Another Stupid Tea Party Thread

[Tiassa]

Tea Party Quote of the Day

Tea Party Quote of the Day

Jenny Beth Martin, of Tea Party Patriots, on the Supreme Court ruling in favor of the Affordable Care Act:

"Historians are going to look back on today and equate it with Plessy vs. Ferguson and Dred Scott. I think that right now today people feel betrayed by the majority of the court."

—qtd. in Gray​

It's almost as if we're going to have to consider a new variation on Godwin's Law and its corollaries: Slavery.

Perhaps it's merely coincidental, but it seems to be a persistent theme in the Tea Party argument against President Obama.

April, 2009: The Madison Tea Party and a persistent theme of anti-Obama sentiment.
(via Flickr)​

For those who need the context:

• Plessy v. Ferguson — An 1896 Supreme Court decision establishing the infamous "Separate But Equal" doctrine, which allowed institutional segregation between whites and nonwhites. Justice John Harlan, the lone dissenter in the 7-1 vote, was, incidentally, a former slave owner. "Separate But Equal" is the judicial logic that resulted in separate drinking fountains, waiting rooms, and even schools for "Whites" and "Coloreds". The doctrine survived fifty-eight years before being struck down in 1954, by the famous Brown v. Board of Education decision.

• Dred Scott v. Sandford — An 1857 Supreme Court decision authored by Chief Justice Roger Taney that refused constitutional protections to African-American slaves and their descendants:

It is difficult at this day to realize the state of public opinion in relation to that unfortunate race which prevailed in the civilized and enlightened portions of the world at the time of the Declaration of Independence and when the Constitution of the United States was framed and adopted. But the public history of every European nation displays it in a manner too plain to be mistaken.

They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race either in social or political relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect, and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold, and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic whenever a profit could be made by it. This opinion was at that time fixed and universal in the civilized portion of the white race. It was regarded as an axiom in morals as well as in politics which no one thought of disputing or supposed to be open to dispute, and men in every grade and position in society daily and habitually acted upon it in their private pursuits, as well as in matters of public concern, without doubting for a moment the correctness of this opinion.​

The notorious Dred Scott decision stood for only eleven years; the Civil War intervened, and in the wake of that catastrophe, Taney's exclusion of "that unfortunate race" from humanity was overruled by the Fourteenth Amendment.​

This is, apparently, how the Tea Party movement views the Affordable Care Act. Strangely, I have yet to find any evidence of libertarians, conservatives, or anyone else accusing Mitt Romney of slavery when he shepherded the template for the ACA into law in Massachusetts only six years ago.

The persistent slavery theme seems to be part of the racist Obamanoia that conservatives desperately wish to convince us isn't real. And, frankly, it's getting kind of old. I don't think we've yet reached the place where a slavery comparison is guaranteed, but the Tea Party has the original Godwin's Law and corollaries covered, as well.

Subtle? Not really.
(via Daily Kos)​

____________________

Notes:

Gray, Rosie. "John Roberts, Liberal Icon". BuzzFeed. June 28, 2012. BuzzFeed.com. June 28, 2012. http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/john-roberts-liberal-icon

Brown, J. Henry B. "Opinion of the Court". Plessy v. Ferguson. May 18, 1896. Legal Information Institute at Cornell University Law School. June 28, 2012. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0163_0537_ZO.html

Taney, C. J. Roger. "Opinion of the Court". Scott v. Sandford. March 6, 1857. Legal Information Institute at Cornell University Law School. June 28, 2012. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0060_0393_ZO.html

See Also:

CometStarMoon. "Signs of Madison's Tea Party". Flickr. 2009. Flickr.com. June 28, 2012. http://www.flickr.com/photos/calistan/sets/72157616772853157/

ClammyC. "A few thousand words (picture intensive)". Daily Kos. April 16, 2009. DailyKos.com. June 28, 2012. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/04/16/720847/-A-few-thousand-words-picture-intensive

 

[wlminex]

Geez . . . . you all (above comments) must really fear the Tea Party's potential for restoring our country . . . . .

 

[Tiassa]

The obvious point

Geez . . . . you all (above comments) must really fear the Tea Party's potential for restoring our country . . . . .

There is something to what you say. In my opinion, people should fear a "restoration" of our country designed around racism, Christian supremacism, and plutocracy.

If it was just a bunch of idiotic whack jobs holding signs about white slavery and Obama's ovens, that would be one thing. Now that the Republican Party is officially onboard with these halfwitted hatemongers, though, the Tea Party movement does present at least a minor threat to the general condition of our society.

As I said before, the nation is strong enough to endure these people. Still, though, that doesn't mean we should sit by and let them wreck as much as possible with their infantile political tantrums.

