That NBPP member that people are worrying about intimidating voters is literally standing there calmly holding the door for little old white ladies while they go in to vote. Doesn't look like a whole lot of intimidation going on there.
That NBPP member that people are worrying about intimidating voters is literally standing there calmly holding the door for little old white ladies while they go in to vote. Doesn't look like a whole lot of intimidation going on there.
But his posture! Look at his intimidating posture! And his lack of tie! And he doesn't even have *gasp* brass buttons (which, as everyone knows, is the mark of a friendly black person).
That NBPP member that people are worrying about intimidating voters is literally standing there calmly holding the door for little old white ladies while they go in to vote. Doesn't look like a whole lot of intimidation going on there.
But his posture! Look at his intimidating posture! And his lack of tie! And he doesn't even have *gasp* brass buttons (which, as everyone knows, is the mark of a friendly black person).
There are a bunch of rough-looking, unshaven white guys standing with Scott Brown - He's For Us! signs right outside my local voting station. Honestly, I was a little intimidated.
That NBPP member that people are worrying about intimidating voters is literally standing there calmly holding the door for little old white ladies while they go in to vote. Doesn't look like a whole lot of intimidation going on there.
But his posture! Look at his intimidating posture! And his lack of tie! And he doesn't even have *gasp* brass buttons (which, as everyone knows, is the mark of a friendly black person).
I suppose that a swastika is not intimidating, either? It's just a silly little symbol, after all.
I suppose that a swastika is not intimidating, either? It's just a silly little symbol, after all.
Good posture is not a symbol. Not having a tie is not a symbol. A beret is not a symbol. A jacket is not a symbol. These things taken together are still not a symbol.
I suppose that a swastika is not intimidating, either? It's just a silly little symbol, after all.
Good posture is not a symbol. Not having a tie is not a symbol. A beret is not a symbol. A jacket is not a symbol. These things taken together are still not a symbol.
Well, the guy is black so it is certainly symbolic for certain people.
Personally, I might be weirded out by someone like that standing by the door to the polling station but I would probably not be intimidated by his presence alone. There really is nothing the guy could do to me in such a public place and I do not believe that he would follow me and then beat me up afterwards. Unless there is already a lot of racial tension and violence in that neighborhood, I just do not see the intimidation factor.
Basically, if you're bringing up Hitler and trying to relate it to the current argument, you may as well admit you have nothing to stand on.
Le'Sigh.
I have no idea what it is that you think you are accomplishing here, but if this is the angle you want to take then you are about 3 pages too late.
Quote from Tiax »
Good posture is not a symbol. Not having a tie is not a symbol. A beret is not a symbol. A jacket is not a symbol. These things taken together are still not a symbol.
A uniform is not a symbol?
How in the... it's like you're pulling a 180 on the arguments you have advanced throughout this entire thread.
Here:
Quote from Tiax »
I'd be fine with a KKK member who wasn't wearing KKK insignia standing in front of a polling place.
You admit that the KKK uniform is a symbol here, do you not?
You admit that the KKK uniform is a symbol here, do you not?
The non-hooded variety without insignias? Not so much of a symbol.
The hooded variety, absolutely - with being dyed white having one meaning and dyed black having the meaning of an executioner.
It's a historical symbol of office since the dark ages because it's a hat unique to only TWO uses and two completely different dyes for each.
When every article of clothing has no individual identity to something, it's not a symbol - you pick up an item with a logo on it, you know it's X/Y/Z group - you pick up a white hood you know it's KKK - if you pick up some black fatigues or a black beret you have no absolute idea what it goes to.
How in the... it's like you're pulling a 180 on the arguments you have advanced throughout this entire thread.
Here:
Quote from Tiax »
I'd be fine with a KKK member who wasn't wearing KKK insignia standing in front of a polling place.
You admit that the KKK uniform is a symbol here, do you not?
None of those things are symbols because they are worn (even worn together) by many people who have absolutely nothing to do with the NBPP. By contrast, the KKK uniform is worn exclusively by the KKK, and is therefore symbolic.
This is exactly the argument I've been presenting the whole time. If you think this is somehow a reversal of my position, I have to wonder if you've been reading my posts.
You admit that the KKK uniform is a symbol here, do you not?
The non-hooded variety without insignias? Not so much of a symbol.
The hooded variety, absolutely - with being dyed white having one meaning and dyed black having the meaning of an executioner.
It's a historical symbol of office since the dark ages because it's a hat unique to only TWO uses and two completely different dyes for each.
