Patterico's Pontifications

MotherThankers like this deserve every bit of opprobrium that the receive….and then some!

Truth in the face of libel is never a Constitutional violation.

AD - RtR/OS! (f9a039) — 4/16/2010 @ 5:44 pm

I attended the Tax Day/Tea Party event in Yorba Linda yesterday…

Several thousand people, and coverage from Ch’s 4 & 7, and one unmarked remote van.

People started arriving around 2 (it was sked for 4:30-8:30), cars overflowed the available parking at the YL Community Center and clogged the surrounding residential streets.

AFAIK, we only had one “idiot” show up, with a poster with a swastika, and he was promptly embarrassed by the MC (who made it a point to inform the crowd that he is Jewish), by castigating him for disrespecting the 12+millions who died in the camps due to that symbol. That was at the beginning, and the guy just slunk away.

AD - RtR/OS! (f9a039) — 4/16/2010 @ 5:50 pm

Regardless of whether the guy was a plant or genuine (gag), he had every right to get in his face. For too long these kinds of actions were only seen from the left – it’s a new day, get used to it.

Dmac (21311c) — 4/16/2010 @ 6:04 pm

In the famous words of Jello Biafra, “F*** Off Nazi Punks.”

Regardless of whether the guy was a legitimate white supremacist or a plant, he deserves to be confronted and ostracized.

Christian (f10530) — 4/16/2010 @ 6:19 pm

#4: GMTA! although i believe it was “Nazi Punks Thank Off!”

redc1c4 (fb8750) — 4/16/2010 @ 6:24 pm

I guess my question is: is it a legitimate action to seek to distance yourself from speech that you disagree with, if you believe that a reasonable onlooker might otherwise associate you with the content of that speech?

Or, by contrast, is that an airbrushing of history, and a squelching of free speech?

I remember recently seeing a leftist politely trying to disassociate himself from the ideas expressed at the web site of someone more conservative than he. The owner of the web site came down on him like a ton of bricks, and much of the conservative blogosphere seemed to be with him. That leftist’s polite request to be disassociated from what he found distasteful speech was held to be thuggery of the worst kind — an airbrushing of history that supposedly carried worrisome portents for Free Speech as We Know It.

Well, here, the KKK guy a) appeared legitimate, b) had a right to attend the rally, and c) had a criticism of the government (albeit a racial one — namely, he is apparently upset at government set-asides for minorities). It is a matter of “historical fact” that he was there at the rally. Were the cameraman’s efforts to get the guy to leave or turn his shirt inside out a thuggish airbrushing of history?

Or was he just trying to disassociate himself from speech he found distasteful?

Patterico (c218bd) — 4/16/2010 @ 6:27 pm

That sad sack typifies a lumbering SEIU thug – or just a lumbering racist (_*_) thug. His face was on camera enough that someone is going to identify who he really is… just a matter of time.

GeneralMalaise (606ceb) — 4/16/2010 @ 6:30 pm

Over at PowerLine they mention that much more on this is at:
http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2010/04/racist-leftist-infiltrators-driven-from-tea-party-rallies-video/
Politely telling someone that you strongly disagree with an offensive message is not only well within our freedom of speech rights, but is the responsibility of a civil people. I’m not sure if the person doing the confronting was masterful at holding the person to account, but it was a step in the right direction.
At the end of the day, we want the Tea-Party people to appear as what they are, basically average folk who have had enough of being told to be thankful for economic disaster and healthcare rationing, who stand out by looking reasonable when the outlier appears, be it a genuine hater or an infiltrating fake.

MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 4/16/2010 @ 6:35 pm

The fellow with the camera wanted to clarify free speech. He wanted to demonstrate that the outspoken racist was not in a crowd of like-minded individuals. Nothing wrong with that.

I’m not sure I get the “airbrushing of history” stuff. If I’m at a Tea-Party rally and there is someone with an overtly racist or other offensive shirt, I’m not rewriting history if I speak at a cameraman and say. “See this fellow here saying he’s proud he’s in the KKK? Well, he can be if he wants to, but if you look around this crowd you’ll see people like me who have nothing in common with that kind of view. There may be a racist crashing a Tea-Party event, but we haven’t invited them”, or some such. It’s simply avoiding a misrepresentation.

If aphrael or Leviticus or nk say they post comments on PP, but they often have different views than others at the site, that’s just clarification. But maybe I’m not understanding the point.

MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 4/16/2010 @ 6:53 pm

The infiltrators really did us a favor IMO because before, though people were disgusted by the very occasional borderline sign (or plant), and may have confronted quietly and individually, the damage was done as soon as the MSM focused on the one out of 5,000. Now there is no chance for the MSM to pick up on it, or to be fooled by a leftist plant.