 

[Tiassa]

Yes, He Went There

Yes, He Went There

Tea Partier Rep. Mike Kelly (R-PA) wants you to know that birth control is on par with ... well ... right:

A House Republican lawmaker likened the implementation of a new mandate that insurers offer coverage for contraceptive services to Pearl Harbor and the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks against the United States.

Pennsylvania Rep. Mike Kelly (R), an ardent opponent of abortion rights, said that today's date would live in infamy alongside those two other historic occasions. Wednesday marked the day on which a controversial new requirement by the Department of Health and Human Services, which requires health insurance companies to cover contraceptive services for women, goes into effect.

"I know in your mind you can think of times when America was attacked. One is December 7th, that's Pearl Harbor day. The other is September 11th, and that's the day of the terrorist attack," Kelly said at a press conference on Capitol Hill. "I want you to remember August the 1st, 2012, the attack on our religious freedom. That is a day that will live in infamy, along with those other dates."

(O'Brien and Thorp)​

Now that is some good ol', American Tea Party hyperbole for you.

What? What's that? Birth control pills? 9/11! Pearl Harbor! Aaaaarrrgh!
____________________

Notes:

O'Brien, Michael and Frank Thorp. "Republican likens contraceptive mandate to Pearl Harbor, 9/11". First Read. August 1, 2012. FirstRead.MSNBC.MSN.com. August 1, 2012. http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_new...ens-contraceptive-mandate-to-pearl-harbor-911

 

[RedStar]

Tiassa, you will love this one:

Two weeks ago, Tea Party Nation President Judson Phillips hosted the program and discussed changes that he felt should be made to voting rights in the United States. He explained that the founders of the country originally put “certain restrictions on who gets the right to vote.” He continued, “One of those was you had to be a property owner. And that makes a lot of sense, because if you’re a property owner you actually have a vested stake in the community. If you’re not a property owner, you know, I’m sorry but property owners have a little bit more of a vested interest in the community than non-property owners”

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2010/11/30/132532/tea-party-voting-property/?mobile=nc

Apparently, only property-owners should vote!

 

[joepistole]

I haven’t seen them brandishing their weapons this year as they have in previous years and that is a good thing.

 

[joepistole]

Geez . . . . you all (above comments) must really fear the Tea Party's potential for restoring our country . . . . .

LOL, Tea Party potential for restoring our country, does a snowball have a chance in Hell? That was a good one! I needed a good laugh.

 

[RedStar]

I haven’t seen them brandishing their weapons this year as they have in previous years and that is a good thing.

The Tea Party is a proto-Fascist organization. I'm glad it is dying.

 

[joepistole]

I like the tea party message of limited government spending. Money in the private sector will multiply, while the same money in the hands of government tends to divide, with its value getting smaller, due to waste and inefficiency.

For example, for every dollar Steve Jobs made there was a multiplier effect of about 9 times in terms of related connected industries, jobs, wealth, etc., created. If we had given all his money to the government, the multiplier drops below 1. Big government has many uses, but it is also net drain on the economy, reducing the national multiplier causing job loss.

Hogwash! That is nothing but 100 percent partisan bullshit; let’s see some credible proof.

For example, deficit spending does not make money for the country, but costs us interest. For every dollar spent, if we add interest it is actually more than a dollar spent. This is part of the hidden divider. That loss means fewer jobs.

More partisan hogwash, please provide credible proof. This doesn’t make any sense. The math doesn’t even add up. Do you know how much we are paying for the nation’s debt? Apparently not, you have no clue, else you would not have made this statement.

The Wall Street Occupiers are pro big government, trying to lower the multiplier even more but in favor of their own freebies. To want to pay for this using money siphoned out the 9 times multiplier into the less than 1.

More nonsense, why am I not surprised? This is pure garbage, the kind of stuff you hear of Fox News. You obviously have “multiplier on the brain” but you really need to know what it means and what it is and is not before you start making these nonsensical claims.

The government workers were traditionally called civil servants. This title reflected their relationship to their bosses, which are the tax payers. Now the servants make more than the owners relative to median income. The slave has become the master, allowing them to squander, at will, via the divider effect. This was made possible by the democratic electorate. I would make a law that says the civil servant medium income can never exceed 49% of the medium income of the tax payers, since the tax payers own the plantation. This keeps the proper perspective.

Say we reduced the current civil servant wage scale to to reflect this 49%, we can use that money to create jobs by releasing it to the private sector to take advantage of the 9 multiplier.

Ok, again where are your proofs? You have none. And you don’t have them for good reason. They don’t exist. All you are doing is repeating nonsense (i.e. conservative mythology) you have heard in the “conservative media” (e.g. Fox News, Clear Channel, and the numerous conservative email chains and blogs). By the way, the amount of pay one receives has nothing to do with who is or is not paying the employee – a point of logic. Your master – slave claims are just bizarre and an affront to all people of reason.

