DeSantis monkey this up

Author: TheDredPriateRoberts

Posts

Total: 60
#31
Imabench
Imabench's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 934
3
4
9
Imabench's avatar
Imabench
3
4
9
-->
@Buddamoose
#1 Why "monkey things up" has racist connotations when the term when used in that manner, that being as a verb, has never predominantly held racial connotations
This was already explained to you, the problem is that you just blatantly disregard the connotations the word has under noun form just because its a noun, and refuse to consider the overall context the phrase was used in in this event.... There have been other examples provided earlier in this thread that show how a derogatory noun can still carry derogatory meaning when used in a different form and framed in a certain context, but you continue to just ignore them and recycle the 'its not racist, also, you're racist' line.....

I'm not even using language thats all that fanciful or complex bench
You're restated the 'its not racist, also, you're racist' remark with almost every response, and just fluff it up with extra words to make it seem like you're actually responding to what others have been saying when in reality you're just monologging to no one in particular. Thats what I meant with fanciful language, though perhaps a different phrase could have been more appropriate (the same way a different phrase than 'monkey it up' could have been used by DeSantis, hence the discussion) 
#32
Buddamoose
Buddamoose's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 3,178
2
3
6
Buddamoose's avatar
Buddamoose
2
3
6
 the problem is that you just blatantly disregard the connotations the word has under noun form just because its a noun

i assume you mean, "just because it was a verb" and uhhhhh, if a word has entirely different connotations when used as a noun as compared to a verb, and the word was being used as a verb, it doesnt make sense to hold it as it would as if used as a noun. This is how language works Bench, its how we determine the meaning of words and speech, point blank. 

There have been other examples provided earlier in this thread that show how a derogatory noun can still carry derogatory meaning when used in a different form and framed in a certain context
If by other examples you mean, "if somebody refers to the NAACP as monkeying things up, it couldnt ever be racist?" This isn't a sufficient example bench, because again, unless the NAACP can't screw things up, which would be racist to posit, then you still go with the most common use of the term. Not to mention, your application of context is nonsensical and insipid. You are trying to attribute a racist context, just because a person is black, to the phrase, "the last thing voters need to do is monkey things up by adopting socialist policies"

according to you, a phrase directed at ideas and used as a verb(which holds non racial connotations near exclusively) because when used as a noun in reference to a black person holds entirely racial connotations, it means the usage that has near exclusively not held racial connotations, magically does. Im sorry, thats just moronic, point blank, because then, according to what you are doing, when i say "i like eating dates, they are delicious" and when i say, "i like going out with dates" then either the first phrase means i like eating people, or the second means i like going out with fruit. As absurd as this is, this is exactly what you are doing here Bench, just with a different term.

I responded, and highlighted the attempt as, at best wishful thinking, at worst, ignorant of how language operates.

the same way a different phrase than 'monkey it up' could have been used by DeSantis, hence the discussion
and i'll point out again, that just because you think "black people" when you hear the phrase "monkey things up" despite it never predominantly holding racial connotations and near exclusively holding non racial connotations, is only a reflection on you, and not anyone else. How you or anyone else perceives speech or writing, holds zero relevance on what that speech means, as much as you may wish otherwise.

#33
Imabench
Imabench's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 934
3
4
9
Imabench's avatar
Imabench
3
4
9
if a word has entirely different connotations when used as a noun as compared to a verb, and the word was being used as a verb, it doesnt make sense to hold it as it would as if used as a noun
See you're just going in circles again. 

You claim that there cant be any racial undertones because verb =/= noun, example is provided indicating how a derogatory noun can still carry racial undertones even while used as a verb form that by plain definition could be different from its noun form, you repeat claim that there cant be any racial undertones just because verb =/= noun. 

when i say "i like eating dates, they are delicious" and when i say, "i like going out with dates" then either the first phrase means i like eating people, or the second means i like going out with fruit. As absurd as this is, this is exactly what you are doing here Bench, just with a different term.
The issue is that example is pretty bad because in both cases 'date' is under noun form with multiple meanings that you just substitute with each other. 

A better example would be the one I used back in post 13 that has been entirely ignored...... The word 'queer' can be used as a slur against LGBT people as a noun, and just mean weird or unconventional as an adjective form..... If you walk into a persons house and say 'you got a lot of queer shit in here', the use of the word queer in -that- context can have some homophobic undertones, if the person is saying that in a negative fashion to the owner of the house who happens to be LGBT, even though the word queer has different meanings in noun form and adjective form.....  


