Halloween display seen as symbol of hate

[DarkPhenyx]

Mmmmmmmmmmmmmm, ooooooooooo-k.

http://www.sptimes.com/2004/10/20/Southpinellas/Halloween_display_see.shtml

It had the face of Frankenstein and the hands of a werewolf.

Outfitted in jeans and flannel shirt, the creature - stuffed with crumpled newspaper - hung by the neck on a homemade gallows outside a home in the Allendale neighborhood.

To its owner, "Bob" was a Halloween decoration. But to Omali Yeshitela, it was a racially charged symbol of hate...

..."There is no history of hanging ghouls in this country but there is a history of hanging African people," said Yeshitela, leader of the St. Petersburg-based group.

[Goldmund]

1. Oh, man...

If we all could just extricate the broom sticks out of our asses...

[ComerPerro]

2. This is the kind of shit Freepers get off on

"Oh, look, see, the left is too caught up in political correctness! They won't let people say or do what they want if it isn't PC. I am so sick of that!

Now, pass me some Freedom Fries!"



Oh well.

Now, for my 2 cents...

Is is a symbol of hate? No. But, I gotta admidt, its a little weird...

[DarkPhenyx]

5. Halloween

It's the holiday of the weird

[ComerPerro]

11. Really? I hadn't noticed

LOL. even though its Halloween, I think the idea of seeing a scene of a hanging is kind of strange.

Mostly, its because it is such a long way to go. Building the gallows, especially.

Plus, a hanging isn't as violent as other methods. Most displays I see involve severed heads and more graphic displays.

Anyway, you get my point...

[DarkPhenyx]

12. Yup...

...I get it. No worries. :)

[DrWeird]

3. I tend to agree.

It's a bit like having a bunch of ghouls in stripped uniforms with Star of David patches marching into a boxy building with smoke coming out the chimneys.

[DarkPhenyx]

4. Big surprise.

:eyes:

[DrWeird]

6. Let's say they burned a big cross...

you know, because of zombies...

[DarkPhenyx]

7. and I thought...

...the people who tore the display down were teh ones who over reacted.

[DrWeird]

8. Answer the question.

Let's say they were burning a cross and said it was just a halloween decoration.

[DarkPhenyx]

9. Ask a less absurd and extreme question...

...that isn't designed to get an extreme response.

[DrWeird]

10. No, answer the question first, and then I'll defend the analogy.

nt

[DarkPhenyx]

15. For starters your analogy is flawed.

Second you are intentionally choosing imagery which will invoke some very specific, and one could say intentional, reactions and negative emotional responses which you are going for. If "Bob" were designed to look like a black man you might have grounds for your analogy. As he was obviously not, and had been designed years before and used in previous displays....well, you get the point, no? Black men were never put in coffins?

Third, regardless of the intent of the display, and the emotional response of the people viewing it, there is absolutely no justification for an invasion of private property and the destruction there of.

[DrWeird]

16. It's a really simple question.

nt

[DarkPhenyx]

18. which isn't horribly relevant to the original post

however to answer your question, and to get you to shut up about it...No...even if those were the displays put forward, which bear absolutely no resemblance to the one actually in question, not even tangentially, the reaction of the mob would be unjustifiable and wholly illegal.

[DrWeird]

20. OK, so if somebody burns a cross black people have no reason to get upset.

Gotcha.

Sure, it'd be illegal to go in there and put it out and tear it down. But would it be morally unjustified?

The cop in this case didn't seem to think so.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DrWeird]

23. "extremist paranoid freak"

Are you unaware how the noose has become the modern day "burning cross?" i.e., how it's now used by racists to intimidate and frighten African Americans?

Or have you simply decided to ignore it?

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DrWeird]

27. I didn't ask if you were aware about the lynchings...

I asked if you were aware of how it has become the modern day "burning cross."

For example, racists leaving nooses on the desks of black coworkers as a form of intimidation.

[DarkPhenyx]

29. and I answered your question.

do you mind terribly reading my post? Thanks ever so much. Jesus fucking Christ.

I can't believe you are defending mob mentalities adn people breaking the law in the name of...hell, what are you defending this in teh name of?

[DrWeird]

30. Yeah, I read it. You compared a noose to the American flag.

You also mentioned something about people getting starved out of their homes. Unless racists are intimidating black people by leaving some sort of symbol of people getting starved out of their homes, you're really not making a whole lot of sense.

So let me be a little clearer.

Has the noose, or the symbol of the noose, placed in some prominent position, say on a black persons school desk, in your opinion become the moral equivalent of burning a cross?

[DarkPhenyx]

32. Which I already answered.

To some people it is also the moral equilivant to the American Flag, the Christian Church....

[DrWeird]

What is it to you.

I'm not asking if people who hate nooses also hate America and Jesus.

[DarkPhenyx]

34. to me?

it was a fucking Halloween Decoration. Same thing it has been to everyone else answering this thread, and everyone in my lab that I have asked, which is now up to eight people.

[DrWeird]

36. I'm not asking about the display, I'm asking about nooses...

purposefully left around to intimidate African Americans.

Is that the same as burning a cross.

[WoodrowFan]

44. nooses

a symbol of violence left on the desk of a minority is clearly racist, as is a burning cross or a confederate flag. A gallows is pretty generic though, and has been a staple of horror images without racial overtones for a few centuries. The offended neighbors should have asked first.


BTW, a similar event occured here in the DC area a year or so ago, but the kids who made the dummy used a brown paper bag to make the hanged man's head. (OOPS) They weren't racist, they just grabbed something they could draw on, but when asked about they apologized to their AA neighbor and replaced it.

[DrWeird]

45. Which appears is what happened here.

The neighbors misinterpreted a halloween display for a racial effigy, and the owners of the place did not realize that it could so easily be misinterpreted as a racial effigy, and so they agreed to take it down and not place charges.

[DarkPhenyx]

48. do you usually repeat questions

several time after someone has already answered them?

You did hit on something there though. THis particulr display was not left lying around in order to intimidate Blacks. THank you for finally supporting the original position in this thread, and that of everyone else responding. :)

[DrWeird]

51. Never.

Only when people dodge the question. You still haven't answered the question, btw.

"THis particulr display was not left lying around in order to intimidate Blacks."

Yet it appeared to be left lying around in order to intimidate blacks. Everybody involved in the case agrees. As do I. Yet in your reply to my OP, you clearly disagree.

So I rather obviously don't agree with the "original position of this thread."