When every article of clothing has no individual identity to something, it's not a symbol - you pick up an item with a logo on it, you know it's X/Y/Z group - you pick up a white hood you know it's KKK - if you pick up some black fatigues or a black beret you have no absolute idea what it goes to.
With all due respect, I disagree. And do you know who else disagrees? The New Black Panther Party, apparently.
The individual pieces of a uniform need not have meaning themselves, but when combined become a symbol.
Take a collared shirt and tie - anyone can wear that.
Take a pair of dress slacks - common fare.
Pair of boots - OK.
Add a beige trenchcoat. Perhaps less common, but still something anyone can wear.
Now put on a fedora. Here's another thing that anyone could wear.
What stereotypical profession do you think this man belongs to?
With all due respect, I disagree. And do you know who else disagrees? The New Black Panther Party, apparently.
The individual pieces of a uniform need not have meaning themselves, but when combined become a symbol.
Take a collared shirt and tie - anyone can wear that.
Take a pair of dress slacks - common fare.
Pair of boots - OK.
Add a beige trenchcoat. Perhaps less common, but still something anyone can wear.
Now put on a fedora. Here's another thing that anyone could wear.
What stereotypical profession do you think this man belongs to?
I'm not trying to be difficult or anything, but I honestly don't know what that's supposed to be.
With all due respect, I disagree. And do you know who else disagrees? The New Black Panther Party, apparently.
The individual pieces of a uniform need not have meaning themselves, but when combined become a symbol.
Take a collared shirt and tie - anyone can wear that.
Take a pair of dress slacks - common fare.
Pair of boots - OK.
Add a beige trenchcoat. Perhaps less common, but still something anyone can wear.
Now put on a fedora. Here's another thing that anyone could wear.
What stereotypical profession do you think this man belongs to?
I'm not trying to be difficult or anything, but I honestly don't know what that's supposed to be.
I'm sure I could come up with a better example, but the point is, you kinda know it when you see it, right?
You might not be able to identify with 100% certainty whether someone is or isn't X, but there's some darn good tells. Wearing certain items in certain combinations causes certain associations. It's the reason, for example, why we generally wear suits to job interviews. We want to be associated with the things that suits are associated with. Conversely, someone with a mohawk and facial piercings is going to run into some trouble landing a job where they must relate to the public, unless it's for a punk record label or something.
A note for those interested: The Washington Times is run by the Unification Church. They generally are the archetypal right-wing groupthink. Nobody takes them seriously aside from WorldNetDaily, Fox News (and even then...), and the like.
If you're going to pick a conservative-leaning paper, you could pick the Wall Street Journal.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Card advantage is not the same thing as card draw. Something for 2B cannot be strictly worse than something for BBB or 3BB. If you're taking out Swords to Plowshares for Plummet, you're a fool. Stop doing these things!
I haven't seen any of those movies, so I'm still not sure what we're talking about.
However, I'd contend there's a different between a trope and a symbol.
I'm with Tiax here - I haven't seen those specific movies, though I've been living in this culture for nearly 30 years, and I have NO IDEA what they're supposed to be symbolic of. If anything, I think you just seriously undermined your own argument.
However, maybe Tiax and I are in a minority of two on this one and every other person alive would recognize that as labeling them with a particular profession. That still does not make it a symbol.
Even the KKK garb is not a symbol just for having been worn by the KKK - even just for having been worn by the KKK while they performed their hideous acts. Same goes for the Nazi swastika. The swastika is a symbol of oppression because the Nazis made the swastika a prominently featured symbol of their beliefs. Other articles of clothing worn by the Nazis did not become symbols of oppression. The KKK's garb is a symbol of oppression because filmmakers and reporters made it a symbol of the KKK, not just because the KKK in fact wore it.
I don't think this point has much to do with anything, though. If someone wearing a swastika walked into a voting station, they would not be turned away. If a neo-Nazi hung out peaceably near a voter station, politely holding the door for Jews who showed up to vote, it would not automatically constitute voter intimidation. You'd have a hard case to make that they were intimidating voters by their mere presence. I certainly don't condone anyone wearing a swastika - ever - but in this country wearing the garb or even the symbols of an oppressive regime is not punishable. Interfering with the voting process is.
The KKK garb would be in a slightly different category than the other two because the garb is intentionally designed to conceal the identity of the wearer so that they can perform illegal actions without being identified; I'd think they could be asked to remove the hood at a bare minimum. That has nothing to do with the racist symbology of the KKK dress, though; a ski mask would be similarly problematic.