So based on this misinformation you would do away with the Civil Service and bring back the old crony federal employment system where federal workers relied on bribes to make ends meet. And just how do you figure Democrats are responsible for all the ills you perceive in the federal system? Do you know which party is responsible for the largest expansion in government funded entitlement in this century? Apparently not, because it is your beloved Republican Party and not the Democrats as you have alleged.

 

[Tiassa]

Hitler, Stalin, Mao ... and Obama

Republican Candidate Agana: Hitler, Stalin, Mao ... and Obama

​

Dr. Marisha Agana, a Republican for Ohio's 13th Congressional District, lashed out at President Obama earlier this month via Twitter. "History has a way of repeating itself," she wrote. "Stalin, Hitler, Mao Tse Tung and now Obama!!!"

Setting aside the obvious point about Godwin, it would seem that the way to play to the Tea Party is to pile on the hyperbole. You know, just keep piling them on. We're up to Stalin, Hitler, and Mao. Who's next? Pol Pot? Idi Amin? Saddam Hussein? We should probably have a Twitter contest to see who can cram the most evil dictators into a tweet with Obama's name.

Dr. Agana, for her part, is "excited" that her tweet is getting attention.

"I am 100% against abortion and I am excited that this issue has come to the forefront of my campaign," Marisha Agana wrote Monday in a Facebook post. "I hope all of you understand my position on abortion better now and why I put national leaders that believe in and support abortion into a special group of leaders who have either committed or supported genocide. Because of this and the position Mr. Barrack [sic] Hussain [sic] Obama has taken on abortion directly as well as the use of Obamacare to provide contraception and abortifacient drugs I feel it is proper and important to have included him on the list I tweeted about."

Agana was responding to the controversy over her tweeting on Sunday, "History has a way of repeating itself: Stalin, Hitler, Mao Tse Tung and now Obama!!!" Replying to an angry Twitter user, she clarified on Monday morning: "@madest I am sorry if I made a poor choice of analogy but I was referring to his pro-abortion stance!"

Larry Nichols, Agana's campaign manager, told POLITICO later on Monday that he's "tickled that … we're finally getting attention in a race that hasn't been getting a lot of attention."

Agana runs her own Twitter account and "is a plain-spoken woman" who "does not stutter, and she is not playing around," he said. The campaign had planned to associate Obama with Hitler, Stalin and Zedong two weeks from now, but Agana posted the tweet early — nonetheless, she "stands by it" because she considers abortion to be genocide, he said.

"The difference is Hitler, Stalin, et cetera, they committed genocide," Nichols said. "They did it directly. They walked up and killed millions of people. Now, Obama or any national leader that supports abortion is supporting genocide. They're not pulling the trigger like Hitler, but they support genocide."

(Ovadia)​

Two notes here: First, Agana is actually arguing that Hitler was better than Obama. Secondly, Rep. Agana is incapable of properly spelling the name of the man she is criticizing. To the one, well, that really is upping her ante. Of course, to that latter, we ought not be surprised, given the number of Republicans who simply aren't smart enough to figure out that there is no "Democrat Party".

Meanwhile, there is not much for polling available in national press; perhaps someone more local can dig up numbers. But Agana is running in the newly-drawn 13th Congressional District against Rep. Tim Ryan, the Democratic incumbent of the 17th CD. We can certainly note, though, that Ryan drew well over 56,000 votes in the Democratic Party; Agana advanced to the general with just under 28,000 votes in the GOP primary. Whether or not this stunt is enough to win her all the votes she needs to oust Ryan remains to be seen.

Still, though, this is your Tea Party.
____________________

Notes:

Ovadia, Tomer. "Marisha Agana defends Obama/Hitler tweet". Politico. August 6, 2012. Politico.com. August 7, 2012. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/79404.html

 

[wlminex]

Tiassa post #50: Still, though, this is your Tea Party.

"You betcha!" (Ref. S. Palin)

 

[Tiassa]

O'Donnell Eyes 2014 Senate Bid

Oh, Christine, Please Do ....

Ah, the lede of the day, from Michael O'Brien:

Delaware Republican Christine O'Donnell is apparently mulling a comeback, saying in an interview published Sunday that she is considering another run for Senate in 2014.

"I think I owe that to my supporters, to at least consider a run," O'Donnell told the Delaware News Journal in an interview published Sunday. "People sacrificed. Not only came out of their comfort zone — sacrificed to work hard in order to win the primary. And I think that I owe it to them to give it every consideration."

O'Donnell ran for Senate in 2010, and her candidacy that year became emblematic of the Tea Party's effect on the Republican Party ....​

Oh, we can only hope ....
____________________

Notes:

O'Brien, Michael. "Christine O'Donnell considering political comeback". NBC Politics. September 16, 2012. NBCPolitics.NBCNews.com. September 17, 2012. http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_new...stine-odonnell-considering-political-comeback

 

[Tiassa]

Shuck and Jive

Shuck and Jive

Some days it's just hard to know where to begin.