[DarkPhenyx]

54. actually not everyone does agree.

and it wasn't left lying around, it was set up as part of a Halloween display in someone yard. which was then invaded, illegally, in order to destroy the display.

[DrWeird]

57. "left lying around" were your words.

"which was then invaded, illegally, in order to destroy the display."

Looks like the cop disagrees with you. No victim, no crime.

[DarkPhenyx]

60. destruction of private property.

it's illegal, even in FL. It does depend on you wanting to press charges though.

[Divine Discontent]

215. nice language in the middle of the name of a respected public figure

what's your mom's name, I think I'll start using her name full name and throw the F word in between it and see if you like it.

just my 2 cents, I don't care what anyone thinks, it's impolite.

[Name removed]

217. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DarkPhenyx]

70. It's nice to know

censorship is alive and well.

It's too bad the points made are gone forever because someone disagreed with me.

[Forkboy]

107. The points are gone because you broke the rules

quit whining.

[Name removed]

110. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Forkboy]

114. gee,here comes more "censorship"

[Name removed]

116. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Forkboy]

117. lol

self destruction is a beautiful thing to witness in others

[DarkPhenyx]

119. let me know if you actually see it

you apparently have no clue what it looks like.

[Forkboy]

123. Ok...I see it

[DarkPhenyx]

126. no, not likely

*shaking head* you really don't have a clue do you. Most interesting.

[Forkboy]

127. does it rattle when you shake it?

[DarkPhenyx]

128. Whatever

[DarkPhenyx]

26. Reposting what I said...

...since it seemed to offend someone.

In short I said "Believe that is what I said if you want. It isn't, but believe it anyway. I know it will make you feel better about yourself and help you sleep better at night".

[Forkboy]

108. You left out the insult

where you called the poster an "extremist paranoid freak".

Quit playing the victim.

[Name removed]

111. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

115. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

118. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Forkboy]

125. Tough day?

[Forkboy]

143. Now we see the violence inherent in the system!

;-)

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LuminousX]

38. Burning a cross, in my own yard... it would be my own business

Sure, others may see it as a symbol of hatred, but it is undirected. We can't deny that there are many racists filled with hate out there and some choose to display their hate. On my property I can display all sorts of nuanced symbols of hatred. Yep, I can fly a swastika on my flag pole if I want.

To claim that a corpse hanging from a tree, something that has been a horror staple for the longest of times, is an act of hate against blacks is completely absurd. Especially when the body has a face of Frankenstein and isn't an efigy of a black person.

[DrWeird]

39. Sure, you have a right to say any racist thing you want.

And people have a right and a duty to get upset about it if you do.

Even the responding officer thought the crowd had a right to be upset if you read the full article.

And even the "victim" didn't disagree with the people who tore down the effigy, as she didn't press charges. Like she said:

"We are not those kind of people, we are not like that," Watson said. "This really opened my eyes, I just didn't see it this way."

"to claim that a corpse hanging from a tree, something that has been a horror staple for the longest of times, is an act of hate against blacks is completely absurd."

Are you unaware about how the noose has become a symbol of hate and the modern day "cross burning?"

[The Straight Story]

66. So the crowd was more like the lynching style people of those days?

Since we are dealing with analogies here. A crowd of people form, are offended by something, and break the law then justify it because it seemed rational to them.

These people allowed their emotions to drive them to commit a crime. The decoration may have looked like that to them (and art is in the eye if the beholder, perhaps if I see some offensive art at the library I will call my church, or just tear it down) but their actions were much scarier.

Now one may say there is a difference between seeing something as a threat and being offended - but the person who is judging something make that decision (which those people did). What one may see as a threat/hate others may well see as simply a halloween display.

Shall we have an all PC halloween next? Scenes of death and such might be offensive to those have lost loved ones, we will need costume monitors, and so on. I am sure most don't want to take it that far - but when you use analogies to try to show extremes (what if it had been a burning cross) then the same can go in reverse to the extreme (someone might see a kid dressed in a ghost outfit as a 'spook' and therefore may see it as deragatory, etc).

Extremes lead to more extremes. Those folks simply hung up a halloween decoration and a mob mentality won out.

[LuminousX]

95. Obviously I am and shall remain so

I don't buy into other people's interpretation of symbols. If this was done in someone else's yard, so be it. The woman didn't press charges because she didn't want to inflame an already potentially embarrassing situation, like the guy who almost lost his job for using the word 'niggardly.'


Everyone is so eager to jump in front of the bus in order to cry 'victim.'

[mmonk]

13. If my memory serves me right,

whites were executed by hanging in this country. I am sensitive to the lynchings of African Americans also, even by citizens as well as "law" officials, but it doesn't come to mind when I see a ghoul hanging in someone's yard during Halloween.

[demnan]

14. I thought the owner made a very magnanimous decision

not to prosecute and did not pursue the matter, proving that the display was just for fun. Too bad some people overreacted but I can see why they would. It's tough to go through this life without stepping on somebody's toes.

[porphyrian]

17. Sounds like Conspiracy Brother...

Sometimes, the symbol of a tree just means a tree.

[Solon]

19. Hell one year...

We had Freddy Kreuger hanging by a tree in our front yard, nobody raised a fuss from that.

[chimpy the poopthrower]

24. Symbols and images mean different things to different people.

There was the case where two African-American women were offended by the "eenie-meenie-miney-moe" rhyme said by a flight attendant on a plane. A lot of people thought the women were over-reacting. Many people below a certain age weren't even aware that the version they learned in their childhoods was not the original version. But for a lot of people (especially older people, and more especially older black people) the racist version (which uses the n-word) is the one with the much stronger association. My own parents were well aware of the racist version while I had never even heard of it.

My point is that it is silly to argue about whether something is offensive or not. Offensiveness is in the eye of the beholder. All you can do is look at intent. If this story is accurate, it sounds like the homeowners did not have any malicious intent. On the other hand, why did so many (not just the ones who destroyed the display) see the figure as black? Even the cop seemed to think so. It was probably just a case of poor artwork by a teen, but Frankenstein is usually depicted as greenish, so that part is a little strange.

Anyway, wouldn't this Yeshitela have made his point much more effectively if he had actually tried contacting the homeowner first to see what their intent was? Then he could have gone to the media if he still believed it was a racist display. What did destroying the display accomplish? And he's done this before, according to the story -- destroyed a mural he didn't like. Wouldn't picketing or some other protest have served society better?