I haven't seen any of those movies, so I'm still not sure what we're talking about.
However, I'd contend there's a different between a trope and a symbol.
Ultimately, I think we're at a standstill.
We agree that the KKK uniform is instantly more recognizable.
As to the NBPP getup, I'm obviously more familiar with them than you are.
Hence the problem. It makes no difference whether you don't recognize it, it makes no difference that I do recognize it, what matters is whether the public at large recognizes it. Sadly, we have no way to tell how widespread such recognition is.
As far as the symbolism goes, let me put it this way - if the NBPP was 10 times larger than it is, and if they had led more successful hate campaigns, then I don't think we would be fussing about the symbolism. They do have a typical mode of dress and if they just happened to be more successful perhaps that is the moment when you would make the connection.
Quote from drawmeong »
I'm with Tiax here - I haven't seen those specific movies, though I've been living in this culture for nearly 30 years, and I have NO IDEA what they're supposed to be symbolic of.
Seven? Dick Tracy? Humphrey Bogart? 1 of the 3, I get. 2 of the 3, maybe. None of the three? For real?
just pick any classic detective movie of your choice, and even some more modern (Seven is more modern.) Wasn't there a Star Trek TNG episode where Picard goes to SF and becomes a detective? That too.
Hm... anyway, sorry that wasn't a good example.
I don't think this point has much to do with anything, though. If someone wearing a swastika walked into a voting station, they would not be turned away. If a neo-Nazi hung out peaceably near a voter station, politely holding the door for Jews who showed up to vote, it would not automatically constitute voter intimidation. You'd have a hard case to make that they were intimidating voters by their mere presence. I certainly don't condone anyone wearing a swastika - ever - but in this country wearing the garb or even the symbols of an oppressive regime is not punishable. Interfering with the voting process is.
The KKK garb would be in a slightly different category than the other two because the garb is intentionally designed to conceal the identity of the wearer so that they can perform illegal actions without being identified; I'd think they could be asked to remove the hood at a bare minimum. That has nothing to do with the racist symbology of the KKK dress, though; a ski mask would be similarly problematic.
Wow, we definitely disagree there.
How could a Jew not be a little nervous if a Neo-Nazi is "guarding" the polling place? Or the same for a black man and a KKK member? I'm not Jewish or black, but I think I'd still feel intimidated by that kind of presence.
That black panther was so scary, he was seen opening the door for old white ladies. :spooky ghost sounds:
Hey! HEY DON'T DO THAT! Now I have to sleep with the lights on! ;-;
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"The above post is the opinion of the poster and is not indicative of any stance taken by the President of the United States, Congress, the Department of Defense, the Pentagon, the Department of the Navy, or the United States Marine Corps."
Seven? Dick Tracy? Humphrey Bogart? 1 of the 3, I get. 2 of the 3, maybe. None of the three? For real?
just pick any classic detective movie of your choice, and even some more modern (Seven is more modern.) Wasn't there a Star Trek TNG episode where Picard goes to SF and becomes a detective? That too.
I'm 30, not 70.
Wow, we definitely disagree there.
How could a Jew not be a little nervous if a Neo-Nazi is "guarding" the polling place? Or the same for a black man and a KKK member? I'm not Jewish or black, but I think I'd still feel intimidated by that kind of presence.
I would be surprised if the Jew wasn't a little nervous. There are also still people who are afraid of black men - if he wasn't in NBPP garb, he would make some people "a little nervous". Being "a little nervous" is not and cannot be the requirement for whether you're permitted to stand near a voting center being polite to folks or not.
This is not to compare the two in terms of reasonableness IN ANY WAY. A Jewish person who is uncomfortable around someone wearing a Swastika is unequivocally in the right, in my opinion, and someone who is uncomfortable around black people (dressed normally - not making a judgment call on the NBPP or other organizations) is unequivocally in the wrong, as far as I'm concerned. But unless there's a specific ban on loitering at a voting station in that kind of dress (I wouldn't be surprised if there was such a ban on KKK robes), you haven't done anything wrong. Voter intimidation laws simply can't be interpreted as "If you feel intimidated, they did something wrong."
It's pretty hard for me to believe that you guys didn't immediately think of 'detective' when reading Ljoss's description. I mean like..seriously? Maybe you just don't know what a fedora is?
This whole argument seems ridiculous. I have a question for people in the 'no harm, no foul' camp. Why do you suppose that he chose to wore that particular outfit? Obviously there was a reason for it. Should this just fall under the blanket concept of 'freedom of speech'?
