Town Quixote's

[Town Heretic]

One is sufficient.

Of course.

[Lon]

One is sufficient.

Then you'd agree with Town. I don't on this particular because I've seen old men use different terms and they've never meant the entire race, nor was it only designated for one or two persons of a particular color. A remark in frustration to any particular person isn't to be applied to the rest of the race/group. It was wrong yes, but to make it worse in your own head? As far as I've ever found, with few exceptions, it is going too far and being less than charitable. It is exactly a gross exaggeration and error. Okay, there are those who disagree. Fine but I certainly can prove the accusation is much further than the scope of the comment. One then, as far as words and correct meaning, means and only 'one.' "Two" means and only 'two.'

[Town Heretic]

Then you'd agree with Town. I don't on this particular because I've seen old men use different terms and they've never meant the entire race, nor was it only designated for one or two persons of a particular color. A remark in frustration to any particular person isn't to be applied to the rest of the race/group. It was wrong yes, but to make it worse in your own head? As far as I've ever found, with few exceptions, it is going too far and being less than charitable. It is exactly a gross exaggeration and error. Okay, there are those who disagree. Fine but I certainly can prove the accusation is much further than the scope of the comment. One then, as far as words and correct meaning, means and only 'one.' "Two" means and only 'two.'

I find that willfully, stunningly naive. But I say that without rancor or ill will, brother.

[Lon]

I find that willfully, stunningly naive. But I say that without rancor or ill will, brother.

Or me, finding it over-reaching and problematic? I don't mean it with ill-will either. He was wrong. The question is whether 1) he thought all of a particular race were simian rather than simply frustrated with what he saw as an inept vote and 2) whether he changed from it later in life and grew into the dignity of the Presidency.

He certainly wasn't perfect. He certainly shouldn't have said anything terrible about African UN delegates. My naivety only goes so far, and as I said, it is often purposeful (willful). Some judges have no restraint and forget blind justice when they give too long a sentence for a lesser crime than they one they are prejudice themselves against. My aim is still balance, just and fair.

I think too, simply addressing the scope of the prior statement wouldn't bring up all this attached dialogue and the necessity (I believe) of it. He simply said in 'some' cases individuals are to blame, not society. Wouldn't it still be better and would have been better to simply talk about whether such was true rather than aim for character and/or weight of his thoughts?

Where from here? I think I embrace you as my brother as well, and hope that something meaningful passes for eternal worth here.

In Him -Lon

[Town Heretic]

"To see those, those monkeys from those African countries — damn them, they're still uncomfortable wearing shoes!" Ronald Reagan

He was wrong.

Indisputably, to me. But I don't understand why you think he was wrong. I think he was wrong because he used a racist trope.

The question is whether 1) he thought all of a particular race were simian rather than simply frustrated with what he saw as an inept vote

No, that's not the question. The question is why did he use a racist trope, aimed at black men, to express his frustration?

and 2) whether he changed from it later in life and grew into the dignity of the Presidency.

I don't know. The comment was made in 1971. Reagan would have been, what, sixty? And he'd lived through the Civil Rights Movement by that point. If that didn't do it I'm not sure anything would. I'm not even sure he thought of himself as racist or of his remarks as being something like the N-bomb. Likely he didn't.

More than a few fairly passive racists have made that mistake. The sort that lets a woman say that Michelle Obama looks like a gorilla, then claim not to actually be a racist.

He certainly wasn't perfect.

We're all imperfect. Hitler wasn't perfect either. It's not a particularly strong mitigator.

He certainly shouldn't have said anything terrible about African UN delegates.

He could have strongly objected to their votes without the monkey business, to be sure.

My aim is still balance, just and fair.

Then be those things and don't excuse or mitigate the inexcusable and plain.

[Lon]

"To see those, those monkeys from those African countries — damn them, they're still uncomfortable wearing shoes!" Ronald Reagan

Indisputably, to me. But I don't understand why you think he was wrong. I think he was wrong because he used a racist trope.

As I've said in the other thread, it'd be a lot like me calling a Cajun an ignorant shirtless hillbilly hog: Not racist. It may be, but I can't read minds as to such intent. It is, yet, imho, wrong to throw that wilder accusation.

No, that's not the question. The question is why did he use a racist trope, aimed at black men, to express his frustration?

Again, it is racist toward a very specific kind of person. "If" you label to all peoples of a particular color, it is much farther reaching than proof can sustain. When Chris Rock, for instance, uses the "N-word" he uses it specifically and only for people of reprehensible behavior.

I don't know. The comment was made in 1971. Reagan would have been, what, sixty? And he'd lived through the Civil Rights Movement by that point. If that didn't do it I'm not sure anything would. I'm not even sure he thought of himself as racist or of his remarks as being something like the N-bomb. Likely he didn't.

More than a few fairly passive racists have made that mistake. The sort that lets a woman say that Michelle Obama looks like a gorilla, then claim not to actually be a racist.