Immediate, very vocal outing and expulsion works much better than silent glares, quieter confrontation or shunning. Thanks, Crashers!

no one you know (4186cd) — 4/16/2010 @ 6:54 pm

well if he was a “progressive” plant, we’ll know soon enough and if not then civil people addressed his vile message in civil yet unmistakable term

quasimodo (0f143a) — 4/16/2010 @ 6:55 pm

Were the cameraman’s efforts to get the guy to leave or turn his shirt inside out a thuggish airbrushing of history?

It might have been amusing to accuse him of being an Obama supporter infiltrating the rally. He probably would have really gotten mad and left.

I see no problem with what was said. The narrator even called him “sir.”

Mike K (2cf494) — 4/16/2010 @ 7:04 pm

I have a feeling that I’ve seen that face before…

GeneralMalaise (606ceb) — 4/16/2010 @ 7:13 pm

I think it would have been enough to have the folks with the “infiltrator,” “communist plant,” “not with us” signs standing next to him.

Ira (28a423) — 4/16/2010 @ 7:25 pm

Just to keep the facts straight; I didn’t see any swastika on the guys shirt. There was an Iron Cross on the back with some SS type lightning symbols and some other symbology used by white supremacists but no Swastika.

It kinda takes away from the confrontation a bit that that was misidentified. Personally, I would rather that they’d just followed the guy around to make sure any Lapdog Media who tried to highlight this guy got a viewfinder full of the sign they had pointing out that the guy was a plant. That would be better than confronting this guy and seemingly trying to start something. Or they could have done like one guy said; circle around him and pray. (or laugh at him. Either would work)

jakee308 (a38882) — 4/16/2010 @ 7:28 pm

#12 Mike K:

accuse him of being an Obama supporter infiltrating the rally.

I would like to see the reaction to that. I suppose he really could be a racist wacko thug, but then again, so is O!bama, so it would be interesting to see if they are on the same side.

EW1(SG) (edc268) — 4/16/2010 @ 7:37 pm

It’s odd that this man would attend wearing racist-themed garb, but what if he’s not a plant and is instead a KKK advocate who shares the Tea Party goals? Are racist beliefs a reason to refuse to let someone participate?

If they are, Tea Party rallies are open to the public and there are a lot of unpopular groups in the world. Who gets to decide which thoughts and people are acceptable and which aren’t?

DRJ (09fa6c) — 4/16/2010 @ 7:43 pm

that’s the gayest nazi ever

happyfeet (c8caab) — 4/16/2010 @ 7:43 pm

Just to keep the facts straight; I didn’t see any swastika on the guys shirt. There was an Iron Cross on the back with some SS type lightning symbols and some other symbology used by white supremacists but no Swastika.

It kinda takes away from the confrontation a bit that that was misidentified. Personally, I would rather that they’d just followed the guy around to make sure any Lapdog Media who tried to highlight this guy got a viewfinder full of the sign they had pointing out that the guy was a plant. That would be better than confronting this guy and seemingly trying to start something. Or they could have done like one guy said; circle around him and pray. (or laugh at him. Either would work)

He has a swastika on his shirt. It’s inside the Iron Cross. Blow it up full screen and freeze it at :16.

Patterico (c218bd) — 4/16/2010 @ 7:55 pm

Who cares about how anyone treats this sensitive white supremacist? Tea Party rallies are open to the public, and the public have the right to express scorn towards creeps who use the gathering of good people as an excuse to flaunt moronic beliefs based on prejudice instead of politics. I’m impressed that the Tea Partiers have no intent of blissfully marching alongside the same anti-Semites that the Left marched with during the protests of the past decade.

J.R. Taylor (75feb9) — 4/16/2010 @ 8:04 pm

For the record, I agree that the cameraman has every right to express his disdain for the KKK guy. I just wonder about the consistency of people’s opinions on this topic.

I think sometimes people reasonably seek to distance themselves from opinions and/or people they find offensive — although they should also refuse to accept the premise that guilt by association is proper.

As for happyfeet, I’d listen to his opinion but he is in league with a person named “Nishi” which makes him guilty by association. Or so I have read.

Patterico (c218bd) — 4/16/2010 @ 8:08 pm

Had this racist attended a DNC rally and been beaten to death by progressives who would have defended his right of association?

highpockets (56cb6c) — 4/16/2010 @ 8:11 pm

#17 DRJ:

Are racist beliefs a reason to refuse to let someone participate? … Who gets to decide which thoughts and people are acceptable and which aren’t?

Certainly. If they interfere and distract from the reason for the assembly in the first place, then they aren’t legitimate participants anyway. As to who gets to decide, I do. Or you. Or whoever is sufficiently offended by an inappropriate and offensive display to call out the individual or group involved. And if that group is a majority of participants, then I’m in the wrong place to begin with and I’ll be leaving.

EW1(SG) (edc268) — 4/16/2010 @ 8:14 pm

I dunno, I saw the guy’s garb and his canned and cumbersome statements, and all I could think of was a plant playing amatuer O’Keefe.

