12/13/2009

19 Responses to “A Commenter Simplifies This Entire Brouhaha Into Two Sentences”

1. Evidently, Orbital didn’t read my post from today. Or he’d realize it isn’t that simple at all.

   What’s your excuse, Patrick?

   JeffG (88bc84) — 12/13/2009 @ 11:47 pm

   
   

2. I have common sense.

   Patterico (64318f) — 12/13/2009 @ 11:48 pm

   
   

3. You seem obsessed, JeffG.

   Can’t you just let it go, man?

   Patterico (64318f) — 12/13/2009 @ 11:49 pm

   
   

4. Losing the argument shouldn’t be THAT big a deal for you . . .

   Patterico (64318f) — 12/13/2009 @ 11:50 pm

   
   

5. Or he’d realize it isn’t that simple at all.

   Oooooooonly when you ignore those silly facts, Jeffy.

   Only when you ignore the facts.

   Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 12/13/2009 @ 11:52 pm

   
   

6. What’s your excuse, Patrick?
   Comment by JeffG — 12/13/2009 @ 11:47 pm

   Why should he read it? Can’t he determine your intent without reading it entirely?

   Stashiu3 (44da70) — 12/14/2009 @ 12:06 am

   
   

7. It’s only that simple if you’ve either failed to comprehend the sound and cogent argument that one cannot call a statement racist without too labeling its author as such (at least in that limited instance), or you’re ignoring said argument for underhanded rhetorical purposes. I’d very much like to be charitable and assume it’s the former in your case, but, alas and alack, you’ve made it abundantly clear it’s the latter.

   As an aside, maybe he calls himself Orbital because that’s where his head is. No, wait, it’s more likely lodged in a place just as spacious, but much closer to home.

   Oh, and just one more thing: we, especially R.S. McCain, are waiting with bated breath for The Big Why of this whole perverse episode, i.e., why you ever went about bringing all this up to begin with.

   John (62fb6f) — 12/14/2009 @ 12:26 am

   
   

8. now that the science is settled, can we get back to bagging on the LA Times, and mocking global warming enthusiasts?

   redc1c4 (fb8750) — 12/14/2009 @ 12:35 am

   
   

9. “It’s only that simple if you’ve either failed to comprehend the sound and cogent argument that one cannot call a statement racist without too labeling its author as such (at least in that limited instance), or you’re ignoring said argument for underhanded rhetorical purposes.”

   Ah, but it’s the LIMITED INSTANCE that makes the difference between acting like a racist, or making a racist statement (on the one hand), and being “a racist” (which implies a judgment on one’s character).

   A point I have made repeatedly. Which Goldstein has not recognized. Once.

   Patterico (64318f) — 12/14/2009 @ 12:36 am

   
   

10. now that the science is settled, can we get back to bagging on the LA Times, and mocking global warming enthusiasts?

    I don’t really do the latter so much. Another way I buck the system and get bagged on by conservatives.

    Patterico (64318f) — 12/14/2009 @ 12:37 am

    
    

11. John,

    I believe the original point was to compare how people react to a prejudiced comment by someone who is apparently liberal vs how they react to a similar comment by someone who is considered to be a conservative. The larger point is that we shouldn’t let the political ideology of the speaker change how we view similar statements.

    DRJ (84a0c3) — 12/14/2009 @ 12:38 am

    
    

12. John,

    I believe the original point was to compare how people react to a prejudiced comment by someone who is apparently liberal vs how they react to a similar comment by someone who is considered to be a conservative. The larger point is that we shouldn’t let the political ideology of the speaker change how we view similar statements.

    That doesn’t much help if one rejects the initial premise and/or the comment’s author makes clear that wasn’t his or her intent.

    John (62fb6f) — 12/14/2009 @ 12:49 am

    
    

13. It may not tell us much about Ebonie Johnson Cooper or Robert Stacy McCain, but the reactions of people who read these statements tell us something about how fair-minded those readers are.

    DRJ (84a0c3) — 12/14/2009 @ 12:58 am

    
    

14. #10: i was riffing off the first part of the comment, and trying to inject a bit of levity….

    side bar: did you see where Blago’s lawyers want the FBI interview documents from when they questioned Ear Leader, et al? would you care to write a post on that request, from a prosecutor/lawyer POV?

    redc1c4 (fb8750) — 12/14/2009 @ 1:03 am

    
    

15. redc1c4,

    I saw that but it sounds like the defense wants access to FBI interviews in the prosecution’s file in the hope they will find something that helps Blago. There may be more to it than that but I think I’ll wait and see how it develops.

    DRJ (84a0c3) — 12/14/2009 @ 1:11 am

    
    

16. That doesn’t much help if one rejects the initial premise and/or the comment’s author makes clear that wasn’t his or her intent.

    What if the comment’s author is misinterpreting his intent, John?

    You realize that intentionalism does not prevent someone from questioning his interpretation, don’t you?

    Patterico (64318f) — 12/14/2009 @ 1:18 am

    
    

17. Well, I’ll seriously wade into the muck, now. If someone says something that sounds racist, but you don’t think that the person is really a racist, then for the sake of peace and clarity it’s probably best not to characterize the remark as “racist.” Probably better to say it’s a “racist-sounding” comment, or an “unintentionally racist” comment, or a “stupid comment with racist overtones.” If you just say it’s a “racist” comment, then some people will infer (rightly or wrongly) that you’re calling the speaker a racist. I offer these Yoda-like comments free of charge, although voluntary donations will of course be accepted.

    Andrew (59b742) — 12/14/2009 @ 10:30 pm

    
    

18. If you just say it’s a “racist” comment, then some people will infer (rightly or wrongly) that you’re calling the speaker a racist.

    If you specifically say you are NOT saying that, then “some people” are idiots.

    Patterico (64318f) — 12/14/2009 @ 10:41 pm

    
    

19. Or maybe they think you’re trying to have it both ways. People all the time say stuff like, “I personally don’t think so-and-so is a scumbag, but….” And stuff like “I would never suggest that so-and-so is assinine, but….” That’s sometimes correctly construed as a suggestion that the person is in fact a scumbag or assinine despite the dithering little qualifiers. Not that YOU used any dithering little qualifiers, mind you. Anyway, I must return now to my placid existence now, and may the force be with you, and all that. 2012 was great if you haven’t seen it yet.

    Andrew (59b742) — 12/14/2009 @ 10:50 pm