Thus, Erik Wemple for The Washington Post:

Like many conservative pundits, Sarah Palin is criticizing President Obama for his administration's inconsistent statements on the Benghazi, Libya, attack. Unlike many conservative pundits, Palin used the term "shuck and jive" to describe Obama's behavior.

In a Facebook post today, Palin wrote: "Obama's Shuck and Jive Ends With Benghazi Lies." She also used the term in the text of the post, which concludes, "President Obama's shuck and jive shtick with these Benghazi lies must end."​

When he was Attorney General of New York, Andrew Cuomo pointed out, "You can't shuck and jive at a press conference." And, yes, he did catch heat, being a Hillary Clinton supporter in the 2008 primaries.

Wemple continues:

CNN commentator Roland Martin responded by issuing a tutorial on the racially loaded nature of those words:

"Shucking and jiving" have long been words used as a negative assessment of African Americans, along the lines of a "foot shufflin' Negro." In fact, I don't recall ever hearing the phrase used in reference to anyone white.

According to a story in Newsday, "The 1994 book 'Juba to Jive, a Dictionary of African-American Slang,' says 'shuck and jive' dates back to the 1870s and was an 'originally southern 'Negro' expression for clowning, lying, pretense.'"​

More on the etymology: "lack slaves sang and shouted gleefully during corn-shucking season, and this behavior, along with lying and teasing, became a part of the protective and evasive behavior normally adopted towards white people in 'traditional' race relations."​

Jeffrey Goldberg tweeted, in response to Palin's Facebook post:

Sarah Palin's use of 'shuck and jive' isn't an example of a racist dog-whistle because it's too obviously racist to be considered code.​

But before we hear that pretentious, dishonest, right-wing whining about how any criticism of President Obama is denounced as racist, it might be useful to consider Alex Halperin's point:

Palin has a built-in advantage when she deploys loaded language: She can always plausibly plead ignorance. In case she didn't know what "shuck and jive" means, this is from Urban Dictionary's definition:

To "shuck and jive" originally referred to the intentionally misleading words and actions that African-Americans would employ in order to deceive racist Euro-Americans in power, both during the period of slavery and afterwards. The expression was documented as being in wide usage in the 1920s, but may have originated much earlier.

"Shucking and jiving" was a tactic of both survival and resistance. A slave, for instance, could say eagerly, "Oh, yes, Master," and have no real intention to obey. Or an African-American man could pretend to be working hard at a task he was ordered to do, but might put up this pretense only when under observation. Both would be instances of "doin' the old shuck 'n jive."​

​

It's a plausible defense. As I noted last year, this sort of ignorance is desirable in some conservative quarters. One need not be brilliant in order to know there are some things that just aren't acceptable for the public discourse. And those who are? Well, they're just snotty elitists ... right?
____________________

Notes:

Wemple, Erik. "Palin accuses president of 'shuck and jive' on Libya". Erik Wemple Blog. October 24, 2012. WashingtonPost.com. October 24, 2012. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...d0616b4-1df6-11e2-9cd5-b55c38388962_blog.html

Goldberg, Jeffrey. "Sarah Palin's use of 'shuck and jive'". Twitter. October 24, 2012. Twitter.com. October 24, 2012. https://twitter.com/JeffreyGoldberg/status/261171877916061696

Halperin, Alex. "Palin slams Obama's 'shuck and jive'". Salon. October 24, 2012. Salon.com. October 24, 2012. http://www.salon.com/2012/10/24/sarah_palin_slams_obamas_shuck_and_jive_shtick/

See Also:

Palin, Sarah. "Obama's Shuck and Jive Ends With Benghazi Lies". Facebook. October 24, 2012. Facebook.com. October 24, 2012. http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10151118681228435

 

[Balerion]

This sort of reminds me of when Howard Cosell got in trouble for referring to a player on the field as a "monkey." Obviously the word had been used as a pejorative against African-Americans, but Howard used it in the context of quick, elusive movements, and often said it of his own white grandchildren. Shuck and jive also has clear racial connotations, but that doesn't mean it's exclusively a racial term.

And if your argument against it is limited to "some things aren't acceptable for public discourse," what's the point of discussing it?

 

[Tiassa]

Drinking whiskey from a bottle of wine

Shuck and jive also has clear racial connotations, but that doesn't mean it's exclusively a racial term.

What if my response to you was to say, "Get back, honky cat"?

Certes, "honky" has a clear racial connotation, but make the case for me that it means the same thing to two British songwriters. John and Taupin seem to use the word to describe a rural person, not a white person.

But it would be incredibly unwise for Reverend Al Sharpton to throw the phrase at Mitt Romney.