Only he was fishing in the desert.

matador (176445) — 4/16/2010 @ 8:35 pm

I was there and saw the Swastika inside the cross the scull and cross bones are from the 3rd Reich . go to Sharps web site and see the shirt !

BigConStl (a56547) — 4/16/2010 @ 8:42 pm

To answer your questions, Patterico:

Yes, this is an appropriate push-back on someone with repugnant views.

No, this was not air-brushing history. It’s not covering something up to say that you hold the view in contempt.

Some chump (c2555f) — 4/16/2010 @ 8:48 pm

The guy was a plant and things didn’t work out the way expected.

The thing that interests me most is how the whole Tea Party coverage has suddenly been dropped like a hot potato.

Sure, there was a lot of coverage yesterday, but the follow-up is as if it never existed.

For example, the story on Nightline, right now, is on that silly scamp Sarah Silverman.

The narrative must be obeyed. When it doesn’t work out the way you want: The Tea Party is so yesterday.

Until November, anyway.

Ag80 (f67beb) — 4/16/2010 @ 8:54 pm

EW1(SG):

As to who gets to decide, I do. Or you. Or whoever is sufficiently offended by an inappropriate and offensive display to call out the individual or group involved.

It makes sense to me that he would be shunned but I still don’t see why one person gets to eject someone he doesn’t approve of or agree with. It would be different if this were a private event but it’s open to anyone, isn’t it?

And if that group is a majority of participants, then I’m in the wrong place to begin with and I’ll be leaving.

I agree with that.

DRJ (09fa6c) — 4/16/2010 @ 9:40 pm

I remember recently seeing a leftist politely trying to disassociate himself from the ideas expressed at the web site of someone more conservative than he.

If you are referring to the situation that I believe you are, I don’t recall the leftist being that polite. Not in the initial demand, nor in the response when privately contacted by the more conservative party (who had publicly expressed how hurt he was and indicated that he would say no more until he had conferred, privately, with the leftist.) Perhaps I am thinking of a different instance. How about some links?

Uncle Pinky (22f482) — 4/16/2010 @ 9:42 pm

How about some links?

Nope. Take the question in the abstract, since it’s the ideas and not the personalities that matter anyway.

Patterico (c218bd) — 4/16/2010 @ 9:53 pm

Having already stated my opinion regarding whether it is appropriate to distance oneself, aggressively, from white supremacists, I think it is time to give fair billing to Patterico’s question regarding the whitewashing of history question.

I think that, without a doubt, there are some in the Tea Party movement — particularly among the State’s Righter’s — who will quote Calhoun and criticize Lincoln’s seizure of power during the Civil War. One can easily see the readers of Lew Rockwell attending Tea Party rallies. Yet the arguments advanced by the Rockwell website often write prose filled with respect for the ideas of John C. Calhoun when it comes to the underlying philosophies of Liberty and State’s Rights against the power of The State.

What these writers, and one imagines their readers, don’t do enough of is acknowledge that Calhoun argued for slavery as a positive good. Even Jefferson Davis, who argued that Jefferson was wrong for asserting that “All Men Are Created Equal,” didn’t go that far.

Undeniably Calhoun’s ideas are a part of modern discussions of State’s Rights, and any attempt to say that these ideas didn’t come from a racist — or to at least grapple with the great contradictions that causes — is an attempt to whitewash history.

This isn’t to say that Calhoun was incapable of rational ideas regarding Liberty, he wasn’t. It is just an articulation that there are Conservatives who are — heck I’ll say it — racists. There are also Progressives who are racists.

To say there aren’t is whitewashing the issue. Not every racist in the crowd will be a SEIU plant.

Christian (f10530) — 4/16/2010 @ 9:54 pm

Assume, Uncle Pinky, that instead of a demand, the leftist sends an e-mail that begins: “Would you mind taking my name off your [site]?” That doesn’t sound like a demand, so maybe we’re not talking about the same situation; in any event, let’s assume that the leftist does make the request politely as indicated, and merely says that that he does not want to be associated with the views of the more conservative blogger.

Patterico (c218bd) — 4/16/2010 @ 9:57 pm

In that instance, he is perfectly justified in making the request. Had the other declined to rewrite his CV (history in your example) the leftist may put up a disassociation statement on his own blog. Perhaps as a header.

Uncle Pinky (22f482) — 4/16/2010 @ 10:05 pm

How about this:

Taxes are too high. Government is too big.

Deconstructing is fun, but it’s not the problem.

Ag80 (f67beb) — 4/16/2010 @ 10:11 pm

I remember recently seeing a leftist politely trying to disassociate himself from the ideas expressed at the web site of someone more conservative than he.

My take was the leftist was brief and to the point. Polite, yes. The conservative blogger took it very personally because he had far more emotion and affection invested in the long relationship with the leftist, but unfortunately it was not reciprocated in the same way or to the same degree. And that is why the leftist’s request was received as such an intensely personal rejection.

