Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2019 22:28:21 GMT -5
Vince, I have to admit I find it mildly irksome that you have, by your own account, not watched most of the videos of the events in question because you "don't have time," but that apparently you DO have time to argue about it all day and dig up blog articles and threads defending the kids. Just watch the damn things for yourself and make up your own mind.
But whatever. Here are a few reasons I don't think Phillips banging his drum and chanting is anywhere near in a ballpark as offensive as the kids' mocking them:
(1) context: Philips and his group were there for an Indigenous people event. That area was their designated spot. Unfortunately, it was overrun with 5 loud Black Israelites and 100 increasingly rowdy MAGA hat kids. In other words, that was supposed to be the Native Americans' spot to bang drums and chant.
(2) I watched the videos. I believe Philips' explanation for why he marched up to and into the crowd of boys -- as I noted above, the Black Israelites perceived their objective that way, too. Morever, they surely had a right to do it.
(3) Watch them weave through the kids until they hit Sandmann and he doesn't move. The other kids flank him on either side. Come on. Phillips didn't seek him out. He stood there, smirking and unmoving.
(4) for the love of God, you really think that a Native American singing a traditional Native American chant about peace is equally offensive to a gang of hooting white teenagers doing mocking faux Indian chants? Really?
(5) One is an old man, and one is a teenager. Don't know how you were brought up, but I know I was brought up to be respectful towards my elders, period.
The Black Israelites are rude fucks, yes--that is their schtick. That one Red Cap Native American guy was too over the top, given he was interacting with kids. Sure. Then again, the kids had been mocking the Native Americans before that so yeah, I can see him being miffed and in no mood to treat them with kid gloves. Still, I'm happy to dock him points and say he was a jerk. Phillips, though -- in context, Phillips was fine, imo; certainly nowhere near as obnoxious as the kids.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Jan 23, 2019 23:11:28 GMT -5
Oh, lookie. Phillips tries to milk his 15 minutes for all he can, by changing his tune yet again to now say that the boys SHOULD be punished, not just now but FOREVER (I guess he's really Catholic given how he's trying to inveigh against them some sort of unwashable "original sin"): And there it is at the end of the first paragraph: "I want you to give me something." In his case, he's demanding reparations (i.e., land and probably money at some point). Opportunistic grifters gonna opportunistically grift.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2019 0:20:42 GMT -5
Oh, lookie. Opty is citing...
The Daily Caller? The Daily Fucking Caller?. Without even a "gee, I know this source is about as biased and unreliable and partisan-agenda-driven as it gets, but fwiw..."
Guy bending over backwards to knock Phillips gonna dig in every trash can to do it.
ETA:
Taking aside your shitty source, assuming everything in it is true, balanced, and fair for purposes of the discussion...so what? Native American activist does Native American activist thing. And...?
Is it supposed to exonerate the kids? Even if you can prove that Phillips is in fact a total jerk etc., it still doesn't make the kids little saints or heroes. Phillips could be the griftiest grifter grifting, and it wouldn't mitigate their behavior one whit. He could have a goddam murder rap under his belt; he could shoot someone on 5th Avenue tomorrow -- it has shit to do with the events that day. It doesn't make it okay for the kids to jeer at native American chants or make those mocking tomahawk gestures. That's some racist obnoxious shit, and it doesn't become not racist or not obnoxious because other people also are not ideal citizens.
Say, aren't you the guy who told me that even 5 fucking years of torture couldn't justify John McCain in referring to his fucking torturers as "gooks"? That it was still unforgivably racist? Why yes, yes you are.
ETA:
Even taking that aside, your characterization of the fucking Daily Caller piece actually out-Daily Callers the fucking Daily Caller.
Phillips called for reprimands on the Covington kids and reparations for indigenous tribes everywhere. You don't have to agree with him. But how the fuck is it "grifting"?
