Insightful Article on Sarah Palin
-
[quote="bellwells"]This one is especially for Paris and ought to really ruffle his feathers:
Hey Solo, I was actually avoiding this redneck bigot until he called me out. Sorry man, but if a racist photo of Obama, or any black person, shining shoes doesn't send a chill through you with respect to where Ron and his kinfolk fit on the food chain then I don't know what will. This is not about rational political debate, it's an insight into a man who degrades all human beings who do not fit within his warped world. Personally, I have about as much regard for him as I do for the minor annoyance of stepping in dog shit.
...Got to admit tho, the Hitler turned out pretty good. Maybe a couple more just for fun...then I'll chill. -
@paris said:
Personally, I have about as much regard for him as I do for the minor annoyance of stepping in dog shit.
Isnt that a bit hypocritical?
-
@paris said:
Sorry man, but if a racist photo of Obama, or any black person, shining shoes doesn't send a chill through you with respect to where Ron and his kinfolk fit on the food chain then I don't know what will.
You know, some black people do shine shoes. Some of those shoes belong to white people. It's not racist, it's reality. If the image had depicted Joe shining her shoes, would it have been sexist?
@paris said:
Personally, I have about as much regard for him as I do for the minor annoyance of stepping in dog s**t.
So, akin to remus's question, does this constitute "insight into a man who degrades all human beings who do not fit within his warped world"? Just curious...
-
I once read a a sci-fi short story where they finally decided to elect the President by lottery, which everyone was joined in, so any "Joe Six-pack" (that's not condescending, I guess, when a Republican uses it?) could actually be President. Somehow this election reminded me of that, and how: the people just want to be able to vote for someone like themselves, however they define that, qualifications and issues be damned.
Well-done shoe-shine photo. Comedy that plays with our prejudices is tricky. Some people don't get it. This is sort of a double-whammy.
EDIT: I'm changing my mind. In case my comment is misunderstood: I took the picture to be playing on our preconceptions of race and racists. I have to admit it was not in good taste. It would be seen as demeaning and hurtful to people who don't deserve it. Not criticizing others here, just reflecting on the picture itself and that it accurately depicts, sadly, what some people believe.
-
Hi,
Just come across this thread.
Ron, as usual, there are those of a liberal/left persuasion who nearly always resort to these sort of tactics. Considering they nearly always think of themselves as your intellectual superior (they went to university, so they MUST be clever) they resort to methods similar to those used by primary school children.
They call you names and pass around insulting pictures of you. Really intellectual!They are also quick to display their outrage when anyone dares to make jokes about certain ethnic minorities.
Of course, they see no contradiction in making insulting comments about your "kinsfolk". It seems perfectly acceptable for them to call you a redneck and imply that you are all inbreds. The hypocrisy of this seems to escape them.I know that not all liberal/left types are like this.
From reading this, and past threads I know, for instance, that Peter probably holds completely opposite views to me (and you?) regarding most political issues.
But he treats other views with respect and is prepared to discuss in a polite and civilised manner.
In an ideal world, this is what all rational adults should do.But it’s not an ideal world.
I suspect that Paris is more likely to be of the (more commonplace?) liberal/left type who wants "hate" laws passed. Rather than enter in to debate with you he could simply have you locked up and the key thrown away. What a nice liberal trait!These people can be more dangerous than any religious zealot.
Regards
Mr S -
-
@rickw said:
@paris said:
Sorry man, but if a racist photo of Obama, or any black person, shining shoes doesn't send a chill through you with respect to where Ron and his kinfolk fit on the food chain then I don't know what will.
You know, some black people do shine shoes. Some of those shoes belong to white people. It's not racist, it's reality. If the image had depicted Joe shining her shoes, would it have been sexist?
OMG... The 'joke', as you call it, is intended to provoke the racial stereotype of black people knowing their place in society. This isn't Alabama in the 60's, or is it.
-
[quote="Mr S"]Hi,
Just come across this thread.
Ron, as usual, there are those of a liberal/left persuasion...You suffer from a common malady called 'selective logic' syndrome. It's okay for Ron to debase Obama and black people and profess his hatred for 'Japs' and others because he is expected to do that given his political/moral bent. However, someone who takes a more liberal stance is expected to simply bend over and take it.
-
Mr. S
I get the point of most of what you say but do you really find it so strange that...
@unknownuser said:
They are also quick to display their outrage when anyone dares to make jokes about certain ethnic minorities.
?There are jokes and there are jokes. As I noted above some are a play on our prejudices, sometimes the stereotypes are laughable (ethnic comedians make use of them). But some jokes ABOUT other ethnic groups that are demeaning, are indeed wrong. You want to deny history, but you can see see it everyday in the news. These attitudes hold-up the hatreds that lead to repression, injustice, and genocide. It's not funny. It's not about certain ethnic groups, it's about people all over the world perpetrating hate.
Attacking back in the same matter isn't any better, I agree. People are free to make their jokes. Others are free to protest.
What does "But it's not an ideal world." mean? I assume you want to see it better?
Peter
-
@pbacot said:
...Well-done shoe-shine photo. Comedy that plays with our prejudices is tricky. Some people don't get it. This is sort of a double-whammy.