It’s a dreadful thing to be far more invested in a relationship and assume it’s reciprocal only to find out it isn’t.

Dana (1e5ad4) — 4/16/2010 @ 10:12 pm

FWIW – the guy in white supremacist drag at the Tea Party looks like a white supremacist taking advantage of the situation to get some free airtime for his views and beliefs …

If this country believes in freedom of expression (as I believe most of us do), then we are constrained by that belief to at least tolerate his presence … a polite, even a firm, expression of disagreement to make a point is fine – beyond that, it risks becoming a squelching of unpopular expression …

History is already thoroughly airbrushed where it concerns the swastika … in just a single prominent ‘culture’ has the swastika been associated with evil … in most other cultures, historically, around the planet, where the swastika has been common, it has been a symbol of Light, of Good … in native North American cultures, the swastika was commonly used as a symbol of Good, not evil … that’s *not* what that guy was putting forth …

Chasing the guy out of the rally is just as fascist as those who perverted the symbol back in the 1930s … and I hope that we don’t go there …

Alasdair (205079) — 4/16/2010 @ 10:12 pm

By engaging the guy, they gave him a platform to air his hate. To further engage him and give him notice to leave, was to incite him further. He then had an opportunity spew forth even more crap.

Why not just ignore completely? No verbal distancing, no engaging in anyway but just a complete shunning and turning of the backs?

Tomorrow in L.A. there a large white supremacist group is marching. Instead of shunning and not physically counter protesting, why don’t the residents keep a wide berth and shun them. If there is no reaction and if there is no publicity or titillating scenes of two sides screaming at each other, it would seem a pointless effort. Who wants to march and spew their hate if there isn’t an audience?

Dana (1e5ad4) — 4/16/2010 @ 10:25 pm

Well, we’re also dealing with proximity here. I went to school with some people who I certainly do not wish to associate with. So I don’t. I don’t call them, write them, mention them. But their photos are in the yearbook right next to mine. Perhaps I should ask them to cut out my picture.

In the tea party, the man is very proximate and purports to be part of a group that does not share his views. I don’t recommend running the man out on a rail, but (given the publicized discrediting campaign) it is certainly reasonable to closely question the man’s motives and ask him to disassociate himself from your group. Should he not, then a public group disavowal would be in order. I wouldn’t try to run anyone off, but there’s nothing wrong with a shunning or shame circle, or even aggressive challenging.

I try to avoid such situations, ’cause I’ve got one of those faces that every right thinking cop arrests on sight. Suspicion of , sort of thing. The actual suspicion can be determined later. Ah, well. Early day tomorrow. Night.

Uncle Pinky (22f482) — 4/16/2010 @ 10:44 pm

we heard that Mr. P

happyfeet (c8caab) — 4/16/2010 @ 11:05 pm

Why not just ignore completely? No verbal distancing, no engaging in anyway but just a complete shunning and turning of the backs?

It’s the eternal question of the blogger. Over time, you realize that people are going to lie about you.

Do you engage them?

Do you shun them?

I have struggled with the question for years.

On one hand, the liars are, well, liars. You don’t want to be the proverbial guy wrestling with the proverbial pig.

On the other hand, some of the liars have a following. And you keep thinking: well, if I just tell the truth, some of those of followers will have their minds changed. By the truth. Because, you know. It’s the TRUTH.

Usually (unfortunately), shunning is the better option. Reason and logic (I hate to say) sometimes doesn’t do a lot of good on the Internet.

Patterico (c218bd) — 4/16/2010 @ 11:15 pm

Well, we’re also dealing with proximity here. I went to school with some people who I certainly do not wish to associate with. So I don’t. I don’t call them, write them, mention them. But their photos are in the yearbook right next to mine. Perhaps I should ask them to cut out my picture.

They didn’t put together the yearbook, and everyone knows that.

If they had your picture on their web site, and called you their pal, would you feel different?

Patterico (c218bd) — 4/16/2010 @ 11:16 pm

No association wants its message diluted, its processes disrupted, and its reputation besmirched by fringe lunatics. This was fine. It should continue to be done.

nk (db4a41) — 4/17/2010 @ 5:03 am

I’m sorry Patterico, but I don’t see the airbrushing of history. Nobody’s trying to deny this ahole showed up in some sort of SS/white power shirt (that looks like he just bought it last week and wore it the first time for the rally, I might add). What people ARE doing is placing this event in its proper context — ie, this white power jerk just HAPPENED to show up
A guy coincidentially showes up in an SS/ white power shirt the exact same week so called “Tea Party Crasher” sites get set up on the web. To simply let the man walk among the crowd unmolested would have been the true airbrushing of history, in my opinion.

Sean P (334463) — 4/17/2010 @ 5:18 am

#28 DRJ:

It makes sense to me that he would be shunned but I still don’t see why one person gets to eject someone he doesn’t approve of or agree with. It would be different if this were a private event but it’s open to anyone, isn’t it?