ETA:
Even if he were grifting, how would it be relevant? You need not rely on any word of his to find the boys' taunting racist. We don't have to take his word that it happened--we can watch, from a hundred angles, and assess for ourselves whether the boys or Phillips or both misbehaved.
if what were at issue here is whether Phillips was grifting that day, evidence of other grifting might be relevant to his intent and our interpretation of his behavior on the day in question. (That's why I think past racist behavior and the school's tolerance of it would be relevant to consideration of what the boys were intending here. That they smoked pot in the loo would not be.) But this -- no. Phillips banging his drum and chanting isn't grifting. Either you think it justifies the boys and/or deserves condemnation or not, but it surely isn't grifting or anything like it.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Jan 24, 2019 8:31:12 GMT -5
Oh, lookie. Opty is citing... The Daily Caller? The Daily Fucking Caller?. Without even a "gee, I know this source is about as biased and unreliable and partisan-agenda-driven as it gets, but fwiw..." Guy bending over backwards to knock Phillips gonna dig in every trash can to do it. ETA: Take aside from your shitty source, assuming everything in it is true, balanced, and fair for purposes of the discussion...so what? Native American activist does Native American activist thing. And...? Is it supposed to exonerate the kids? Even if you can prove that Phillips is in fact a total jerk etc., it still doesn't make the kids little saints or heroes. Phillips could be the griftiest grifter grifting, and it wouldn't mitigate their behavior one whit. He could have a goddam murder rap under his belt; he could shoot someone on 5th Avenue tomorrow -- it has shit to do with the events that day. It doesn't make it okay for the kids to jeer at native American chants or make those mocking tomahawk gestures. That's some racist obnoxious shit, and it doesn't become not racist or not obnoxious because other people also are not ideal citizens. Say, aren't you the guy who told me that even 5 fucking years of torture couldn't justify John McCain in referring to his fucking torturers as "gooks"? That it was still unforgivably racist? Why yes, yes you are. ETA: Even taking that aside, your characterization of the fucking Daily Caller piece actually out Daily Callers the fucking Daily Caller. Phillips called for the reprimands on the Covington kids and reparations for indigenous tribes everywhere. You don't have to agree with him. But how the fuck is it "grifting"? ETA: Even if he were grifting, how would it be relevant? You need not rely on any word of his to find the boys' taunting racist. We don't have to take his word that it happened--we can watch, from a hundred angles, and assess for ourselves whether the boys or Phillips or both misbehaved. if what were at issue here is whether Phillips was grifting that day, evidence of other grifting might be relevant to his intent and our interpretation of his behavior on the day in question. That's why I think past racist behavior and the school's tolerance of it would be relevant to consideration of what the boys were intending here. That they smoked pot in the loo would not be.) But this -- no. Phillips banging his drum and chanting isn't grifting. Either you think it justifies the boys and/or deserves condemnation or not, but it surely isn't grifting or anything like it. Aw c'mon, Cassandra! Give Opty a break. It's not as if The Daily Caller, a Tucker Carlson co-production qualifies as a "mostly garbagey far-right outlet." Don't all "liberals" get their news from The Daily Caller? Would you prefer The National Review (I would because David French is a damn fine writer even if we agree on very little, but I digress...)
This is what being "clear-headed and objective enough" looks like.
This is also the divine luxury of hypocrisy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2019 13:32:06 GMT -5
National Review has its share of skew, and some of its writers are better and more honest than others, some of its takes are better-supported than others, but it has at least some people I can respect, though I may disagree. Heck, I sometimes agree, too--French is a good example. I check into NR sometimes to see what he and some others are saying. Daily Caller, on the other hand, is not only extremely biased, but also routinely fails fact-checks and fits into the "propaganda; damaging to public discourse" box. It's on my "never cite" list; if it and places like it are the only thing I can cite, I assume something is stinky somewhere. www.adfontesmedia.com/I have to say, I lost a couple hours of sleep last night because I saw that cite to Daily Caller and my head exploded. All my sleepy went away. . Sadly, it was the first thing I thought of this morning when I woke at 5:30. I thought of it off and on through the meeting I had this morning. The Daily Caller?! Gaah!
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Jan 24, 2019 15:54:19 GMT -5
Nathan Phillips says he accepts Nick Sandmann's "apology." Sort of. Wonder why a sweet, innocent child needs a public relations firm? Ooops, totally my bad, celawson. Wonder why a sweet, innocent, WHITE child needs a public relations firm? There! Fixed it for ya!
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jan 24, 2019 16:56:23 GMT -5
Phillips is coming across more and more like a royal douchebag, in my view.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2019 18:51:32 GMT -5
Pfft. Nice try Rob, but I'm not going splodey-head for that unless you provide an Info Wars cite.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Jan 24, 2019 19:03:23 GMT -5
Phillips is coming across more and more like a royal douchebag, in my view. Smirking Sandmann beat Phillips to it. And speaking of royal douchebags, what is in the Florida water that causes such douchbaggery in your backyard?Too bad for Ertel. He doesn't sound like a half-bad dude. Well, except for the blackface. That's pretty shady. Unfortunately for Ex-Secretary of State Ertel, there is no statue of limitations for stupid. That shit will dog your ass until it bursts out in the open. Ertel could probably tell that smug little shit Sandmann, who's riding high as a cause celebre/useful idiot for the Right today, just how things might work out for his ass once he becomes yesterday's fishwrap.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Jan 24, 2019 19:47:34 GMT -5
Phillips is coming across more and more like a royal douchebag, in my view. He is is blatantly lying....again.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2019 19:58:53 GMT -5
Okay, I give. I get it now. Racist mockery is totally fine if directed at someone who might at some point have exaggerated their military service or otherwise has it coming.
