DeSantis Uses Racist Dog Whistle...

[JonathanL]

I disagree. The phrase caries that as a potential meaning - that is simply reality. That is why DeSantis should make clear that potential meaning, though it exists, is NOT what he was trying to say. And it is simply common decency to apologize since it could have carried that meaning. Not that anyone in these pages arguing with me seems to care about common decency.

Well, the whole "The phrase carries that [i.e racism] as a potential meaning" was kind of my whole point. It could potentially be used in a racist manner, but no one should be compelled to apologize because what you said could possibly be interpreted in a racist way. I don't think "common decency" has anything at all to do with the issue. What "common decency" is can vary quite significantly from person to person.

And DeSantis office has already clarified that he wasn't using the phrase to refer to Gillum's skin color:

Source: DeSantis says Floridians can't 'monkey this up' by electing African-American Democrat as governor

"Ron DeSantis was obviously talking about Florida not making the wrong decision to embrace the socialist policies that Andrew Gillum espouses. To characterize it as anything else is absurd." Stephen Lawson, the communications director for the Ron DeSantis campaign, said in a statement. "Florida’s economy has been on the move for the last eight years and the last thing we need is a far-left Democrat trying to stop our success."

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/desa...ry?id=57476957

© Copyright Original Source

We agree more or less. The difference is: a non-racist, a person that wants to help heal the racial divide, to build bridges across that racial divide, would care that the phrase could carry that meaning and would want to apologize for the fact it might have carried that meaning and been interpreted that way.

But that is not what we are seeing here - and that significantly enhances the likelihood there is racism involved here one way or the other.


Jim

Why should "apologizing for using a phrase that could potentially carry racist meanings" be a conditional for non-racism? That assertion seems ludicrous to me on the face of it. Shouldn't it be the people who accused him of using a racist slur that should be apologizing for ascribing malicious intent to his statement without having enough warrant for it? It seems to me they are far more responsible for increasing the racial divide than DeSantis.

The "healing the racial divide" would be considerably accelerated if people would simply realize that policing your opponents language for perceived/potential slurs (I'm not speaking of instances where the meaning of what is said is unmistakably racist) against you, or people who you feel vicariously offended for (which is another issue altogether) is almost guaranteed to accomplish the opposite effect. If someone wants to work towards bridging the gap between the racial divide they should be counteracting instances of confirmed racism, and not waste their time fighting against perceived racism, at least not until it has actually been confirmed that it is indeed a case of actual racism.

[rogue06]

Why should "apologizing for using a phrase that could potentially carry racist meanings" be a conditional for non-racism? That assertion seems ludicrous to me on the face of it. Shouldn't it be the people who accused him of using a racist slur that should be apologizing for ascribing malicious intent to his statement without having enough warrant for it? It seems to me they are far more responsible for increasing the racial divide than DeSantis.

It is becoming increasingly evident that for many the simple fact that he was endorsed by Trump is more than sufficient to accuse him of racism

[Mountain Man]

Why should "apologizing for using a phrase that could potentially carry racist meanings" be a conditional for non-racism?

It shouldn't be. It's a liberal bait-and-switch, because they'll just use the apology as proof of guilt.

[Sparko]

It shouldn't be. It's a liberal bait-and-switch, because they'll just use the apology as proof of guilt.

Maybe the liberals should apologize for accusing him of racism when he wasn't being racist? Why aren't they apologizing?

[JonathanL]

Maybe the liberals should apologize for accusing him of racism when he wasn't being racist? Why aren't they apologizing?

I already asked that question in the very same paragraph that MM quoted:

Why should "apologizing for using a phrase that could potentially carry racist meanings" be a conditional for non-racism? That assertion seems ludicrous to me on the face of it. Shouldn't it be the people who accused him of using a racist slur that should be apologizing for ascribing malicious intent to his statement without having enough warrant for it? It seems to me they are far more responsible for increasing the racial divide than DeSantis.

[carpedm9587]

But DO feel free to flog away!

Indeed...

[carpedm9587]

There's a WHOLE lot of truth in that! I really really gets old.

On that, we have agreed.