#34
Buddamoose
Buddamoose's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 3,178
2
3
6
Buddamoose's avatar
Buddamoose
2
3
6
In the "date" example, there is a extremely rare possibility i actually am saying i like eating people, or that i have a fruit fetish. However, the possibility is so rare as to have to be considered inapplicable unless there is plenty of evidence to corroborate that it indeed what i was saying. This evidence, in this case, is just not present. All there is, is that Gillum is black. But if thats all thats being used as corroborating evidence to hold it was racist in connotation, then that necessarily means whoever is holding that as corroborating evidence, thinks "black people" when they hear the word "monkey" regardless of predominant connotation, regardless of context. Which is, again, pretty damn racist, as established by everyone saying(including you) th associating blacks with monkeys, is racist AF. 

Again, its not anyones fault but the ones making the argument, that this is a necessary implication entailed by the position itself. 
#35
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,982
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Buddamoose
#36
Buddamoose
Buddamoose's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 3,178
2
3
6
Buddamoose's avatar
Buddamoose
2
3
6
-->
@Imabench
A better example would be the one I used back in post 13 that has been entirely ignored...... The word 'queer' can be used as a slur against LGBT people as a noun, and just mean weird or unconventional as an adjective form..... If you walk into a persons house and say 'you got a lot of queer shit in here', the use of the word queer in -that- context can have some homophobic undertones, if the person is saying that in a negative fashion to the owner of the house who happens to be LGBT, even though the word queer has different meanings in noun form and adjective form.....  
perfect, this is a much better example. Now i'll point out something specific that you said, 

and just mean weird or unconventional as an adjective form
now this is important, because the use of queer to mean weird or unconventional, is not a typical use anymore. 
#37
Imabench
Imabench's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 934
3
4
9
Imabench's avatar
Imabench
3
4
9
-->
@Buddamoose
Ok sweet, productive convo now, lets do it

[The word Queer] can mean weird or unconventional as an adjective form
now this is important, because the use of queer to mean weird or unconventional, is not a typical use anymore. 

Its not typically used to mean that, but it can be, since the adjective form of queer when you google the word is literally 'strange or odd' https://www.google.com/search?q=queer+definition&oq=queer+defi&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0l5.2695j1j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8


Just to keep things on the rails, lemme ask 2 things to try to get a really good idea of where you stand on this:

#1 - If a person for whatever reason still decides to use the word 'queer' in the context from the previous example (where the word is used in a negative fashion in relation to a person who is also someone that the noun definition of the word 'queer' can be used as a slur against), would you deny that the use of the word 'queer' could carry homophobic undertones? 

#2 - If the example I mentioned takes place in the 1990's or 1980's back when 'queer' was a word more commonly associated with describing things as weird or strange, while still being applicable as a slur towards an LGBT person, then same question...... Would you deny that the use of the word 'queer' could carry homophobic undertones if used in a negative fashion in relation to someone that could be called a 'queer' as a slur? 
#38
Buddamoose
Buddamoose's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 3,178
2
3
6
Buddamoose's avatar
Buddamoose
2
3
6
However, even though its not a typical use, the main issues with holding the term "queer" offensive in that context and connotation are:

1) That the person might not otherwise know that person is LGBT, but beyond that

2) The meaning of language is not determined by the person perceiving it. That meaning is independent of their perception, and it is up to that person to apply the proper meaning based upon context, connotation, and the typical meaning when put into the context and connotation. "i'm offended because i'm LGBT and you used the word queer, and when that word is used in reference to me, its insulting" does not make that offense valid, and it doesnt make that persons speech wrong, because it wasn't being used in reference to them as a person. I'll state again Bench, no, words cannot mean whatever you want them to mean. 

As stated before, the meaning of language and speech is determined by the connotation and context that speech is used in, as well as what that word predominantly means when used in that connotation and context. You keep trying to operate as if the person perceiving it at all matters as to what that speech actually means. And calling something "insensitive" is irrelevant to whether or not its wrong to say, or holds those bigoted connotations. No, taking offense over something does not actually validate a position, regardless of whoever is taking offense. "Thats insensitive" is also totally irrelevant if the person is taking offense over something they shouldnt be, at that point their offense means jack shit, point blank. 
#39
Buddamoose
Buddamoose's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 3,178
2
3
6
Buddamoose's avatar
Buddamoose
2
3
6
The answer to both of your questions would be no. Because to hold it as having an offensive meaning, with the only evidence being provided being that they said, "you have alot of queer stuff in your house" to someone who so happens to be LGBT, would require holding that the person perceiving the language at all plays a role in what that speech means. They, again, do not play any part in that whatsoever. 

