April 13, 2010

About that chanted n-word.

Here's some weak pushback.

52 comments:

rhhardin said...

A compromise can be reached with a different determiner.

How about "a n-word" rather than "the n-word?"

For instance, "No."

Montagne Montaigne said...

I really can't believe that some (most) conservatives believe that the congressmen are just baldly lying about this. I understand that those protestors are embarrassing, and shouldn't be made by anyone with an axe to grind to represent the tea party people in general, but come on. Is it so hard to imagine this happening? People (white people, yeah, white conservatives) feeling liberated in their anger and the heat of the moment letting loose with the forbidden word?

Seriously though. You're in denial.

rhhardin said...

Conservatives mostly are inclined to set an example when attacked.

The loose nut is much less likely than is supposed by the left.

Chip Ahoy said...

This pure bullshit doesn't work any more.

Paul Zrimsek said...

The hand-lettered signs were just for show. The protest was actually organized by devious masterminds who carefully concentrated all their racists on the morning shift, when it's impossible to take video.

Paul Zrimsek said...

No, it's not hard to imagine this happening. In fact, it's so easy that even Monty can do it.

Montagne Montaigne said...

Here in New York, this is what we see from people claiming to represent the tea party.

Chuck Paladino. Not racist, of course. Racism doesn't exist-- except for affirmative action, right?

edutcher said...

Montagne Montaigne said...

I really can't believe that some (most) conservatives believe that the congressmen are just baldly lying about this.

Our Congressmen? The best that money can buy? Lying?

I hope you wrote that piece with the /sarc tag in bold italics.

Montagne Montaigne said...

A white person has never called a black person the n-word in anger. Actually there is no n-word. What are we talking about again?

Chase said...

Lewis declined to discuss the issue with The Associated Press. Asked whether the epithet was used, his spokeswoman said: "Yes. Congressman Lewis did hear the N-word yelled from the crowd."

Some people will always hear what they want to hear.

Some people will find bigotry in every situation. It is steeped in their mentality, their worldview, their very self-image of themselves as a more-righteous-than-thou.

I know so few honest liberals - they exist, but part of being a liberal is the inherent ascent to the ends justify the means mentality - that's why there are so few honest ones. Liberals simply live by a less honest standard. And that is what the p4roblem is here. Taken on the whole, without evidence, experience lands on the side of the Dems frankly lying.

They just can't help themselves.

The next time you hear a liberal encouraging anyone to live by the Ninth Commandment, let me know. Fat chance.

Rialby said...

The last time the n-word was used on Capitol hill, Robert Byrd was giving an interview to Tony Snow.

rhhardin said...

Thou shalt not bear false witness against unenumerated rights?

traditionalguy said...

Monty...It's over. The 1960s are not replaying in any roadshows like Les Miserables. 40 years of college athletics and Obama's election itself have turned the page on old time racists insulting black citizens. John Lewis is so old that he is having PTSD. We frankly don't give a damn about that trump card that is not in the deck anymore except in rural Michigan.

shoutingthomas said...

What a absurdly silly discussion.

I don't care whether somebody uses the "forbidden" word.

This entire discussion is almost hallucinatory in its oceanic stupidity.

Both sides. Stupid beyond human comprehension and endurance.

When and how did blacks became so sainted? Why are we genuflecting before them?

Please, don't even bother answering.

This entire line of thought has become an atrocity. Everybody shut up.

Sometimes, we all become just so insanely stupid that we barely deserve to exist.

This post and comment thread testify to this so grotesquely.

If we're all this stupid, we might as well cease to exist.

Ann Althouse said...

"I really can't believe that some (most) conservatives believe that the congressmen are just baldly lying about this."

Not baldly lying. Lewis refuses to go on camera and talk. Spokespersons issue statements. Talk to the camera if you want your reputation to support the charge. The failure to look us in the eyes and say it is telling.

Chase said...

Everybody shut up.


Translated form the earlier "Go away, kid. You're botherin' me."


Word verification (for real):

focki

holdfast said...

It's the age of YouTube, vid or GTFO.

Seriously, I think these guys would have done anything to help Obamacare pass, plus it has the added benefit of making the CBC somewhat relevant again, instead of just being a club for some of Congress' biggest crooks.

Exit question - is using the N-Word worse than calling someone a scrotum-swallower, like Anderson Cooper, Keef Olberman, Rachel Madcow and Davis Shuster regularly do?

Eric said...