Again, large binning a frustration as if both are the same. I'm not sure of the context of the women who said she looked like a gorilla. Mad? Because she happened to actually resemble one with an expression? Making fun of her because of her color? What was the context?

We're all imperfect. Hitler wasn't perfect either. It's not a particularly strong mitigator.

Most things compared to Hitler seldom are. It is about as far reaching as trying to discredit Reagan's former statement by character assassination, as if one discounts the credibility of the other....

He could have strongly objected to their votes without the monkey business, to be sure.

Absolutely. It was wrong. Why? Because calling any of God's people derogatory names, even in frustration lacks holiness.

Then be those things and don't excuse or mitigate the inexcusable and plain.

I didn't seek to discredit Reagan based on one poor comment. Fair and just doesn't do the mudslinging and dirt digging I don't believe. I'm not judge here, but if I were, I'd rule the latter inadmissible. The latter has little bearing on whether he was correct about society not being blamed most times, for atrocities of individuals.

That has to always be returned to as the actual focus, because the latter is distraction and really doesn't do anything regarding the truthfulness of his former statement. You made a statement counterwise. This kind of discrediting language may be as bad as Reagan's comment. It casts him in a purposeful discrediting light much like backwards, wearing no shoes would convey.

[Town Heretic]

As I've said in the other thread, it'd be a lot like me calling a Cajun an ignorant shirtless hillbilly hog: Not racist. It may be, but I can't read minds as to such intent. It is, yet, imho, wrong to throw that wilder accusation.

But it's not like that, Lon. It's like he called a Africans monkeys, a racist trope so old it was uninspired in his grandfather's day. It's no mystery and yours is no real parallel.

Again, it is racist toward a very specific kind of person.

There are two potential responses. The first is, sure, black guys who tick him off. But then, the ticking off is only the event that allows him to express a sentiment that runs deeper because its premise is deeper.

"If" you label to all peoples of a particular color, it is much farther reaching than proof can sustain.

If you use it at all it's reaching farther than any proof can sustain.

When Chris Rock, for instance, uses the "N-word" he uses it specifically and only for people of reprehensible behavior.

I'm pretty sure I've heard him use it affectionately. A lot of black people use it among themselves. A very different thing.

Again, large binning a frustration as if both are the same. I'm not sure of the context of the women who said she looked like a gorilla. Mad? Because she happened to actually resemble one with an expression? Making fun of her because of her color? What was the context?

The context is that the woman used a racist trope. The rest is immaterial, but since you won't believe Hitler was a murderer until you see pictures of him jamming kids into an oven, here's some more background on the Tweet: the woman was the director of Clay County Development Corp. in West Virginia. She had no particular connection to the Obamas. She was a Trump supporter.

After Trump had won the election she sent out the following Tweet, "It will be refreshing to have a classy, beautiful, dignified First Lady in the White House. I'm tired of seeing a Ape in heels." In other words, leaving off her grammar, she's a racist. It might shock you, but there are a great many of them about these days and they're less in hiding.

For instance, her mayor responded, "You just made my day, Pam." The mayor later resigned.

Most things compared to Hitler seldom are. It is about as far reaching as trying to discredit Reagan's former statement by character assassination, as if one discounts the credibility of the other....

I think it's hilarious to describe quoting someone as character assassination. It's more aptly character suicide.

Absolutely. It was wrong. Why? Because calling any of God's people derogatory names, even in frustration lacks holiness.

When you recognize Reagan's words were derogatory then you have to understand why they were. And when you understand that you understand my point, or you have a problem trying to define that why.

I didn't seek to discredit Reagan based on one poor comment.

To the contrary, you seem bent on removing all but a literary connection between him and the event.

Fair and just doesn't do the mudslinging and dirt digging I don't believe. I'm not judge here...

You just contradicted yourself. When you decide to characterize a thing as mudslinging and dirt digging--and what, precisely, are you tagging with that--you're standing in the robes.

This kind of discrediting language may be as bad as Reagan's comment.

What kind of language, particularly expressed? By which I mean literally set it out and then characterize it. Otherwise I can't know what you're speaking to.

It casts him in a purposeful discrediting light much like backwards, wearing no shoes would convey.

It puts him in the light he's given us to see him by. I quoted a man uttering a racist trope and you (and anyone who speaks the language) understands the language to be derogatory, you must then understand why it's derogatory. And if you understand that you have no foundation to object to the utterance being noted for what it is and the sentiment being attributed to the fellow who made that choice.

[Lon]

But it's not like that, Lon. It's like he called a Africans monkeys, a racist trope so old it was uninspired in his grandfather's day. It's no mystery and yours is no real parallel.


There are two potential responses. The first is, sure, black guys who tick him off. But then, the ticking off is only the event that allows him to express a sentiment that runs deeper because its premise is deeper.