[DarkPhenyx]

28. OK, fair enough, but let me ask this.

Who is responsible for your reaction to that symbol and the actions you take because of it. Let's say you are offended by symbols of teh BDSM sub culture. I'm wearing a leather jacket which makes you think I am a kinkster even though I am not and did not intend to look like you. You then kick my ass and cut up my coat becasue you were "offended".

[sangh0]

35. There are no simple formulas

Since you are not completely unaware of the varying responses BDSM dress can arouse, you also have some responsibility if your dress should offend someone.

However, if someone reacts with violence, the violence was *THEIR* decision, not yours.

FOr example, if you walked into Harlem in the middle of the night wearing a Confederate flag t-shirt, what do you think would happen to you? If you heard that someone else did this, wouldn't you think "What kind of moran does *THAT*?"

[DarkPhenyx]

49. However you didn't see it as BDSM dress.

as was posted originally. You are completely ignorant of this fact. In fact, you are probably the person in the majority as regards this belief.

[sangh0]

100. No, I didn't, but I think that's irrelevant

you're trying to use a highly specific (and highly unlikely) scenario as an analogy for a wide range of scenarios.

It's not reasonable to think that you should recognize that someone would think your leather jacket is a sign of BDSM, or for you to assume that that would lead to a violent reaction. However, that scenario is not relevant to a situation where the reaction is more predictable than the absurd scenario you described.

It's called argumentum reductio ad absurdum. It involves exagerrating a situation to it's most extreme in order to discredit the idea in situations that are not nearly as extreme. By inventing a fictional character that reacts violently to people wearing a leather jacket, you have engaged in a textbook example of how one can use an extreme and unlikely event to mischaracterize a reasonable idea.

[DarkPhenyx]

103. It's also a fairly absurd notion that...

...during Halloween someone would mistake a scarecrow dressed with a rubber Frankenstein mask and werewolf hands as a black man. particularly upon close examination.

The scenario I put forth isn't all that absurd. It happens when people wear the wrong colors into a gang area. It happens to people who appear "too gay" whether or not they actually are. As the situation, with very minor changes to it, does in fact happen every year in the US, I posit that your calling it argumentum reductio ad absurdum is in fact wrong, and simply an attempt to deafeat the argument w/o actually having to debate it.

[sangh0]

130. I tend to agree

I don't think there's a general awareness that Holloween exhibts depicting hangings are reminiscent of lynchings, so in that sense your analogy does work. However, I don't see the need to have exagerrated the situation so starkly when the point could be made by describing the situation that actually happened. I tend to get suspicious when I see someone using exagerrated and unlikely scenarios to make their point. I guess it's a bias of mine.

And yes, there are scenarios that are something like the one you described, but none quite so extreme. That tends to set my radar off.

However, I don't think the gang colors scenario is similar. IMO, nearly anyone travelling in the areas where gangs are so prevelant that they kill people for wearing the wrong color know about the gangs. And most gays seem to realize that it's not safe to make their sexuality apparent in certain location.

And I object to your saying that I suggested argumentum ad absurdum to avoid debating the point. In fact, I never said you were wrong. What I said was that your argument seemed weak. If you'll notice, I never said that it was OK for someone to get offended by a leather jacket OR the Halloween display, and that I focused on whether or not it was reasonable to expect the offending party to know that they were being offensive.

And that's been my main point since I first posted in response to you. I said there was no simple formula for assigning responsiblity because it depends on a judgement call as to whether or not it was reasonable to expect the offending party to know in advance that their actions were offensive to someone. There's no scientific proof of what's reasonable to expect someone to know.

Though your analogy does raise this same question, you never explicitely made that argument, and so it was hard to see how your argument was relevant. As I said before, it may be a sign of my own bias, but when I see such an unlikely scenario used and no sign of what point it's trying to make, I get suspicious. However, I want to point out that in spite of my suspicions, I did not say you were flat-out wrong, and that the woman was right to be offended. Instead I questioned the relevance of your analogy to the situation being discussed.

[DarkPhenyx]

134. The formula for fault is pretty easy to see really.

Who broke the law. The person who unknowingly offended someone or teh group who entered her property uninvited adn tore down the display (destruction of private property).

My apologies for reacting stronger than your post warrented. I have three...individuals...posting here who's only reason for posting is to harass me, no to actually agrue a position. They followed me here fom another thread yesterday. It gives me a "trigger finger" posting manner.

[sangh0]

138. Nope. You just changed the question to an easier one

The original question you asked, to which I responded, was "Who is responsible for your reaction to that symbol and the actions you take because of it?"

It wasn't "Who broke the law?" or "Who is at fault for breaking the law?". On that question, I agree with you. It is simple. The one who broke the law is responsible for their own actions.

They followed me ...

Say no more. I understand perfectly. Good luck with that.

[DarkPhenyx]

174. the answer to your question is even easier.

you are responsible for your own reactions. see, the thing is, no one, not anyone, can make you anything. I can't make you happy, angry, sad, or whatever. Only you can. You have complete control over your response to everything, and only you can control your actions to that response. Now you can delegate your control to me, but do you really want me to have that much control over you?

[Borgnine]

31. That's a bit extreme.

Many years I've put up an elaborate Halloween decor scene for trick or treaters and the neighborhood kids. Many times that's included a skeleton hung in a noose from a tree. I never once considered that to be racial imagery, nor was it supposed to be. Near it was a guillotine with a beheaded body, but I wasn't trying to make a statement concerning the French Revolution either.

However, I do think this man's a bit insensitive towards Frankenstein's Monsters suffering from lycanthropy.

[DarkPhenyx]

33. "Frankenstein's Monsters suffering from lycanthropy."

ROFL

Careful...you'll be accused of being insensitive next.

[LuminousX]

37. halloween and the gallows

I'm sorry, but a hanging corpse has always been one of those classic horror symbols. There is no racial motivation behind that display.

I'm going to make a lot of enemies, but fundamentally... get over it.


PROOF
http://www.frightcatalog.com/Halloween-Animatronics/$1000+and+up/DU1300_Gallows.html

[Blue Wally]

41. The "Hanged Man"

is a carry over from pagan Europe and commemorates the nine days and nine nights that Wodin was hung on the World Tree. This was carried over into the Tarot as the "hanged man" card used in fortune telling. This pretty much pre-dates any significant contacts between the northern Europeans who developed the Halloween culture and Africans south of the Sahara.

