- Joined
- Feb 2, 2006
- Messages
- 17,343
- Reaction score
- 2,876
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Deliberately.You are missing the point CC.
Deliberately.You are missing the point CC.
Why didn't the early poll respondents ask for any? What did they assume?
Who did you hear this from?
Does it matter where I heard it?
You mean like this?
In the SECOND post in the thread to which Goobie responded with
People did, IMMEDIETELY ask to get the actual context of it and goobie immedietely from the start tried to dance around it.
You are missing the point CC.
Goobie is demonstrating how simply WHO says something is what is CREATING the "context" for many thread followers and participants, and sadly, for many people across the nation.
No... he asked if it mattered.
WHY does it matter?
Yes Caine, you're absolutely correct.
WHO says something does play into context.
For example, if I heard someone go "Reasonable Suspicion is too vague to be reasonable for the Arizona Law" it would likely generate a far different reaction from me if it came out of the mouth of a open-borderes advocate than if it came out of the mouth of a Police Officer.
If during 2006 I heard a comment "The republicans are abject failures" and had NO indication beyond that of the context, be it what else whas said or who said it, if forced to give a gut reaction to it I'd have said no. If you had told me however it was Newt Gingrich not Nancy Pelosi that said it, and he went on to explain he meant they were failures at upholding some of their principles which caused a severely depressed turnout, I'd actually probably agree with him IN THAT CONTEXT.
In this case you have a generic comment:
"Are African-Americans a mongrel people".
This, without ANY other context, is an insulting comment to many as because of its ambiguity it could be speaking culturually but it could be speaking racially or even colloquiely.
If you went "Fred Phelps says that African-Americans are a mongrel people" then suddenly I'd definitely say it was an insulting comment as one has further context due to knowledge of the views of the individual in question which helps to paint what he's meaning.
However when you have Obama stating they're a mongrel people, he specifically points to the "mixed up" nature of their history, likening it to the similar mixed up make up of white individuals, it makes it clear that he's using it less in the way that can be used to insult and more in the way people colloquilaly use things like "mutt" when explaining individuals of extremely mixed ancestory.
To expand upon my earlier example, you have two statements:
1. "Republicans failed miserably"
2. “Republicans failed miserably”
1. Nancy Pelosi said “Republicans failed miserably”
2. Newt Gingrich said “Republicans failed miserably”
1. Nancy Pelosi said “Republicans failed miserably, they ruined the country and the economy”
2. Newt Gingrich said “Republicans failed miserably, they abandoned conservatism and it caused their base to be disenchanted”
1. Nancy Pelosi said “Republicans failed miserably, they ruined the country and the economy. Its obvious that the people must elected Democrats into power.”
2. Newt Gingrich said “Republicans failed miserably, they abandoned conservatism and it caused their base to be disenchanted. The party must embrace conservatism so as to be reelected back into the majority.”
By your and Goobie’s ridiculous reasoning those two statements are EXACTLY the same and should have EXACTLY the same reaction and EXACTLY the same view because when you take just a snippet of it “Republicans failed miserably” they are saying the same thing. That’s idiotic.
When I saw Goobie's thread, knowing his past history of posting dishonest bait and trap threads, I would have done what I did. Read the article to see in what context the comment was made. If it was someone else, I would have been far less skeptical, but still would have read the article to see in what context the comment was made. In either case, if context was not disclosed, I would have been just as confrontational. Goobie knows what he did. He does it all the time. Here's an example of what he did:
"I killed the ass". Tell me if this is an appropriate thing for a President to say?
Then, when you read the article, you find out that the President said this when he saw a donkey charging at 4 children, so he "killed the ass". Now, Goobie would say that context doesn't matter... because he would be creating a dishonest bait and trap thread to attack liberals. Of course, most people would see through this and understand that context creates a completely different meaning for the statement... something that Goobie denies. I find it quite bizarre that someone would deny the importance of context when discussing the meaning of statements. Goobie's purpose isn't to debate. It's to trap. And I'll keep exposing these traps whenever I see them.
Thread: Are African-Americans a mongrel people?
You're pretty much admitting what I said -- you were overly concerned with context because it was Goobieman. If someone else had asked the same question, no, I don't think you'd have been as concerned.
I'm still wondering who talks like this.
I would never think to call ANY group "a mongrel people". Seems very odd to me. Does he intentionally say things to get a rise out of people?
Main Entry: mon·grel
Pronunciation: \ˈmäŋ-grəl, ˈməŋ-\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, probably from mong mixture, short for ymong, from Old English gemong crowd — more at among
Date: 15th century
1 : an individual resulting from the interbreeding of diverse breeds or strains; especially : one of unknown ancestry
2 : a cross between types of persons or things
I think he just uses the terms in an accurate manner and doesn't avoid certain terms simply because people commonly misconstrue them as negatively connotated terms.
Would that we lived in a world where you could actually do that.
You people are REALLY beginning to bore me.Yes Caine, you're absolutely correct.
WHO says something does play into context.
How should have I asked it to bring it into context?A nice, to the point, and very clearly defined explanation as to why, in this case and many others, ESPECIALLY politics, context is everything.
I think the fact that this particular comment is news is proof that we don't live in such a world.
But it doesn't mean that Obama is going to stop using the terms in an accurate fashion.
I'm still wondering who talks like this. I would never think to call ANY group "a mongrel people". Seems very odd to me. Does he intentionally say things to get a rise out of people?
You people are REALLY beginning to bore me.
How should have I asked it to bring it into context?
And how would that have changed your response?
"Do you agree with President Obama's belief that African-Americans are a mongrel people as he stated on the view?
Pasted entry of his quotes from the view
"Do you believe African-Americans are a mongrel people? I mean this as a general use of the word, not specifically in reference to the statements by the President recently on the view"
He probably isn't. However, a few things about that.
I think he was doing what you said in this instance, but I think you also may be giving him too much credit in others. He's said some god-awful stupid things ("Special Olympics," etc.) which indicate he might just be a bit tone-deaf. There are good and bad ways of saying things.
Plus, he's the de facto head of a political bloc which champions things like hate speech laws, speech codes on campuses, and which gets into a tizzy when people say insensitive things. However academically accurate he might have been in the context, he must also be aware of how the word "mongrel" would sound. There's no way he couldn't be. So, he really does need to be playing it better.
The special Olympics comment was incredibly stupid. During the election, his "typical white person" was incredibly stupid, and his "clinging to guns and bibles" comment unbelievably so. However, can you think of any one who has spoken in public so often, on so many topics, who has not made some real unbelievably stupid comments? When you put yourself out there that much, sometimes you are going to **** it up. I have said some things on this board that where incredibly stupid, and done some things that where. Thankfully I am not in the spotlight, and text means I can edit away some of my worst ****ups.
I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me or challenging me.
Neither, mostly just rambling.
That's typical of a mongrel white person who clings to their gun and/or bible while bowling against a special olympian. :2razz:
Anyone who can bowl while holding a gun and bible is pretty talented.