Even without the racial connotation, it would still be an insult in that context, suggesting one is a rural simpleton unable to comprehend the complexities of cosmopolitan life, and therefore ought to just shut the hell up.

And if your argument against it is limited to "some things aren't acceptable for public discourse," what's the point of discussing it?

I must be missing the point of your question; that is to say, I can actually imagine that the first answer that comes to mind might offend you because it treats the question so simplistically.

And the second.

And the third.

Or, more specifically:

• Well, we discuss it as a meta-analysis of the public discourse because some people apparently can't figure out why it is problematic to have a society slinging such insults back and forth instead of dealing with substantial issues.

• The argument isn't specifically limited to the term's unacceptability in the public discourse.

• And by the way, why do you argue so vociferously on behalf of bigotry?​

By the time I reach the third option, it's apparent to me that I must be missing something about your question. I mean, frankly, I don't presume you so oblivious to history and society that you can't figure out that using such terms in presidential politics is corrosive. I don't presume you so narrow-minded that the only thing you could get out of this situation is, "if your argument against it is limited to 'some things aren't acceptable for public discourse,' what's the point of discussing it?" And of course we're all familiar with your disdain for the idea that you're actually advocating bigotry when you ask these questions.

Frankly, I think it's a stupid question because it is not an extraordinary proposition that the use of terminology with a clear history of bigotry distracts from the public discourse and creates bad feelings that ought to be beside the point of how to improve our society.

But, at the same time, we've been through enough of these discussions that I can reasonably predict that such a response would insult you. Therefore, I must necessarily be missing something about the question.

What, pray tell, would that be?

 

[Balerion]

What if my response to you was to say, "Get back, honky cat"?

Certes, "honky" has a clear racial connotation, but make the case for me that it means the same thing to two British songwriters. John and Taupin seem to use the word to describe a rural person, not a white person.

But it would be incredibly unwise for Reverend Al Sharpton to throw the phrase at Mitt Romney.

Okay, so your point is that context means nothing? That we should take every comment at face value, and even then only in the most negative light possible? That's amazing.

Even without the racial connotation, it would still be an insult in that context, suggesting one is a rural simpleton unable to comprehend the complexities of cosmopolitan life, and therefore ought to just shut the hell up.

Okay, but without the racial connotation, "shuck and jive" just means being dishonest or facetious. So what's the problem? I mean, aside from the fact that you feel the need to point out how the term might be taken by someone who is either desperate to take offense at something or doesn't have the awareness to note that she obviously doesn't mean it in a racist way.

Well, we discuss it as a meta-analysis of the public discourse because some people apparently can't figure out why it is problematic to have a society slinging such insults back and forth instead of dealing with substantial issues.

Oh, please. The problem is people who, instead of discussing the content of her comment, focus on the superfluous details such as this. Rather than take her to task for the substance of her comments, you're fixated on the way she worded it, and asking aloud if it means she's racist. Her comments are only problematic because it gives a partisan pseudo-blogger another excuse to embarrass himself.

The argument isn't specifically limited to the term's unacceptability in the public discourse.

You're right. It has also covered the ignorance and potential racism of conservatives. Sorry I didn't mention that.

And by the way, why do you argue so vociferously on behalf of bigotry?

Ah, yes. I wondered how long it would take you to turn this into a flame war.

There's no short answer to your question that puts us on equal footing. It's like back in school when your buddy would ask "Do your parents know you're gay?" in an attempt to trap you into an immediate yes or no. I'd have to get into how I might appear that way to you because you see bigotry everywhere; you once found it in a joke about Muhammad, so taking the position of "She obviously didn't mean that, so I don't see the point of this discussion," must seem like a proverbial nuclear warhead of racism. Clearly, I must think that the president is shuckin n' jivin', otherwise I wouldn't ask such a thing. MIRITE?

Then I'd have to give a laundry list of the movements I'm against, the comments I do find racist or bigoted, and maybe even stoop so low as to mention how many friends I have of that particular persuasion. Certainly I'd mention how you, Tiassa, have been in enough conversations with me to know that I'm not actually a bigot at all, and that you ask this as a means to distract from the actual point, much as you do with Palin's comments, because fussing over her phrasing is easier than addressing her point (though not much). But that only serves to legitimize your stupid, insulting question. I have no desire to do that, so I guess I'll just leave it be.

By the time I reach the third option, it's apparent to me that I must be missing something about your question. I mean, frankly, I don't presume you so oblivious to history and society that you can't figure out that using such terms in presidential politics is corrosive. I don't presume you so narrow-minded that the only thing you could get out of this situation is, "if your argument against it is limited to 'some things aren't acceptable for public discourse,' what's the point of discussing it?" And of course we're all familiar with your disdain for the idea that you're actually advocating bigotry when you ask these questions.