[Tansy_Gold]

173. Yes, and "Hallow-e'en" is a christian imposition on a pagan

celebration of the transition from one crop-cycle/solar year to the next, but that discussion will never get legs.

[Blue Wally]

182. Most of our holidays have pagan roots

Halloween (evening before All Saints Day) is the pagan Samhain or harvest festival.

Christmas is the pagan Yule celebrating the "return of the sun" with the "twelve days of Christmas" marking the time after the winter solstice to assure the sun had turned back to the north.

Easter was the spring equinox festival of the goddess Eostre/Ostara.

The early Christian missionaries had a tough sell in northern and western Europe and had to coopt the pagan holidays (and gods/goddesses in the guise of Christian saints) in order to "push the product".

[EV1Ltimm]

40. Where's the outrage from the Pirate and Horse Thief Community?

[Beacho]

42. I'm sorry

But that person had no right, whatsoever, to enter onto somebody elses' property. That was an act of intimidation and violence. I would think this fellow should clean his own backyard first before pointing the finger at anyone else.

[txindy]

43. Hope they never go to Disneyland or Disney World, then

because there is a hanging (briefly) action scene in the 'Haunted Mansion' (in the first room). Since this is in Florida, that may very well have been what inspired the homeowner. :shrug: It's Halloween.

[lakemonster11]

46. I think the reaction was extreme.

I don't think any offense was meant, and I think that a hanging corpse is a perfectly valid Halloween display. If a group of people had a problem with it, they should have just politely pointed out to the owners of the house that their display could be seen as having racist undertones and left them to do what they wanted to about it.

[noiretextatique]

47. tell you what...why not create your own hanging black man display

as an experiment and see how that works out for you. and when you get your ass kicked, you can explain that it was just a halloween decoration. i'm sure all your friends and most here will agree that it was all in good fun, and that the people who kicked your ass were just far too sensitive. :wtf: why be sensitive about lynching...it's a traditional thing, like the flag :eyes:

yeah...these folks overreacted...they are black nationalists. and the important part of the story: the owners of the display didn't feel put upon, like you obviously do.

poor, put upon white folks...the new, improved victims :nopity:

[DarkPhenyx]

50. OK, real slow...

...just so you can keep up.

it wasn't a hanging black man. it was a hanging Frankenstein's Monster with Lycanthropy issues. OK, one more time, just to make sure you got it.

it wasn't a hanging black man.

it was a hanging Frankenstein's Monster with Lycanthropy issues

do I need to put in into hieroglyphs for you? Smoke signals prehaps?

[MADem]

52. But was that obvious from the street?

And where did this take place?

Southern trees bear strange fruit, doncha know. Ask Billie Holliday.

[DarkPhenyx]

55. In someone front yard.

Did you even read the article?

[MADem]

59. Why yes, I did

...and it was pretty clear to me that you had not, at least not the entire thing--otherwise you would not have even bothered to post it. The people thought it was a racial display, they said so, and it took place in St. Petersburg. The lady whose kid put the thing up was sorry, she did not want to hurt anyone's feelings, she just did not realize that the symbolism could be misinterpreted.

Duuuuuh.....that's why I asked you them there "rhetorical-like" questions...

[DarkPhenyx]

62. and once again

it's actually a group of people with a history of this sort of action. IT is by no means "everyone". And once again I point out...oh fucking forget it. Somepeople are hell bent on being offended. More power to them. THey can't help they are stupid, bigoted, and narrow minded.

[DrWeird]

67. "a group of people with a history of this sort of action"

You mean it's not the first time they put up a racist display?

[DarkPhenyx]

71. *laughing*

ok, so now we go for intentionally dense. not a very good defense.

go read the article again. you apparently missed something else.

[DrWeird]

73. Oh, you mean this?

http://www.sptimes.com/SouthPinellas/71898/Mural_to_grace_City_H.html

Explain to me how that mural isn't racist.

[DarkPhenyx]

74. it isn't the mural in question.

it's the action of this group. Once again we see them taking violent action when they didn't agree with someone/something.

[DrWeird]

77. He asked it to be removed, the racists said no, so he did it for them.

That, sir, is civil disobedience.

[DarkPhenyx]

84. no...

...it's destruction of property. bit of a difference there. then again, having read your posts today, I am not surprised you miss the difference.

[DarkPhenyx]

85. this is the definition of Civil Disobedience:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=civil+disobedience&r=67

civil disobedience
n.

Refusal to obey civil laws in an effort to induce change in governmental policy or legislation, characterized by the use of passive resistance or other nonviolent means.

n : a group's refusal to obey a law because they believe the law is immoral (as in protest against discrimination); "Thoreau wrote a famous essay justifying civil disobedience"


Function: noun
: refusal to obey governmental demands or commands esp. as a nonviolent and usually collective means of forcing concessions from the government

[DrWeird]

90. My point exactly.

This clearly wasn't violent. Not anymore violent then staging sit-ins or bus boycotts.

It would have been, at worst, malicious mischief, not a "home invasion." It's a bit like stealing somebody's "Bush/Cheney" sign from their front lawn, only not as bad and for a legitimate reason. It's more like a holocaust survivor taking somebody's "Vote Hitler" sign.

[DarkPhenyx]

93. Destruction of private property isn't violent.

So as long as we only burn black people homes and churches down, but don't hurt or kill them, then it isn't violent. Ok, thanks for clarifying. These are good things to know.

[DrWeird]

96. You're comparing taking down a halloween display to church bombings?

Wow, that makes a lot of sense.

:eyes:

[DarkPhenyx]

101. You said destruction of private property wasn't violent, not me

I agree with you. It doesn't make a lot of sense, yet you are the one who said it. Now, if you wish to retract your statement that'll be fine.

[DrWeird]

105. argumentum reductio ad absurdum

Taking down a halloween display is at worst malicious mischief and in this case was civil disobedience. Burning down a black church is terrorism.

[DarkPhenyx]

109. ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh

I do so love when you show how wrong you are. :) Thanks again.

[DrWeird]

148. What, exactly, was wrong?

Make it clear, if you can. But I'm not expecting you to since, quite frankly, you've got nothing.

[Name removed]

178. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DrWeird]

185. I'm bigoted?

To whom am I bigoted against?

[Name removed]

188. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DrWeird]

189. Explain.

What group of people do you think I'm bigoted against?

[DarkPhenyx]

192. pretty much any group outside of black extremists.

I could be wrong. you may well be bigoted against other groups as well...only you would know.

