Haney-Lopez may not have written that headline, but I must begin by saying that the word "garner" is perfectly silly. It may be hard for some people to believe, but "get" is a legitimate word and not merely slang. So get smart! (You don't garner smart.) I believe that Jeb Bush might have won the GOP nomination if it were not for his strange need to say "garner" for "get."
See? I'm for clear speech. And the topic under discussion in Haney-Lopez's article is unclear speech — words that racists hear as meaning what cannot be said outright but that can be explained away as not racist at all. Haney-Lopez wrote a book called "Dog Whistle Politics" and thinks Trump's rhetoric is different from the "coded" racism we've seen from other politicians.
The nuanced language of dog whistling traditionally sought to hide the underlying racial manipulation from two audiences: potential critics of such an appeal, including political opponents as well as the media; and the target voters themselves...
Trump seemingly couldn’t care less whether his critics perceive and decry his racial fearmongering.Seemingly. We don't know how much, if at all, Trump cares. I appreciate Haney Lopez's professorial precision about what we know and don't know. The old "couldn’t care less" formulation asks us to imagine the least possible caring, in other words, zero care. I'd assume Trump cares at least a little — an apt occasion for the questionable "could care less" — but that he cares more about some other things. Or as we say using The Word of the Week, "sacrifice": Trump sacrifices his interest in protecting himself from being accused of racism in order to serve the higher goal of... of what?!
The 2 answers I can extract from Haney Lopez's column are: 1. To provoke the media into giving him free coverage, and 2. There are a lot of racist voters out there to stimulate.
What I want to say is that Trump doesn't completely sacrifice his interest in being seen as a nonracist. He's just setting the balance in a different place. At one extreme, you have people so afraid of saying something that could be interpreted as racist that they won't speak publicly at all. Among candidates, who must speak, many lean heavily in favor of platitudes of inclusion and steer clear of anything that could be portrayed as racist. Others go ahead with issues — like voter fraud or dependence on welfare — that will set off the racism detectors of people like Haney-Lopez. It's hard for people like Haney-Lopez to believe a candidate would go any further than that, but Trump has, and strong, outraged cries of racism have not turned him back. He just adds his condemnation of "political correctness," takes the hits, and runs with it, to the great puzzlement of onlookers.
It's like the movie monster who can't be stopped by bullets. What are you going to do now?
Posts
88 comments:
the movie monster that can't be stopped by bullets? To whom is this more appropriate? Trump or Clinton. Any one of the dozens of Hillary's scandals should have ended the political career of post people, but she still goes on.
Throw a toaster into the bathtub?
The hard part is getting Godzilla to step into the tub, and making sure you have a long enough extension cord.
Has anybody said it'll all be about turnout yet? (this is my nod to classic vintage cars with pre-shifter transmissions)
First it's The Nation so it's just communist BS. Second has it occurred to the Left that frankly no one gives a crap about the racist labeling? That verbal boogeyman has lost it's effect. It appears that a large number of voter no longer give a crap if they are portrayed by the grievance mongers as racists.
"It may be hard for some people to believe, but "get" is a legitimate word ..."
So is garner.
"I believe that Jeb Bush might have won the GOP nomination if it were not for his strange need to say "garner" for "get.""
Yes, that was the one thing that kept Jeb from winning the nomination. If only he'd stayed away from that demon word!
I'm pretty unsophisticated about this sort of stuff, but I'm satisfied with the explanation that someone like Trump (and many, many other people) say to themselves: "I'm not a racist so nothing I say is racist."
It goes no further than that, self doubt being a competitive disadvantage.
Not taking shit from the MSM is the appeal of Trump. If he is willing to do that, all problems festering for 50 years can finally be taken on.
As to self-contradictory words, like gift and sacrifice, racism has a weird performance these days.
Actual literal racists seem the be the benign ones, offering helpful solutions for this and that.
It wasn't the racism component of the personality cluster that made the old rednecks evil. It was willing blindness to humanity.
Maybe "accumulate" would've won the ticket.
"There are a lot of racist voters out there to stimulate."
Assuming this is true (which I doubt), do these voters need any stimulation in order to vote?
"It may be hard for some people to believe, but "get" is a legitimate word ..."