If they tortured you for five years, of course, you're a total asshole to call them by a racist name and it's unforgivable. But otherwise,just make sure you pick your target wisely, and it's game on.
Moreover, regardless, if someone is a fuckhead to you, you are fully authorized to aim racist jeers at a third party. In fact, you're a hero.
Also, white people painting their faces black is now completely inoffensive, because 2019.
Forgive me. I'm still stuck in 2015, where none of that applied and the Daily Caller was a worthless rag.
ETA:
Is it okay to rape slutty women now? What if they're drunk, or dressed provocatively, or, you know, just bitchy? I can see I have my work cut out for me catching up with 2019.
I wouldn't want to risk being an SJW.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Jan 24, 2019 22:53:07 GMT -5
Oh, lookie. Phillips tries to milk his 15 minutes for all he can, by changing his tune yet again to now say that the boys SHOULD be punished, not just now but FOREVER (I guess he's really Catholic given how he's trying to inveigh against them some sort of unwashable "original sin"): And there it is at the end of the first paragraph: "I want you to give me something." In his case, he's demanding reparations (i.e., land and probably money at some point). Opportunistic grifters gonna opportunistically grift. Phillips is coming across more and more like a royal douchebag, in my view. Phillips is coming across more and more like a royal douchebag, in my view. He is is blatantly lying....again. Angry White Men Gonna Angry. Does Nathan Phillips have a P.R. firm writing his lines? He should. Nick Sandmann does. Why? Okay, I give. I get it now. Racist mockery is totally fine if directed at someone who might at some point have exaggerated their military service or otherwise has it coming. If they tortured you for five years, of course, you're a total asshole to call them by a racist name and it's unforgivable. But otherwise,just make sure you pick your target wisely, and it's game on. Moreover, regardless, if someone is a fuckhead to you, you are fully authorized to aim racist jeers at a third party. In fact, you're a hero. Also, white people painting their faces black is now completely inoffensive, because 2019. Forgive me. I'm still stuck in 2015, where none of that applied and the Daily Caller was a worthless rag. ETA: Is it okay to rape slutty women now? What if they're drunk, or dressed provocatively, or, you know, just bitchy? I can see I have my work cut out for me catching up with 2019. I wouldn't want to risk being an SJW. I would. Especially when Social Justice Warriors piss the fuck out of folks who need to be royally pissed the fuck off. As far as trying to make Phillips look bad to make Sandmann look better, I can't wait for Opty to post another link to another website, video or tweet I won't read or watch. His next one will probably claim Phillips wasn't in the military at all and should be arrested for murdering Gen. Custer at the Little Big Horn. Angry White Man gonna angry. This time at a Red man who's done more this country by accident than most of them have ever done on purpose. Nathan Phillips wore the uniform of the United States armed forces. The world, this country and this board is full of guys and gals who never wore the uniform, never served their country, and won't say shit about President Bone Spurs Pussygrabber and his five deferments because they may not have the deferments, but they didn't serve their country any more than he did. Whether or not he went to Viet Nam or not, Nathan Phillips did serve this country. A country that tried to eradicate his entire race in pursuit of the original Make America Great scam. They just called it Manifest Destiny then. Most of the White men and women who are trashing Phillips now and denigrate his service to this country did not serve. That's not just wrong, it's ungrateful. Guys like him made it possible for guys like Opty and all his new You Tube and Twitter buddies as well as his favorite bookmarked garbagey right-wing websites like The Daily Load of Shit to sit on their ass, type on their laptops and talk mad shit about a man who has done for this fucking country by accident than they and all those little MAGA freaks and cowards ever have. This "story" is still a nothingburger. Nobody got hurt. Nobody died. Nobody went to jail. Is this more important than Trump's month-old government shutdown or five women being slaughtered in a bank or But a little smirking snot is given the benefit of the doubt because he's a White little smirking snot and the resident conservatives, regressive hatin' "libbrul"and the mealy-mouthed middle of the road types who proclaim to be soooooo fair and balanced come a'runnin' to defend his disrespectful ass. Funny how some of the same people who in November were saying " Thank you for your service, Veterans" are the same ones in January using a veteran as a wad of toilet paper to wipe their asses on. No, I take that back. There's nothing funny about it . It's one of Trump's favorite adjectives: It's disgraceful.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Jan 25, 2019 9:37:39 GMT -5
I think the idea that Sandmann was trying to calm things down is silly, he was in a face off. Pure and simple. But it's no more absurd that Phillips was trying to defuse things by beating a drum in a kids face.
