Huffington Author Tweets Racist Remark About Senator Tim Scott

[martybegan]

It's a combination of lowered expectations and an inability to believe someone of a given race can have opinions outside the observers typical expectation without said person being either evil, a stooge, or a puppet.

OK thanks for that.

In this tweet as I read it, the actors --- those setting the scene --- are not the tweet author and are not Tim Scott, but rather the stagers. So he may be attributing "soft racism" to them -- again whether such attribution is accurate or not.

But in any case it doesn't offer an opinion about race derived from the tweeter himself. It's a characterization of a third party. In other words it doesn't indicate whether he thinks Tim Scott may be worthy of center stage; it indicates he doesn't think THEY think he is.

That's a lot of assumption on your part.

It's far easier to assume that this tweeter just can't believe that Scott is off the Plantation of his own accord, and had something major to do with the Tax law.

Seems to me your read stretches a lot further than mine.

Tim Scott didn't stage himself. The tweet is clearly directed at those who did do the staging. Stagers, not stagees.

Now again, his read of them may be totally cynical, wrongheaded, unfair, whatever. But that is where it's directed.

Then why did the poster take it down so quickly?

Probably because Scott's response was powerful and effectively undercut the original sentiment. It was a caustic thing to say and Scott put him in his place.

But the fine distinction here is that the tweeter's original missive was about political cynicism, not about race per se. In the process it made Scott into a pawn, and that is insulting.

I doubt the poster would have done the same thing for w White Republican.

 

[Pogo]

Sometime the regressive left screws up and accidentally reveals to the world who they truly are. The original tweet by Andy Ostroy has since been deleted, but Scott's response is still there and Ostroy has since tweeted an apology, which I'm guessing he was told to do by his bosses.

View attachment 167208

How is that "racist"?

the white man only had a black man up there for a prop.
Pretty racist to me.

Yep. Pretty self explanatory. pogo is not too bright though so you might have to reeeeally spell it out for him....

Ad hom in lieu of argument. Or as the rest of us call it, "Thursday".

The OP at least ran away.

 

[Pogo]

OK thanks for that.

In this tweet as I read it, the actors --- those setting the scene --- are not the tweet author and are not Tim Scott, but rather the stagers. So he may be attributing "soft racism" to them -- again whether such attribution is accurate or not.

But in any case it doesn't offer an opinion about race derived from the tweeter himself. It's a characterization of a third party. In other words it doesn't indicate whether he thinks Tim Scott may be worthy of center stage; it indicates he doesn't think THEY think he is.

That's a lot of assumption on your part.

It's far easier to assume that this tweeter just can't believe that Scott is off the Plantation of his own accord, and had something major to do with the Tax law.

Seems to me your read stretches a lot further than mine.

Tim Scott didn't stage himself. The tweet is clearly directed at those who did do the staging. Stagers, not stagees.

Now again, his read of them may be totally cynical, wrongheaded, unfair, whatever. But that is where it's directed.

Then why did the poster take it down so quickly?

Probably because Scott's response was powerful and effectively undercut the original sentiment. It was a caustic thing to say and Scott put him in his place.

But the fine distinction here is that the tweeter's original missive was about political cynicism, not about race per se. In the process it made Scott into a pawn, and that is insulting.

I doubt the poster would have done the same thing for w White Republican.

Certainly not. It wouldn't have worked.

 

[martybegan]

That's a lot of assumption on your part.

It's far easier to assume that this tweeter just can't believe that Scott is off the Plantation of his own accord, and had something major to do with the Tax law.

Seems to me your read stretches a lot further than mine.

Tim Scott didn't stage himself. The tweet is clearly directed at those who did do the staging. Stagers, not stagees.

Now again, his read of them may be totally cynical, wrongheaded, unfair, whatever. But that is where it's directed.

Then why did the poster take it down so quickly?

Probably because Scott's response was powerful and effectively undercut the original sentiment. It was a caustic thing to say and Scott put him in his place.

But the fine distinction here is that the tweeter's original missive was about political cynicism, not about race per se. In the process it made Scott into a pawn, and that is insulting.

I doubt the poster would have done the same thing for w White Republican.

Certainly not. It wouldn't have worked.

Hence the inherent racism in the original posters attempted message.

 

[Pogo]

Seems to me your read stretches a lot further than mine.

Tim Scott didn't stage himself. The tweet is clearly directed at those who did do the staging. Stagers, not stagees.

Now again, his read of them may be totally cynical, wrongheaded, unfair, whatever. But that is where it's directed.

Then why did the poster take it down so quickly?

Probably because Scott's response was powerful and effectively undercut the original sentiment. It was a caustic thing to say and Scott put him in his place.

But the fine distinction here is that the tweeter's original missive was about political cynicism, not about race per se. In the process it made Scott into a pawn, and that is insulting.