It is a peaceable assembly, a well behaved mob: if one person observes an attendee who’s message isn’t consistent with the assembly, doesn’t he a have a right to express his disapprobation of that individual publicly? And loudly, come to that. And if other members of the assembly find that disapprobation distasteful, aren’t they also free in their turn to shun him?

Again, a peaceable assembly, a well behaved mob. I am not aware that there are parliamentary rules that apply to such a situation.

EW1(SG) (edc268) — 4/17/2010 @ 5:27 am

Most likely wouldn’t notice unless it was called to my attention. Even so, their site is their property. I might put something up at mine saying that we had differences.

However, had we co-authored a book or jointly performed some project, hell, leave it up. I’m not responsible for how they are now. If I felt strongly about it I’d explain over at my site. You very rarely delete comments (and then only for good reason), and I’ve never seen you delete a post, because these things actually happened. Leave the revisionist history to the Media Matters types, I say.

That said, I did get my juvenile record expunged, and sometimes …uh… elide certain things from my past unless directly asked about them. So who am I to say?

I’m a big, fat hypocrite. I guess. Great, now I feel like John Kerry with his 180, because I’ve taken action to expunge my juvy record. Got a lot to do today and I’m going to wander about feeling like that particular nozzle. Guess my coffee will be French Roast. See what whitewashing the past has led to?

Uncle Pinky (22f482) — 4/17/2010 @ 5:34 am

Patrick, you make a good point at #10, but in the end I come down on the side of the cameraman. Not only was he demonstrating that he (and the other attendees who feel similarly) wanted nothing to do with racists and Nazi-sympathizers, but he was also confronting the man about what he felt is a stupid, harmful ideology. If I see a guy walking down the street looking like an idiot, I have a right to tell him he looks like an idiot. In some circumstances, that may be rude, but it’s well withing my rights to do so.

With race, I think it’s particularly important for those of us who are beginning to fight back against the leftists use of “racist!” to stifle political dissent to call out real, actual racism when we see it.

Had the cameraman continued to harangue him for much longer, then yeah, I might start to agree that he had crossed the line into harassing the racist guy, but in the end, all he was doing was following the guy around with the camera to document that he wasn’t being supported by the Tea Partiers (and kudos to him for doing a fine job of that!).

If one of my party guests at a social gathering gets obnoxiously drunk and I ask him to leave, I’m not airbrushing history by doing so. I’m just creating a more pleasant atmosphere for the people I am choosing to associate with.

Oh, and for what it’s worth, my money is on the guy being an actual Nazi/KKKer. As they’re in St. Louis, he may even be an Illinois Nazi. I hate Illinois Nazis.

PatHMV (003aa1) — 4/17/2010 @ 6:29 am

Tea Partiers have to get their disavowals of racist infiltrators or leftist plants on the record somehow. Video is one way to do that. Another is for speakers at the events to publicly announce the presence of such infiltrators, and that they don’t represent Tea Party values.

There was one lefty infiltrator at the Oceanside rally. The disavowal was not verbal, but visual – people carried signs prepared for the event pointing to him as “Not One Of Us”. They followed him around, but didn’t obstruct his movements.

Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (9eb641) — 4/17/2010 @ 8:08 am

I wish I could believe that if this guy sought the assistance of the ACLU to sue the cameraman that none of their lawyers would take the case.

L.N. Smithee (c70c02) — 4/17/2010 @ 9:06 am

If I see a guy walking down the street looking like an idiot, I have a right to tell him he looks like an idiot. In some circumstances, that may be rude, but it’s well withing my rights to do so.

Of course it’s well within you right to do so but in the situation of the swastika guy, how in the long run did it benefit the party vs. how did the idiot benefit?

That’s why I made this comment, “By engaging the guy, they gave him a platform to air his hate. To further engage him and give him notice to leave, was to incite him further. He then had an opportunity spew forth even more crap.

Why not just ignore completely? No verbal distancing, no engaging in anyway but just a complete shunning and turning of the backs?

It’s now viral, and there is no doubt some nutjob out there inspired by his words and thinking, ‘Hey, what a cool guy, I wanna join his group’.

Don’t verbally engage, don’t give an opportunity to be heard, shun. I think Bradley has a good point to have the speakers (only them) at the event denounce the interloper. Perhaps the individual Tea Partiers who notice someone specifically not one of them, notifies with description and a Tea Party host/official denounces them…

Without an audience, without any buttons being offered to push, they’re rendered powerless.

Dana (1e5ad4) — 4/17/2010 @ 9:15 am

This guy is advertising his “beliefs” on his shirt. I would love it if a real ‘White Power’ racist took a look at this video and told us if he was the real deal or not.;-)

For those not close enough to see his shirt, they certainly got a look at his camoflauge hat. He was trying to affiliate himself with militias, probably, or maybe military. Either way, the leftist goal of discrediting has been attempted.

