A question for all regarding the statement about "superpredators" and gangs.

[libtodeath]

If any of the repuke clown car had ever made the same statement would we not rightly condemn it as the sickening dog whistle thing it is and what we expect of them?

[Politicalboi]

1. Of course we would

But since she said it, we're not supposed to even talk about it. We're bring her down don't ya know.

She can't come down fast enough for me.

[CorporatistNation]

5. Well Said... Surprised You Have Not Been "Called on the DU Carpet for such a comment.."

!

[bettyellen]

2. they all have said much much worse. where ya been?

[libtodeath]

4. That is my point,thank you.

[Fumesucker]

6. What have they said that's worse than "bring them to heel"?

Hell, that's terminology straight out of dog training.

[bettyellen]

12. they have said worse about innocent citizens than she said about murderers and I bet you knew that.

[libtodeath]

14. So that is the campaign slogan,"just not quite as bad"?

[Jackie Wilson Said]

3. I would, and I am sickened that Hillary said it. So, I will vote for Bernie.

And, if for some reason Bernie Sanders is not the nominee, I will vote for Hillary, disgusting statement about super predators and all.

[arcane1]

7. DU was unanimously against the use of private email when the Bush crew was doing it.

When Bush would laugh about assassination, we all hated him for it.

She gets away with a lot of right-wing shit around here.

[libtodeath]

8. Or the rightly condemnation of cheneys secret energy policy meetings with no disclosures.

[arcane1]

9. Ah yes, I had forgotten about THAT!!

[Nonhlanhla]

10. Actually, anyone with some knowledge of rhetoric

knows that one's preconceived ideas about the ethics of the speaker influences the way one interprets their words. So if a Republican were to use those words, I would KNOW it is DEFINITELY a racist dog whistle, since I know that the Republican Party is premised upon racism. But when someone with a good race track record uses a term (even a term that I don't like, which I don't in this case), I'm going to be less inclined to assume that it was intended to be a racist dog whistle. I also know that the context of the time matters. And finally, the state of mind of the audience matters too, so I understand why Bernie supporters would hear these words differently from Hillary supporters: you guys already assume the worst about her and assume she is little better than a Republican; we Hillary supporters have a greater understanding of her progressive track record and less inclination to want to demonize her, so we simply hear those words differently: knowing that she is progressive on race issues in general, we are less inclined to think that her use of the admittedly unfortunate language indicates racist dog whistling.

My reference is basic Aristotelian rhetorical theory, by the way.

[libtodeath]

11. No,I see it for what it is no matter who said it and when

[bettyellen]

13. because context is never relevant.

[libtodeath]

15. Is there a context a repuke could say this in that you would find ok?

[Nonhlanhla]

16. I don't want to call you naive about why you interpret her words in a particular way,

but as someone who did Ph.D. level work on rhetoric and interpretation, I'll just say that I'm VERY skeptical of your self-assurance in this regard.

[libtodeath]

17. So you are saying what you want to believe about a person makes you interpet their words one way?

Sorry,I am more inclined to think what they say is what they mean.

[Nonhlanhla]

18. Aristotle says that.

And pretty much any scholar of rhetoric since then.

But continue to think you're objective in your interpretation, and that your view of the ethos of the speaker does not color your interpretation of their language. Obviously it would FEEL objective to you. Even if it's not.

[libtodeath]

21. I guess when trump says racist things all he has to do is say that is your opinion.

[Nonhlanhla]

22. Nope, because we already know what his racial ethics are.

In the case of Hillary, we know that she met and was inspired by MLK when she was young, and became a Democrat because of civil rights concerns. We know that even as a student she worked with Wellesley's few black students to appoint black professors. We know that she wrote a thesis on Saul Alinsky. We know that she has worked over the years to advance civil rights. Yes, we know her track record is flawed, and that sometimes she was too timid in her reforms and that sometimes she made mistakes. But we do know that when it comes to race, she is the opposite of a Republican. Given that track record of having a positive ethos when it comes to race, I tend to interpret her use of the term "superpredators" as not a sign of racial animus but simply as a sign of someone participating in the conversation on gang violence at the time and using a common term that was used at the time, most likely without realizing that there might be racial undertones in it.

This is a far cry from someone like Donald Trump. If he were to use dog whistling terminology (not that he would even bother - he would just use racist terms outright) we would know, based on his racial ethos, that he indeed means it.

[libtodeath]

23. Only your biases they would say.

[Nonhlanhla]

24. I'm sorry that you don't understand my point.

Good night.

[riversedge]

20. Well said and thank you.

[Barack_America]

19. Like everything Republican...

...it is different when a Clinton does it.