I really can't believe that some (most) conservatives believe that the congressmen are just baldly lying about this.

Why? Congressmen of both parties lie on a regular basis. Surely you can't be oblivious to that fact? It takes a certain kind of person to climb that greasy pole all the way to Congress, and it's not the kind of person who is willing to make sacrifices for principle.

In this particular case there were oodles of video cameras in the area and just about everyone has a phone that can do video capture these days. Jesse Jr. was right there with his cellphone panning the crowd. If it actually happened someone would have collected Breitbart's $10k by now.

Seriously though. You're in denial.

I don't think we're the ones in denial. Is being wrong that hard to admit?

John Stodder said...

You don't have to stoop all the way to accusing the congressmembers of "lying" to doubt this particular allegation. That assumes we know their motives. We don't. They might be lying. they might be mistaken. They might be repeating something someone else told them, someone who they believe, but who is lying or mistaken.

Breitbart's challenge is decisive here. Everyone is videotaping everyone in scenes like this one. That no evidence has emerged suggests that the protesters have been unfairly accused. The constant recording of sound and image with nothing to show for it doesn't disprove the allegation. It's possible that, as the Yahoo article suggests, by some massive coincidence the epithets were only said when all cameras were turned off without exception. But it's not likely, and so the accusation should be withdrawn pending further evidence.

Of course there will be people on both sides who "know" what happened based on what they want to have happened. Breitbart is one. Montagne is another.

A discredited Tea Party movement is nirvana to some, existential despair to others. Their opinions on this matter invariably follow their biases.

Another suggestive bit of evidence for me is the fact that none of these accusers has yet described any individual who was saying the n-word. "A blonde guy." "An older man with a pink shirt." "A kid with a buzz cut." They haven't even said if it was the voice of a man or woman. The absence of details like these undermines my faith in these allegations.

Palladian said...

I hear the word "nigger" (sorry, I refuse to bowdlerize anything) and its variants ("nigga" "niggaz") many times a day here in the left-wing paradise of New York City, spoken by young males, mostly black but also Puerto Rican/Dominican and even occasionally white public-school-type kids. It's apparently so common that it carries no specific negative or positive connotation; it's merely a pronoun. Of course, I also hear the word "fuck" (and variants) spoken constantly by this same demographic, reduced almost to a disfluent filler word, like "um".

So apparently many people are allowed to use these words with impunity, yet we must also remain hyper-vigilant lest the wrong sort of person use them. And if the "wrong sorts" of people don't use them, we can accuse some of them of using them anyway and apparently discredit everyone and everything associated with those wrong sorts of people.

I love post-modern anti-logic!

Accusing someone of being a "racist" is basically the same as accusing them of being a pedophile. No matter who tosses out the accusation, absent any evidence or credibility, the taint remains.

Selling out your legacy for momentary political gain... I wonder if Lewis has yet collected his triakonta arguria...

Whether vindicatory evidence surfaces or Lewis returns the silver in shame, the intended damage is done and cannot be repaired.

This is, apparently, how to play the game.

SMGalbraith said...

So apparently many people are allowed to use these words with impunity, yet we must also remain hyper-vigilant lest the wrong sort of person use them.

As you know I'm sure, it's the intent behind a word - especially an epithet - that gives it the meaning.

E.g., I can call a close male friend a "bastard" but if another person calls him that and I'm around, they better be smiling.

shoutingthomas said...

This entire way of looking at the world represented by this post is an artifact of something that happened 50 years ago.

You know, I worked in and supported the civil rights movement in the 60s. Knowing the outcome, as I do now, I might very well have sat the whole thing out. This elevation of blacks in secular saints is an atrocity.

Obama is a racist. John Lewis is a racist.

The left's classification of its heroes as sainted martyrs has turned this world into a living hell. John Lewis may have been a hero of the civil rights movement, but in this life he's just another greedy hustler trying to get the swag for his own kind.

I'm worn out with this crap.

If you want to meditate upon mortal sin, I suggest you go to church.

Debating whether using a racial epithet is mortal sin is so bizarrely stupid... I wish I could summon the words to adequately describe this stupidity.

Are you folks sincerely suggesting that a white person who uses a racial epithet is thereby proscribed from pursuing his self-interest, and trying to get his hands on the swag?

What kind of foolish crap is that?

Can any of you possibly tell me what in the hell you are trying to prove here? What in the hell difference does it make if people use a racial epithet?

The short and sane answer: It's not very polite impolite, but otherwise it's of no consequence.

shoutingthomas said...

