whether or not the chant WAS offensive.
Click to expand...
I edited my reply, but want to give yours a fair hearing. Did these same nebulous posters say chanting "USA" is not offensive, or did they say that it was not offensive in reply to equally "offensive" chants? Or did they say that the Alamo Heights 14 year olds are racist and offensive for chanting USA? Your ball of wax, errr *context* so share as you will.

Again, who is this "we" Kemosabe?

Thus far, via recently supplied links and quotes, most if not all liberal posters in this thread are really really hung up on what a bunch of tweens chanted for 5 seconds and not what they were responding to. Go figure. Good thing our non biased friends in the media were not pushing any agenda that got picked up on here at DP.
 
Last edited:
Gie said:
I edited my reply, but want to give yours a fair hearing. Did these same nebulous posters say chanting "USA" is not offensive, or did they say that it was not offensive in reply to equally "offensive" chants? Or did they say that the Alamo Heights 14 year olds are racist and offensive for chanting USA? Your ball of wax, share as you will.

Again, who is this "we" Kemosabe?
Click to expand...

Here's the problem with your comment. If we agree that no one has a right to not be offended, then it is irrelevant as to who started what. Both chants stand on their own. And... these "nebulous" posters stated the lack of offensiveness BEFORE it was stated that the Edison kids said anything.

And this "we" follows along with the OP. Unless some have chosen a diversion.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Here's the problem with your comment. If we agree that no one has a right to not be offended, then it is irrelevant as to who started what. Both chants stand on their own. And... these "nebulous" posters stated the lack of offensiveness BEFORE it was stated that the Edison kids said anything.

And this "we" follows along with the OP. Unless some have chosen a diversion.
Click to expand...
Here is the problem with your comment. We don't agree that no one has a "right" to be offended. What a stupid conversation that would be. Since who started what is not on the table, why bring up nebulous posters? If I could make sense of your comment that "nebulous posters stated the lack of offensiveness BEFORE it was stated that the Edison kids said anything" I would. Only try as I might, I can't decipher the obviously brilliant point hidden within this so called Easter egg.

Also, regarding nebulous comments and since you may have missed it, I'd like to re-pose my previous question.

You mean to say that we both find both phrases offensive? Because just for snigs and gigs, is there somewhere in the thread that you have expressed your offense at the "other" chant?
 
Last edited:
Gie said:
Here is the problem with your comment. We don't agree that no one has a "right" to be offended.
Click to expand...

No, I believe that we do agree. I said no one has the right to NOT be offended. If someone is offended, there is no law to cease the individual from not continuing to offend you.

What a stupid conversation that would be. Since who started what is not on the table, why bring up nebulous posters? If I could make sense of your comment that "nebulous posters stated the lack of offensiveness BEFORE it was stated that the Edison kids said anything" I would. Only try as I might, I can't decipher the obviously brilliant point hidden within this so called Easter egg.
Click to expand...

Perhaps if you read a little more closely you might understand what is being communicated. Here, I'll try it again... just for you. Who started it is irrelevant to whether either comment was offensive. In this thread, prior to the discussion that the Edison kids had said ANYTHING to the Alamo kids, some posters denied that the original chanting from the Alamo kids was offensive. There. I hope that was clear enough for you.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
No, I believe that we do agree. I said no one has the right to NOT be offended. If someone is offended, there is no law to cease the individual from not continuing to offend you.



Perhaps if you read a little more closely you might understand what is being communicated. Here, I'll try it again... just for you. Who started it is irrelevant to whether either comment was offensive. In this thread, prior to the discussion that the Edison kids had said ANYTHING to the Alamo kids, some posters denied that the original chanting from the Alamo kids was offensive. There. I hope that was clear enough for you.
Click to expand...
You mean to say that we both find both phrases offensive? Because just for snigs and gigs, is there somewhere in the thread that you have expressed your offense at the "other" chant? Obviously that is clear enough for me, though I bet you can explain that away like fairy dust.
 
Last edited:
Gie said:
You mean to say that we both find both phrases offensive? Because just for snigs and gigs, is there somewhere in the thread that you have expressed your offense at the "other" chant? Obviously that is clear enough for me, though I bet you can explain that away like fairy dust.
Click to expand...

Sure I did, though I also consistently said it is irrelevant both to what the Alamo kids did and what is the focus of this thread. So, is THAT clear enough for you, or do you need more fairy dust?
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Sure I did, though I also consistently said it is irrelevant both to what the Alamo kids did and what is the focus of this thread. So, is THAT clear enough for you, or do you need more fairy dust?
Click to expand...
Well then SURE! Simply *link* said comment and I will gladly crown you! Where again is this supposedly irrelevant point that seems to be, well, quite relevant. It really is that simple and that clear.

And let us not lose sight of the fact that this is an *argument* based upon the actions of a handful of tweens for 5 seconds. Big doings here, all those nebulous posters are all worked up now!
 
Last edited:
Gie said:
Well then SURE! Simply *link* said comment and I will gladly crown you! Where again is this supposedly irrelevant point that seems to be, well, quite relevant. It really is that simple and that clear.
Click to expand...

No, the point is quite irrelevant as I have said repeatedly. But here you go:

CaptainCourtesy said:
Even if that's true, it's irrelevant to what the Alamo students did. Doesn't mean it was right, either, but "they did it too" doesn't excuse it.
Click to expand...

And let us not lose sight of the fact that this is an *argument* based upon the actions of a handful of tweens for 5 seconds. Big doings here, all those nebulous posters are all worked up now!
Click to expand...

And let us not lose sight of the fact that your point of "a handful of tweens for 5 seconds" is irrelevant to whether it was offensive or not... but I guess those nebulous posters just don't seem to understand this concept. AND I'm certainly not saying it was a big deal... that's YOUR diversion.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
No, the point is quite irrelevant as I have said repeatedly. But here you go:





And let us not lose sight of the fact that your point of "a handful of tweens for 5 seconds" is irrelevant to whether it was offensive or not... but I guess those nebulous posters just don't seem to understand this concept. AND I'm certainly not saying it was a big deal... that's YOUR diversion.
Click to expand...
Consider yourself crowned! I can't imagine how I missed that condemnation amidst all the rest of yours, aimed as they are at *nebulous* posters. Er, J-mac. But sure, pointing out all this effort and straw stuffing is focused upon the actions of the same handful of tweens the whole topic is predicated on is a diversion! Sure. Why not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom