TeaParty mob spit on Congressmen, call them N#ggrs & F@ggots

Politics International Politics
21

zyzzx: Sure, I realise that, and I have no problem with that in a sense. The Tea Party movement should either distance itself from such loons and actively denounce them or it should be prepared to be tarred with the same brush.

However, my point was that people who want to stereotype those in the Tea Party movement have problems with other forms of stereotyping. For instance, if someone were to quote crime statistics and race, and then generalise that certain racial groups were criminal in general, there’d be a massive shit storm. I personally think Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity, etc. are wankers, but I don’t think engaging in their sort of partisan hackery is the correct response either, although in the modern political climate it probably is the politically expedient response. I don’t really know much about the particulars of the debate and I don’t really support either side, but from an outsider’s point of view, it often looks like both sides engage in school yard taunts whilst somehow trying to claim the moral high ground, which I think many on both sides of the argument have lost by engaging in such tactics, regardless of who started it.

22

The way I see it is that the willfully ignorant are always open season for criticism and ridicule.

23

I see your point, although one big caveat is that there is a big difference between lumping people together by ideology, which is something they choose, and lumping people together by something like race, gender, sexual orientation, (and to some extent class), which is something that you don’t get to choose. There certainly aren’t too many massive shit storms about stereotyping liberals.
I admit to being pretty biased, and I acknowledge that both sides have not behaved perfectly, but I do think that liberal side has done better at calling its members to account. As an example, on the progressive site Daily Kos, people will sometimes write things that cross the line, but they are almost always taken to task for it. An example from today:
dailykos.com/story/2010/3/21 … elong-here
There’s a fair bit of argument about it, but people are visibly trying to maintain civility.

24

I think the whole movement is funny. Even the name shows a willfull ignorance. They name themselves after a protest over a reduction in taxes that dented the profits of local smugglers.

Death by irony.

25

[quote=“zyzzx”]I see your point, although one big caveat is that there is a big difference between lumping people together by ideology, which is something they choose, and lumping people together by something like race, gender, sexual orientation, (and to some extent class), which is something that you don’t get to choose. There certainly aren’t too many massive shit storms about stereotyping liberals.
I admit to being pretty biased, and I acknowledge that both sides have not behaved perfectly, but I do think that liberal side has done better at calling its members to account. As an example, on the progressive site Daily Kos, people will sometimes write things that cross the line, but they are almost always taken to task for it. An example from today:
dailykos.com/story/2010/3/21 … elong-here
There’s a fair bit of argument about it, but people are visibly trying to maintain civility.[/quote]

Indeed, people do choose their ideology. So, do you think it would be acceptable to lump members of any other ideology together because of some of their members? Why or why not?

I’m in no way trying to defend right wing media pundits. In many ways, I lean far more to the right on most issues, and yet I actually can’t even begin to listen to most right wing media pundits because even when I agree with them, I find their tone really leaves a very bad taste in my mouth. Furthermore, it’s pretty base for anyone to spit on anyone else or call them racist or homophobic slurs.

26

The actions of the members in question speak to their personal ideology. This reflects on the movement as a whole. An ideological movement is the sum of its ideological parts. This is obviously a very different dynamic from racial stereotyping etc. As zzyzzx points out, you have to choose an ideology. It’s not the choice itself that is significant here but the fact that people choose ideological groups that conform with their own opinions.

Indeed the movement is trying to point out that such ideology is not representative of overall opinions so as to protect its reputation, and from genuine disgust I’m sure. foxnews.com/politics/2010/03 … lawmakers/ Actions speak louder than words though. It would be crazy to say “based on these actions we can say that all tea partiers are racist and homophobic,” but one might wonder exactly how widespread such views are.

27

Tempo Gain: Again though, what of other ideologies? Could we lump all supporters of a sporting club with their hooligans, for instance? How about unionists with their more radical members? What about animal rights activists or environmentalists with those on their fringe? How about members of a particular religion based upon their fundamentalists?

28

Let’s look at the thread title.
“TeaParty mob spit on Congressmen, call them N#ggrs & F@ggots”

It was a “mob” was it? Why use “mob” rather than “protesters”?
And the whole mob were spitting and calling the congressmen those names?
Or was it just a few individuals?
And do we have any audio or video footage to back up the claims?

Mother T kicks off this thread with “Impressive tactics, sure to rally support from their Republican base.”
The word “tactics” implies organization and planning and the whole sentence suggests that Republicans would support these alleged incidents.
Geez. If you guys want more civic discourse in the public debate, why not start with yourselves. On forumosa.

The Tea Party movement certainly has some nutjobs in its ranks but from what I’ve seen the majority look like regular folks. How many have been arrested at rallies for violent behavior? How many have attacked cops? Compared to the rabble that turn up for anti-globilization protests they are a model of good behavior.

29

Well, lumping members of some ideologies might be desirable :slight_smile:

I’m glad you mentioned the sporting club analogy, as it highlights the difference between “choice” and “ideology”. That people have in common a choice to root for a particular club says nothing important about their propensity to violence. That people have common ideological opinions is potentially significant.

Again, I wouldn’t blindly lump everyone together, or tar everyone blindly with the same brush. However every ideological group has to live and die by the actions of its members. It’s reasonable to feel that particular actions damage the reputation of a movement as a whole. When you are a willing member of a grouping with others, their actions reflect to some extent on you and the whole group.

30

[quote=“GuyInTaiwan”][quote=“zyzzx”]I see your point, although one big caveat is that there is a big difference between lumping people together by ideology, which is something they choose, and lumping people together by something like race, gender, sexual orientation, (and to some extent class), which is something that you don’t get to choose. There certainly aren’t too many massive shit storms about stereotyping liberals.
I admit to being pretty biased, and I acknowledge that both sides have not behaved perfectly, but I do think that liberal side has done better at calling its members to account. As an example, on the progressive site Daily Kos, people will sometimes write things that cross the line, but they are almost always taken to task for it. An example from today:
dailykos.com/story/2010/3/21 … elong-here
There’s a fair bit of argument about it, but people are visibly trying to maintain civility.[/quote]

Indeed, people do choose their ideology. So, do you think it would be acceptable to lump members of any other ideology together because of some of their members? Why or why not?

I’m in no way trying to defend right wing media pundits. In many ways, I lean far more to the right on most issues, and yet I actually can’t even begin to listen to most right wing media pundits because even when I agree with them, I find their tone really leaves a very bad taste in my mouth. Furthermore, it’s pretty base for anyone to spit on anyone else or call them racist or homophobic slurs.[/quote]
Well first, if one finds the ideology itself somewhat crazy, then I think they’re justified in lumping together those who believe it as somewhat lacking in critical reasoning skills. I feel comfortable saying that anyone who believes the crap that Glen Beck spews forth has some issues. The ideology can tell you something about the group. I think one could safely lump the Ku Klux Klan together in the racist camp (NOT trying to equate the KKK with right wingers, just an example of an ideology).
Now maybe not all of the Tea Partiers do believe Beck, but I don’t hear any disagreeing with him (or with Rush), which leads to the second point. I think it becomes hard not to lump a group together when there is no indication that they have different views. If every member of the group that you see (read about, etc) behaves in a certain way or condones certain behavior, it seems pretty reasonable to assume that those views define the group. Especially in this media-saturated age, where it’s not exactly difficult to make your views public.
So for your other examples: liking a football team does not require hooliganism, and presumably the non-hooligan fans are critical of the hooligans. Similarly with all your other groups. There are big disagreements between environmental/animal rights over tactics and ‘fringeness’. The religious mainstream and the fundamentalists don’t tend to get along too well either.

31

[quote=“almas john”]Let’s look at the thread title.
“TeaParty mob spit on Congressmen, call them N#ggrs & F@ggots”

It was a “mob” was it? Why use “mob” rather than “protesters”?[/quote]

If they behaved reasonably, they wouldn’t attract such terms. :idunno: Act like a mob, get called a mob.