That last paragraph should read:

The short and sane answer: It's not very polite, but otherwise it's of no consequence.

Palladian said...

"As you know I'm sure, it's the intent behind a word - especially an epithet - that gives it the meaning."

Is language in-itself an entity separate from intent? How am I to divine the intent of people whose very way of experiencing reality I cannot begin to comprehend?

If a word is an anathema, to the point that it must not even be typed in public ("the n-word"), how can it ever be anything but toxic? How can the intent ever be anything but evil?

Kensington said...

"A white person has never called a black person the n-word in anger. Actually there is no n-word. What are we talking about again?"

A politician has never lied for political advantage.

Chase said...

Accusing someone of being a "racist" is basically the same as accusing them of being a pedophile. No matter who tosses out the accusation, absent any evidence or credibility, the taint remains.


And that is the liberal mindset - guilt by real or unreal association. Just spend half an hour perusing Media Matters to see what American liberals hail as an standard bearer for truth. It will only take minutes to feel the need to vomit.

And so we circle back to what I in essence said earlier: today's American liberal is far less constrained by the character virtue of honesty. Truth and honesty are merely tools in the service of liberal causes, easily and willingly sacrificed and manipulated in the service of liberal ends.

Sadly, that is the character assessment of our very President and the majority of the members of the Congress of the United States of America.

A dark period in American history indeed.

From Inwood said...

Mr. McCarthy: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, I have the names of those who said the "n" word.

The Speaker: Order, order. Thank you. Mr. McCarthy, how many names do you have?

Mr. McCarthy: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, 57; I have the names of 57, yes, 57 people who said the "n" word.

Kansas City said...

They are lying about walking through the crowd because it was "the first day of spring" (they obviously wanted to have the scene of about four black guys walking though a mostly white crowd - the same as Pelosi wanted her walk later on as a liberal moment), so I think they are likely lying about everything. However, I would like to hear what Shuler has to say about it (before he loses his seat this fall).

garage mahal said...

Old Spin: They were provoked!
New Spin: It didn't happen!

Palladian said...

Your two spins aren't mutually exclusive, garage.

From now on the unutterable "n-word" shall be ... numismatic.

garage mahal said...

Negrofascism

Palladian said...

Nugent

Chase said...

They are lying about walking through the crowd because it was "the first day of spring" (they obviously wanted to have the scene of about four black guys walking though a mostly white crowd - the same as Pelosi wanted her walk later on as a liberal moment), so I think they are likely lying about everything.


Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with much, and whoever is dishonest with very little will also be dishonest with much.

--- Jesus (Luke 16:10)

Mark said...

MM: I really can't believe that some (most) conservatives believe that the congressmen are just baldly lying about this.

Honestly, I can't believe anyone could believe that a group of Congressmen COULDN'T participate in an act of synchronized lying.

That's pretty much what they do for a living

Slow Joe said...

Montagne has the typical strawman.

It's possible for these democrat assholes to be committing a massive hoax AND for an isolated kook to be a racist at a Tea Party (or just a liberal pretending to be a Tea Partier, Kilgore Trout style, screeching the N word like an old school democrat).


Montagne then goes on and on proving that racism probably exists somewhere, as though that's at all relevant. Uninspited straw man.

These race hustlers have been caught many times with bald faced lies. They had several cameras... they would have caught some real display of N words, etc. They lied, pure and simple. They went out of their way to provoke some kind of race riot, and found the Tea Partiers to be really nice people. And then they lied about it.

It's a simple fact at this point: what video we have proves some of their claims were outright fabrications, and what we don't see also speaks loudly.

The idea that they simply would never pull such a race hate hoax, being democrat congressmen, is just hilarious. Their most outspoken supporter is Al Hoax Sharpton of all people.

Adam said...

"Both sides. Stupid beyond human comprehension and endurance."--shoutingthomas

Exactly.

We seem to have lost the distinction between the argumentum ad hominem as a logical fallacy and ad hominem attacks that are simple rudeness or vulgarity. Then there are the times when the homo in question is properly the subject of close examination.

In the case of Chuck Paladino (more erectus than sapiens, the content of his emails is relevant because he has put himself forward to be evaluated by the voters. What he says or seems to think is appropriate does in fact provide a basis for predicting how he might act if elected.

