Here we go with another silly hit piece on one of our candidates.

You get to insinuate someone is a racist or sexist without directly stating it. Our side need to be careful with these things. They stick.

is calling you a racist, even when they haven't and, in fact, expressly say they are not..

How better to shut down meaningful discussion about the topic than to brush back and any effort to talk about it?

I missed that.

he could come up with.

She chose to "go for the kill" on Biden during the debate and now she has to take the heat when other candidates call her on it. It cuts both ways. That's politics.

She clearly said she doesn't believe Joe is a racist.

but then went on to allege that Biden made decisions that disadvantaged the AA community on this issue. The message was clear.

Is not the same as being a racist.

That kind of false equivalence - if I believe you could have handled a racial situation differently, then I think you're a racist - is one of the problems we have with having an honest discussion about race.

If Biden didn't adequately resist racist institutions and structures, he's de facto supporting structural racism. That would make him a racist. By one definition. That's the Phineas and Ferb "painting a continent" broad brush that's often used.

For others, non-resistance isn't required for definition, but he could still be seen as actively working in ways that supported structural racism by working against federally-mandated busing--or even by cooperating with racists instead of trying to deplatform, erase, cancel, or whatever the term of art is for treating them as non-entities. Again, by the second definition he's a racist.

For others, racism is race-based personal negative bigotry and negative behavior towards an identifiable racial group, regardless of institutions and structures. By that token, he's not a racist. This is the personal definition closest to what most commoners have used for decades, and which is still mostly that used by the majority of the population who haven't had their definitions tweaked by virtue of jargon supremacy. (Some don't need "negative" but will also include bias towards a racial group as racism, while others require that the group shown antipathy be somehow oppressed.)


One can say "Biden's not a racist" (using definition 3) and then come back and present evidence that Biden is a racist (definition 1). It's horrible thinking, but a common fallacy deployed in rhetoric. And debates are simply institutions and structures of rhetoric.

Denying the actual accusation, yet presenting all the evidence to allow the audience arrive at the accusation so denied, is also, in general, a common rhetorical technique in debates and in fiction.

In fact one of the primary reasons structural/systemic racism is so effective, insidious and difficult to root out and overcome is that it, by design, be advanced and perpetuated without people having to engage in individual acts of racism or hold any racist views.

Well put.

We really shouldn't fall for the gaslighting.

But she said Biden failed to fight for the rights of the AA community. So while he may not be racist, the insinuation was clear that he doesn't (or didn't) care enough about them.

she didn't call him a racist. Glad we cleared that up.

Gabbard is desperate as she's still registering at one percent if that so she makes this blatantly false allegation and actually gets some to agree with her.

Harris said she was hurt by Biden appearing to fondly reminisce about his dealings with segregationists and bringing up the term "boy" in referring to AA men. That is a definite insult to black men and Biden made an error in even bringing the whole thing up, which he finally apologized for over the weekend.

Again, Gabbard is off base and this senseless accusation won't move her poll numbers up, maybe down though.

She may make the next debate as the threshold for getting in is low but she won't make the September on as the requirements are much higher.

They had racial overtones - period.

Maybe it's not the textbook definition of "racist," but Harris is saying Biden was not looking out for the best interests of an already disadvantaged minority.

by people who feel perfectly entitled to interpret not only what we actually said but to determine that what we we said and didn't say had "racial overtones."

Yet when any of us says we find something a white person says to be offensive and/or have "racial overtones," we're dismissed and attacked as overly sensitive, reading too much into it, unfairly interpreting their comments, accusing them of being racist, etc.

Privilege has its privileges and one of those privileges is feeling entitled to interpret what black people mean, regardless how we communicate it, while strenuously objecting to any equivalent scrutiny being applied to comments made by white people.

and freedom of thought and expression -- not white privilege -- means I get to have my own take on what was intended. That applies to any other dispute between politicians. While I am informed by your point of view, it doesn't mean I am necessarily going to change my mind in this particular instance. I can say in all sincerity that we're all richer to have the voices of people of color on this forum. I know I have rec'd some of your threads and learned from some of your posts.