[DrWeird]

194. Be specific.

If I get you right, you're saying I'm bigoted against white people?

Is that what you're saying?

[DarkPhenyx]

196. could be.

only you can answer that. could also be you are bigoted in favor of blacks...which is not the same thing.

might also be you have a particular bias against little ole me. Considering that you followed me here from another thread and had been humping my leg here like you did there I think that may well be a valid observation.

[Forkboy]

197. You seem obssessed with things humping your leg today

Could be you're just bigoted against humpers?

[DarkPhenyx]

198. *ROFL*

once again highlighting how little you know about me.

[Forkboy]

199. thank the Lord for small miracles

[DarkPhenyx]

200. it dosen't take a miracle to be mistaken about me.

ask some of the more trusted posters here on DU who still argue with me, and yet call me friend.

I think that is the third lesson tonight. Think on it and learn.

[Forkboy]

202. Am I going to be quizzed later?

And how do I know who is a "trusted poster" or not?

Amd why would I care anyways?

Think on that and learn :silly:

[DarkPhenyx]

204. I try not to think on insanity.

as far as becoming trusted? hey, post something rational...it really isn't hard.

[Forkboy]

205. I dont care if I'm trusted or not

I didn't ask about "becoming" trusted.

Maybe you need a quiz.

[DarkPhenyx]

206. I have a quiz

and you failed.

funny thing it was asking other DU posters about you and getting teh response of "does he do anything but hump your leg?"

[Forkboy]

208. that was a kneeslapper

again with the leg humping though.I'm getting worried about you.

[DarkPhenyx]

210. which makes me feel so much better about my reality.

when the opposition is worried I know I am winning. Thank you!

[Forkboy]

212. yessss...true to form

it was only a matter of time before you declared yourself the winner...whether true or not.Thanks for proving my comment to noiretblu correct though.I knew I could get you to say it.

Now I can go to bed.

Thanks for playing :hi:

[DarkPhenyx]

214. who said I was winner?

you did? THANKS! I'm glad you gave up.

I thought I had a while to go yet, but now that I know you feel I've won I can rest now.. :)

[VelmaD]

201. Weren't you paying attention?

People around here don't have to actually know you to "know" all about you. ;)

[Forkboy]

203. Have you been reading?

DP seems to "know all about" others in this thread,yet you don't seem to mind that.I think the word I'm looking for is hypocrite,though sycophant also comes to mind :shrug:

huh,go figure.

[VelmaD]

207. Wow...I haven't been called a sycophant...

in months...Hey Phe, you're in good company, it's usually Will Pitt they accuse of being my abuser. ;)

Maybe you should read, Forkboy. I was obviously alluding to a conversation between myself and noiretblu further down the thread in an admittedly obnoxious attempt at humor.

I don't see where you really have much room to nag me about it though...you act snide you get snide in return. :) I'm funny that way.

[Forkboy]

209. "I'm funny that way."

not really

[VelmaD]

211. Oh. I am mortally wounded.

Whatever. :eyes:

Do you ever post anything beside drivebys?

[Forkboy]

213. well I could just post suckups

(no suprise you mentioned Will)

nighty night now.

[VelmaD]

216. You know they can do amazing things these days...

grafting on a sense of humor to people who were born without one. :)

I find it constantly amazing the way some people behave around here. Hell I learned a long time ago that defending your friends when attacked will get you raked over the coals...but I guess I didn't realize that trying to make them laugh in the middle of a ridiculous flamewar was enough now to earn that coveted "sycophant" title.

I was gonna ask whether you've never posted something snide to try to make a friend laugh, but given your sense of humor, or lack thereof, I think the answer to that one is self-evident.

I get really tired of the sycophant thing. If you care even a little bit about knowing the truth you might consider actually searching the DU archives where DP and I have had some humdingers arguing about sexist language among other topics where we disagree quite loudly. But then again I don't really believe you want to know the reality so my expectations are low.

[Pithlet]

171. No

I don't blame him one bit for what he did regarding that mural. The people who insisted that it remain should have been ashamed of themselves, and should have removed it.

[DarkPhenyx]

177. the mural isn't in question here

it does show a tendency toward destructive action though when he gets emotional.

[Pithlet]

181. It is

If you're using it as an example of past actions, which is what you're doing. And I think calling a reaction to such a horrible mural as "emotional" is a bit of an understatement.

[DarkPhenyx]

184. is it?

who has control over your emotional state? you, or your enemy?

[DarkPhenyx]

75. it isn't the mural in question.

it's the action of this group. Once again we see them taking violent action when they didn't agree with someone/something.

[BiggJawn]

80. Frankenstein's Black????

If you think a rubber "Frankenstein" mask looks like a black man, you should drop by the Wal-Mart Vision Center. Now, if they were complaining that they saw a GREEN man hanging..

[DrWeird]

53. Did you read your own link?

From a passerby:

"Sandra Albanese stopped and called police after she spotted the hanging monster. "I drove by, saw it and came back around again," said Albanese, a real estate agent. "It looked like a black man hanging.' "

[DarkPhenyx]

56. how many Black men do you know

with green skin, bolts in their neck, and hairy claws?

[DrWeird]

58. Oh, I'm sorry, were you there?

Because according to innocent bystanders, it looked like it was a black man.

And from the picture in the story, the head looks black to me.

[MADem]

61. Silly article to argue about

There really is no issue. No one is mad anymore, no one is getting sued, the lady apologized, polite society triumphs--a good news story, at the end of the day.

Foolish distraction, with two weeks to go. I'm done here!

[DarkPhenyx]

64. so people being able to storm into your yard

and intimidate you, cause damage top your personal property and behave in a threatening manner, isn't an story. very interesting. Very interesting indeed. Thank you for pointing that out. I was mistaken that those sorts of things were illegal. Damn, silly me. :eyes:

[DrWeird]

68. Who's intimidating who?

Do "these people" scare you?

[DarkPhenyx]

69. Me no.

But you don't think the thought of haveing a group of angry people tearing up your property becasue they didn't agree with you isn't intimidating?

Even when you aren't home when it happens a home invasion can be very intimiating. Some people takes months to get comfortable in their homes again, even when there is no violence involved.

[DrWeird]

72. The proprietor didn't think it was intimidating.

What's intimidating is having what appears to be a racial effigy hanging in your neighborhood.

[DarkPhenyx]

76. which of course it wasn't

which would be the wole point of this thread. Now do you get the point or do we have to dance this dance all over again? I can go on all night you know.