In the case of the tea party demonstration against DemoCare, an accurate transcript of what some person or other shouted at John Lewis has no bearing on the validity of the assembled demonstrators' complaints about the monstrous piece of legislation that was about to be passed. If Reps. Lewis, Carson, Cleaver, or anyone else on their side had spent as much time answering the critics of their beloved bill as they have subsequently spent crying "racists!" they might have performed a useful service to the country. The inference I draw from their chosen allocation of effort is that they don't really have any good arguments to make.

Would everyone feel better if they could be assured that the shouters in question called Rep. Lewis a "motherfucking cocksucker" instead of The Unspeakable Word? If so, then let's just consider it done and move along.

Doug Smith said...

I agree. John Lewis and his cohorts are the REAL racists.

Doug Smith said...

All the following are racists:

Montagne Montaigne
Jeremy
Alpha Liberal
garage mahal
danielle
victoria
Ritmo
Lonewhackodotcom

Revenant said...

I really can't believe that some (most) conservatives believe that the congressmen are just baldly lying about this.

Because politicians are famous for their honesty, and would never tell a self-serving lie to further their own interests.

Good point.

Revenant said...

Old Spin: They were provoked!
New Spin: It didn't happen!

In reality, both the old and the new "spin" is that the Democratic Congressmen tried to provoke a racist response, failed to do so, and so simply invented the lie that it had happened.

Pogo said...

You can be certain that the folks planning to crash Tea Party events will be shouting the n-word at the top of their lungs, and they will produce hours of video documenting the event.

They won't make the same mistake twice.

But my bet is it will start a fight in the crowd.

The national healing on race has been as remarkable as the waters having stopped rising.

Pogo said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Quaestor said...

Palladian,

Grammatically speaking how do you reckon nigger to be a pronoun? This isn't a dig at you. Can you cite an example from the New York street speech you've overheard?

wv: waybac - (n)Mr. Peabody's conveyance

LarsPorsena said...

@Adam

"In the case of the tea party demonstration against DemoCare, an accurate transcript of what some person or other shouted at John Lewis has no bearing on the validity of the assembled demonstrators' complaints about the monstrous piece of legislation that was about to be passed."

Amen, amen, and amen again.

If the protesters were all screaming the most vile epithets possible, it doesn't make Obamacare any less of an obscenity.

The left has moved the center debate from the grotesque nature of this bill to what are protesters shouting.

Eventually some protester will let rip with some vulgarity. Does this mean the opposition to Obama is illegitimate?

Pogo said...

"Eventually some protester will let rip with some vulgarity. Does this mean the opposition to Obama is illegitimate?"

Well, they certainly hope you reach that conclusion. Guilt by association and all that (even if false or fabricated).

If they are not pure of heart, they cannot pull the sword from the stone.

lyssalovelyredhead said...

Monty, FWIW, I don't really think they are baldly lying, but I don't think that it happened, either.

Remember in the 90's, when parents groups started getting up in arms about hidden messages in Disney films, in particular, that Aladdin contained a line about good teenagers taking off their clothes? Well, it was completely false, but if you got out the video, and specifically listened for that line, you would hear it.

It was noisy and crowded, and your brain fills in gaps in these sorts of situations by making things meet your expectations. The most likely explanation is that the congressmen heard what they thought they would and wanted to hear. Doesn't change the fact that video would have picked it up if it actually happened.

Joe said...

A white person has never called a black person the n-word in anger. Actually there is no n-word. What are we talking about again?
WE were talking about a SPECIFIC incident, where a SPECIFIC, disprovable, claim has been made. YOU are talking about a strawman/deflection…..I hope that helped MM.

Gary said...

Hey! I heard a bi-racist Buddhist use the Lord's name in vain on a golf course! And it is on tape!

holdfast said...

Is is really possible that Tawana Brawley was lying?

Is it really possible to believe that Rev Al incited anti-Jew violence at Freddy's Fashion Mart?

Can anyone really believe that a certain preacher/politician referred to NY as "Hymietown"?

Kansas City said...

Now Shuler has denied that he heard anyone say the N word, so even this report is wrong. The inability/unwillingness of the media to even make a serious effort to accurately report is appalling.

Verdict: the democrats are lying.

At least this time, they did not really get away with it.

Doug Smith said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Doug Smith said...

Here's the only cite:

The Great Tea-Bait WSJ.com

Of course it's a right winger, so it must be true.
BTW "According to Fishman, Shuler's comments to the Times-News referred to the general tenor of the protests, not to the black congressmen's specific allegations.".

So even according to the right winger Shuler said the protests were deplorable.