TimesDisliker (db37fa) — 4/17/2010 @ 9:16 am

Comment by Patterico — 4/16/2010 @ 11:15 pm

Ask yourself how many minds have you changed thus far by arguing the truth????

Most people don’t want their minds changed, don’t want to hear the truth, and cling to their own narrative like the crazy conservatives do their guns and religion. And the one who ends up exhausted sure isn’t the on clinging to the self-made narrative short on facts.

When people get tired of the cracked and chipped prism they see things through, then (and I believe only then) do they start looking at things differently. Of their own volition.

From what I’ve seen here, everytime you’ve argued to the death with liars (Boehlert, Friedman, etc), they just dig in deeper with their denial. They never give an inch, never admit they were wrong – in spite of their wrongness repeatedly slapping them in the face – and frankly, they just scream louder while running away like little girls (referring to chickening out of the radio show w/you).

Why waste the energy on them? Your reputation stands and falls on it’s own. And the reason it stands is because facts are on your side and you don’t play fast and loose with them – unlike others. Shouldn’t that be enough and speak for itself? The nets (at least the political tracts) are too brutal a place to let much of the personal into it…

Dana (1e5ad4) — 4/17/2010 @ 9:24 am

Why not just ignore completely? No verbal distancing, no engaging in anyway but just a complete shunning and turning of the backs?

There are some who will believe that silence implies assent. To them, the mere fact that the Tea Party didn’t eject the racist is proof that the Tea Party tolerates racists. It may not be fair, but a whole lot of people believe that way.

It’s now viral, and there is no doubt some nutjob out there inspired by his words and thinking, ‘Hey, what a cool guy, I wanna join his group’.

Perhaps, but that same nutjob could have found other information about this group with a simple Google search. However, many more people would see this video and think, ‘Hey, the Tea Party is standing up to racists. That’s great.’

Some chump (c2555f) — 4/17/2010 @ 9:33 am

If the Tea Party had not taken action against this guy then the entire portrayal of the tea party in the press would be this guy.

I have seen two different television networks villify the Tea Party as racist. In every one of their stories on both networks the culmination of the vitriol is the presenting of one picture of a single poster. These people are trying to destroy a political movement by painting the entire movement with a view expressed on one single poster which may or may not have been carried at a tea party event by a tea party supporter.

Have Blue (854a6e) — 4/17/2010 @ 9:44 am

The media will do their own spin, take TV Guide and Newsweek, as sides of the same coin, Zernike will do her dutiful doublethink, yesterday Tea Partiers
are unemployed, today they are the rich, they will glom unto Dale Richardson, despite he has been discredited, but there has to be pushback

ian cormac (422538) — 4/17/2010 @ 9:47 am

but there has to be pushback

Absolutely. The $64 question is, what method of pushback will speak the loudest, as well as be the most difficult for the media to tweak?

There’s something a bit sickening when one realizes that it is *still* the media dictating to the Tea Partiers how they should behave – because it is the media who has created the narrative of the Tea Partiers themselves. Somehow I think there’s needs to be a strong resistance against being put on the defense time and time again.

Dana (1e5ad4) — 4/17/2010 @ 9:54 am

“… the crazy conservatives do their guns and religion…”
Comment by Dana — 4/17/2010 @ 9:24 am

So, it’s only “crazy conservatives” who cling to their guns and religion?
What do “sane conservatives” cling to?
Can “conservatives” even be sane?

AD - RtR/OS! (df7269) — 4/17/2010 @ 10:03 am

Agree with your post #55, Dana. This is the same media that turned a blind eye to Obama’s 20 years in the wrong Reverend Wright’s “church”, his associations with known domestic terrorists, his dealings with ACORN, etc… etc…

This is the same media that allows DemocRAT party bigwigs (e.g., Bill Clinton, Barack Hussein Obama) to demonize and ridicule American citizens who disagree with massive debt, government spending and interference in their lives as racist and predisposed to fomenting violence, murder and other acts of terrorism.

GeneralMalaise (24d3e0) — 4/17/2010 @ 10:08 am

Yes Dana, I caught that one also. In one day tea partiers went from teeth deficient, inbred, ignorant yokels to fat cat elites selfishly blocking capital gains tax increases.

And not just on the same network but in reports by the same anchor.

Have Blue (854a6e) — 4/17/2010 @ 10:29 am

Well, when the “most respected” aggregator of information publishes info that makes the previous “party line” seem disingenuous (at best), everyone must fall into line, and parrot the new “party line”.

They appear as ridiculous as the spokes-holes for the CPUSA, and their apologists, did in the period 1938-1942 re Nazi Germany.

AD - RtR/OS! (df7269) — 4/17/2010 @ 10:43 am

Can “conservatives” even be sane?