[DrWeird]

78. No, the point of this thread was...

"look at these violent, uppity thugs. Isn't political correctness crazy? Something needs to be done about this."

Whether or not the proprietors actually intended the display to be racist was never the topic, it's completely indeterminable, and it's a moot issue.

[Name removed]

81. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DrWeird]

91. Hey, you're the one who posted it.

Maybe you should read things through before posting them.

[DarkPhenyx]

113. whish is so blatently silly for you to have said

you seriously can't do any better than that?

[BlueJazz]

82. Look...Apparently some people want to be a victim and......

no amount of explaining or sincerity is going to change their all-out assault on anything that will make them Victims...one more time.

I plan to put up a display featuring Frankenstein and other "Monsters"...If people don't like it ..Bite It!!

[DarkPhenyx]

86. Holy crap Radical!

did you just say that?

[noiretextatique]

87. several people saw it differently...is that ok with you?

per the article, this person who took it down wasn't the only one who saw it differently THAN YOU...though i know that isn't possible in your little world where you are always the only one who sees things as they are...you and your co-workers :eyes:

the owner of the display thought differently about it in the end, if you read the story. she didn't feel put upon, because she didn't want to offend anyone. she didn't insist, as you are doing, that the display couldn't possibly be offensive.

so...please continue to whine and moan about how victimized YOU feel...now by black people, in addition to women and gays.

[Name removed]

88. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[noiretextatique]

89. funny...one doesn't get that impression from your original post

since you didn't mention your main concern was the destruction of private property in that post...at all. and it didn't bother the owner, so one can only wonder what your real dog is in this fight.

yeah...bigotry...uh huh: take a look in the mirror.

[DrWeird]

92. Notice how this case is a closet racist's worst nightmare.

The kind of people that haven't a problem cracking racists jokes when there's white people around, but they'd be terrified if a black person heard it. Even more if a "violent" "mob" decided to take action and "invade your home."

[Name removed]

94. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[noiretextatique]

98. here's discourse: this is a stupid thread

the owner of the object in question is fine with what happened...so what is your problem? is was her property after all, and since she didn't have a problem with it...it is a non-issue.
how is that for "discourse?"

[DarkPhenyx]

102. the thread wasn't stupid

the people who support the thugs who invaded her property and commited acts of wanton destruction...now that's stupid.

My issue now would be teh hypocrasy inherient in teh statements made by both you and Dr.Weird.

[DrWeird]

104. "thugs"

LOL

[DarkPhenyx]

106. that would be about the size of it yes.

I believe the problem is that you can't get past the fact that the people involved are Black, and that they screamed racism. The ADL uses the same tactic with "anti-Semitism". It isn't an unusual blind spot to have unfortunately. Republicans use "Socialist" and "Liberal" in a similar, if converse, manner.

[noiretextatique]

122. replete with the code word of the year : thug

since the property owner wasn't upset, didn't file charges, and had enough character not to want to offend people, even unintentionally...
"wanton destruction"...boy, you are really having some hysterical meltdown there. the destruction wasn't wanton, it was specific, btw.

tell me...how does this compare to your rage at the freeper an his bumper stickers? and if that had escalated to violence, would you have been "justified" or a "thug"?
let me guess: you didn't "destroy property," right? but you did threaten to, didn't you? yeah...i am sure that would be very, very different :eyes:

[Name removed]

124. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[noiretextatique]

132. too close to home?

as i suspected...

[VelmaD]

133. You didn't answer the question...

What ARE you talking about? You seemed to be accusing Phe of something in a vague way at the end of the post in question and I'd really like to know what.

[noiretextatique]

136. if i am not mistaken...it was DP who posted about

accosting a freeper because he didn't like his bumper stickers. i think it was DP, but i could be mistaken.
so...the question was: is DP also a thug, in his view? and if not, why?
other than that, i think he's overreacting, just like the people who torn down this stupid scarecrow thing.

[VelmaD]

139. That doesn't really sound like his typical reaction...

and DU has this nifty search function. :) Searched his posts in GD and the Lounge since back in May and haven't found anything yet other than posts about him laughing at people who get upset about the signs in his truck.

[noiretextatique]

140. i could be mistaken

but since he didn't respond, except to insinuate that violence is genetic among black people, i'll asumme it was him.
this is his usual style.

[VelmaD]

142. I can't find the post anymore but...

I think he was saying that violence in an inherent genetic human condition.

And I think it's pretty pitiful that you're willing to just assume he said or did something without doing your own search to ascertain the facts. You don't like Phe so you are willing to go with your preconcieved notion without any evidence to back your claim up. The very least you could have done is conduct the very same search of the DU archives that I did. It took less than 10 minutes.

[noiretextatique]

144. i remember him and that thread

and since you are defending him instead of him...i will continue to assume he was the author. hmmm...you seem to have a keen insight into what DP does and doesn't mean, but i don't need your interpretation. his meaning was very clear.

[VelmaD]

146. I'm sure your memory is vastly superior...

to the DU archives. :eyes:

If I have any particularly keen insight it's only because I've spent the last year having actual conversations with Phe rather than screaming matches.

[noiretextatique]

149. actually...i am mistaken. my apologies to DP

it was night train who started that thread, not DP. so i can understand why he had no idea of what i was talking about: sorry DP.
screaming? uh...this is the internet :eyes:
as to DP...i am sure his comment about genetic violence, your interpretation notwithstanding, speaks volumes.

[VelmaD]

153. yes "screaming matches"

I was gonna chalk it up to a cultural misunderstanding since I'm a Texan and given to engaging in mild hyperbole for comedic affect. Then I thought about it and decided you're being intentionally obtuse. You know exactly what I meant. I think you and Phe do the internet equivalent of screaming at each other without really ever communicating.

[noiretextatique]

157. i know what you meant about screaming

but i understand WHAT HE WROTE. as to what is in his heart and soul, i concede that i don't know that. but i know DAMN WELL what he meant by what he wrote.

[VelmaD]

159. you know what you think he meant

I think the post in question has been deleted...I can't find it and I don't remember the exact words. If you remember them please quote them back at me. I don't want to argue with you without all the facts at hand.

[noiretextatique]

163. actually, i don't think it was deleted

again: i don't "think" i know what it meant, i "know" what it meant.
if i had a dollar for every time a someone tried to reinterpret a comment as not really being what it was, i be a very wealthy person. see my reply to forkboy near the bottom of this thread, and your friend's response.
i eagerly await your interpretation.