I doubt the poster would have done the same thing for w White Republican.

Certainly not. It wouldn't have worked.

Hence the inherent racism in the original posters attempted message.

Yet you have to make a leap to get there.

I'm just going by what it says, not what I'd like it to mean.

 

[martybegan]

Then why did the poster take it down so quickly?

Probably because Scott's response was powerful and effectively undercut the original sentiment. It was a caustic thing to say and Scott put him in his place.

But the fine distinction here is that the tweeter's original missive was about political cynicism, not about race per se. In the process it made Scott into a pawn, and that is insulting.

I doubt the poster would have done the same thing for w White Republican.

Certainly not. It wouldn't have worked.

Hence the inherent racism in the original posters attempted message.

Yet you have to make a leap to get there.

I'm just going by what it says, not what I'd like it to mean.

it ain't much of a leap.

 

[westwall]

Sometime the regressive left screws up and accidentally reveals to the world who they truly are. The original tweet by Andy Ostroy has since been deleted, but Scott's response is still there and Ostroy has since tweeted an apology, which I'm guessing he was told to do by his bosses.

View attachment 167208

How is that "racist"?

the white man only had a black man up there for a prop.
Pretty racist to me.

Yep. Pretty self explanatory. pogo is not too bright though so you might have to reeeeally spell it out for him....

Ad hom in lieu of argument. Or as the rest of us call it, "Thursday".

The OP at least ran away.

I hate to break it to ya, but that's all you're worth. Your arguments are specious at best, and demonstrate a profound lack of intellectual curiosity, and an inability to understand basic concepts. As supported by your complete bafflement vis a vis the OP, no one with a brain failed to understand exatly what the tweeter meant, nor were we in doubt about the significance of the masterful response.


Your contribution amounted too.....

 

[Pogo]

Sometime the regressive left screws up and accidentally reveals to the world who they truly are. The original tweet by Andy Ostroy has since been deleted, but Scott's response is still there and Ostroy has since tweeted an apology, which I'm guessing he was told to do by his bosses.

View attachment 167208

How is that "racist"?

the white man only had a black man up there for a prop.
Pretty racist to me.

Yep. Pretty self explanatory. pogo is not too bright though so you might have to reeeeally spell it out for him....

Ad hom in lieu of argument. Or as the rest of us call it, "Thursday".

The OP at least ran away.

I hat to break it to ya, but that's all you're worth. Your arguments are specious at best, and demonstrate a profound lack of intellectual curiosity, and an inability to understand basic concepts. As supported by your complete bafflement vis a vis the OP, no one with a brain failed to understand exatly what the tweeter meant, nor were we in doubt about the significance of the masterful response.


Your contribution amounted too.....

Now we progress from ad hom in lieu of argument to more wordy ad hom in lieu of argument, with attached Googly Image.

Grow the fuck up. If you have an actual argument --- make one.

So far I've had several wags mark my arguments "funny" without making any point, including the OP who ran away rather than defend his thread, and these empty ad homs sans argument --- which is ironic for a wag who proclaims things have to be "spelled out". In fact Marty and I are the only posters here who have been spelling anything out.

 

[Pogo]

Probably because Scott's response was powerful and effectively undercut the original sentiment. It was a caustic thing to say and Scott put him in his place.

But the fine distinction here is that the tweeter's original missive was about political cynicism, not about race per se. In the process it made Scott into a pawn, and that is insulting.

I doubt the poster would have done the same thing for w White Republican.

Certainly not. It wouldn't have worked.

Hence the inherent racism in the original posters attempted message.

Yet you have to make a leap to get there.

I'm just going by what it says, not what I'd like it to mean.

it ain't much of a leap.

But it is a leap.

 

[westwall]

How is that "racist"?

the white man only had a black man up there for a prop.
Pretty racist to me.

Yep. Pretty self explanatory. pogo is not too bright though so you might have to reeeeally spell it out for him....

Ad hom in lieu of argument. Or as the rest of us call it, "Thursday".

The OP at least ran away.

I hat to break it to ya, but that's all you're worth. Your arguments are specious at best, and demonstrate a profound lack of intellectual curiosity, and an inability to understand basic concepts. As supported by your complete bafflement vis a vis the OP, no one with a brain failed to understand exatly what the tweeter meant, nor were we in doubt about the significance of the masterful response.


Your contribution amounted too.....

Now we progress from ad hom in lieu of argument to more wordy ad hom in lieu of argument, with attached Googly Image.

Grow the fuck up. If you have an actual argument --- make one.

The point I made, and which you have reinforced is you wouldn't understand it anyway, and instead hurl logic failure accusations, that, once again, you misuse.

 

[Pogo]

OK then -- nothing to say. Already established that.