I did - but then again, I dress like that most of the time when I'm going out - and I've never done that career. I just appreciate a good beige trench and a fedora mostly.
http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/11/hathos-alert.html
That NBPP member that people are worrying about intimidating voters is literally standing there calmly holding the door for little old white ladies while they go in to vote. Doesn't look like a whole lot of intimidation going on there.
But his posture! Look at his intimidating posture! And his lack of tie! And he doesn't even have *gasp* brass buttons (which, as everyone knows, is the mark of a friendly black person).
There are a bunch of rough-looking, unshaven white guys standing with Scott Brown - He's For Us! signs right outside my local voting station. Honestly, I was a little intimidated.
I suppose that a swastika is not intimidating, either? It's just a silly little symbol, after all.
D'oh! Right in the Godwin's.
Pristaxcontrombmodruu!
We're talking about potentially racist symbolism, it was bound to come up.
Fix'd that for you.
See also: Association Fallacy
Basically, if you're bringing up Hitler and trying to relate it to the current argument, you may as well admit you have nothing to stand on.
Pristaxcontrombmodruu!
Good posture is not a symbol. Not having a tie is not a symbol. A beret is not a symbol. A jacket is not a symbol. These things taken together are still not a symbol.
Well, the guy is black so it is certainly symbolic for certain people.
Personally, I might be weirded out by someone like that standing by the door to the polling station but I would probably not be intimidated by his presence alone. There really is nothing the guy could do to me in such a public place and I do not believe that he would follow me and then beat me up afterwards. Unless there is already a lot of racial tension and violence in that neighborhood, I just do not see the intimidation factor.
Le'Sigh.
I have no idea what it is that you think you are accomplishing here, but if this is the angle you want to take then you are about 3 pages too late.
A uniform is not a symbol?
How in the... it's like you're pulling a 180 on the arguments you have advanced throughout this entire thread.
Here:
You admit that the KKK uniform is a symbol here, do you not?
The non-hooded variety without insignias? Not so much of a symbol.
The hooded variety, absolutely - with being dyed white having one meaning and dyed black having the meaning of an executioner.
It's a historical symbol of office since the dark ages because it's a hat unique to only TWO uses and two completely different dyes for each.
When every article of clothing has no individual identity to something, it's not a symbol - you pick up an item with a logo on it, you know it's X/Y/Z group - you pick up a white hood you know it's KKK - if you pick up some black fatigues or a black beret you have no absolute idea what it goes to.
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.
None of those things are symbols because they are worn (even worn together) by many people who have absolutely nothing to do with the NBPP. By contrast, the KKK uniform is worn exclusively by the KKK, and is therefore symbolic.
This is exactly the argument I've been presenting the whole time. If you think this is somehow a reversal of my position, I have to wonder if you've been reading my posts.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=JSvDcwxK7M8
- Looks like it was edited, so who knows if its true or not.
I think I read that this was eventually confirmed by poll workers, and the machine in question was removed from service.
EDIT:
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/11/romney-loving-voting-machine-recalibrated-and-back-online
(I know that's a liberal blog, but I think the question of whether the machine was recalibrated is mundane enough that it can be trusted).
With all due respect, I disagree. And do you know who else disagrees? The New Black Panther Party, apparently.
The individual pieces of a uniform need not have meaning themselves, but when combined become a symbol.
Take a collared shirt and tie - anyone can wear that.
Take a pair of dress slacks - common fare.
Pair of boots - OK.
Add a beige trenchcoat. Perhaps less common, but still something anyone can wear.
Now put on a fedora. Here's another thing that anyone could wear.
What stereotypical profession do you think this man belongs to?
I'm not trying to be difficult or anything, but I honestly don't know what that's supposed to be.
LOL. Ok, add a flashlight.
http://www.onlygoodmovies.com/images/content/freeman-seven.jpg
http://media.screened.com/uploads/0/1144/446543-dicktracy_box_art.jpg
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-gMcd2Ak3NN4/Tn0L0hDKtKI/AAAAAAAAGZw/oETdprMgjA4/s1600/costume+humphrey_bogart_smoking.jpg
I'm sure I could come up with a better example, but the point is, you kinda know it when you see it, right?
You might not be able to identify with 100% certainty whether someone is or isn't X, but there's some darn good tells. Wearing certain items in certain combinations causes certain associations. It's the reason, for example, why we generally wear suits to job interviews. We want to be associated with the things that suits are associated with. Conversely, someone with a mohawk and facial piercings is going to run into some trouble landing a job where they must relate to the public, unless it's for a punk record label or something.
