A Question of Respect?

[One Bad Pig]

My experience is that all media outlets go after negative stories - because the readers and listeners tune in to them. That is probably for the same reason that people rubberneck at traffic accidents, and join into mobs. Now that news is a for-profit venture - we can expect them to report what will generate eyeballs for advertisers. If we want something different, we should consider a different way of funding news.

I appreciate your valiant attempt to imply that the press covers the March for Life about the same as it does everything else while trying to divert my attention elsewhere. Other marches here have gotten far more adulatory coverage.

[carpedm9587]

Then why did you ask about respect in your OP? Who was being disrespectful? You were suggesting the kids - weren't you? You even accused them of a "build the wall" chant, which never happened.

I suggest you go back and reread my posts. The OP was framed in the form of a question, and I was looking to see what the reaction to the story was from the right (most people here). I posted similar questions on other fora. I made no statement about the encounter - and indeed was quick to note that, if it turned out to be "acting out," we should be careful about jumping on parents or other leaders too quickly.

As for the "build the wall," there are claims from some it occurred, and claims from others it did not. There is no video I can find to substantiate the "build the wall" claim, which leaves it "he said/she said." So the best I can do with the "build the wall" claims is say "I don't know."

There is one place in the video where a voice can apparently be heard noting that Phillips was "trying to make peace," which was noted in one of the articles and can be found in the audio of one of the videos, but I did not bookmark the article/video and I cannot seem to find it again, so all I can say is "I saw it/heard it" and I find it lends credence to Phillip's report of events, which also aligns with the longer video AND the shorter one. So I am more inclined to accept Philip's account than Sandmann's, but I still cannot say I have enough information to make a definitive statement either way.

Sometimes - the best we have is "I don't know." I don't find those to be dirty words.

[Charles]

Those are only the two most recent examples, Charles. How bout dealing with them first?



Awwwww, your widdle feewins huwttin?

Stop being such a Nanny and maybe I'll be nice to you like I am to my buddy Carpe!

The question was if you had other examples. Much noise to avoid answering.

[One Bad Pig]

Right... when the facts directly contradict your narrative (after all, you were quick to jump on the kids for being "fairly clearly Trump supporters"), just throw your hands up in the air say, "I don't know!"

Carpe's really adept at doing that - and subsequently protesting innocence when called on it. I don't think he intends to be slipperier than a greased pig; it's just the way he's wired.

[seer]

I suggest you go back and reread my posts. The OP was framed in the form of a question, and I was looking to see what the reaction to the story was from the right (most people here). I posted similar questions on other fora. I made no statement about the encounter - and indeed was quick to note that, if it turned out to be "acting out," we should be careful about jumping on parents or other leaders too quickly.

As for the "build the wall," there are claims from some it occurred, and claims from others it did not. There is no video I can find to substantiate the "build the wall" claim, which leaves it "he said/she said." So the best I can do with the "build the wall" claims is say "I don't know."

There is one place in the video where a voice can apparently be heard noting that Phillips was "trying to make peace," which was noted in one of the articles and can be found in the audio of one of the videos, but I did not bookmark the article/video and I cannot seem to find it again, so all I can say is "I saw it/heard it" and I find it lends credence to Phillip's report of events, which also aligns with the longer video AND the shorter one. So I am more inclined to accept Philip's account than Sandmann's, but I still cannot say I have enough information to make a definitive statement either way.

Sometimes - the best we have is "I don't know." I don't find those to be dirty words.

You said:


Frankly, I don't recall saying anything about the MAGA hats at all.

So the hats in your OP weren't speaking of MAGA hats? What hats were you speaking of?

Then you said:

ETA: I just went through my posts - and I have to admit I'm not seeing any place where I said "boys bad" or even identified them as "Trump supporters." I AM seeing several places where you inferred things in my posts I did not put there and reacted to them. That may be part of the confusion.


Then who did you call Trump supporters in your OP?

[Mountain Man]

No such admission is necessary. The presence of #MAGA hats supports the observation that there were Trump supporters present. I don't believe, at any point, that I said that proved anything about the engagement, but you are welcome to point to where I said such a thing if you think I am misremembering. Frankly, I don't recall saying anything about the MAGA hats at all.

Meanwhile - until and if there is more video/audio evidence, my position will remain where I have just stated it to be. I think a lot of people are reading into the videos exactly what they want to see, even when the videos do not unequivocally support that position. I'd prefer to withhold judgment until/if there is something more conclusive. I'm not big on just being part of the mob.

ETA: I just went through my posts - and I have to admit I'm not seeing any place where I said "boys bad" or even identified them as "Trump supporters." I AM seeing several places where you inferred things in my posts I did not put there and reacted to them. That may be part of the confusion.