I can concede that I should have remembered we live in a society of idiots, of bloggers and, well, wannabe bloggers, and that anything said by anyone in the public sphere is going to be dissected by partisan trolls whose motives are obvious even through their incessant, pretentious claims to the contrary. I should have realized that the "point" is really "Just because," and nothing more than that. Thinking that anyone actually having this discussion was doing so sincerely was a mistake on my part. I should have known better.

Frankly, I think it's a stupid question because it is not an extraordinary proposition that the use of terminology with a clear history of bigotry distracts from the public discourse and creates bad feelings that ought to be beside the point of how to improve our society.

Again, I have to agree. Using that comment gives a free pass to all professional victims and bleeding hearts to take vicarious offense en mass and distract from the actual point being made. I know that's the mold from which you're cut, so asking you what the point is was pretty dumb.

But, at the same time, we've been through enough of these discussions that I can reasonably predict that such a response would insult you. Therefore, I must necessarily be missing something about the question.

What, pray tell, would that be?

The chance to stop letting the baggage of your parents and grandparents weigh down more generations of Americans. Instead of just treating it like the innocuous comment it was, you and your ilk sounded the alarm as if she had just dropped an N bomb on him, chastising her all the while for giving you the ammo to go off on this stupid little tangent.

Stop letting bigotry win. Stop looking for excuses to take offense.

You know, that sort of thing.

 

[iceaura]

Okay, but without the racial connotation, "shuck and jive" just means being dishonest or facetious. So what's the problem? I mean, aside from the fact that you feel the need to point out how the term might be taken by someone who is either desperate to take offense at something or doesn't have the awareness to note that she obviously doesn't mean it in a racist way.

It is obvious to me that Palin used the term in a racist way, with racial connotations and implications automatically invoked in her intended audience. I think it a bit strange that the situation (her character, background, and standard rhetoric; the US political and sociological context of her remarks; etc) is not similarly obvious to you, or could be credibly assumed to be invisible to Palin herself. Such obliviousness is hardly a sign of superior awareness - in Palin or anyone else.

For pity's sake: just whom do you think she was talking to?

 

[Tiassa]

(Something, something, Burt Ward)

Okay, so your point is that context means nothing? That we should take every comment at face value, and even then only in the most negative light possible? That's amazing.

Clearly, you missed the point.

Look, there are some things you don't say in certain company. Is that somehow a strange proposition to you? I used different language in front of my grandmothers than when talking to my friends. At any job I ever worked, my coworkers and I spoke differently on a smoke break than we did while actually on the job. Is my experience somehow unusual?

The public discourse has a purpose in our society; it is its own setting with its own specific behavioral expectations. These expectations certainly are not static, but yeah, there are just some things you don't say in this part of the public discourse. If you are a former vice presidential candidate who styles yourself a movement icon and expects what you say to be taken seriously in the public political discourse, different rules apply than if you present yourself as a comedian making deliberately crude jokes in order to be shocking.

I would repeat Andrew Dice Clay's "Hickory Dickory Dock" here, to make the point, but that might be overkill.

There are some things you just don't say in the public discourse. Context, in my own opinion, is everything. But in the public discourse, the rules are conventional instead of individual. Whether you look at the rules as confining to ritual, or necessary abstractions, or whatever, there are behaviors that are not appropriate in the public discourse, and these rules aren't always hard to figure out. Just look at the things politicians say that create some degree of uproar. Joe Biden and his "articulate and bright and clean" gaffe? Yeah, I get what he was after, but come on—even he should have known better. That is, when the best excuse is that he comes from a time that probably left its mark in his mind, that's not a lot to bank on.

One of the necessary attributes of the public discourse is that it continues to flow. If you make a splash, create turbulence, you disrupt that flow. Regardless of whether or not the discourse is flowing anywhere useful at any given time is independent of the anthropological demand that it must, from time to time, advance. Otherwise, there is no point in having a public discourse at all. There are some splashes one just shouldn't make, and when it comes to terms and phrases with clearly historical racial connotations, like "shuck and jive", or "tar baby", it shouldn't be so tough to figure out ... except, as Halperin suggested, Palin "can always plausibly plead ignorance".

It's just one of those incredibly stupid moments. In this case, I'm not convinced that the story really is about race, but, rather, says more about Sarah Palin's incredible stupidity. It's one of her defining attributes. The best thing that can be said about her stupidity is that she is smart enough to cash in on it.

I mean, "You didn't build that"? What was it about the "private sector is doing just fine"? Regardless of what I might say about Republicans taking those points out of context in order to build their attack, look at the outrage people are supposed to feel.

Where I criticize Obama and his team is for saying it in a way that left him open to this sort of distortion; I actually expect it of Republicans.

Or, regardless of what one might say about Romney's forty-seven gaffe, he left himself open to the criticism.