OR, he's just refusing to knuckle under the pressure to make a false confession!

Noting that we have inadvertently used a sensitive word is not a "false confession." Many of us have jokingly (or seriously) said something that offended someone. I once told the joke, "I want to go to my end like my grandfather, peacefully and in my sleep. No screaming, like the passengers in his car." Turns out one of the people in my class had lost a grandfather in a car accident. I didn't do anything wrong - but I hurt someone inadvertently. Acknowledging that I didn't think before I spoke is just common decency.

I don't buy that. The left is never gracious about such apologies. All it would do is prove he was a racist all along, and was denying it.

"Honor is a gift a man gives himself." Although the quote is a bit sexist, the point is it's not about what others will and will not do. DeSantis has told us a bit about himself by NOT apologizing.

And a coerced apology is no apology at all.

No one can be coerced into an apology. You either give one because you are truly sorrowful about something you have said or done, or you don't. The "you want it so I'm not going to give it" argument is just a canard.

[Cow Poke]

Noting that we have inadvertently used a sensitive word is not a "false confession." Many of us have jokingly (or seriously) said something that offended someone. I once told the joke, "I want to go to my end like my grandfather, peacefully and in my sleep. No screaming, like the passengers in his car." Turns out one of the people in my class had lost a grandfather in a car accident. I didn't do anything wrong - but I hurt someone inadvertently. Acknowledging that I didn't think before I spoke is just common decency.

You're using a story in which you apparently undoubtedly offended somebody - not one in which it could easily have been taken a totally different way.

"Honor is a gift a man gives himself." Although the quote is a bit sexist, the point is it's not about what others will and will not do. DeSantis has told us a bit about himself by NOT apologizing.

He has, apparently, "told a bit about himself" to those who choose to take his comment in a racist manner.

No one can be coerced into an apology.

I thought you were married?!?!?!?

You either give one because you are truly sorrowful about something you have said or done, or you don't. The "you want it so I'm not going to give it" argument is just a canard.

That's just goofy - there are a lot of people - particularly married ones - who get badgered into making an apology just to get some peace and quiet.

The pinko commie leftist liberals who are badgering DeSantis wouldn't be placated with anything short of him admitting he was a racist.

[Mountain Man]

Noting that we have inadvertently used a sensiti ve word is not a "false confession." Many of us have jokingly (or seriously) said something that offended someone. I once told the joke, "I want to go to my end like my grandfather, peacefully and in my sleep. No screaming, like the passengers in his car." Turns out one of the people in my class had lost a grandfather in a car accident. I didn't do anything wrong - but I hurt someone inadvertently. Acknowledging that I didn't think before I spoke is just common decency.

Ok, but suppose someone asks. "What did you do this weekend?" and you reply, "We went to the zoo to watch the monkeys," and the person's eyes grow wide, and they say, "That's a very offensive way to refer to black people!" Would you feel compelled to apologize for your "accidental racism"?

[Roy]

The exact quote is: "The last thing we need to do is to monkey this up by trying to embrace a socialist agenda with huge tax increases and bankrupting the state."

Insufficient context (or, more likely, insufficient sense) - what does "this" refer to? The election? The voters' choice of candidate? The post being contested? The economy of Florida? It's government? Florida itself?

[oxmixmudd]

Ok, but suppose someone asks. "What did you do this weekend?" and you reply, "We went to the zoo to watch the monkeys," and the person's eyes grow wide, and they say, "That's a very offensive way to refer to black people!" Would you feel compelled to apologize for your "accidental racism"?

No, because there is a reasonable expectation there will be actual monkeys at a zoo. In this case there is nothing about the statement that would drive it to even potentially be interpreted that way, and if someone did, it would in fact be an actual instance of what you are calling 'race baiting'.


Jim

[oxmixmudd]

Well, the whole "The phrase carries that [i.e racism] as a potential meaning" was kind of my whole point. It could potentially be used in a racist manner, but no one should be compelled to apologize because what you said could possibly be interpreted in a racist way. I don't think "common decency" has anything at all to do with the issue. What "common decency" is can vary quite significantly from person to person.