However, I'd contend there's a different between a trope and a symbol.
If you're going to pick a conservative-leaning paper, you could pick the Wall Street Journal.
On phasing:
I'm with Tiax here - I haven't seen those specific movies, though I've been living in this culture for nearly 30 years, and I have NO IDEA what they're supposed to be symbolic of. If anything, I think you just seriously undermined your own argument.
However, maybe Tiax and I are in a minority of two on this one and every other person alive would recognize that as labeling them with a particular profession. That still does not make it a symbol.
Even the KKK garb is not a symbol just for having been worn by the KKK - even just for having been worn by the KKK while they performed their hideous acts. Same goes for the Nazi swastika. The swastika is a symbol of oppression because the Nazis made the swastika a prominently featured symbol of their beliefs. Other articles of clothing worn by the Nazis did not become symbols of oppression. The KKK's garb is a symbol of oppression because filmmakers and reporters made it a symbol of the KKK, not just because the KKK in fact wore it.
I don't think this point has much to do with anything, though. If someone wearing a swastika walked into a voting station, they would not be turned away. If a neo-Nazi hung out peaceably near a voter station, politely holding the door for Jews who showed up to vote, it would not automatically constitute voter intimidation. You'd have a hard case to make that they were intimidating voters by their mere presence. I certainly don't condone anyone wearing a swastika - ever - but in this country wearing the garb or even the symbols of an oppressive regime is not punishable. Interfering with the voting process is.
The KKK garb would be in a slightly different category than the other two because the garb is intentionally designed to conceal the identity of the wearer so that they can perform illegal actions without being identified; I'd think they could be asked to remove the hood at a bare minimum. That has nothing to do with the racist symbology of the KKK dress, though; a ski mask would be similarly problematic.
Ultimately, I think we're at a standstill.
We agree that the KKK uniform is instantly more recognizable.
As to the NBPP getup, I'm obviously more familiar with them than you are.
Hence the problem. It makes no difference whether you don't recognize it, it makes no difference that I do recognize it, what matters is whether the public at large recognizes it. Sadly, we have no way to tell how widespread such recognition is.
As far as the symbolism goes, let me put it this way - if the NBPP was 10 times larger than it is, and if they had led more successful hate campaigns, then I don't think we would be fussing about the symbolism. They do have a typical mode of dress and if they just happened to be more successful perhaps that is the moment when you would make the connection.
Seven? Dick Tracy? Humphrey Bogart? 1 of the 3, I get. 2 of the 3, maybe. None of the three? For real?
just pick any classic detective movie of your choice, and even some more modern (Seven is more modern.) Wasn't there a Star Trek TNG episode where Picard goes to SF and becomes a detective? That too.
Hm... anyway, sorry that wasn't a good example.
Wow, we definitely disagree there.
How could a Jew not be a little nervous if a Neo-Nazi is "guarding" the polling place? Or the same for a black man and a KKK member? I'm not Jewish or black, but I think I'd still feel intimidated by that kind of presence.
Hey! HEY DON'T DO THAT! Now I have to sleep with the lights on! ;-;
Captain, United States Marines
"Peace through superior firepower."
I'm 30, not 70.
I would be surprised if the Jew wasn't a little nervous. There are also still people who are afraid of black men - if he wasn't in NBPP garb, he would make some people "a little nervous". Being "a little nervous" is not and cannot be the requirement for whether you're permitted to stand near a voting center being polite to folks or not.
This is not to compare the two in terms of reasonableness IN ANY WAY. A Jewish person who is uncomfortable around someone wearing a Swastika is unequivocally in the right, in my opinion, and someone who is uncomfortable around black people (dressed normally - not making a judgment call on the NBPP or other organizations) is unequivocally in the wrong, as far as I'm concerned. But unless there's a specific ban on loitering at a voting station in that kind of dress (I wouldn't be surprised if there was such a ban on KKK robes), you haven't done anything wrong. Voter intimidation laws simply can't be interpreted as "If you feel intimidated, they did something wrong."
This whole argument seems ridiculous. I have a question for people in the 'no harm, no foul' camp. Why do you suppose that he chose to wore that particular outfit? Obviously there was a reason for it. Should this just fall under the blanket concept of 'freedom of speech'?
Re: People misusing the term Vanilla to describe a flying, unleash (sometimes trample) critter.