The real story is being ignored here. It is illegal for corporations to donate to Federal candidate’s campaign committees. So why aren’t Google and the Senator being prosecuted?
1 Like
Maybe, “Enable Evil.”?
Since some folks still don’t ‘get it’, yet again:
13 Likes
The money came through a Political Action Committee, so legally speaking the money came from a pool of voluntary contributions from Google employees rather than the corporation itself.
No reason to break the law when the system already provides so many ways for moneyed interests to buy influence.
10 Likes
Best I could find was some official invitations to hangings. But it doesn’t sound like something folks at the time thought was an unpleasant event to occasion.
That doesn’t make the “joke” made by a public official in Mississippi whose opponent just happens to be Black ‘okay.’
This was a flagrant dog whistle tactic.
9 Likes
Not contesting that, just sharing neat-o wild west public hanging invitations while on the quest for some precedent of the usage as a colloquialism.
Hint; it’s not a commonly or even rarely used “colloquialism” - it’s a freakin’ DOG WHISTLE.
7 Likes
The person Brainspore responded to was kinda saying that it was a colloquialism or the person should be given benefit of the doubt or whatever. Brainspore responds asking for precedent for its use as such. I was curious and googled around.
I do not find precedent of its usage as a colloquialism. No where am I saying it is a colloquialism, should be one, has ever been one, or that its usage here was or was not a dog whistle. A claim was made, a question asked, and I sought an answer and linked a finding that was not exactly the answer but was information that did not support the original claim. In fact, I contradict the original claim by saying it doesn’t sound like the people at the link thought it was an unpleasant event. If it wasn’t an unpleasant event, its usage as claimed is even more spurious.
You really going to judge me on “neat-o” to a macabre curiousity the likes of which have been boingboing wunderkammern staples? Have I misread the seriousness of your gif and its associated personal judgement? I’ve recently been reminded how easy it is to misunderstand one another on the internet.
6 Likes
There’s also the possibility that you’re both right, in a sense. She may not have deliberately intended to make an obviously racist comment, but the comment she did make revealed her deeply-rooted racism. So deep, it seethes out from her subconscious in statements such as this.
Reminds me of some other politicians’ “monkey things up” comment. These people are so racist, they say racist-sounding things when they don’t even mean to. They can’t even help it! That’s how I read this stuff.
2 Likes
That graphic is just… amazing. LOL
1 Like
Sure, that’s all it was; no covert ill-intent was being signified, and no historical or personal context is at all relevant here:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/20/politics/hyde-smith-confederate-artifacts-facebook-post/index.html
9 Likes
I was just coming here to post that article. She is obviously going hard for the confederate veteran vote.
7 Likes
6 Likes
Great. Of course, then you have the , “But why were you supporting her in the first place” question, but we know the answer to that one.
6 Likes
Yeah, in a different context, that could have been innocent if insensitive. But in the actual context, it’s not innocent.
2 Likes
not to mention that when she “apologized” she didn’t even attempt to acknowledge the historical context of slavery and racial violence which made her remarks so problematic.
she was just sorry if anyone was offended.
a lovely lovely person. :\
3 Likes
Nobody was being hung. That’s the whole point. It is phrase that has at its base the inherent unsavoriness of attending a public hanging. It is a phrase that tells of her high regard for her introducer, because it contrasts with her low regard of having to attend a public hanging.
This is not about a lynching. This is not about the color of her opponent’s skin. It is not about him at all.
from the NYT article on the incident:
"Paul Reed, a University of Alabama professor who specializes in the sociolinguistic history of Southern and Appalachian English varieties, said that the phrase first appeared in written works in the United States in the mid-1800s and that its usage peaked during the civil rights era in the 20th century.
He said that the phrase had indeed once been used as an expression of regard. People would use the idiom to convey that they thought so highly of someone they would attend something as distasteful as a public hanging with him.
But given its clear negative connotation, Mr. Reed said, most people would not dare to use the phrase in 2018.
“It has fallen so far out of favor,” Mr. Reed said in an interview. “I cannot believe that someone would use that today.”"
Should she have said it? No.
Should we interpret what she said as a reference to her opponent or about lynching someone? No, I don’t think so. She is an older woman. This phrase was in common use during her lifetime.
There is enough to criticize about this woman already - we don’t need to twist her words into a reference to lynching Mr Espy.