32

[quote=“Dragonbones”][quote=“almas john”]Let’s look at the thread title.
“TeaParty mob spit on Congressmen, call them N#ggrs & F@ggots”

It was a “mob” was it? Why use “mob” rather than “protesters”?[/quote]

If they behaved reasonably, they wouldn’t attract such terms. :idunno: Act like a mob, get called a mob.[/quote]

So, you’ve seen footage of the “mob”? I thought not.

A mob implies an angry unruly crowd that could very easily turn violent, yet how many times have Tea Party protests turned violent? It’s interesting to note that the article that MT linked to in his first post did not use this word. The original headline:

33

And I would consider a crowd which is reported as being ‘angry’, with ugly, unforgiveable use of racial and homophobic epithets plus spitting, as being ‘an angry, unruly crowd’ and a ‘mob’. You are free to disagree. No point in belaboring it. :idunno:

34

Actually, I used the term “mob” largely because there wasn’t room for one single character more in the title due to technical limitations. But it does seem an appropriate term for a couple hundred hooligans standing on the sidewalk jeering and spitting on congressmen who walk by and calling them n#ggers and f@ggots. Hardly a proper tea party, is it?

35

Tempo Gain and zyzzx: I’m still really unclear on just how you can make these distinctions though. For instance, I’ve personally met people who would seem to be in fair agreement with many of the ideas of the Tea Party movement, yet I have no reason to believe that they would ever spit on people or call them racial slurs. Likewise, I know Muslims who are nice enough people. Yet in both cases, the so-called moderate mainstreams have allowed themselves to be hijacked by the fringe by their silence and unwillingness to make pariahs of the more extreme members of their communities.

I think there are two possible sets of beliefs here when talking about those in the Tea Party movement. One is smaller government, etc. and the other is racist and homophobic views. There can be overlap or no overlap. Likewise with any other voluntary membership of a group. Someone can believe their sporting club is worth supporting and someone can believe in engaging in anti-social ways. There may or may not be overlap. Likewise with any of the other broad categories I mentioned. As much as some people may like to try to argue otherwise, no one is born a member of a sporting club, a political organisation or a religion, and so they are willing participants in the the broader movements as a whole, just as are those at the fringe. So, in the words of Tempo Gain, “when you are a willing member of a grouping with others, their actions reflect to some extent on you and the whole group”.

In terms of the media, I’m not sure what I’d believe there, to be honest. The media likes to stir the pot more than anything because that’s how they make money, and so their representation of any group (whether I like or dislike said group) may or may not be accurate. It may not even have anything to do with their personal beliefs. On the one hand, I’m inclined to take Beck, Limbaugh, O’Reilly, etc. at face value, and yet on the other hand, I’m inclined to believe they’re incredibly good salesmen and actors who are capable of cashing in, but who probably don’t believe things half as strongly as they make out. Anyway, maybe those who disagree with certain media potrayals aren’t given much of a voice because it doesn’t suit anyone’s agenda (whether it’s the establishment, the media or those in the movement with whom they disagree) to give them a voice. However, assuming zyzzx is correct that “it’s not exactly difficult to make your views public”, we are left with the rather curious situation of polls in the Muslim world showing a not insignificant level of at least tacit support for terrorism and much less official condemnation by so-called moderate groups than one would expect if it is indeed possible to make their views public fairly easily. Okay, so there’s media bias. Could that bias not also apply to presenting the Tea Party movement in an unfavourable light? Which is it?

Again, when I see anti-globalisation protestors destroying the downtown areas of cities hosting any kind of major forum, I see the standard condemnations from within the movement that seem almost forced so they can get airtime and then segue into their own soundbyte. Yet I’m also aware that it suits the media’s interests to show the people causing trouble rather than those who aren’t.