AD – RtR/OS!, let me answer you this way: Have Chris Mathews, Olbermann, Couric or even John Stewart remotely referred to conservatives in this way???

And there’s your answer.

Dana (1e5ad4) — 4/17/2010 @ 10:57 am

#49 & 55 Dana:

Without an audience, without any buttons being offered to push, they’re rendered powerless.

There’s something a bit sickening when one realizes that it is *still* the media dictating to the Tea Partiers how they should behave –

I don’t know that I would see it quite that way: in the normal course of events, marginalizing a doofus like swastika boy at an event like this would certainly shut down his message…but he’s there to capitalize on an already built audience, and it ain’t us. He has willing accomplices in the media to hijack the message of the assembly, so they both have to be marginalized~swastika boy by being ignored after it’s made clear to the media that they won’t be able to lie about the event itself.

I don’t know that the media is therefore dictating the actions of the Tea Partiers…sad truth is, its politics, and when you get down in the gutter with sausages, you’re gonna get up with pigs. Or something like that.

EW1(SG) (edc268) — 4/17/2010 @ 11:09 am

Dana,
Why waste the energy on them? Your reputation stands and falls on it’s own. And the reason it stands is because facts are on your side and you don’t play fast and loose with them – unlike others. Shouldn’t that be enough and speak for itself? The nets (at least the political tracts) are too brutal a place to let much of the personal into it…

Because lies left unrefuted take on a life of their own, and vigorous, detailed, rebuttal does make a difference with those who aren’t totally lost to reason and facts. Patterico’s blog is a reflection of this goal, and I think it has made a difference. For example, while the LA Times hasn’t lost its leftist bent, its journalists know that someone with sharp wits is documenting their actions. The LAT has even been known to issue corrections from time to time thanks to Patterico’s sleuthing. That has to make the journos more careful.

And I can personally attest to the importance that Patterico and our late blog hostess Cathy Seipp has had in the evolution of my thinking.

Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (9eb641) — 4/17/2010 @ 11:14 am

Because lies left unrefuted take on a life of their own, and vigorous, detailed, rebuttal does make a difference with those who aren’t totally lost to reason and facts.

Bradley, absolutely right re LAT. I was however thinking more of the individual bloggers (that’s why I specifically referred to Boehlert and Friedman). They are not remotely interested in rebuttals or facts because they are “totally lost to reason and facts”. I had hoped the distinction was clear.

A newspaper of course has far more at stake and far more readers able to see the evidence and make their decisions. It’s obviously worth holding them accountable because their very existence depends on accuracy. At least for now.

Dana (1e5ad4) — 4/17/2010 @ 11:22 am

p.s. I would add too, when was the last time the Boehlerts and Friedmans of the world issued corrections or retractions? They do not care about the truth.

Dana (1e5ad4) — 4/17/2010 @ 11:29 am

more like a notthi really.. a feirth feirth notthi

happyfeet (c8caab) — 4/17/2010 @ 11:39 am

Dana,
Bradley, absolutely right re LAT. I was however thinking more of the individual bloggers (that’s why I specifically referred to Boehlert and Friedman). They are not remotely interested in rebuttals or facts because they are “totally lost to reason and facts”. I had hoped the distinction was clear.

Yes, your distinction was entirely clear. I was referring to the effect the Boehlerts and Friedmans of the blogosphere can have on others unless their lies are firmly refuted. And unless refuted, their lies can be recycled without opposition by the LAT and other sympathetic or accuracy-challenged media sources.

A rebuttal of such falsehoods sends a message to others that such lies, distortions and fabrications will be vigorously challenged. And the Tea Party’s focus on disavowing infiltrators and agent provocateurs has forced the media to take note.

Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (9eb641) — 4/17/2010 @ 11:51 am

I don’t disagree, Bradley. I do think however when confronted with truth and facts, the narrative will just morph into something else that suits their need to control the public image of Partiers. Witness Charles Blow today after attending the Dallas Tea Party. Just tweak the narrative a little bit and they still come up an entity to be mocked.

Dana (1e5ad4) — 4/17/2010 @ 11:57 am

“Your reputation stands and falls on it’s own. And the reason it stands is because facts are on your side and you don’t play fast and loose with them – unlike others.”

– Dana

See, I disagree with that – a “reputation” can’t exist with an audience to decide what it is, and facts (like words) must be interpreted. Do I get to decide what my own reputation is? No – everyone else does (“everyone” being something of a stretch, insofar as a man often has multiple, differentiated reputations, but you get the gist). I can take that or leave it, of course, but the fact remains that if I care about my reputation, I must be prepared to defend it to the best of my ability. And if I feel that certain “facts” entail a certain meaning, I must be prepared to argue that as well.

It’s another intentionalism question, in a way: a man acts as he does with a certain intent; his actions must then be interpreted by an audience, and that interpretation becomes his reputation. So, as in standard examples of intentionalism, it is the responsibility and right of an actor to clarify (i.e. defend) himself if he feels his actions have been misinterpreted.