And DeSantis office has already clarified that he wasn't using the phrase to refer to Gillum's skin color:

Source: DeSantis says Floridians can't 'monkey this up' by electing African-American Democrat as governor

"Ron DeSantis was obviously talking about Florida not making the wrong decision to embrace the socialist policies that Andrew Gillum espouses. To characterize it as anything else is absurd." Stephen Lawson, the communications director for the Ron DeSantis campaign, said in a statement. "Florida’s economy has been on the move for the last eight years and the last thing we need is a far-left Democrat trying to stop our success."

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/desa...ry?id=57476957

© Copyright Original Source

But that is what he would say regardless. Look, it is not a subtle double entendre that exists in this statement. First, it is not at all uncommon for a word in a phrase to be substituted as part of a joke or as a clever means of communicating something different in a speech. Second, this is not a natural turn of this phrase and so it draws attention to the change. That's why it's a problem. It's an awkward replacement. The normal phrase is 'mess' this up. "muck" this up would be a much more common substitution. "Monkey" this up is just a very ODD way to put it, and that is why it stands out and why people have reacted to it as they have. And the afore mentioned somewhat common thing - 'a turn of the phrase' - has us prepared to look for an alternate meaning when that happens. The reaction goes like this: "Why would he substitute 'Monkey" in the phrase, that is a really odd way to put that. Oh yeah - "Monkey" is a racist term for black people? Really? That's pretty bad!"

Why should "apologizing for using a phrase that could potentially carry racist meanings" be a conditional for non-racism? That assertion seems ludicrous to me on the face of it. Shouldn't it be the people who accused him of using a racist slur that should be apologizing for ascribing malicious intent to his statement without having enough warrant for it? It seems to me they are far more responsible for increasing the racial divide than DeSantis.

The "healing the racial divide" would be considerably accelerated if people would simply realize that policing your opponents language for perceived/potential slurs (I'm not speaking of instances where the meaning of what is said is unmistakably racist) against you, or people who you feel vicariously offended for (which is another issue altogether) is almost guaranteed to accomplish the opposite effect. If someone wants to work towards bridging the gap between the racial divide they should be counteracting instances of confirmed racism, and not waste their time fighting against perceived racism, at least not until it has actually been confirmed that it is indeed a case of actual racism.

Again, it's a very awkward turn of the phrase, and when that happens, when someone 'messes up' a common phrase, it causes the hearer to ask "why did he change the phrase", and the fact Gillum is black leads the hearer directly to the racist implication, because the word replaced has a long history as a racial slur.

Now it could well be a mistake. But because it is an unnatural 'turn of the phrase', it invokes the search for alternate meaning, and the racial slur naturally is implied. But because this is not some obscure reaction, it is quote natural in our culture to react to the alternate phrase by looking for an alternate meaning, it's like accidentally tripping someone, and an apology is in order.

Jim

[Mountain Man]

No, because there is a reasonable expectation there will be actual monkeys at a zoo. In this case there is nothing about the statement that would drive it to even potentially be interpreted that way, and if someone did, it would in fact be an actual instance of what you are calling 'race baiting'.

It never ceases to amaze me when someone gets it without actually getting it.

By the way, you do know that carpe's adopted children are black, right? So if he said, "We went to the zoo to watch the monkeys," do you think it would be reasonable to interpret that as possibly referring to his own children?

[oxmixmudd]

I just explained the difference in more direct terms to Chrawnus in the post above yours.

And no - I already said there is no reason to interpret that phrase as racist. It isn't a turn of a common phrase. The fact it could also refer to his own children would not change that because even if he did mean his own kids, it wouldn't be racist - they are his children and 'monkeys' can also be simply a term of endearment for ones children or the children in ones charge.


Jim

[Mountain Man]

And no - I already said there is no reason to interpret that phrase as racist. It isn't a turn of a common phrase. The fact it could also refer to his own children would not change that because even if he did mean his own kids, it wouldn't be racist - they are his children and 'monkeys' can also be simply a term of endearment for ones children or the children in ones charge.

The double-standard is strong with this one.

Thanks for playing.