Regardless, why can’t these organisations from sporting clubs to religions to activist groups on any and all ends of the spectrum simply revoke membership of the trouble makers if they’re such a public relations nightmare and so unrepresentative of the broader views of the particular movements? I think because in most cases, they need the trouble makers to draw public attention to their cause or agenda.

In other words, I’m really cynical about everyone.

36

And I would consider a crowd which is reported as being ‘angry’, with ugly, unforgiveable use of racial and homophobic epithets plus spitting, as being ‘an angry, unruly crowd’ and a ‘mob’. You are free to disagree. No point in belaboring it. :idunno:[/quote]
I see. Such a fine line between disagreeing and “belaboring.”
You chose to focus on that part of my post and I responded to your comments. You could have answered my questions if you were bored with all the mobbery.

37

Now THAT was a mob!

But I see how the two can be confused:

:laughing:

Let’s also not forget the antiwar mob:

All kind of stupid imo. :s

38

No, I merely mean that I’ve stated my opinion, you’ve stated yours, and I’m not particularly interested in a lengthy back and forth on this particular point. You’re welcome to continue, of course. :slight_smile:

39

Yes, if your description is accurate.
The only footage I can find is this video (taken I guess by one of the tea party chaps so I don’t know how reliable it is).
http://biggovernment.com/jpollak/2010/03/21/eyewitness-to-tea-party-protest-adding-insult-to-insult/

40

AJ, as you noted, the link you provided is a biased account by a teabagger. Here’s other views:

[quote]The day’s debate on the House floor was in its early moments when two men, one smelling strongly of alcohol, stood up in the public gallery and interrupted the debate with shouts of “Kill the bill!” and “The people said no!” As the Capitol Police led the demonstrators from the chamber, Republicans cheered – for the hecklers.

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), who for the second day in a row had homophobic epithets hurled at him by demonstrators, called his Republican colleagues “clowns” for this display. But the circus was just beginning.

As lawmakers debated their way to a vote on the legislation, dozens of GOP lawmakers walked from the chamber, crossed the Speaker’s Lobby, stepped out onto the members-only House balcony – and proceeded to incite an unruly crowd.

Thousands of conservative “tea party” activists had massed on the south side of the Capitol, pushing to within about 50 feet of the building. Some Democrats worried aloud about the risk of violence, and police tried to keep the crowd away from the building.

But rather than calm the demonstrators, Republican congressmen whipped the masses into a frenzy. There on the House balcony, the GOP lawmakers’ legislative dissent and the tea-party protest merged into one. Some lawmakers waved handwritten signs and led the crowd in chants of “Kill the bill.” A few waved the yellow “Don’t Tread on Me” flag of the tea-party movement. Still others fired up the demonstrators with campaign-style signs mocking House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.[/quote]
washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … id=topnews

[quote]As Tea Party rallies go, this one had the raucous quality of a revolutionary rock concert. It was packed with conservative superstars: Bachmann, actor Jon Voight, and Reps. Louie Gohmert, Marsha Blackburn, Tom Price and Joe Wilson.

“We will not go quietly into the darkness of night! And we will not give up without a fight!” said Texas Republican Ted Poe, channeling poet Dylan Thomas.

“You have grounded Air Force One,” King declared as one woman wearing a T-shirt screen-printed with a bald eagle screamed “Yeah!” Later, as Let Freedom Ring president Colin Hanna spoke, an eager protester jumped on stage holding an “Obama bin Lyin” sign. Hanna was not amused. “I need you to get down, ma’am.” And later, when organizers lead the crowd in “God Bless America,” well-tuned Tea Partiers rushed the mic. . .

After the rally ended, protesters swarmed the Rayburn building. Police briefly tried to hold the protestors across the street, but they broke across, flooding the entrance, sitting on the steps and waving Gadsden flags from the balcony. “I feel like Balboa!” one said, bounding up the stairs. Tea Partiers with bull horns led the crowd in chants of “You lie!” and “Kill the bill!” [/quote]

politico.com/news/stories/03 … z0itLm0rXD

:ponder:

Sounds mob-like to me.