Obama under Secret Service protection.

From everything I have seen and heard about him, I considered him bi-racial or mixed race.

He sure comes across as that way.


I like him. Don't know about his politics yet, and his inexperience.


What race is attacking him???

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(priusmaybe @ May 3 2007, 08:30 PM) [snapback]435260[/snapback]</div>

That's what I was going to ask. Not only what race is attacking him... but what race is he? Hell, I don't even know what race I am any more. Whatever race it is, I seem to not be competing very well.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ May 3 2007, 11:44 PM) [snapback]435264[/snapback]</div>

Please provide references to support this claim.

It's not POV - it's grammar. It was a poorly worded sentence that people did not "misread". Rather, due to its poor construction, your intent was unclear, and it was therefore misinterpreted. It's a poor carpenter who blaims his tools.

You worded it badly and got called on it. Get over it. Life's too short.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ May 3 2007, 08:44 PM) [snapback]435264[/snapback]</div>

OK Wildkow, you are technically correct. But your context does nothing to make the distinction, and so in normal reading, and as the word is used in common vernacular, it comes across as singular.

Saying "Those who are racist hate you" would make the plural context obvious. Since "Those who are racist ..." is a bit formal phrasing for a chatboard, "The racists hate you" preserves exactly the same brevity and tone you intended while also clearly indicating that the plural is meant.

I really resent writers who throw the burden of coherence onto the reader, telling them to "lighten up." If you're not willing to make some effort at clarity of expression, you cannot reasonably expect readers or listeners to take you seriously. It doesn't matter how casual the forum: you want to be understood, put a little effort into making what you say easily understood.

Mark Baird
Alameda CA

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ May 3 2007, 02:07 PM) [snapback]435035[/snapback]</div>

Lots of misunderstanding on what you meant, and I think its the phrase "What took the racist so long ..." that is grammatically very close to the saying "What took you so long?" which is an admonition that you should have done what you did earlier. So it looks like you were encouraging the racist to act quicker. I got what you meant though ... in 1950, would it taken a viable black candidate this long to start getting racist threats? Probably not.

Actually, I'm surprised there isn't protection for all the candidates, but I guess that starts once they are the actual nominees. I remember that Geraldine Ferraro had extra protection early because of threats from nuts (you have to take them seriously), but that was after she was named as the VEEP candidate.

 

I actually think that if Obama gets elected, he will be a prime candidate for assassination. There are a lot of racists in this country. Still.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ May 4 2007, 10:28 AM) [snapback]435346[/snapback]</div>

You mean "I couldn't really care less".

I do wish Americans wouldn't reverse the sense of that - it just looks stupid.

And if you're going to try to get technical to justify your bad writing style, at least try to understand the grammar you're claiming to use. That sentence is only correct if you were using "racist" as an absolute adjective, not a singular noun. And the resulting phrasing is so clumsy and misleading, that I can't believe you were using it intentionally, unless your intent was to mislead. Which, given your past form, seems pretty likely.

 

I really don’t care about Wildkow’s writing ability. He is hardly facile with the English language, but it is the content, not the form, of his posts that I find offensive.

There is only one way the subject line of this thread can reasonably be read. Read it again: "Obama under Secret Service protection. What took the racist so long?" Note- the subject of the second sentence is "the racist." That can only be construed as singular- thus, referring to one individual racist. And since his initial post again begins with, "what took the racist so long", his intention to use the singular form is clear. There are only three possible conclusions that one can make concerning Wildkow’s intent:

1. By “the racistâ€, he is referring to Obama- there is no other singular person mentioned in his post. Thus, he accuses Obama of racism- if that is his intent, it is a ridiculous, unfounded accusation, and racist in itself.
2. Wildkow is totally inept with grammar, and was trying to ask, as some people here interpreted his post, what took racists so long to threaten Obama thus necessitating Secret Service protection. The word "racist" might in rare circumstances be used in the plural sense, as in, "the racist among you could never vote for a black president". That usage is so unusual that I highly doubt it pertains here. If that was in fact the way he meant to use "the racist", the sentence is so clumsily written that it almost certain to be misinterpreted.
3. Wildkow deliberately worded his post this way to be provocative, knowing that the liberal contingent on FHOP would read it as racist and respond with indignation- thus giving Wildkow an opportunity to portray himself as the victim of "vicious liberal attacks".

I’m not sure which one of these correctly defines Wildkow’s intent. I suppose it depends on how much cleverness and intelligence you ascribe to him. Perhaps some of his previous posts might provide some insight.

I would suggest that you reread this recent post, which you might remember as the story of the unfortunate patient at a VA hospital who had the wrong testicle removed. Wildkow decided to interject his opinion in a discussion about at what age it is appropriate for a man to father children (the patient was 47). He offers this charming description of my wife (who, by the way, has never had nor has ever contemplated having an abortion) undergoing an abortion, it all it’s graphic glory:

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Apr 6 2007, 03:47 AM) [snapback]418687[/snapback]</div>

If you read the thread, you can see Wildkow’s post as he chose to edit it. One might question whether Wildkow was talking about sucking my wife’s brains out, or the baby, due to the use of the pronoun “herâ€. Wildkow offers a cute explanation that he just wanted to be politically correct (as if Wildkow is ever concerned about being PC), and attributes any confusion to “limited reading skills†on the part of the reader. I would suggest that the problem is one of “limited writing skills†on the part of the writer. But no matter- whether Wildkow meant to suggest sucking out my wife’s brain or that of the baby, his post is vile and repugnant. He had no right to bring my wife into that discussion, and to then violently assault her with words.