Oh, come off it, carpe. The article you cited in your OP placed the blame on the teens, and you apparently felt the fact that they were wearing MAGA hats was significant enough that you explicitly mentioned this fact in your opening post. And then in a later post, you made it clear that you took the Washington Post's fraudulent story at face value and implied that the students' actions were racially motivated ("Perhaps they saw people who were not white and jumped to the conclusion they were just another form of immigrant?"), and you were very quick to place the blame on Trump. And as the facts became increasingly clear, you went to almost heroic lengths to salvage the original false narrative. Now you're disingenuously retreating to the safety of "We just don't know!"

I asked this earlier, but perhaps you didn't see it: Did you post a link to this article (which we now know is false) because you agreed with it, or have you been cleverly playing devil's advocate this whole time?

[Cow Poke]

The question was if you had other examples.

I dealt with that.

Much noise to avoid answering.

I answered. The fact that you don't like my answer is your problem, Nanny.

[Cow Poke]

...There is no video I can find to substantiate the "build the wall" claim, which leaves it "he said/she said." ....

Sorry, but you're going to have to start using the phrase "they said/they said".

[Charles]

I dealt with that.



I answered. The fact that you don't like my answer is your problem, Nanny.

Your "answer" (which is not really much of an answer) was: "Those are only the two most recent examples, Charles." What are the other examples?

[Cow Poke]

Your "answer" (which is not really much of an answer) was: "Those are only the two most recent examples, Charles." What are the other examples?

PLEASE stop derailing this thread like you do others.

[Charles]

PLEASE stop derailing this thread like you do others.

Ok. So it seems you have not got other examples. Interesting. You could have said so right away and if you think it is a derail it is a bit late to come to that conclusion when asked to support your claim.

[Cow Poke]

Ok. So it seems you have not got other examples. Interesting. You could have said so right away and if you think it is a derail it is a bit late to come to that conclusion when asked to support your claim.

[carpedm9587]

You said:

Frankly, I don't recall saying anything about the MAGA hats at all.

So the hats in your OP weren't speaking of MAGA hats? What hats were you speaking of?

Then you said:

ETA: I just went through my posts - and I have to admit I'm not seeing any place where I said "boys bad" or even identified them as "Trump supporters." I AM seeing several places where you inferred things in my posts I did not put there and reacted to them. That may be part of the confusion.

Then who did you call Trump supporters in your OP?

No - they were. Specifically - I was speaking about the young man (we now know to be Sandmann) in the face-to-face confrontation with the Native American man (who we now know to be Phillips).

And yes - that is a place where I made reference to Trump supporters. My bad. I went back through all of my responses, but didn't go all the way back to the OP.

So which part of my OP was inaccurate?

[seer]

No - they were. Specifically - I was speaking about the young man (we now know to be Sandmann) in the face-to-face confrontation with the Native American man (who we now know to be Phillips).

And yes - that is a place where I made reference to Trump supporters. My bad. I went back through all of my responses, but didn't go all the way back to the OP.

So which part of my OP was inaccurate?

And you did reference the hats too? Correct? And confrontation? Why do you think that was a confrontation? In any case the Indian approached the kids, not the other way around. But again on your title - whose respect were you questioning?

[carpedm9587]

Oh, come off it, carpe. The article you cited in your OP placed the blame on the teens, and you apparently felt the fact that they were wearing MAGA hats was significant enough that you explicitly mentioned this fact in your opening post.

Yes, it was. It was one of the first articles out - so it was the one I linked to. And yes, I cited the hats and "build the wall" claim cited in the article as evidence that there were Trump supporters present (especially the young man in the confrontation).

And then in a later post, you made it clear that you took the Washington Post's fraudulent story at face value and implied that the students' actions were racially motivated ("Perhaps they saw people who were not white and jumped to the conclusion they were just another form of immigrant?"),

Yes- I responded to Kings question about the motivation for the chanting and speculated it might be not about Native Americans per se and more about immigration in general. Trump has been raising anti-immigrant sentiment in this country to a fever pitch for 4 years now, so it seems reasonable to wonder if that might be their motivation, rather than anti-native american posturing.

and you were very quick to place the blame on Trump.

No. This is an interpretation you added and was not in my posts or thoughts. I make a clear distinction between someone "being responsible for someone else's actions" (which I do not do) and "contributing to an atmosphere that encourages." Trump is guilty of the later (as are many others). Only the people directly involved in an action are responsible for their own actions.

And as the facts became increasingly clear, you went to almost heroic lengths to salvage the original false narrative.

"The video does not unequivocally support your interpretation" is not the same as "the video proves the boy was bad!" You (and others on the right) are doing a great deal of interpreting, IMO. I'm not going to join you in that interpretation because I don't think the evidence supports it. You are, again, adding to my posts things I did not put there.

Now you're disingenuously retreating to the safety of "We just don't know!"

I asked this earlier, but perhaps you didn't see it: Did you post a link to this article (which we now know is false) because you agreed with it, or have you been cleverly playing devil's advocate this whole time?

I posted the link to the article because it was the first one about the story I saw (my wife sent it to me) and I was curious to see what the reaction to it was from different points on the political spectrum. This is easily one of the more "to the right" sites that I visit, so I posted it here as well.