Well, it could, but like you'd said, it could have been a throw-over from his father's day. Surely not appropriate nor God-honoring. My father called Hispanics "spicks' (not sure if that's derogatory or just truncated) and because he fought in the war, all orientals were dehumanized to a certain name. Now I've never called either group by that name and I have never been so mad at any particular that'd I'd repeat it.

As you may realize and have come to know, I try to empathize for both groups. I was caught one day with this passage, in surprise: Matthew 5:23
I'd always thought the offender needed to make it right, not the offended. While I do find Reagan's words inappropriately wrong, I 1) need to be careful not to try and read between the lines with accusation regardless of the 97 times it really was intended racism before it and 2) to try and balance problems like this. In a sense, "Reagan" was my father. I love my step-father and grew, because of him, to love Reagan, faults and all. This doesn't excuse the wrong behavior, but I did learn many god-honoring values and manners from my step-father.

If you use it at all it's reaching farther than any proof can sustain.

Well, again, as above, if there is even an inkling of doubt, I think it best to take the high road. Naive? Yes, I agree and will always agree (I think) with that assessment of me. It isn't because of not being there nor being in the trenches.

Yet one more of the issues here is not that I'm insensitive, at least not to the point of turning a blind eye. That's not it. Rather, I think there is a difference between real tears and just a complaining spirit and I really don't want to empower the latter. We'd cave to every whim as a country at that point. Is this grounds for that? It might be, but does it 'have' to be, in this case?

I'm pretty sure I've heard him use it affectionately. A lot of black people use it among themselves. A very different thing.

He said he 'hate myself an N-.' He didn't limit it to a darker color, however.

The context is that the woman used a racist trope. The rest is immaterial, but since you won't believe Hitler was a murderer until you see pictures of him jamming kids into an oven, here's some more background on the Tweet: the woman was the director of Clay County Development Corp. in West Virginia. She had no particular connection to the Obamas. She was a Trump supporter.

It isn't that I wouldn't believe it, it was that I have to have context in order to avoid inappropriate response.

After Trump had won the election she sent out the following Tweet, "It will be refreshing to have a classy, beautiful, dignified First Lady in the White House. I'm tired of seeing a Ape in heels." In other words, leaving off her grammar, she's a racist. It might shock you, but there are a great many of them about these days and they're less in hiding.

Hurtful and totally unhelpful so it is just ugly angst. If she thinks all women of color are simian, she's a racist.

For instance, her mayor responded, "You just made my day, Pam." The mayor later resigned.

Same company. Bad company at that.

I think it's hilarious to describe quoting someone as character assassination. It's more aptly character suicide.


When you recognize Reagan's words were derogatory then you have to understand why they were. And when you understand that you understand my point, or you have a problem trying to define that why.

I do.

To the contrary, you seem bent on removing all but a literary connection between him and the event.

As I explained, it is about the context of the comment. It was 'over-against' a different comment. Actually a meaningful comment. Why? Discredit. Slam the messenger as disreputable by inference of a former poor discretion.

You just contradicted yourself. When you decide to characterize a thing as mudslinging and dirt digging--and what, precisely, are you tagging with that--you're standing in the robes.

Not seeing how I'm standing in mud-slinging or dirt digging robes...

What kind of language, particularly expressed? By which I mean literally set it out and then characterize it. Otherwise I can't know what you're speaking to.

Bringing up one thing about a person to cast him or her in a poor light, when on the discussion table is an unrelated presentation concerning societal blame. I see it as problematic and it was one of two objections. The first talks about Reagan's comment scope, the second that we should be talking about it, in context of the former, at all.

It puts him in the light he's given us to see him by. I quoted a man uttering a racist trope and you (and anyone who speaks the language) understands the language to be derogatory, you must then understand why it's derogatory. And if you understand that you have no foundation to object to the utterance being noted for what it is and the sentiment being attributed to the fellow who made that choice.

The two objections:
1) That it had nothing to do with the prior quote that should have been treated upon its own merit. I think, in court, it'd be inadmissible. As I said above, my father, certainly inappropriate and actually taught to be at the 'enemy' was a good man. His whole character wasn't ugly nor all things he said uglified by his poor term.
2) It is yet not by necessity aimed at all, but 'a certain kind of.' Bad? Yes, but only because of the derogatory of the two or so applied to. It need not be applied to an entire race. It cannot be proved it was his intent and he is not around today to defend himself.

[Town Heretic]

Lon, I think I'm going to let this conversation play out in the other thread which is on the point, rather than continue to have it here, where I never really intended for prolonged, single topic anything to play out. I'm going to transfer my answer to a couple of points raised in your last response to that thread.

LINK to that continuation.

[Town Heretic]

So, DeVos wants larger class sizes and fewer teachers? What she doesn't appear to know about education would overfill a classroom. Putting her in charge of that department was like putting an imbecile in charge of organizing a Mensa convention.