I cannot ascertain whether or not Wildkow is racist from this thread solely, as there is more than one possible interpretation. But, unlike nearly every other regular poster on FHOP (with a few exceptions- we know who they are); I have no compelling reason to give Wildkow the benefit of the doubt and assume that he is not a racist.

 

Wildkow, take note of the fact that almost everyone here, myself included, misunderstood your intent. Language has rules, but it is hardly ever that simple, so regardless of technical correctness, it is by now a well established fact that your post is in need of some disambiguation.

Given your response, I am tempted to think that you wrote it that way intentionally to bait this type of conversation... You derailed your own thread with post # 1 though, so it doesn't make sense to me...

Anyway, regarding Obama, I like the guy, and I hope he does well, but my reaction to hearing about this stuff is that it's a political stunt on the part of his campaign. If he has protection before anyone else, and in a part of the presidential campaign that doesn't normally give SS protection to any candidate, then I think it makes him look more successful, authoritative, and forces people to assume that he's being taken very seriously. If it is a political move, it's shrewd, and maybe even a little underhanded! Whether you like the guy or not, we all know that ethnicity is a factor for his campaign, so maybe this is him just taking charge of it.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(KMO @ May 4 2007, 03:11 AM) [snapback]435349[/snapback]</div>

And I wish that you would not generalize about all Americans based upon the poor language skills of a few PriusChat posters.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(darelldd @ May 3 2007, 08:35 PM) [snapback]435263[/snapback]</div>

Race is an entirely artificial concept. Africans, Caucasians, Asians, Aboriginal Australians, and American Indians are typically regarded as distinct races because there are visible differences in appearance, mostly in skin color and facial features. There is far more variation within every "race" than there is between races, but the human tendency to look for differences and excuses to exploit outsiders, leads us to the bogus concept of "race." In the U.S., with our history of African slavery, it became the norm to classify any person with any African ancestry at all as African. there is no logic to this, except the slaveholder's "logic" that African blood was a contaminant, which polluted the individual. This justified holding in slavery anyone who had any African ancestry, though it was common to select lighter-skinned slaves when there were easier jobs to be assigned, such as servants in the house.

It is for these reasons that Barak Obama, who is half Caucasian and half African, is almost universally regarded as "Black," and this is also why White racists and neo-Nazis consider him a suitable target for their hatred.

The word "race" has no scientific validity, but it is a very real sociological phenomenon, used to describe certain differences in appearance, which can be used as markers for a person's ancestral origins.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ May 3 2007, 08:44 PM) [snapback]435264[/snapback]</div>

I disagree with you. In the specific context in which you used it, the word is singular and only singular.

However, because of my Jewish ancestry, I'd rather not be called a grammar Nazi. Can I just be a grammar curmudgeon instead? After all, as a pacifist I'm not going to shoot you in the head or haul you off to a concentration camp for bad grammar. The use of the word "Nazi" to describe a person who is critical of another's misuse of language is in very bad taste, IMO. It is doubly offensive, as it minimizes the evil of the real Nazi party, at the same time as it degrades the person who merely offers criticism concerning proper usage of language.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ May 4 2007, 04:09 PM) [snapback]435427[/snapback]</div>

But it is an exclusively American trait. "I could care less" appears to be standard American usage, as far as I can see, but it sounds bizarre to British ears. It always jars when I read a sentence like that.

Anyway, don't mind me, I was just trying to wind Wildkow up a bit more.

 

Here is a wind up. You guys call the Secret Service "SS" I would call that an unfortunate choice of acronym...

...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(KMO @ May 4 2007, 11:47 AM) [snapback]435439[/snapback]</div>

You probably have no idea how bizarre the expression "taking the piss" sounds to Americans. I work with several Brits, I've heard the phrase several times, and it still sounds wrong.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ May 3 2007, 03:07 PM) [snapback]435035[/snapback]</div>

PSST. Don't tell anyone but ALL the presidential candidates, as soon as they announce they are running, are instantly under the protection of the secret service. At least that is what I've heard.

 

Initially, the reports said that Obama was under Secret Service protection due to the size of the crowds he was drawing. However, on CNN today they mentioned that Obama had received threats and hate mail, some of a racist nature. I'm sure that the need for the Secret Service is legitimate.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ May 4 2007, 11:21 AM) [snapback]435429[/snapback]</div>

I am not Jewish, but I find the casual use of the word "Nazi" (perhaps Seinfeld started it with the "Soup Nazi"), as well as the frequent use of Hitler's name on forums such as this, offensive for the same reason.