Yeah...I was kinda pissed at myself for laughing.
EDIT too: I was laughing at the use of prejudices to poke fun at prejudiced people...maybe a mistaken interpretation of the image...? If it was intended as a racial slur: not funny!
-
@rickw said:
You know, some black people do shine shoes. Some of those shoes belong to white people. It's not racist, it's reality. If the image had depicted Joe shining her shoes, would it have been sexist?
No, it would have been a logical satire of a perceived outcome of the debate between the two. Using Obama has racist overtones far outweighing any comedic value...unless the intent was to satire the prejudices of Palin: still pushing the racist threshold considering all I know about her so far.
-
I think we should add one more to the ballot, "NONE OF THE ABOVE"
-
@paris said:
@rickw said:
@paris said:
Sorry man, but if a racist photo of Obama, or any black person, shining shoes doesn't send a chill through you with respect to where Ron and his kinfolk fit on the food chain then I don't know what will.
You know, some black people do shine shoes. Some of those shoes belong to white people. It's not racist, it's reality. If the image had depicted Joe shining her shoes, would it have been sexist?
OMG... The 'joke', as you call it, is intended to provoke the racial stereotype of black people knowing their place in society. This isn't Alabama in the 60's, or is it.
Wow, that didn't even cross my mind - I just saw the two candidates. Does that mean I'm "colorblind"?
(or is that not a "politically correct" term any more, lest it offend the sensibilities of the chromatically challenged?) -
@tomsdesk said:
@rickw said:
You know, some black people do shine shoes. Some of those shoes belong to white people. It's not racist, it's reality. If the image had depicted Joe shining her shoes, would it have been sexist?
No, it would have been a logical satire of a perceived outcome of the debate between the two. Using Obama has racist overtones far outweighing any comedic value...unless the intent was to satire the prejudices of Palin: still pushing the racist threshold considering all I know about her so far.
So just because Obama has darker skin, that precludes him from being portrayed in a subservient position because it would be "racist", whereas if his name was "Joe" and he had light skin, it would be considered "satire" and would be okay? Sorry, but that's just plain ridiculous. And the further we get from the 60s, the further it will be from the minds of people. If you grew up with that, sure, you can read that into it.
I saw it as portraying Palin's superior executive branch experience (as a mayor & governor, she has some, he doesn't) or superior connection with regular people (when they were in Iraq, she visited the troops, he went to the gym), considering that Obama had been trying to campaign against her by saying he's more qualified than she is, even though he's campaigning for the top spot and she's in the VP spot. To me, it was a comparison of individuals, and in no way did it imply as extending to whole races.
Michael Graham of the Boston Herald explains phantom racism.
-
the image can be deconstructed in many ways, but the message, in the context of the US, its historical relationship with african americans and other minorities, is clear. At least to me.
-
RickW...horse pucky.
-
-
All of it, every little bit...case in point:
Since that gym was filled with servicemen and women, one could say: "While Obama visited the troops, Palin went to the toilet." Equally as truthful and as ludicrous as your comment...i.e. horse pucky!
-
@tomsdesk said:
Since that gym was filled with servicemen and women...
Obviously, we're talking about different events, making your statement "horse pucky".
Now, I also see I need to edit my statement: when she was in Iraq, she visited the troops; when he was in Germany, he cancelled his visit to meet with the troops though he had the time to hit the hotel gym for a workout (and yes, I'm aware of his excuse for that).
So, do you really mean to label "every little bit" of what I said as "horse pucky"? Okay, I'll hit them one at a time...
[Oct 7, 5:07 post] - I grew up in the '70s. I missed experiencing all of the racial tension of the '60s, and most of it in the '70s. I grew up having friends of many different races; today, I have friends of many different races. Race isn't a big deal to me. In the movie "Gettysburg", Sgt. Kilrain says, "you cannot judge a race. Any man who judges by the group is a pea-wit. You take men one at a time." That's what I intend to do.
So, sure, you can believe I'm lying when I say I didn't read racial overtones into the image. But it means you've decided to believe something not true.
[Oct 7, 5:35 post] - Being hypersensitive to race will cause one to see racism where it does not exist. That was my point, and Michael Graham's point in his article. I remember the furor that erupted over a DC staffer using the term "niggardly" - a word that means "miserly", and has no racial connotations - because it was mistakenly thought to be a racial epithet. I also acknowledge the opposite extreme, that being insensitive to race may cause one to not see racism where it does exist. The challenge is to be pragmatically between the two. "NAACP Chairman Julian Bond...said that people should not have to 'censor' their language to meet other 'people's lack of understanding.'" ("D.C. Mayor Acted 'Hastily,' Will Rehire Aide"; Yolanda Woodlee, Washington Post Staff Writer; Thursday, February 4, 1999; Page A1)
By mentioning Palin's "superior" executive branch experience, I was speaking solely in relation to Obama, who has none. That being the case, one could say the mayor of Winfield has superior executive branch experience compared to Obama.
-
Rick, I didn't say you were lying, I said you were full of it...two different things (though often the same intent, huh :`) Now don't bother yourself further about this: I don't want to play anymore.
Advertisement