But, on this issue, when you look at Biden's drop in support among African Americans since that debate, I cannot believe that some within the AA community aren't feeling like Joe Biden doesn't (or didn't) care near enough about their best interests based on race. Some surely parsed that from Harris's allegations. I don't know how many, but I do know that not all people think alike, not even from within the same community.

Or maybe African American voters "parsed" something else from the debate - like perhaps they saw Harris handle herself well and that he did not.

Black voters aren't stupid and they're not easily swept away by emotion - so to suggest that, in a two-minute exchange, Harris made them believe that Joe Biden, whom they've been familiar with for decades, is a racist makes no sense.

Who suggested they were? Would they be stupid because some of them believe Harris's remarks directed toward Biden had racial overtones? Because that's what I believe. That makes me stupid, and all the DUers and everyone else who believes that? All stupid?

And did I suggest that Harris did not handle herself well? I have written elsewhere on this forum that Harris was aggressive and calculated (not in a bad way -- in a prosecutorial fashion, as you'd expect from someone with her experience) and I respect her for it. I don't know if it ultimately pays off for her but I think she was clearly making herself appear as a champion for the AA community and Biden appear as nowhere near her level.

That doesn't mean Biden is a "racist." But it has racial overtones.

You are spot on...

I had no idea as to your heritage. I recall you and I have had differences of opinion in the past based on your support for Biden and my thinking that he's down the list of best candidates, but on this issue, I'm glad to hear we see eye to eye.

are tied to race. While Harris says outright that she's not accusing Biden of being a racist, she's making clear that she could have and would have done more for the AA community than he did. That's the message she wanted to send to AA voters: Biden fell short. I would fight harder for you. I understand you better.

Why didn't Biden do more for his AA constituents? If it's not racial overtones, what is it?

If there were "racial overtones," it's because she was participating in a discussion about race that she didn't start.

And again, you're reading a lot more into her comments than she said. This was two hour debate - do you declare anyone else guilty of imposing "overtones" on any
other portion of or comment in the debate? Several other candidates talked about race before Harris joined the discussion. Did THEIR comments have "racial overtones"? Did anyone speak with any other "overtones," such as, say, "economic overtones" or "gender overtones" or "foreign affairs overtones"?

Or are "overtones" limited to discussions of issues of race and, then, only when black people are talking about it?

Perhaps "racial overtones" aren't really a thing, except in the eyes and ears of the beholder.

No, I've never used the word "overtones" except to describe the words stated by a black person. That's right, I'm a racist. Guilty as charged!

So utterly ridiculous. You are trying to put words in my mouth AND making completely unsubstantiated assumptions.

I included a link to a post by another DUer who's a member of the AA community. That poster referred to Harris's exchange with Biden as a "whistle." Are you going to harangue that DUer as well? Accuse him or her of only using the term "whistle" when a black person says something? It would be as useful an exercise.

Maybe you should calm down and do some self-reflection before ranting about being called a racist.

when someone who gives appearances as an insightful poster resorts to button-pushing. When an indvidual makes the leap to "you used term X or adjective Y in association with this person, do you ever say that about others of different races or genders? Hmm???" then you know you're dealing with an individual who'd rather throw accusations around than to really understand anything about you.

This is one of my recent threads:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212226477


This is another:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212192376


This is yet another:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212215492



I feel no need to "self-reflect" any further. And I'll be damned if you think you have the power to shame me.


You see something you don't like and you are quick to compartmentalize, the same thing you are trying to deter others from doing. The irony is strong.

Ok.

or really consider all that I had written. You just want to slap a label on another DUer and ride off into the sunset with another internet debate "victory" under your belt.

See ya!

Even though they were completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

My record here stands for itself.

that you don't miss this post:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=post&forum=1287&pid=195021

concerns about his age, that were amplified by at least one of his answers.

This is on Gabbarb.

one might naturally assume a case has been made for the potential accusation, there forms a linguistic association. Whether done intentionally or not, it is a debate technique and a well-known application of neurolinguistics.

