I see the same kind of faulty reasoning on here

[Derec]

... as in this video

The rude interrupter claims that Hillary "called black people superpredators".
I am not a Hillary fan but here is what she actually said.

No mention of "superpredators" being solely or chiefly black. Neither did she say that black people in general were superpredators (as implied in the rude interruptor's (or RI for short) charge). In fact, she did not mention race at all. So where did the RI get the idea that she "called black people superpredators"?

I see the same kind of "reasoning" on here, with regard to word "thug". In a nutshell, the reasoning seems to be that if set of people to whom a negative term refers to contains blacks, then that word means that you are calling black people collectively that negative word. It's a very twisted kind of logic. Perhaps we should call it "social logic" because it bears as much resemblance to real logic as "social justice" does to justice.

 

[bigfield]

It's a very twisted kind of logic.

Oh, the irony.

 

[Will Wiley]

The real irony is hillary talking about people with out conscience in the second video

 

[TV and credit cards]

While superpredator was not directed at blacks by Hillary (she was speaking on community policing), the question is, how is it interpreted by the listener? How is thug interpreted? When there are long held stereotypes of associating the black community with crime, then speaking on crime and the labels attached to criminals rightly or wrongly become labels on blacks.
In public speaking it is about how your message is received. If you cannot gauge this, the delivery is for shit.

 

[Derec]

While superpredator was not directed at blacks by Hillary (she was speaking on community policing), the question is, how is it interpreted by the listener?

What listener? Ashley Williams (aka the RI)? Why should her faulty interpretation be given any consideration?

How is thug interpreted?

Non-racially by anyone not trying to play the race card.
Something does not become a racial term just because one race has a disproportionate share in those that term applies to. "NBA player" is not a racial term and neither is "NASCAR driver" even though they skew black and white respectively.

When there are long held stereotypes of associating the black community with crime, then speaking on crime and the labels attached to criminals rightly or wrongly become labels on blacks.

Those stereotypes do not come from prejudice but from blacks having significantly higher rates of violent crime (5x s many homicides per capita as whites according to FBI for example) than whites. That is a fact. So then it stands to reason that disproportionate number of these "superpredators" will likewise be black.
That, however, does not mean that all "siperpredators" are black. It certainly does not mean black people in general are "superpredators" (as Ashley Williams claimed was Hillary's position) or even that black people in general are criminals at all.

In public speaking it is about how your message is received. If you cannot gauge this, the delivery is for shit.

You cannot control how some idiots will misinterpret your message or how those with an agenda will purposely misconstrue it. Not sure which group Ashley Williams belongs to, but I strongly suspect it is the latter. Also, I wonder who paid for her and her camera person's $500 admissions to the event.

 

[dismal]

While superpredator was not directed at blacks by Hillary (she was speaking on community policing), the question is, how is it interpreted by the listener? How is thug interpreted? When there are long held stereotypes of associating the black community with crime, then speaking on crime and the labels attached to criminals rightly or wrongly become labels on blacks.
In public speaking it is about how your message is received. If you cannot gauge this, the delivery is for shit.

When she said "superpredators" I interpreted her as talking about that giant swimming dinosaur that ate the Idominus Rex.

This is, of course, her fault.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

You have a point Derec, unless more was said than was in that clip. And yes, I see that kind of mindwarp on this board sometimes as well. Some people go out of their way to be offended or see the world through that lense. If you believe that white people in general are all racist and hateful towards black people, you are going to hear non-racist things as attacks against black people. I think that is what happened here. They judged the speaker before she spoke, so whatever she said was interpreted a particular way. That is the result of them facing actual racism for so long.

One other phenomenon that is sure to happen in this thread. People will mock and deride you for making the point above, and probably insinuate that you are racist. And they will strain very hard not to see or accept what you've said, not because it isn't true, but because you said it. The "partisanship" on this board is as bad as US politics.

 

[laughing dog]

You have a point Derec, unless more was said than was in that clip. And yes, I see that kind of mindwarp on this board sometimes as well. Some people go out of their way to be offended or see the world through that lense. If you believe that white people in general are all racist and hateful towards black people, you are going to hear non-racist things as attacks against black people. I think that is what happened here. They judged the speaker before she spoke, so whatever she said was interpreted a particular way. That is the result of them facing actual racism for so long.

One other phenomenon that is sure to happen in this thread. People will mock and deride you for making the point above, and probably insinuate that you are racist. And they will strain very hard not to see or accept what you've said, not because it isn't true, but because you said it. The "partisanship" on this board is as bad as US politics.

I am sure the irony of this post is lost on the poster.

 

[dismal]

Some people go out of their way to be offended or see the world through that lense.

I don't think being insta-outraged explains this one as it's an obscure clip from 20 years ago. It seems like something very calculated. Also, those fundraisers are expensive to get in to.

Also why is Hillary wearing a tent.

 

[Derec]

When she said "superpredators" I interpreted her as talking about that giant swimming dinosaur that ate the Idominus Rex.
This is, of course, her fault.

I do not think she came up with that term, which referred to teenage (as young as 13) gangbangers engaging in serious crimes including murder. One of the responses was to make it easier to try these teens as adults. Which I think is fair - if you commit murder you should not automatically be released at 21.

 

[dismal]

When she said "superpredators" I interpreted her as talking about that giant swimming dinosaur that ate the Idominus Rex.
This is, of course, her fault.

I do not think she came up with that term, which referred to teenage (as young as 13) gangbangers engaging in serious crimes including murder. One of the responses was to make it easier to try these teens as adults. Which I think is fair - if you commit murder you should not automatically be released at 21.