These are sleights of rhetoric. The boundaries are not especially well defined; neither are they static. The point for the politician ought to be to guard against such openings.

Terminology and arguments with clearly divisive and inflammatory historical associations aren't hard to figure out.

Ah, yes. I wondered how long it would take you to turn this into a flame war.

Quite clearly, you missed the point.

Or maybe not. Perhaps you're trying to make a point about context meaning nothing.

I can concede that I should have remembered we live in a society of idiots, of bloggers and, well, wannabe bloggers, and that anything said by anyone in the public sphere is going to be dissected by partisan trolls whose motives are obvious even through their incessant, pretentious claims to the contrary. I should have realized that the "point" is really "Just because," and nothing more than that. Thinking that anyone actually having this discussion was doing so sincerely was a mistake on my part. I should have known better.

Your histrionics are actually kind of amusing. I mean, if I take you seriously, we're left to consider the question of why any etiquette exists for anything. Or, I suppose, we could simply acknowledge that the public discourse is entirely pointless. Which would you prefer?

Again, I have to agree. Using that comment gives a free pass to all professional victims and bleeding hearts to take vicarious offense en mass and distract from the actual point being made. I know that's the mold from which you're cut, so asking you what the point is was pretty dumb.

Well, if you really want to advocate racist political rhetoric, that's your choice. But stop trying to make excuses for blatant stupidity.

 

[Balerion]

Clearly, you missed the point.

You don't seem to have a point. For all your talk of there being things "you just don't say in mixed company," you've failed to give a good reason as to why that is (or why "shuck and jive" should even count as one of those things; I think the folks at the various establishments bearing the Shuck N Jive namesake might take exception with that claim). Or, more precisely, why anyone should care if a candidate breaks a particular social convention in making a comment. Your argument apparently boils down to "just because," but again, this is hardly compelling.

Quite clearly, you missed the point.

Or maybe not. Perhaps you're trying to make a point about context meaning nothing.

Context means everything. Taking offense on behalf of some vague and faceless "public" because someone might be offended because they're too stupid to take the comments in context is ridiculous. And it's kind of elitist, because it assumes the stupidity of the masses. Which is kind of ironic, because it's the same people who damn well know the context who are turning these comments into out-of-context sound bites and presenting them as if they actually were meant to be offensive.

Your histrionics are actually kind of amusing. I mean, if I take you seriously, we're left to consider the question of why any etiquette exists for anything. Or, I suppose, we could simply acknowledge that the public discourse is entirely pointless. Which would you prefer?

That's a pretty absurd spin on the subject, don't you think? I mean, am I to presume that we shouldn't ask why etiquette matters in terms of political debate? Or why it's you who gets to decide what the standards are? And how did you possibly arrive at the conclusion that the moral of my post was that public discourse is pointless? You know what, don't bother. I already know the answer: you didn't arrive there, you pulled it out of your ass in the hopes that it would distract from my actual point, which is that context should be all that matters. If you know Palin didn't mean "shuck and jive" in a racist way, then there's nothing to get upset about. If others are offended by it, they're stupid, because they should know she didn't mean it in such a way, and even if they don't that shouldn't be the first place their minds go.

Well, if you really want to advocate racist political rhetoric, that's your choice. But stop trying to make excuses for blatant stupidity.

There you go again. Now it is racist political rhetoric? Man, you really can't keep your agenda from peeking its ugly little head out, can you?

 

[Tiassa]

Something About Context

Your argument apparently boils down to "just because," but again, this is hardly compelling.

I believe I'm noting the ritual standards of the public discourse; that is, this is my understanding of how the public discourse functions. There are many, many people taking part in the public discourse. The rules, as I've mentioned, are conventional.

For instance, in my lifetime one could hear elders in religious settings describing a lack of reverence among the youth. If I point out to you that it is generally not considered appropriate to shout profanities in a church sanctuary, is that simply my standard? Or have I pointed out something that is a standard existing independently of whether I accept it or not?

You're so anxious for a fight that everything seems subordinate to that need.

And no, I'm not surprised that there are establishments the American South that use the name "Shuck 'n' Jive". And no, Sarah Palin was not referring to the president preparing an oyster dinner while listening to big-band swing.

Taking offense on behalf of some vague and faceless "public" because someone might be offended because they're too stupid to take the comments in context is ridiculous.

See, you're still missing the point.

And it's kind of elitist, because it assumes the stupidity of the masses. Which is kind of ironic, because it's the same people who damn well know the context who are turning these comments into out-of-context sound bites and presenting them as if they actually were meant to be offensive.

An excellent clarification. I observe the fact that saying such things will offend people and thus disrupt the public discourse; you, on the other hand, would blame those offended.

That's a pretty absurd spin on the subject, don't you think? I mean, am I to presume that we shouldn't ask why etiquette matters in terms of political debate?

The effect of your argument is that etiquette shouldn't matter at all.