So is garner.
People who use "utilize" instead of the perfectly good -- and shorter, clearer -- "use" are the ones that affect me similarly as althouse is affected by garner.
I lived near a Garner Street when I was growing up.
Isn't Hillary the one that has been accused of calling people the "N" word? Of throwing around "dirty Jew" epithets and slurs?
Exception to my disapproval of the word "utilize" is in this excellent sentence:
Look, if you intend by that utilization of an obscure colloquiallism to imply that my sanity is not up to scratch
etc., etc.
"I lived near a Garner Street when I was growing up."
I'm glad Althouse didn't. She might not have made it to adulthood.
It drives them batty that there are people out there who just don't seem to care what the lefty ideas about "racism," or whatever, might be?
This-all reminds me of several jokes, none of which I can relate here. But there is the story of the hedgehog.
A man in a movie theater notices what looks like a hedgehog sitting next to him. "Are you a hedgehog?" asked the man, surprised. "Yes." "What are you doing at the movies?" The hedgehog replied, "Well, I liked the book."
It's like the movie monster who can't be stopped by bullets.
Unfortunately, I suspect there are some on the left who will say to themselves "You know, we never actually determined that he couldn't be stopped by bullets..."
Garner lacks phrasal verb status, where the get doesn't have its own sense.
get across, get around, get at, get away, get back, get busy, get by, get clear of, get down, get even, get going, get in on, get wrong, get off, get out of, get over, get past, get rid of, get through, get up.
The fact of the matter is that at the end of the day, you have to make best-practice choices about your policies based on quantitative reasoning, or else the result will be inchoate flimmery.
"I'm glad Althouse didn't. She might not have made it to adulthood."
If Garner Street had a lot of men wearing shorts while mowing their lawns, she would have gone on a killing spree.
I'm pretty unsophisticated about this sort of stuff, but I'm satisfied with the explanation that someone like Trump (and many, many other people) say to themselves: "I'm not a racist so nothing I say is racist."
So, being a racist does not require intent?
Is it not a belief?
The accidental racist shall be given no quarter...
Lawprof is not a word.
The racists, sexists, etc.'s final hope is to project their class diversity.
Racism is different from slavery, too. Everybody's ancestors have been slaves.
Slavery was an economic system that made sense, enslave your defeated enemies rather than killing them, before free market capitalism.
It no longer made sense after the free market, when slaves could contribute more working for themselves than working as slaves.
The justification for slavery after that became more and more nonsensical and was destined to lose anyway.
So we have Washington treating his slaves well, meaning he wasn't blind to their humanity. It's two things, not one. An economic system and a moral system.
Others go ahead with issues — like voter fraud or dependence on welfare — that will set off the racism detectors of people like Haney-Lopez.
Poll: 8-in-10 back voter ID
71% Favor Requiring Voter ID at the Polls
Poll: 70 percent support voter ID laws
Poll: Americans Overwhelmingly Support Voter ID Laws
Scott Walker says most Americans support voter ID laws, which make it easier to vote harder to cheat <== MOSTLY TRUE
Broad Support for Photo ID Voting Requirements (77%)
So when lefties claim that it's racist to insist on photo ID for voting, they're essentially calling three quarters of the country racist. Do you think that three quarters of the country consider themselves to be racist? Probably not.
So guess what that three quarters of the country think when the same leftists who have been calling them racist call Trump a racist. Just more name calling by leftists.
Muslims still have slavery because their economic system is 7th century.
Berkeley?
You don't say...
The thing to remember about Trump and the MSM is that Trump is dealing with soap opera women, not normal people, and he knows it.
Berkeley?
Does the chewing gum lose its flavor on the bedpost overnight?
Not if God keeps his tongue on it.
Actual racist = the average IQ of US blacks is 86.
Actual racist suggestion : outcome-based discrimination laws are destined to make things much worse. Don't use them.
The idea : make things better instead.
The problem with the term racism is it can be defined in many different ways, and usually vaguely, but it can then be applied to very specific things. Using your example, a political candidate even discussing welfare reform in public can be interpreted as racist by a good chunk of the electorate, assuming that candidate is a rich white male of course. In this day and age, accusing someone of racism requires little risk on the part of the accuser and can be (depending on the circumstances) can be devastating to the accused. It's the perfect weapon.
People project all sorts of motives and intentions upon public figures regardless of the actual truth.
OK, I am a white male over 60 and Tea Party Republican. So that makes me by definition a racist. Oh, I now support Trump so I am most definitely a racist. I, with my White Privilege, can live with that.
Actual sexist = women aren't deeply interested in science as opposed to social life
Actual sexist suggestion : don't sell STEM to girls as if it was a great choice for women
The idea : let girls in on some life experience from older people while it can do some good.
Alternate reality 2.0 is running on all media outlets 24/7. Pretending to discuss it in intellectual terms is like a MAD Magazine Cartoon.
All the Propaganda media bosses mean to say is that Trump has a mental illness. HE REFUSES BRIBES and he spills the beans on thousands on insider Politicians and friends who do take bribes so big they think they are immune to Justice.
"Haney-Lopez may not have written that headline, but I must begin by saying that the word "garner" is perfectly silly."
Well, Maverick was certainly very silly, but I'm not sure I'd say it was "perfectly" so.
Blogger Michael The Magnificent said...
So guess what that three quarters of the country think when the same leftists who have been calling them racist call Trump a racist. Just more name calling by leftists.
8/3/16, 9:22 AM
But suppose the message isn't meant for Trump supporters, but for liberals? By hating Trump and his supporters, you are showing yourself and others that you are virtuous.
This is easy. It's been said elsewhere, but most people don't care if they're called racist anymore.
I know I don't.
My conscience is clear.
Trump must pose an existential threat to the status quo progressed by Obama, Clinton et al. The response to his exposure of the establishment's fun and games is bordering on ludicrous.
The baby hunts are just beginning.
"I'm for clear speech." Right. But of course it makes no difference. Example: framers of the 14th were pretty clear. "Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Therefore, states must enact SSM. Clear enough.
"Haney-Lopez wrote a book called "Dog Whistle Politics" and thinks Trump's rhetoric is different from the "coded" racism we've seen from other politicians." Of course, for prog academics "color blindness" is now a form of racism. Nuff said.
"Trump seemingly couldn’t care less whether his critics perceive and decry his racial fear mongering." This is insane. Trump is extremely sensitive to what critics perceive. Of course, the more parsimonious explanation is that neither he nor his supporters think anything he says or proposes is "racist." Keeping out illegals with a wall is not racist: it's a legit way [not that it will happen] to keep out illegals, and they are not a race. Keeping out Muslims ]not that it will happen] is not racist: it's an anti-terror policy and Muslims are not a race. Decrying rising crime is not racist: crime is actually rising in many inner cities and it hurts blacks most. And so on.
At one extreme, you have people so afraid of saying something that could be interpreted as racist that they won't speak publicly at all
True.
This also creates people who are willing to say something but feel they must adopt certain terms in order to appear non racist.
See, for example, Megan McArdle yesterday. She wrote about the Republicans being agains immigration and talked about possibly controlling the number of migrants.
She knows better. I know she knows better. But yet this is how she writes these days.
You would have great fun with headlines in the Philippine press. An embarassment of riches.
The good professor would fit right in, stylistically. Not so much otherwise, probably.
Trump may not be stopped, but that isn't stopping prominent Republicans from jumping ship, one after another.
“I will vote for Hillary, I will talk to my Republican friends about helping her, and I will donate to her campaign and try to raise money for her,” Whitman told the Times, revealing that the Democratic nominee had personally reached out to her a month ago to court her support. Forbes lists Whitman's net worth at $2.1 billion.
Whitman went on to blast Trump as a “a dishonest demagogue” who she warned could lead the United States “on a very dangerous journey.” The HP CEO also stood by her prior comparisons of Trump to dictators and authoritarians such as Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini.
“Time and again history has shown that when demagogues have gotten power or come close to getting power, it usually does not end well,” Whitman told the Times.
Politico
If you have a job/career of the sort where your personal opinions can somehow be tied to your employer, even those expressed in entirely separate, private venues, you certainly do need to watch what you say. The other side can and will attack you through them.
Worst if you work in the Fortune 500.
The only people on Earth who are not openly and unapologetically racist are white people. And the Left has seized on this as a means to keep us from pursuing our own interests, instead of theirs. It is beginning to wear thin for a lot of us, but there are huge numbers of white people who continue to feel bad about taking their own side in a dispute, to the point that they will turn against their friends to avoid being criticized by the people who want to kill them. It must be genetic. I suppose evolution will sort it out. Maybe fairly soon.
"Heide" "Cruise" --- so what? Many commentators have said again and again that this election is not about ideology; it's about class. A member of the ruling class has to signal to others of her station that she is in line with what is expected of her. Film at fucking eleven. Sorry to burst your gotcha.
Here is how liberal elites think, courtesy of Jonathan Franzen:
I am aware of having been very fortunate—probably objectively over-rewarded as an American novelist and occasional journalist and essayist—and I am aware that I began with privileges that I had nothing to do with, starting with good health, starting with being white, parents who were such-and-such, brothers who were such-and-such, good education up to a certain point, and also, because I am over-rewarded, I don’t have to worry about making the mortgage every month. So I feel like because I have these privileges, these luxuries, I should try to speak up whenever I can because I am much better positioned to take the punishment than someone in a less secure place would be.
http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/interrogation/2016/07/a_conversation_with_novelist_jonathan_franzen.html
When a person like Franzen reads about Trump's dog-whistle racism, he thinks that his privileged existence, totally unearned by him, nevertheless has made him a better person, the kind of person who can constructively criticize American society. We should all thank God for Franzen's unearned success!
Humble-bragging at its finest.
I wish Meg Whitman would have won the CA Senate seat over Barbara Boxer. But guess what? The Democrats rejected her and re-elected a complete idiot.
So now, suddenly, all the Democrats respect Meg Whitman?
In my mind....get is when you "get" what you are after all at once. You get the milk from the fridge. "Garner" is getting, but at a piecemeal pace. Not all at once but in increments. Garnering the grain from the field.
For example Trump can get the support of people at a rally all at one time. But Jeb had to garner, work at getting support bit by bit and over a more extended period of time. Getting is an alpha action. Garnering is a beta action. Jeb is a beta male. Trump is not.
As to racism. That card has been slapped on the table so many times for stupid things, like a PB&J sandwich lunch can be racist, that it is completely worn out. Call me a racist...ho hum. Or call me a racist over and over, well....OK I'll be what you say I am then. That's the problem with labeling things.
Trump can get away with being called racist because the things he says are not racist and are actually what many people ARE thinking. Illegal aliens commit crimes, rapes and by virtue of being illegal are criminals. Not racist. Just a fact.
""Garner" is getting,"
I've always thought of garner as "collecting".
Sebastian said...
Of course, for prog academics "color blindness" is now a form of racism.
Here ya go:
A Nation of Minorities: Race, Ethnicity, and Reactionary Colorblindness
Ian F. Haney-Lopez, Berkeley Law
I've always thought of garner as "collecting"
Yes. You put it more succinctly than I did. Thanks.
Collecting. Getting something(s) over a period of time. The old term for a storehouse of grain or other foodstuffs was called the garner. Webster from Middle English gerner, garner granary, from Anglo-French gerner, grenier, from Latin granarium, from granum grain
No matter how many times Althouse insists upon it, the words "garner" and "get" are not synonyms. "Trump garners support" does not mean the same thing as "Trump gets support." "Get" simply means "acquire." It's a broad, general, boring little word that does not have the particular connotation of collecting, gathering and storing wealth that "garner" has.
Look up the derivation of "garner" in any online dictionary and you'll find that it once meant a place where grain was stored -- it became the modern "granary" -- and also was used as a verb for gathering grain into storage. Over time it evolved to mean gathering, earning or accumulating any kind of wealth, including votes, or wins in football or baseball, or whatever valuable thing a person is working to accumulate.
The word was becoming unusual in modern usage until recently, when it made a comeback. Althouse has a baffling bee in her bonnet about this perfectly good, fluid and rather lovely word. Just because Althouse's vocabulary is so limited that she can't comprehend the specific meaning and usefulness of this word, why must she pound away at those of us who do understand it and try to take it away from everybody, rather than taking the opportunity to learn something new herself? What's wrong with variety and beauty and having a multiplicity of choices in the English language, so that we can precisely express a particular idea?
I went to some ridiculous conference or presentation some years ago, where the speaker had a near-obsession about using the word "orientate". What made it annoying was he would use it when the correct usage was "orient".
After the first 7-10 uses of "orientate" I resisted the impulse to challenge him and just got up and left.
Wilbur said...
After the first 7-10 uses of "orientate" I resisted the impulse to challenge him and just got up and left.
"Digitalize" makes me foam at the mouth...unfortunately both "digitalize" and "orientate" are perfectly cromulent.
Discover your dignity. Judge people by the content of their character (e.g. principles), not by their race, sex, skin color, etc. Reject [class] diversity.
""Digitalize" makes me foam at the mouth"
Me too.
"Orient" and "orientate" aren't the same thing. They're true synonyms -- that is, if orientate is even a word, which I doubt. Likewise use and utilize; there's no difference in meaning. People say utilize instead of use because they wrongly believe that the extra syllables make them look smart. There's no actual difference in meaning.
Garner and get, on the other hand, have different meanings and aren't always interchangeable. You can "get" Christmas presents, but you can't "garner" them. "Get" is such a broad, general word that it can mean "receive" as well as "acquire." Garner can't; it has a specific connotation of active earning and accumulating on the part of the acquirer. It has an extra shade of meaning that "get" does not have. To say that "Trump gets support" implies a certain passivity that isn't there with "Trump garners support." Just because Althouse fails to comprehend the difference doesn't mean that it isn't there.
Althouse has a baffling bee in her bonnet about this perfectly good, fluid and rather lovely word.
Imagine that!! Someone that shares their thinking in a blog is actually found to have a few quirks!! It makes her real, and we continue to read her blog because of those quirks.....and don't forget the Amazon portal above her profile picture.
Personally, I prefer the use of "garner" over the word "get". I find that "get" is over-used, especially in the small vocabulary crowd.
What's that? Am I wearing shorts? Why would you ask? Of course, I'm wearing shorts!
Conservatives believe racism requires a racist intent. Leftists believe racism is everything they disagree with or dislike or said by whites.
Are you reelin' in the years
Stowin' away the time
Are you garnerin' up the tears
Have you had enough of mine?
How about "utilize" instead of "use"?
We'll have a gay old time...
Brando said...
How about "utilize" instead of "use"?
Always refrain from utilizing a sesquipedalian locution where a diminutive one will suffice.
Wilbur: I went to some ridiculous conference or presentation some years ago, where the speaker had a near-obsession about using the word "orientate". What made it annoying was he would use it when the correct usage was "orient".
I think "orientate" is not uncommon usage in the UK. (I remember being struck by this usage watching old British TV shows, e.g., "the spy was Berlin-orientated". I remember it because it hurt my ear.)
So if your speaker was a Brit, I'd give him a pass. If he was American, you probably should have just punched him. Maybe the Brit, too, just for over-using a word.
No matter how many times Althouse insists upon it, the words "garner" and "get" are not synonyms.
Of course that's true, but you have to remember that some people, through no fault of their own, are only capable of mastering a limited vocabulary. Many dogs can learn to fetch a ball when you say "ball", but they may not be able to learn the distinction between a baseball and a lacrosse ball.
"It's like the movie monster who can't be stopped by bullets. What are you going to do now?"
Trump can be stopped by bullets. And since a lot of people seem to believe that he will be a fascist dictator, the possibility is real and growing.
And since a lot of people seem to believe that he will be a fascist dictator,
Which is odd because we're living under a fascist president and congress.
It's like the movie monster who can't be stopped by bullets. What are you going to do now?
Let loose another monster.
The I stopped after seeing this guy wrote about dog whistle politics. That is where the left imputes racism in the right because conservatives just have to be racist, because they are so evil, or some such complete logical fallacy. What guys like this just don't get is that they are the racists, looking at everything through a racial lens. Maybe, just maybe, members of the party that freed the slaves, and provided an almost unanimous vote for the 1964 Civil Rights Act, just may not go through life like this guy, and other left wing racists do, who look at everything through a racial lens. A lot of conservatives and/or Republicans really do believe in a color blind society. But, then, the Republican Party isn't the political party that has been gaining and maintaining power for better than 200 years now by dividing people racially. That is the Democratic Party.