Furthermore, the act of defending oneself (when the “facts” support you, in the eyes of a reasonable audience) is often a catalyst for the ethical/logical implosion of the other side – an implosion less spectacularly visible if not teased out by a pointed defense. Would Friedman or Boehlert have appeared so ridiculous in the eyes of reasonable observers had Patterico not gone out of his way to document their fatuous assertions and instead ignored them in a quest for… something? I submit that they would not have.

In the most extreme sense, I suppose I agree with you, but only because I believe in God (as a truly objective assessor of human action). But beyond that – before a fallible audience (which all human audiences are) – it is necessary for one to defend ones own reputation in hopes of convincing rational observers of the merit of ones actions.

Anyway… I feel like I was going to say something else, but I already said a mouthful, and I think I hit on the main points.

Leviticus (30ac20) — 4/17/2010 @ 12:26 pm

“I do think however when confronted with truth and facts, the narrative will just morph into something else that suits their need to control the public image of Partiers.”

– Dana

That actually gets at the point that I should’ve emphasized more thoroughly: the point in defending oneself is to reach the reasonable members of the audience. Some members of the audience won’t be reasonable – they will believe whatever they want to believe regardless of your best efforts to explain yourself. So you don’t waste your energy trying to tailor a rational argument to an irrational mob – you reach for those that can be reached.

Leviticus (30ac20) — 4/17/2010 @ 12:54 pm

Leviticus said what I was trying to say, much more directly.

Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (9eb641) — 4/17/2010 @ 1:22 pm

Leviticus:

So you don’t waste your energy trying to tailor a rational argument to an irrational mob – you reach for those that can be reached.

Is that why you comment here?

DRJ (09fa6c) — 4/17/2010 @ 1:27 pm

DRJ,

I’ll answer with a qualified yes – and I mean that in the best possible way. I’ve found that most of the commenters at this site are reasonable, intelligent individuals, who can be reached if an argument is sound. I have found that this site is something of an exception to a rule in that respect (though there are probably other good places I just don’t know about); I don’t post anywhere else.

The “qualified” part is this: I don’t presume to be in a position to “reach” anyone on this site – I feel the term, in the context I was using it, implies some sort of enlightenment on the part of the initiator which I do not possess. The discussions I’ve had on this site are interchanges – either side may “reach” the other at any given time. So my goal is not to proselytize for my political ideology, but to test my own ideas and the ideas of others for merit.

Leviticus (30ac20) — 4/17/2010 @ 1:43 pm

who can be “reached” if an argument is sound (in keeping with the disclaimer)

Leviticus (30ac20) — 4/17/2010 @ 1:44 pm

Leviticus, in a quick read and re-read of your comment, I would make the general statement that much of what you think re reputations and even the intentionalism involved depends entirely on the the audience being reasonable and rational and perhaps with an open willingness to be shown otherwise. However we already know going into it that the Boehlerts and Friedmans of the world are not such people. Therefore, at some point in time (and this may be the the pressing question of the matter), it is tilting at windmills.

Would Friedman or Boehlert have appeared so ridiculous in the eyes of reasonable observers had Patterico not gone out of his way to document their fatuous assertions and instead ignored them in a quest for… something?

I would say to some degree, yes. The main reason being that to *reasonable observers*, Friedman and Boehlert’s reputations already precede them – by default, the reasonable observers will already be on alert. Because of this, what they purport and claim is taken with a grain of salt and/or a bit of suspicion until proven otherwise. I believe what Patterico did with fierceness, was to cohesively and succinctly lay out the truth and contrast it with the lies, and let readers make their determinations.

Dana (1e5ad4) — 4/17/2010 @ 2:12 pm

Leviticus:

The “qualified” part is this: I don’t presume to be in a position to “reach” anyone on this site – I feel the term, in the context I was using it, implies some sort of enlightenment on the part of the initiator which I do not possess.

I don’t see anything wrong with trying to convince people to see things your way. Sometimes I comment to convince people to agree with me or to make a point, but I’m also open to being convinced I’m wrong. The goal isn’t to “win” a debate, it’s to air the issues and let fully informed people decide where they stand.

One perk of getting older is that I don’t care as much when people disagree. We don’t all have to be alike, and our state governments don’t all have to work the same way. If Massachusetts wants MittCare, that’s fine with me (just don’t ask me to pay for it). If California wants to spend itself crazy for environmental causes, so be it (but, again, don’t ask me to pay for it). Sometimes the best way to learn is to try things and see what works and what doesn’t.

DRJ (09fa6c) — 4/17/2010 @ 2:57 pm

4/16/2010

Tea Partier Denounces Swastika-Wearing Attendee

75 Responses to “Tea Partier Denounces Swastika-Wearing Attendee”

Favorite Sites

Links

Patterico Sells Out