NT is correct, the story is a big nothingburger. What's not a nothingburger is the reaction to this.
Also, I don't really understand why there seems to be push back against the kid's family for hiring a PR firm when he was getting slammed and harassed for a smirk.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jan 25, 2019 10:26:37 GMT -5
Funny how some of the same people who in November were saying " Thank you for your service, Veterans" are the same ones in January using a veteran as a wad of toilet paper to wipe their asses on. No, I take that back. There's nothing funny about it . It's one of Trump's favorite adjectives: It's disgraceful. People who served, served. And I think people should respect that, should appreciate it. But that doesn't give veterans a pass on anything else they might do. And the fact of the matter is that most all of the initial outrage on this incident was based on the idea that a "punk kid" was disrespecting a "Vietnam veteran." The initial hot take here--wherein a peaceful Vietnam vet who was just trying to get by got blocked and stared down by a smirking punk (who was such simply because of the hat he was wearing)--has been proven to so wrong as to be a joke. But the people who were outraged, who spread the nonsense, are--by and large--simply unwilling to allow that they got played like fiddles. Hence, they continue to feign outrage whenever anyone questions--to any degree whatsoever--that initial hot take, even though they know it's terribly flawed (to say the least).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2019 12:05:24 GMT -5
Funny how some of the same people who in November were saying " Thank you for your service, Veterans" are the same ones in January using a veteran as a wad of toilet paper to wipe their asses on. No, I take that back. There's nothing funny about it . It's one of Trump's favorite adjectives: It's disgraceful. People who served, served. And I think people should respect that, should appreciate it. But that doesn't give veterans a pass on anything else they might do. And the fact of the matter is that most all of the initial outrage on this incident was based on the idea that a "punk kid" was disrespecting a "Vietnam veteran." The initial hot take here--wherein a peaceful Vietnam vet who was just trying to get by got blocked and stared down by a smirking punk (who was such simply because of the hat he was wearing)--has been proven to so wrong as to be a joke. But the people who were outraged, who spread the nonsense, are--by and large--simply unwilling to allow that they got played like fiddles. Hence, they continue to feign outrage whenever anyone questions--to any degree whatsoever--that initial hot take, even though they know it's terribly flawed (to say the least). Disagree. (1) Your take of the initial "hot take" is not an accurate characterization. I cannot recall anyone saying he was "just trying to get by" (as someone might in a crowded room, for example). There was an initial wrong take by some (but not all) that the boys approached and encircled a Native American group in the first instance expressly to mock it -- e.g., the Native Americans were simply doing their chanting, and the boys came over to them expressly to mock them. THAT was absolutely a wrong take, and it was created by circulation of a video that did not show the Native Americans moving through the crowd to approach the boys. I do think correction of THAT wrong take -- e.g., that the boys didn't just wander up to the Native Americans in the first instance expressly to mock them -- adds important context. And yes, I join in the "the media got that part wrong, and should not have -- it matters." But if you watch the video, I think it's quite clear that the Native Americans were trying to make their way through the group, until Phillips came face to face with, yes, a smirking punk who wouldn't move aside. If you look at the video, at that point the Native Americans were surrounded by hooting, laughing, jeering boys. They could either physically shove past, or sheepishly stop chanting and banging their drums, or they could face off with Sandmann. They chose the latter; I have to say if it were me, I'd probably have done the same. If I were Sandmann, I wouldn't have stood there blocking the path. (2) and no, despite that lack of context in the first take, the characterization of the boys being racist and obnoxious is not "so wrong as to be a joke." While I think the added context that the boys didn't approach the Native Americans in the first instance IS important, I think the added context of the BHI group throwing insults at the boys adds very little, because, hello, it wasn't the behavior to the BHI group that was being criticized. The BHI group behavior doesn't, imo, justify the boys a bit. The only thing it does is explain that the boys were already there, and why the Native American group, who were also there, interposed themselves between them. All this "but the BHI group was mean and that totes justified the boys in being racist to Native Americans!" is a joke. All this "but Phillips exaggerated his military record at one time and therefore the boys were justified in being racist to him!" is a joke. What I think is