Every time I hear about dog whistle politics, whether it is by some national figure like this clown, or some of our resident leftists (e.g. Cook and/or Freder), I know that the speaker is most often white, seeming atoning for his perceived white privilege by finding racism where it isn't, and studiously ignoring it where it does exist, which is almost exclusively these days in the Dem party and on the left.
I agree that Garner and Get are not synonyms, and that Garner is probably better here. It implies some sort of effort on the part of the one garnering something. You can get wealthy by inheriting money, but you really don't garner wealth by inheriting it.
"Dog whistle" accusations are just argument ad hominem. The "dog whistle" charge says
"Never mind what my opponents are actually saying. They really mean something quite different from what you think the words mean, which they know and I know but you do not know. And I know that they mean this other thing because they are bad people to whom that other meaning appeals, and I know this even though they are careful not to say it."
I only know of one "dog whistle" charge that can be substantiated by evidence, and that is "intelligent design". There was a group of named individuals who developed that term, and the discussions they had about its various meanings, and the various ways they used the word with different audiences over a period of years, are on record.
Every other "dog whistle" charge I have seen is fact-free ad hominem.
I am confident that one day Althouse will understand the difference between garner and get. I suspect that she already does, but that she is unwilling either to lose face or to abandon a thread topic (it's got to be hard coming up with multiple posts every day).
"Garner" is a perfectly cromulent word but it's trendy and overused right now. I think that's all Ann is saying.
I felt the same way about "inflection point" a few years ago; it's a term in use in my profession that escaped into the general media who used it to mean "things are changing", which is not what it means.
Hell, "garner (the word!)" has its own tag.
My alma mater has instructed faculty that it is racist/sexist/noninclusive to say, "I believe the most qualified candidate should get the job." I think this is crap. Does this make me a racist?
I have a dear friend who says she avoids dealing with African Americans "because you never know what's going to happen." She's a Hillary supporter. Is she a racist?
We are told constantly that we need to have a "conversation about race," but nobody is allowed to say anything. Funny, that.
James Garner died two years ago.
Where the hell were all these racist Americans when the US was electing a half-black anti-white bigot to the presidency? Ah, they must have been the ones who moved to Canada during the GWBush years. Welcome back to America, racist bigot democrats!
"So, being a racist does not require intent?"
No, going outside of government requirements to set up your own server, to send information classified at the highest levels, in an insecure manner, such that the government's top secrets are exposed to foreign governments, before having your lawyers, who are not cleared to read classified information, screen through and delete any messages they find inconvenient for you to turn over, as per federal law and your employment agreement - that requires intent.
To be racist you just have to be called out by someone who may or may not have a political agenda.
Because their intent cannot be considered when the racist label is being applied.
I wholly disagree on Ann's advice to use "get" for "garner." Garner means to amass, perhaps little by little. Get, besides being less specific, suffers from its being used, more than any other English word, in idiomatic combination with every preposition, adverb and adjective there is.
"I wholly disagree on Ann's advice to use "get" for "garner." Garner means to amass, perhaps little by little. Get, besides being less specific, suffers from its being used, more than any other English word, in idiomatic combination with every preposition, adverb and adjective there is."
You are mixing up "garner" and "gather."
You feel like it means what you think because it is misused. At some point, dictionaries might accept the corrupted meaning, but that will happen (or is happening) because dweebs like Jeb Bush are striving lamely for respect. Don't encourage them.
I understand the desire to vary language and to have action verbs that create more concrete pictures, but "garner" should not be used in that pursuit. It's a bullshit word. Seriously, avoid it.
Unless it's someone's name.
"In my mind....get is when you "get" what you are after all at once. You get the milk from the fridge. "Garner" is getting, but at a piecemeal pace. Not all at once but in increments. Garnering the grain from the field."