Just as the old adage about use of the word "but"--one can ignore everything that came before the word "but"...

I like Harris and Booker as well. But, Harris campaign has already admitted this was a planned strategy.

Gabbard may be exploiting the fact that there is some "backlash" underway, but that is every bit her right as it was for Harris to use this as a mostly successful means to increase her prominence.

But continuing to point to her denial that Biden is a racist is rather silly. Yes, she said it, but the entire line of "debate" strategy was formulated around creating doubt.

about women and minorities. And even that is not good enough. Which leads me to suggest that what we are being told is, we are not allowed to have that conversation.

I do not think Gabbarb is an homophobic. Early in her career she made comments that were hurtful to the gay community.

Sanders is not a sexist. Here are the issues I have with Sanders over the years with women.

If you have been on the side of having conversation about social justice, we have all had to put out a declarative first before even starting the conversation.

Not all men, yet.....

Harris said right off the bat she does not think Biden is a racist. We do not get to then make stuff up about what she "meant" and do a 180 on her intentions.

You most certainly DO NOT>

I posted the issue with why she or anyone else will be unlikely to be taken at their word with respect to such denials--due to the well studied and documented phenomenon that links inflammatory denials with what comes after. Neurolinguistics is not a form of "making things up". It is a fact. It is how our brains function.

And, yes, her own campaign admitted the premeditated nature of the strategy and episode. Unfair? Maybe not. It is politics after all and Biden as much as shot her a glimmer of what looked like surprised admiration to his former "mentee".

I didn't accuse you of anything unless you are stating that Harris did in fact call Biden a racist. If you are stating that, then well, yes, I think you are making something up because in fact she did not accuse Biden of being a racist anymore than I am accusing Sanders of being a sexist when I discuss the issues I have with him with women.

I think privilege can blind some to the extent that they do not see that their behavior or words are harmful. I hardly think that is a new theory, or even an out there theory.

Doesn't make them a racist or a sexist, merely privilege with a heart to do good, just not aware. What is wrong with that?

to hear the phrase "racist" and then all the commentary afterward that links the two concepts. Some people do this intentionally. I'm not saying Harris did as I respect her a great deal, but the effect is the same.

That is what others hear? Sounds like the problem is with the listeners.

There are countless strategies for doing so, but none start with claiming your boss is not a chauvinistic pig and then proceeding to define all the behaviors that would naturally make one believe that he is.

All she had to do is to ask him about his prior decisions about desegregation and busing over many decades. No preamble more than that she had personally been affected and ask that he discuss it. Honest approach sans any attempt to pre-immunize yourself against what you don't mean to convey--if you honestly don't mean to convey it.

I know they are not sexist. I know it to be true. I also know that a behavior or thought pattern promoted sexism. So, when having that conversation from the heart, I want them to know I do not see them as sexist. Absolutely. But, I do want them to consider why I feel that behavior or attitude feeds sexism. I do feel that conversation is very important and must be had.

and experienced politicians understand that and how to use it. Harris may or may not.

I think science can just as easily stand behind what I am saying and even invalidate the argument that what is not being said is actually being said because listeners perceive the opposite of what was stated.

A shocker, I know, but climate change is real too.

See, just ask.

with you. Your "impressions" seem to guide you overwhelmingly.

Ironically neurolinguistics is a big influence on subconscious 'impressions" that you are not aware of.

You are right. It was an interesting conversation though. Thank you.

to educate you.

a rhetorical device (applied in literature as well as expository text), by which one implies what one
does not say or write with structure—placing one thing near or after another.

So whether Harris was using a debate strategy, a range of linguistic methods, an age old structural
device well known in critical analysis of speech and text, she meant to imply that Biden was allied with segregationists and himself a segregationist every bit as much as they, whether in thought or in action.

Certainly, the audience got her message.

Interesting about the neuro-linguistic explanation for how this works.

But, what was intended as a fix did more harm in racism. That is not contradiction.