Yeah, in looking into it a bit there was some guy who espoused this "superpredator" theory and wrote a book about it that excited the sensationalist media for a bit. This speech was during that time. Her whole speech is here:

http://www.c-span.org/video/?69606-1/mrs-clinton-campaign-speech

I listened to it in the background and the part with the superpredators is not that big. It's in a little riff about anti-crime anti gangs being one of the things that's a priority. It's mostly about education and all Bill's wildly successful accomplishments for the children.

Democrats did feel the need to talk tough on crime back then, tis true.

T

 

[braces_for_impact]

The reason your protester has taken the comment as referring to her is the same reason that many will be offended by your following comment, one which they've heard the like of many times.

Those stereotypes do not come from prejudice but from blacks having significantly higher rates of violent crime (5x s many homicides per capita as whites according to FBI for example) than whites. That is a fact. So then it stands to reason that disproportionate number of these "superpredators" will likewise be black.

Whether it's due to your own prejudice, lack of understanding, or privilege is unknown (perhaps all three.) You casually toss such comments out, without addressing the systemic issues that your "fact" stems from, much like Hillary casually tossed out her "superpredator" term. You are speaking in half truths and touting them as entirely accurate. Left there dangling on it's own, your "truth" implies that there's something different, even inferior about people of color that causes them to be more violent than whites. It encourages rampant and racist speculation. Absent is the the FACT, (since you are so fond of facts) that people of color have suffered from lack of educational opportunities, lack of financial resources, lack of fair housing, lack of justice in our courts, lack of gainful employment, lack of health care, and lack of general opportunity when compared to whites. Even if you think this was miraculously fixed in the '60's (it wasn't) people of color are trying to play catch up in a game where white people started running several hundred years ago, while they got off the starting line in the latter half of last century, and frankly, are still trying to run with a ball and chain attached to their ankle. In short, she has lived her entire life with white people tossing accusations and "facts" such as yours, and she knows when people are speaking about her - even if they don't use the word. Many people on this board think you are a racist and misogynist even though very few have called you one directly, yet I suspect you know this is how people feel about you.

 

[fromderinside]

OK in a sane world words should be taken at their literal value. However we live in a society that has systematically devised ways to steer advantage to white and rich people - call them privileged - who are considered the norm even though they are way way outliers from any social norm. We have a USSC who consistently use this norm interpreting law and regulation. Rsult wewind upwith cranks wo ar so jaundiced about literal speech that hey insist others think as they do.

Nobody can speak in a way that anticipates those people even though they are probably right about how speech comes across. The result is Derec seems reasonable tracking literal speech when politicians speak.

When it comes to non-starters this ranks up there. We should be talking about how norms are misplaced. Rather than talking existing norms politicians should be talking about correcting norms, should be providing cures to that problem set. So instead of wrapping ourselves around a conundrum we should be interpreting why that apparent conundrum exists and how to fix it so normal speech refers to a brown middle class America.

Did I put in enough shoulds?

 

[laughing dog]

I see the same kind of "reasoning" on here, with regard to word "thug". In a nutshell, the reasoning seems to be that if set of people to whom a negative term refers to contains blacks, then that word means that you are calling black people collectively that negative word. It's a very twisted kind of logic.

I agree that your straw man is the result of twisted logic. The reasoning here is that when someone only refers black people as thugs while refusing to refer to white people who meet the stated "thug criteria" as thugs, then that person is using "thug" in a racist manner.

 

[blastula]

I see the same kind of "reasoning" on here, with regard to word "thug". In a nutshell, the reasoning seems to be that if set of people to whom a negative term refers to contains blacks, then that word means that you are calling black people collectively that negative word. It's a very twisted kind of logic.

I agree that your straw man is the result of twisted logic. The reasoning here is that when someone only refers black people as thugs while refusing to refer to white people who meet the stated "thug criteria" as thugs, then that person is using "thug" in a racist manner.

Stop talking to yourself.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Derec is defending a woman and Hillary Clinton at that.

I guess that is some kind of progress

 

[RavenSky]

Derec is defending a woman and Hillary Clinton at that.

I guess that is some kind of progress

I've often wondered who Derec hates more... Hillary Clinton or black people. This thread answered that question for me.

As to the OP, it reads to me like Derec is still desperately trying to defend his indiscriminate use of the word "thug" to refer to black people (and ONLY black people); but in doing so he has once again shown his racist streak.

 

[Derec]

Derec is defending a woman and Hillary Clinton at that.

I calls them as I sees them, regardless of race or gender. I know that's a difficult concept for some on here.

I guess that is some kind of progress

No, it's always been that way.

 

[Derec]

I've often wondered who Derec hates more... Hillary Clinton or black people.

I hate neither.

As to the OP, it reads to me like Derec is still desperately trying to defend his indiscriminate use of the word "thug" to refer to black people (and ONLY black people);

My use of thug is not indiscriminate (I use it judiciously for actual thugs) and it is also independent of race.

but in doing so he has once again shown his racist streak.

Nonsense, but what else's new?

 

[RavenSky]

I hate neither.

As to the OP, it reads to me like Derec is still desperately trying to defend his indiscriminate use of the word "thug" to refer to black people (and ONLY black people);

My use of thug is not indiscriminate (I use it judiciously for actual thugs) and it is also independent of race.

but in doing so he has once again shown his racist streak.

Nonsense, but what else's new?

You were previously challenged to produce any example of you using "thug" for a white person. We are still waiting for you to do so.