No. The original meaning of "garner" does involve grain, but it's not about collecting it or a piecemeal pace. It's about storing it. Putting it in a garner. I think it reminds people of "gather" — swap the "th" for "rn" and you have it. But it doesn't mean gather, and people who are using it to mean gather could just use the normal word "gather," but what I hear all the time, especially from Jeb Bush, is just a prissy avoidance of the plain-speech word "get." You don't need to talk about gathering or collecting votes or political support, which is where I am finding the bad uses of "garner." You get votes. You get support. Unless you are doing some more precise collection or gathering of paper ballots in a room where you are going to hand count them, you just want the word get. And if you're doing that business with paper ballots, you still shouldn't say "garner." You should say "collect" or "gather."
"For example Trump can get the support of people at a rally all at one time. But Jeb had to garner, work at getting support bit by bit and over a more extended period of time. Getting is an alpha action. Garnering is a beta action. Jeb is a beta male. Trump is not."
I agree that it showed Jeb's betahood that he went to the word "garner," but I don't agree that "garner" was the correct word because he collected support bit by bit over time. It's not the right word. He could say "build support." I think it shows his betahood because it's reveals a need to try to look more serious and intelligent -- a striving after something he doesn't have.
From www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/garner
Full Definition of garner
garnered garnering
transitive verb
1
a : to gather into storage
b : to deposit as if in a granary
2
a : to acquire by effort : earn
b : accumulate, collect
I utilize it every chance I get (or garner).
No, Ann, garner and gather aren't synonyms either -- though they are closer than garner and get. It's not your readers who are mixed up, it's you.
You get votes if people vote for you, even by accident. But if you work to earn more votes with some kind of strategy and purpose, and you succeed, you have not just gotten the votes, you have garnered them. Not gathered them, which doesn't have the earning connotation.
"Others go ahead with issues — like voter fraud or dependence on welfare — that will set off the racism detectors of people like Haney-Lopez. It's hard for people like Haney-Lopez to believe a candidate would go any further than that, but Trump has, and strong, outraged cries of racism have not turned him back. He just adds his condemnation of "political correctness," takes the hits, and runs with it, to the great puzzlement of onlookers."
Almost all black politicians have been openly racist (as well as sickeningly corrupt) for most of my life. I don't see that it has reduced their political effectiveness any. Quite the opposite. Racist blacks want a racist black politician who will favor the interests of blacks over the interests of Americans. Other politicians tolerate it because they are building coalitions. Everyone knows this. Everyone is used to it. Al Sharpton, as disgusting a lying piece of shit as ever graced the front of a television, regularly visits the White House, where he is welcomed by the Racist-in-Chief white voters installed there.
What is changing is that some white people have had enough of voting for politicians who can't see anything wrong with Al Sharpton, but call us "racists" because we can.
"I appreciate Haney-Lopez's professorial precision about what we know and don't know."
And I will appreciate the thugs who knock him down, steal his iPad, and kick his skull in for the Hell of it. Haney-Lopez is the sort of sheltered asshole who pisses himself in anticipation of the blessed day when white people become a minority. It hasn't occurred to him that well before that day, white people are going to start *acting* like a minority. A very large and influential one. One of us might even get elected to the White House.
The other LawProfs will pretend they don't notice. That big purple-red divot where they put the plate in the side of his head. The tremor that occasionally turns into a full-on, head-shaking spasm. The drooling and the eerie, one-sided grimaces... The Dean has arranged a lighter classload ... just temporarily ...
I mean, didn't anyone *warn* H-L about using his iPad on the street in Oakland? It's one thing to call Trump a racist. I mean, Trump *is* a racist! Obviously! Everybody knows that! But anybody with any sense knows .... I mean, you need to be aware. Aware of your surroundings, I mean. It's not racism, it's ... just ... common sense!
Darrell said...
Isn't Hillary the one that has been accused of calling people the "N" word? Of throwing around "dirty Jew" epithets and slurs?
-
Yes..but.
It's high time. She wants it.(and she aint no wayzz tyrred)
I, for one, look forward to the continuation under Hillary of a society governed by racial quota systems imposed on all of life, based on disparate impact, because that will allow explicitly racist government policies to continue, somehow eliminating racism in society.
Post a Comment