[VelmaD]

164. Pardon me if I don't automatically take your word on this...

since you already were wrong about Phe once on this thread.

I don't remember the post in question and don't know what was in it that got it deleted. It might have been the comment you think or it might have been something else (somtimes Phe can pack a lot into a single post that pisses people off).

Something for you to consider...our opposition thinks they "know" the truth about other people too. All communication is subject to interpretation by the reader or listener. We all bring something of ourselves to what other people say to us. As far as I'm concerned we can never truly "know" what another person meant because we aren't in their head with them.

[noiretextatique]

166. look...i can read, just like you can

i am not trying to put words in anyone's mouth, and i don't need you or anyone else to interpret what is in black and white for me.
but just for fun...let's say you did that: would your interpretation be any more of less accurate than mine? would your knowledge of DP tend to affect your interpretation? what condescending bullshit, btw.

i was mistaken about the author of that thread...it was not DP, and i shoud have checked before i accused him.

[VelmaD]

167. Absolutely my knowledge...

affects my interpretation. I am willing to admit that. You stated pretty emphatically that you "know" what he meant and I assert that your "knowledge" is highly influenced by your own personal interactions with Phe and your life experiences that I know nothing about. Neither one of us is completely right. Neither is Phe for that matter (though he'd disagree with that). ;)

And unless Phe actually stated in black and white that "black people are genetically disposed to violence", which is appently what you seem to "know" he meant...then it is your interpretation of what he said. I vaguely recall him saying something about people having a genetical tendency toward violence. I interpreted it as another one of his statements on the sorry state of the human condition. He makes those all the time so it didn't really stand out in my mind.

[noiretextatique]

168. you "recall vaguely"

and yet you still presume to tell me what i did and didn't read, what it might have and might not meant, and why i might or might not interpret it in a certain way or not...fascinating! :D

of course you are correct about meanings, interpretations, missed communications, etc. however...i think you are wrong in this instance.

i am puzzled by your insistence on how something has to be said before i understand it for what it is. tell me...how is it that you believe you can decide this...for me?
truly fascinating this insistence on how something must be said if it is to be interpreted a certain way or not, and why.

could it be you are too biased in favor of your friend to accept what he wrote as what he meant?

[VelmaD]

169. I tfeel like you're intentionally misunderstanding me again

I will use the clearest language I am capable of in this post to try to minimize the opportunity for miscommunication. I do not recall Phe saying that black people are genetically predisposed to violence. You asserted that this is what he meant by what he said...but we cannot go back and truly debate the point because the post in question is gone. When you read the post you interpretted it as being a statement about black people so I acknowledge that it may have stuck in your mind more than it did mine since I interpretted it as a comment on human beings generally.

The only point I'm really trying to make is that we are both interpretting what he said based on our own sets of assumptions. The difference between us is that I have acknowledged that I am stating my perception of what he meant while you have repeatedly asserted that you "know" what he meant.

You may be right, I may not have any special insight into Phe just because we're friends. But guess what, you don't have a psychic hotline into his brain either. As long as you think you "know" this is a pointless conversation.

Oh, and do not think that my silence for the next while should be interpreted as any sort of concession on my part. Sometimes people don't reply because they aren't in front of a computer. ;)

[noiretextatique]

170. i can only go by what he wrote

in determining what he meant within the context that it was written. that's all anyone can do in this medium. and frankly, you keep admitting that you didn't have a chance to do that, or couldn't do that because you don't really remember the post :shrug:
yet...
btw, the post still seems to be there.

i have to get back to work.
peace.

[VelmaD]

183. if it's still here give me the post number...

I keep scanning the whole thread and missing it somehow. *smacks self on forehead*

[DarkPhenyx]

180. this would be your other fatal

and pathetic flaw. You see things as Black and White. SO does George Bush and every other extremist I know. THings rarely, if ever, B&W. They are almost always some shade of grey. Also think on this lesson, nad learn wisdom.

[DarkPhenyx]

179. this is where you and every other extremist fails in their arguemtns.

you argue based on what you "know" and not on what you have "learned".

You won't even listen to the rational discourse of someone whom I have had actual, face to face, heated discusions with. How foolish can one sad little mortal be?

thus ends the lesson for today.

[Pithlet]

172. It was not DP

I know the incident you're talking about, and I remember who it was. Not to take his side in this argument, just to clarify.

[DrWeird]

150. "thug"

I can see how this might seem odd for people who haven't noticed it before.

Take awhile, a few months or so, and take a little time to notice how the word gets used.

[Forkboy]

129. be gentle

:D

[noiretextatique]

131. nah...i'm not in the mood

:nuke: wanton destruction is genetic :eyes:

[DarkPhenyx]

135. at least you admit it.

that's the first step to correcting your issues. good luck.

[noiretextatique]

137. and you admit it...finally!!!!

and it only took a kazillion posts. but your culture supports you in your denial, so i doubt you will correct your issues.

[DarkPhenyx]

175. admit what?

taht those who invaded this persons yard and destroyed her property were wrang and in violation of teh law? I admitted that ages ago.

[sadiesworld]

63. Severed heads might be a bit of a problem this year.

Just a thought.

[DarkPhenyx]

65. good point.

maybe other place in the US will have a bit more sanity and calm about this. Yes, I know...wishful thinking.

[avatar4321]

79. This cant be serious

Its just a holiday. There is no hate involved at all. We have major problems in society when people start seeing hate when there is none. If people see hate when there is none, they are more likely to hate back and violence becomes an option.

[DarkPhenyx]

83. In this case voilence was the option

or at least the option they decided to take.

[noiretextatique]

97. someone torn the stupid thing down

violence? here's a suggestion: call the police and tell them violence was committed against a halloween scarecrow...then come back here and tell us if they took you seriously. thanks.

[DarkPhenyx]

120. not all violence is punishable under that law.

it dosen't make the act any less intimidating or violent.

[DrWeird]

155. And just because something is illegal doesn't mean its wrong.

nt

[DarkPhenyx]

176. agreed.

however, violence and destruction of property are always wrong and should always be illegal. as well as invasion of privacy and property.

as in the case of the people who trespassed adn destroyed in this case.

[DrWeird]

186. No, it wasn't wrong.

Since the proprietor decided not to press charges.

[DarkPhenyx]

187. so...let me get this right...

...you you choose to not press charges then ther is no harm.