fair to say: The BHI group are extremist in-your-face assholes. Phillips isn't a perfect saint in heaven. That one Red Hat Native American guy was an obnoxious asshole. The chaperones totally sucked and but for that, this incident would not have escalated. The boys were being obnoxious punks and what they were doing is racist. The media made too much of the story, given that the boys are teenagers and no one got hurt. The initial take by some that the boys approached the Native Americans first was not accurate, and it does matter. The fact that the BHI group are assholes doesn't justify the boys in being racist and obnoxious. The fact that Phillips exaggerated his military history doesn't justify the boys in being racist and obnoxious. Turning the boys into unreclaimable demons is wrong; turning them into little victims and/or heroes is also wrong. Turning Phillips into a demon is wrong. Turning him into a hero is wrong, too, IMO. What I'd like to see done:Drop the fucking story, everybody. It's over. And the boys should not get a White House visit. (The guy who saved a bunch of people in a Waffle House shooting doesn't get White House praise and these kids do? WTF?) Covington, and indeed all schools, should take note of this and revisit their field trip policies -- how the kids are chaperoned, etc. They should also take a look at other policies. I am fucking serious here: I don't give a shit WHY you are wearing blackface, it's just not fucking okay. The fact that the school seems oblivious to this demonstrates why they think doing faux "Indian" war chants and mocking tomahawk chops at a group of Native Americans is harmless. Whatever your intentions, it is so fucking racially loaded, and that is so obviously true and has so long been obviously true, I honestly cannot fucking believe anyone would try to defend it. You want to celebrate "blackout day"? Wear all fucking black. Decorate the gym with black streamers and banners. Paint a black streak down your face. Do not fucking paint your face entirely black. Similarly, on "whiteout day", do not wear a pointed white hood with eyes cut out. This should be fucking obvious. Whether the kids and the school intended to be racist, well, make up your own mind, but I don't see how there can be any possible rationalization around the fact that they were jaw-droppingly oblivious. Even the fucking face-pain manufacturers recognize that: Schools should also revisit their use of "Indian" mascots and war whoops. Sorry, a lot of people have found that offensive and disrespectful for a long time--it's nothing new. (To note, Covington's mascot is a southern colonel, so I'm pretty mystified why they'd use faux-indian war whoops as a school cheer...) Don't fucking do it. Parents and educators should talk to kids and explain that some forms of goofing off, even if innocently meant, are racist. Don't fucking do them. This isn't brain surgery. And yeah, sorry, I think it's time to go back to "kids are respectful to adults, period." Conservatives used to be all on board with this. But put the kids in MAGA hats, and suddenly it doesn't apply? They should also teach that the fact that someone is obnoxious to you doesn't justify you in being obnoxious back -- much less does it justify you in being obnoxious to a third party. Finally, if you see obnoxious, extremist, or crazy people screaming on a street corner, you keep walking. You don't stand around listening and interacting. We aren't going to reform the BHI group any more than we are going to reform the Westboro Baptists. They're extremists and they are thrilled with the attention. We're not going to shame them into better behavior -- the bad behavior is the point. And frankly, such people will always be there. The rest of us, however, can and should do better. And the best way to deal with the extremists is to ignore and marginalize them, not to act like them or tacitly encourage kids to believe that the groups' awfulness justifies them in being awful. ETA: Finally, I must note that I am not a bit sympathetic to the "people are only making a big deal because MAGA hats". First, I disagree -- I think what the boys were doing was objectionable all on its own. Second, though, the people crying about this would absolutely be doing the same thing if it were boys wearing antifa shirts and mocking Christians -- you can bet the antifa shirts would feature prominently in every mention of the incident. There too, the behavior would be objectionable all on its own. I have to note I agree with a Catholic priest on Twitter who opined that kids traveling on a school-sponsored trip, representing their school at a protest or vigil, should not wear political gear of that kind. If they're going to a MAGA rally, fine, and if they are on their own/with their families, whatever. But representing your school at an affair like this -- meh, I think leave it at home. That's up to the school, but I think the priest was right that Covington Catholic hats would have been a more appropriate choice. Alternatively, pro-life t-shirts -- something specifically tied to the subject of the protest -- would have been appropriate. If I were an administrator at a school, I'd have a policy like that for events of this kind.
|
|