If say DeSantis said, "voters need to not monkey this up by voting for this black guy" that would not be racist because of the usage of monkey things up, it would be racist because its directly stating that voting for a black guy would be screwing things up, policies and ideology be damned. Again, this doesnt make the phrase "monkey this up" racist in itself, its racist because the clear and direct implication is that the whole reason why it would be screwing things up, is because the person is black. There is a fine line between the two, but that line is there nonetheless, regardless of whether or not me or you may want it to be. 
#40
Smithereens
Smithereens's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 502
2
2
4
Smithereens's avatar
Smithereens
2
2
4
the fact that these sorts of squabbles occur at the highest level of government disappoints me. 
#41
Imabench
Imabench's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 934
3
4
9
Imabench's avatar
Imabench
3
4
9
taking offense over something does not actually validate a position, regardless of whoever is taking offense. "Thats insensitive" is also totally irrelevant if the person is taking offense over something they shouldn't be, at that point their offense means jack shit, point blank. 
Oh shit, I think this might be the main issue for both sides of the argument on this.......

To go off on a bit of a tangent here, on people's newsfeed once in a while they might come across a post from a random page that says something along the lines of "if someone is hurt by something you do, its not your place to say they shouldn't be", which is just a general post about how people can occasionally not be mindful about others when doing (or saying) something, but thats besides the point....

The main point is that in terms of someone considering something hurtful or offensive, when you are the person who caused the other person to feel that way, some people would opt to make amends for whatever they might have done and be mindful of it in the future, while others would question why they feel hurt or try to explain that it shouldn't have hurt them...... There's no 'correct' response to that situation either, and depending on the circumstances of the incident either one could be more preferable than the other, so how a person responds would be influenced by their own personality or past experiences..... In this situation I would probably be more inclined to say 'oh shit, my bad, didn't mean for it to come off that way' since I can be pretty brash and profane, while you might be more inclined to say 'I don't mean it like that, relax' and not change the way you do things for whatever justifiable reason you have..... 

That means the whole 'monkey' debate here is essentially a proxy debate of what I just mentioned, where in similar circumstances people can choose to take into consideration how the other side/receiver reacts and apologize for what they did, or defend their own actions/words and try to have the other side understand that they shouldn't feel hurt/offended..... This becomes a bigger issue when people try to argue that others should have reacted/handled the situation the way they would have normally reacted/ handled it.... This would naturally be amplified to a much larger scale regarding a politician doing it, since politicians are supposed to be representative of ourselves and how they react to a scenario would be noted by voters who would either react the same way or would have reacted in a different way. 




#42
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,982
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Buddamoose
Here is a modern day example of the microagressed dictating the terms of the meaning of words in a conversation.

"What you are REALLY saying is_____" 
Step 1: fill in the blank.
Step 2: ???
step 3: Profit!

Topic's author
#43
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@Greyparrot
this is more fun than a barrel full of monkeys, is that game now racists too?
Topic's author
#44
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@Imabench
when you are the person who caused the other person to feel that way, 
I disagree in relation to this context, how a person feels is a choice, they chose to make this about race and be offended when they could have chosen the other context that @Bubbamoose described.  You can choose to say the most hateful and offensive things possible, and I can choose to ignore them.  That's life and I don't wish to live as a snowflake, the pussyificanization of society is the problem with this whole feelings argument.
#45
Imabench
Imabench's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 934
3
4
9
Imabench's avatar
Imabench
3
4
9
-->
@Buddamoose
" You can choose to say the most hateful and offensive things possible, and I can choose to ignore them.  That's life and I don't wish to live as a snowflake, the pussyificanization of society is the problem with this whole feelings argument."

^ This is kind of what I was referring to when I mentioned that the debate as a whole only becomes a debate when people try to argue that others should have reacted/handled a situation the way they would have normally reacted/ handled it. People feel they would handle things a certain way and believe others should respond the way they would respond, even though there isn't necessarily a right answer
Topic's author
#46
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@Imabench
that's not true, you can chose to handle it however you wish, but that's on you, not me.  I don't have control over your feelings, you do, or should anyway, not my problem if what I say offends you because you chose to let it offend you.
#47
Imabench
Imabench's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 934
3
4
9
Imabench's avatar
Imabench
3
4
9
Yeah you've made it clear that thats what you believe and I don't really care either. 
Topic's author
#48
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@Imabench
truth hurts aye?  don't pout,  facts are facts, the whole sticks and stones has been a saying for a very long time.  but is your choice and absolute right to be controlled by your emotions.  I don't advocate it, but I acknowledge your choice to do so.  There's a certain illogical reaction to the emotional response to being called a name.  If I called you a dodo head, which I would assume you don't believe to be true, then why would it bother you?  Unless you are 3 years of age that is, then it would be understandable.  But at some point most of us grow up and the trivial and silly things people say no longer bother us  I guess we are getting more into psychology than politics, but I would say the over all maturing of politics is very juvenile.
#49
ravensjt
ravensjt's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 123
0
1
5
ravensjt's avatar
ravensjt
0
1
5
-->
@Greyparrot
Obviously if a black skin type person said it you would think it's just fine. It's only when someone has a white skin birth defect that the actual meaning of the word changes.