 

[martybegan]

I doubt the poster would have done the same thing for w White Republican.

Certainly not. It wouldn't have worked.

Hence the inherent racism in the original posters attempted message.

Yet you have to make a leap to get there.

I'm just going by what it says, not what I'd like it to mean.

it ain't much of a leap.

But it is a leap.

Occams razor.

 

[Pogo]

Certainly not. It wouldn't have worked.

Hence the inherent racism in the original posters attempted message.

Yet you have to make a leap to get there.

I'm just going by what it says, not what I'd like it to mean.

it ain't much of a leap.

But it is a leap.

Occams razor.

I'll see your Occam's Razor and raise you Assuming Facts Not in Evidence.

 

[martybegan]

Hence the inherent racism in the original posters attempted message.

Yet you have to make a leap to get there.

I'm just going by what it says, not what I'd like it to mean.

it ain't much of a leap.

But it is a leap.

Occams razor.

I'll see your Occam's Razor and raise you Assuming Facts Not in Evidence.

I'' re-raise with obvious even to the blind man.

 

[Pogo]

Yet you have to make a leap to get there.

I'm just going by what it says, not what I'd like it to mean.

it ain't much of a leap.

But it is a leap.

Occams razor.

I'll see your Occam's Razor and raise you Assuming Facts Not in Evidence.

I'' re-raise with obvious even to the blind man.

And I'll show my ace: Argumentum ad Populum. I'll take those chips.

Extra salsa too por favor.

 

[martybegan]

it ain't much of a leap.

But it is a leap.

Occams razor.

I'll see your Occam's Razor and raise you Assuming Facts Not in Evidence.

I'' re-raise with obvious even to the blind man.

And I'll show my ace: Argumentum ad Populum. I'll take those chips.

Extra salsa too por favor.

How is my opinion popular? There has been no appeal to the masses on my part.

Hold the salsa?

 

[Pogo]

But it is a leap.

Occams razor.

I'll see your Occam's Razor and raise you Assuming Facts Not in Evidence.

I'' re-raise with obvious even to the blind man.

And I'll show my ace: Argumentum ad Populum. I'll take those chips.

Extra salsa too por favor.

How is my opinion popular? There has been no appeal to the masses on my part.

Hold the salsa?

Doesn't mean it's 'popular' -- it means appeal to the masses. IOW the "everybody knows" fallacy.

To wit:

obvious even to the blind man

There it is, innit.

Oh and bring that extra hot habañero sauce. The dark stuff.

 

[martybegan]

Occams razor.

I'll see your Occam's Razor and raise you Assuming Facts Not in Evidence.

I'' re-raise with obvious even to the blind man.

And I'll show my ace: Argumentum ad Populum. I'll take those chips.

Extra salsa too por favor.

How is my opinion popular? There has been no appeal to the masses on my part.

Hold the salsa?

Doesn't mean it's 'popular' -- it means appeal to the masses. IOW the "everybody knows" fallacy.

To wit:

obvious even to the blind man

There it is, innit.

Oh and bring that extra hot habañero sauce. The dark stuff.

How do you know I wasn't talking about one specific blind man?

Now who's making assumptions?

 

[Pogo]

I'll see your Occam's Razor and raise you Assuming Facts Not in Evidence.

I'' re-raise with obvious even to the blind man.

And I'll show my ace: Argumentum ad Populum. I'll take those chips.

Extra salsa too por favor.

How is my opinion popular? There has been no appeal to the masses on my part.

Hold the salsa?

Doesn't mean it's 'popular' -- it means appeal to the masses. IOW the "everybody knows" fallacy.

To wit:

obvious even to the blind man

There it is, innit.

Oh and bring that extra hot habañero sauce. The dark stuff.

How do you know I wasn't talking about one specific blind man?

Now who's making assumptions?

Because "the blind man" is generic. Could be Stevie Wonder; could be José Feliciano. Could be anybody.

Could be a man who sells blinds, but that's an old joke you've probably heard.

 

[martybegan]

I'' re-raise with obvious even to the blind man.

And I'll show my ace: Argumentum ad Populum. I'll take those chips.

Extra salsa too por favor.

How is my opinion popular? There has been no appeal to the masses on my part.

Hold the salsa?

Doesn't mean it's 'popular' -- it means appeal to the masses. IOW the "everybody knows" fallacy.

To wit:

obvious even to the blind man

There it is, innit.

Oh and bring that extra hot habañero sauce. The dark stuff.

How do you know I wasn't talking about one specific blind man?

Now who's making assumptions?

Because "the blind man" is generic. Could be Stevie Wonder; could be José Feliciano. Could be anybody.

Could be a man who sells blinds, but that's an old joke you've probably heard.

All these assumptions....

As benny hill once said...