Welcome to DU - I'm really glad you're here!

having the conversation, again. It allows me to stream line so the conversation is as quick and painless as I can make it. I do not need people to agree with me, but I like to put forth other ways one may perceive thought. Then they can consider or not.

Social Justice is a huge issue for 2020.

the moderate candidates.

The door was opened during the last debate and what Gabbard is doing, is beyond fair...

she would have been accused of calling him a racist anyway.

Black people and America are very well aware of how we must constantly tiptoe around any discussion of race and go out of our way to invoke such caveats in order to try to avoid the "you're calling me a racist" attack whenever we try to talk about race.

and, as we see here, it still doesn't matter because no matter what we say, we're going to be accused of calling people racist.

Funny how whenever we talk about race, we're accused of being overly sensitive - by the same people who scream "You're calling me a racist!" every time we go anywhere near the topic of race.

in the same breath.

I, along with the majority of Americans, heard what Gabbard heard. I am glad that she has the courage to speak the truth...

Putting desired implications into the minds of those who will make judgements sounds like what a lawyer does when his/her case isn't solid. She knew exactly what she wanted to achieve and how it needed to be worded.
I hate to agree with Gabbard but she's right and in this case honest enough not to mince words. In contrast, basically saying "You are not a racist but..." is a dishonest and deceptive attack.

Ms Gabbard is so meta.

Usually means you are X argument follows.

Odd person to come to Biden’s defense.

She better watch out in the next debate trying to go for Harris

Anyone making up stuff, taking comments out of context, or misconstruing what was said years ago for political expediency is plain wrong, no matter how one spins it.

Who was 'once upon a time' anti-abortion and homophobic . . . but what do I know?

...ffs...

That fact alone should negate what Gabbard is trying to do. But it won't, of course.

If people believe that Biden is a racist based on actions he took or didn't take during his time in office, that's on them. Harris has said nothing of the sort.

Gabbard is a smart politician (her timing is for shit, though). With the "not a racist" bit, she's going to win over some Biden folks who are still licking their wounds. She needs some of them to stay relevant because her slice of the Bernie base has reached it peak.

who is now the media's favorite...

The primary is a marathon. It tires me out thinking about how out there they all need to be.

the insinuation is clear. If you don't believe someone is (insert-whatever-name-here), then don't say his/her name and the phrase/word in the same sentence preceded by the word "but." Period.

I've been back and forth in my own mind about what happened at that debate, but I think I'm at the point now where I can clearly say that Kamala should not have gone down that path. She was already winning the debate, and let's be honest, Joe was already losing the debate on his own. But I guess this is where being an excellent prosecutor doesn't always mesh with being a skilled politician. That wasn't a courtroom, it was a debate with like-minded colleagues. And that wasn't trump on the stand, it was Joe Biden. And to do all of that just to end up sharing the same exact view on busing as Biden is an epic fail, IMO.

All of that being said, Gabbard is desperate to get attention and stir the pot. Weighing in on this issue, of all the issues she could be weighing in on, is consistent with her messaging and her base--which seems to be comprised of right-leaning libertarians.

Why not assume it's just as likely that she doesn't think he's a racist and didn't want anyone to think her challenging him on his civil rights record was an accusation of racism, but, in her experience - and experience shared by many other people of color, some of whom have explained it here - whenever a person of color discusses race with a white person, he or she is likely to be accused of calling the white person a racist, so she felt the need to emphasize that she doesn't believe he's not a racist.

Why do you dismiss that much more logical and fact-based possibility and go straight to the bizarre assumption that "she was calling him a racist even though she said explicitly that she wasn't and in fact, the fact that she said she wasn't calling him a racist meant hat she was calling him a racist" claim?

Making Biden into the villain was the strategy for peeling away his black support. We now know she spent weeks practicing for that moment. Her support increased post-debate, but I do not believe it was because people agreed with her framing of Biden. If you completely remove the busing exchange from the equation, Kamala won and Biden bombed. In my opinion, were it not for that exchange, her black support would be higher. I'm sure of it.

Someone sure likes to dish it out but can't take it when the serve is returned.

Exactly