True, blame your Ancestors for that


#50
ravensjt
ravensjt's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 123
0
1
5
ravensjt's avatar
ravensjt
0
1
5
-->
@Mopac
Simply making the accusation makes the accusers look racist.

This is true and unfortunate.

I feel for the sincere people who get caught up in the drama who aren't being "cloak and dagger" with their closet racism


#51
Imabench
Imabench's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 934
3
4
9
Imabench's avatar
Imabench
3
4
9
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Keep telling yourself that XD
#52
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,982
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ravensjt
True, blame your Ancestors for that
Why blame the dead when there are living racists today judging people's character on the basis of skin tone? In this case, because the politician speaking has too light a shade of skin tone?  Kinda like Tiger Woods.

#53
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,982
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
this is more fun than a barrel full of monkeys, is that game now racists too?
Again, it depends on the degree of skin tone you have as a birth defect.

Obama can communicate normally because he does not have the skin birth defects lighter skinned politicians have.

Tiger Woods does not have the politically proper shade of skin tone according to ESPN.
Topic's author
#54
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@Greyparrot
I guess the atheist who think we evolved from some kind of monkey shouldn't take offense right?  This is what happens when society allows the misuse of words as acceptable.  We become chicken (see what I did there?) say things and now no one g.a.f. since so much is misused, taken out of context and oh those ever so precious feelings boohoo  They should go back to their safe spaces with their dollies and diapers.  Most of us where children at one time or another.  There was always that one annoying kid who repeated himself or used words to be annoying.  Once we grew old that kid was mostly ignored and since those words no longer got the desired response it was time to try something new for him, or grow up depending on the kid.  Needless reactions give things power that they normally would have, that's what happens when people can't control their fragile emotions.
#55
ravensjt
ravensjt's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 123
0
1
5
ravensjt's avatar
ravensjt
0
1
5
-->
@Greyparrot
Why blame the dead when there are living racists today judging people's character on the basis of skin tone? In this case, because the politician speaking has too light a shade of skin tone?  Kinda like Tiger Woods
"The Dead" arent the only Ancestors I was referring to....As a school teacher you should know that Jim Crow ended only 50+ years ago.Many of those who discriminated based off of skin tone are still alive today and have children who still practice this tactic.

It's a common tactic of many "racism deniers" to point to slavery (or as you mentioned "The Dead") as to the death of racism when any Black over 50 yrs old experienced it firsthand overtly 
#56
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,982
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ravensjt
Colorism is the new digestible racism today now that racism has been completely debunked by Crick and Watson.

People perpetuate colorism to avoid critical thinking.
#57
Vortex86
Vortex86's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 32
0
0
3
Vortex86's avatar
Vortex86
0
0
3
-->
@Imabench
Leadership would have been Gillum removing the racial undertone assumption. Giving his opponent the benefit of the doubt and then displaying why he's the better choice. Instead, feigning that he is somehow hurt by that statement which as you've pointed out is not racist but may be racially insensitive and demanding an apology. Or even took a shot while dismissing it instead of elevating it beyond what its intention. Like, in the future you may want to choose your words more carefully as that might be considered racially insensitive, etc. 

I've seen on posts about this on Facebook where they also harp on DeSantis for saying Gillum is articulate. People speak about this being 2018 and how times have changed and people need to adjust. I think the same goes for this situation. Let's not be so quick to jump on the racist bandwagon and instead give the person the benefit of the doubt. Articulate might just mean well spoken in this context, since he is after all well spoken. 
#58
Vortex86
Vortex86's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 32
0
0
3
Vortex86's avatar
Vortex86
0
0
3
-->
@ravensjt
Who cares ultimately? I think it was grade school where we were taught the whole sticks and stones proverbs. There are lots of ignorant people in this world, why try to dilute their ignorance by labeling any and every offense that could possibly be misconstrued as racist. Racism doesn't have a place in society and has a steady trend to this effect. There will continue to be fewer and fewer, they are pariahs. Let's not muddle definitions and feign injury. There has been coined a new term 'race card' for a reason. This is now becoming the go to. My take on all of this faux outrage is that individuals don't believe that Gillum is strong enough to stand on his own principles and policies, and instead the opponent needs to be reduced in order to beat them.
#59
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,982
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Vortex86
And this is how Trump won..While Hillary was focused on reducing the character perception of a man that had no character, Trump actually gave people policy reasons to vote for him. You will struggle long and hard to find youtube clips of Hillary doing the same. Hell, Hillary didn't even bother to show up in some states. So the takeaway from this is that the Democrats decided to policy counter with fringe left socialism as the policy message. Good luck. Pelosi wants her crumbs back.

#60
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,982
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Buddamoose
Also, the left does not use verbs in speech because identity politics only communicates in labels as nouns.

Therefore no word a leftist hears can be construed as anything except a noun.