So if a woman decides to not press rape charges, there was actually no rape? Even if the evidence shows otherwise?

[DrWeird]

190. argumentum reductio ad absurdum

Please fix your argument so that it doesn't use bad logic.

[DarkPhenyx]

191. oh christ.

you really didn't just say taht did you?

So any argument to clarify which I make is "argumentum reductio ad absurdum", and yet you can mke the same argument and it's valid? damn...you really need to go work for a political party. any political party. you just gave the perfect party response to my post. congrats.

now...give me your next ten words. or are you afraid to.

[DrWeird]

193. So far you've compared the guy to a rapist and the KKK.

That's pretty ridiculous any way you look at it.

Now, if you would please, answer my question originally asked in post #185.

"or are you afraid to(?)"

[DarkPhenyx]

195. what was the question?

I have no desire to wade through the idiocy of most of your posts tpo pull out any nuggets of thought you may have had.

[foo_bar]

99. jeans and a flannel shirt?

Is it an effigy of Lamar Alexander?

[VelmaD]

112. Some of you people have obviously lost your minds

To compare destruction of private property with civil disobedience is patently absurd and shows a pretty complete lack of understanding of what civil disobedience means. Last time I checked people like Dr. King discouraged their followers from engaging in destruction of property. Civil disobedience would have been something like picketing in front of the house in question or maybe having a sit-in in the front yard.

[intheflow]

121. and trying to talk with the people who owned the property first!

Even if it looked like a black person from afar, if they walked up and saw a Frankenstein face, they should have talked with the homeowner first. She sounds like a reasonable woman, and probably would have changed the display.

Ripping down anyone's personal property is tresspassing, and should be viewed no differently than people involved in the political sign stealing BS.

Political correctness hiding behind righteousness. Too much!

[noiretextatique]

141. i suppose the bottom line here is this

the owner of the property was not concerned about its destruction.
i think the destroyers should have talked to her about it, but all of this hysteria about destroying private property is rather silly, considering the owner of said property wasn't concerned about it.
and as many have mentioned...it was just a halloween decoration.
and if that is the case: what is the big fucking deal?
really?

[VelmaD]

145. This is the big fucking deal...

where does it end? Where do we draw the line? Which groups are allowed to take offense and trespass on my property and commit vandalism? What items am I not allowed to have on my property because they might be offensive to someone? And what items am I not allowed to display because they might be misidentified or confused with items that someone might find offensive?

Explain to me how this is any different than if a pack of furious republicans decided they don't like my Kerry yard sign and storm my lawn and remove it? How is this different than if a bunch of pissed-off fundies decide they don't like my overly pagany Halloween decorations and decide to tear them up? How is it different than if me and some fellow non-Christians decide we don't like the city's Christmas display and since pagans were persecuted in the past we decide we have the right to tear the display apart?

[noiretextatique]

147. look...if the owner was upset by this incident

i would be the first to support her in her outrage. but she, in her wisdom, decided that it was no big fucking deal.
and since it was her property...WHY DO YOU CARE?

[VelmaD]

151. I care because it sets a bad precedent...

How many other groups will be encouraged by this story to take matters into their own hands rather than handling similar situations in a more civilized manner?

[DrWeird]

154. Horseshit.

The guy did what he felt was the right thing to do, and he did it right in front of the police officer and was willing to get arrested for it, which is what civil disobedience is all about. And the police office thought he did the right thing and the "victim" thought he did the right thing and the "slippery slope" argument is bullshit.

[VelmaD]

161. I've typed and deleted and re-typed...

my response on this several times now and I'm still not happy with it but bear with me and talk to me if I don't come across as well as I'd like.

Here's my question. Was the home owner really ok with it or did they say they were just to get the situation to end? How safe would you feel in protesting this situation if you knew there was a cop there at the time who did nothing?

I also think it's a bit of an over-reading of the article to claim the police officer thought he "did the right thing". The cop said they were "rightfully upset" but he also said he was trying to contact the homeowner to deal with the situation. Someone please explain to me why it was ok for this group to circumvent legal channels for handling the situation.

[noiretextatique]

156. it sets no precedent that hasn't already been set

by the KKK, for example. not everyone chose to bomb churches and burn crosses because of the precendent the KKK set.
i do not think this is some harbinger of a new kind of vigilantism at all. the main culprit in this act was from something called the uhuru movement, likely a black nationalist organization. they have as much pull with your average black person as the KKK does with your average white person. it seems like someone, besides me, would have noticed that by now.

[DrWeird]

152. Oh! Sit-in! That's trespassing and disorderly conduct.

Bunch of violent thugs, preventing good white folk from enjoying their breakfast!!

Read the link in post 73 and tell me that was unjustified.

[VelmaD]

158. There is a substantive difference...

between the mural he tore down as a young man and what he did recently. For one thing that mural was on public property not private. It was a governmental sanctioning of racist stereotypes and I would have been happy to help him tear it down and go to jail with him over it. But I would have had a lot to say to him recently about his knee-jerk over-reaction to a kid's Halloween decorations.

The mural is pretty patently racist while the display of a Frankenstein monster being hung is highly debatable (as evidenced by the varying responses on this thread). I think this whole situation could have been avoided if people had sat down together and talked to each other like rational human beings rather than engaging in destruction of private property. In the article you alluded to it also mentioned that in the 60s the gentleman wrote to the City Council asking them to remove the mural. He didn't tear it down until they told him no. Why didn't this home owner deserve the same courtesy?

[DrWeird]

160. Since nobody here was around to see it...

perhaps we should stick with the bystanders' accounts that it looked like a black man being lynched. Obviously the guy in question didn't tear it down because he thought it was frankenstein.

So to him and the witnesses it looked just as much a racist effigy as the mural, regardless of intent. I'm sure plenty of white people in 1966 thought there was nothing wrong with that mural either.

So then the only significant difference is that one was public property and one was on private property. Which doesn't seem that "substantive" to me.

[VelmaD]

162. There is a difference between...

public and private displays. Even if the homeowner in question had put up an obviously intentional racist display there would be a difference. That mural was paid for with public funds and was in a public space. It represented a public legitimation of racist stereotypes.

Whereas the jackass whose house I pass every day on the way home from work with the Confederate flag in front of his house is stating his own personal opinion...which is protected under the 1st amendment even if I don't like it. And I don't like it. I have the urge every day to run my car through his living room window. But I don't have that right.

[Name removed]

165. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.