Or why it's you who gets to decide what the standards are?

Again, this is you looking for a fight.

If I remind you that the speed limit is seventy, am observing the established rule, or am I deciding what the standards are? With laws, it's easy enough to make a general assertion, since the rules are enumerated. Conventional rules in group behavior, though, aren't usually written down and collected like that.

As Daniel Henninger, Deputy Editorial Director of the Wall Street Journal reminded, it is inappropriate to call someone a liar in the public discourse, even when that person is lying.

Is that his rule? No. I might disagree with his application of the rule, but I recognize the behavioral code and expectation he invoked.

He didn't make up the rule that it is rude to call someone a liar. Indeed, I think pretending that he did would be a distraction from the real question.

When I remind that there are some things you just don't say in the public discourse, I'm not invoking my own rule. And I really do think that if you stopped to actually think about it for a minute, instead of looking for some fight to have, you would understand the difference.

And how did you possibly arrive at the conclusion that the moral of my post was that public discourse is pointless? You know what, don't bother. I already know the answer: you didn't arrive there, you pulled it out of your ass in the hopes that it would distract from my actual point, which is that context should be all that matters.

If context matters, why are you absolved from any responsibility thereunto.

"Ah, yes," you wrote. "I wondered how long it would take you to turn this into a flame war." That line made it clear that you absolutely blew the context of the post you were responding to.

Context matters? Yeah, I think so. But your behavior defies your declared "actual point".

Part of context is setting. You might well recognize that the public discourse is larger than you or me or Sarah Palin, but it isn't apparent in your posts.

So take the point about "honky cat". You and I and Reverend Al could certainly devise, discuss, and agree upon context, but I don't think any of us would reject the proposition that, regardless of what you and I and Reverend Al might think, dropping the phrase into the election like that would create tremendous turbulence.

After all, why would we make such a point of dropping so deliberately calculated obscurity into the discussion? Statistically speaking, I can virtually guarantee that whatever point Reverend Al would make with the line would be lost in the turbulence.

To me, this is all immediately apparent. And yet, to you such considerations would seem to be fundamentally offensive. There is an abstract idea of the public discourse. Its boundaries are established by large numbers of people, often agreeing only tacitly on the rules. The rules are dynamic; they shift and even transform entirely through generations. It's kind of like the idea that one ought to know how to use a gun before hunting, or how to drive before trying to pilot an F-1 racer. It doesn't seem a lot to ask that one recognize that if they're going to play football, they are going to get hit very hard by another player dressed in body armor who is trying to rattle the ball loose. When you step into the political arena of the public discourse, yes, there are certain things one is expected to know about the rules.

Like I said, the scandal doesn't really seem to be about race, but, rather, stupidity.

I should not be surprised that none of this matters to you.

As to your question, your refusal of the context of the public discourse is telling. So is your blaming other people for one's transgressions:

If others are offended by it, they're stupid, because they should know she didn't mean it in such a way, and even if they don't that shouldn't be the first place their minds go.

Racists will occasionally remind that white men have called each other nigger since the nineteenth century, at least. And John Lennon did record an excellent song called "Woman is the Nigger of the World". And I've heard the Irish referred to before as "Europe's niggers"; I'm sure it's been said of other groups, too, like Gypsies and Jews.

So, hey, there really is no point in excluding the term, which has a clearly antagonistic, racial historical context, from the public discourse. And if anybody is upset by hearing nigger-nigger-nigger-nigger-nigger-all-day-long, they're just stupid.

Your refusal of the context of the public discourse itself is telling.

There you go again. Now it is racist political rhetoric? Man, you really can't keep your agenda from peeking its ugly little head out, can you?

You specifically defended the use of terminology with a clear history of bigotry:

"Using that comment gives a free pass to all professional victims and bleeding hearts to take vicarious offense en mass and distract from the actual point being made."​

You transposed the general and particular, which conveniently follows the established pattern of assigning your own context to things in order to pick a fight.

I guess, in the end, it's a simple enough question: Do you disagree that setting is part of context?

There is a difference between the things we say among friends and the things we say in the public discourse. One of my social circle's favorite jokes, "That's what she said", is not something I would drop into the arena of presidential politics. Sure, it's just a joke, but I'm well aware of the history the joke depends on. I don't see how this is so controversial an acknowledgment. The rules of the public discourse are dynamic, but the line of best fit on a graph of the changes would suggest large-scale transformations like contexts of bigotry occur slowly. This is the presidential arena; terminology historically connoted with race issues is especially dangerous—this isn't some obscure or new or complicated ritual expectation. One would think the carnage littering that territory should serve as warning enough, even if general decency is too subtle an expectation. And that, for the nth time, is what makes the Palin sideshow significant. Well, that and the people who get offended that others are chuckling at Sarah Palin's transcendent idiocy.