Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Curiousity about nuanced semantics.


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Curiousity about nuanced semantics. Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Curiousity about nuanced semantics. - 8/26/2008 12:49:09 PM   
Thadius


Posts: 5091
Joined: 10/11/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
Voting against someone is always a negative position. I don't have a problem with anyone choosing to vote for John McCain but if someone tells me they won't vote for Barack Obama because he isn't white then that is a whole different story.

So if someone says "I'm voting for John McCain because he's the white candidate in this race," you're ok with that?

Way to play semantics. Now why not try and engage in serious discussion as the OP requested?


That is sort of to the point of what I was asking.  There is a certain nuance to the way things are presented in the media.  For example those that are voting for McCain because he is white, is also portrayed as not voting for Obama because he is black.  In simple terms, does it not also go the same way (ie. I am voting for Obama because he is black, or because McCain is not black).

I do concede that there is a familiarity with those that are perceived to be the same as us. I will give a personal example, as I grew up, I was behind Daley, because he was from my neighborhood, he had Irish heritage, and hell my grandparents had lunch with his parents regularly.  As I began to expand my horizons, I realized that there was more to a man (or woman) than their looks or where they came from.  I began to look at the things the person stood for, the issues they fought for and against.  I understood that regardless of gender, race, religion, or political party, there are folks that I can stand behind and that should not reflect an opinion of racial or sexual preferences.

That being said, the media has played a big role this cycle, and honestly in past cycles, of trying to play to this divide. The entire us vs them mentality.  They perpetuate such things to sell advertising and or copies of their papers.

One could hardly argue what the reaction would be to somebody saying "I voted for Obama because he was a man" Or "I voted for Hillary because she was white".  Both positions would be skewered by reactionaries of opposition.  I hope that clears it up a bit.  What I am suggesting is that there is an accepted nuance to the semantics played in the media and in the politic in general.  And thus some will lay the blame for one candidate or the other losing on these same nuances.

I hope this clarifies the topic I hope to approach, and have enjoyed reading the responses thus far.
Thadius

_____________________________

When the character of a man is not clear to you, look at his friends." ~ Japanese Proverb

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 21
RE: Curiousity about nuanced semantics. - 8/26/2008 12:51:29 PM   
rulemylife


Posts: 14614
Joined: 8/23/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: sunshinemiss

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

1.  Voting against someone based on race or gender is definitely bigoted. Voting for someone because of race or gender isn't quite the same thing.

2.  It has a lot to do with feelings of community that are not that different from the reasons we see major presidential candidates always carrying their home state.

3.  There is a perception that the candidate will deliver for that state or that race or that gender or at the very least that the candidate will be sympathetic to that state or group's concerns.


Hold on there buddy!

1.  big·ot·ed  –adjective
utterly intolerant of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.  

That is just way over the line.  Not voting for someone because of their race or their gender is not NECESSARILY about being "UTTERLY INTOLERANT of any creed believe or opinion that DIFFERS from one's own.".   It very well could be that I think that a person who is soooooooooooo different from me can't actually see things from my point of view.  That is not bigoted, that is often realistic.  Heck there are books and books written about the way people see the world and how it is different.  A farmer does not see time and weather the same way a stock broker does.  Neither does a man see things the same way a woman does.  Neither does a person of color (who knows they are "of color") see things the way a white person (who often is not acutely aware of their race).  Not voting for someone because of race, gender, etc.  can be more about lack of connection.

2.  And this is an excellent point of "joining".   It is often about believing that someone will UNDERSTAND my opinion.  There is nothing bigoted about that.  It is about joining rather than separating.

3.  People will see this as "He's OUR guy".... there is a certain communal appreciation, communal understanding.  It makes people feel like THEY and THEIR needs/ideals will be served.  And that, after all, is the purpose of representation.  I believe there was a whole big fat war fought because of taxation without representation (amongst other reasons).

There is nothing wrong with wanting to be attached to a candidate for whatever reason.  I believe I gave a well thought out example of this when writing about abortion up there --^   When you use a word like "bigoted" to make a point, you are really overreacting imo. 

peace and passion,
sunshine

Edited to fix the copy of the definition.


So, explain to me why 90-95% of blacks voted for Obama.  Explain to me why black politicians and delegates faced intimidation and bullying by their black constituents for supporting Clinton.  Even though her husband received strong support among the black community.  Explain to me why women who supported Clinton are so incensed that Obama won they are defecting to McCain.  Do they really believe that McCain will be closer to their ideals than Obama? 

While I don't know if it's bigoted, it's certainly childish.  I'll vote for whoever looks like me, grew up like me, is the same sex as me, is the same race as me.  Quite frankly, I don't give a damn about who I can "connect" with.  My guess is, whether it's McCain or Obama, he's not going to be calling me up to go have a beer anytime soon.  I care about the issues and what they are going to do as President, but, as usual, our elections our boiling down to a bunch of nonsense. 

< Message edited by rulemylife -- 8/26/2008 12:55:04 PM >

(in reply to sunshinemiss)
Profile   Post #: 22
RE: Curiousity about nuanced semantics. - 8/26/2008 1:17:41 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius
That is sort of to the point of what I was asking.  There is a certain nuance to the way things are presented in the media.  For example those that are voting for McCain because he is white, is also portrayed as not voting for Obama because he is black.  In simple terms, does it not also go the same way (ie. I am voting for Obama because he is black, or because McCain is not black).

I think it still comes down to the false dichotomy.

Not voting for a candidate because he belongs to some group could easily result in leaving no one to vote for.

Choosing to vote for a candidate because he is a member of some group isn't quite so exclusive a proposition.

The true dichotomy would be someone who only votes for someone who is a member of some group versus someone who will never vote for a member of some specific group. Both those postions are bigoted IMO.

(in reply to Thadius)
Profile   Post #: 23
RE: Curiousity about nuanced semantics. - 8/26/2008 1:28:11 PM   
Thadius


Posts: 5091
Joined: 10/11/2005
Status: offline 		I agree that there is always the option to not vote for any candidate in a given election.  However suggesting that one is voting for somebody because they are white,black,male, or female, is very much along the lines of saying that I am not voting for so and so for the opposite reasoning.  Is it not?  Also, what would be the reaction to a person or block of people stating "I am voting for X because they are a white male"?  I guarantee that such a statement would be pounced on as sexist and racist. No?

_____________________________

When the character of a man is not clear to you, look at his friends." ~ Japanese Proverb

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 24
RE: Curiousity about nuanced semantics. - 8/26/2008 1:33:52 PM   
sunshinemiss


Posts: 17673
Joined: 11/26/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

So, explain to me why 90-95% of blacks voted for Obama.  Explain to me why black politicians and delegates faced intimidation and bullying by their black constituents for supporting Clinton.  Even though her husband received strong support among the black community.  Explain to me why women who supported Clinton are so incensed that Obama won they are defecting to McCain.  Do they really believe that McCain will be closer to their ideals than Obama? 

For some, yes.  And frankly I generally stay out of American politics - way to egocentric for me.

While I don't know if it's bigoted, it's certainly childish.  I'll vote for whoever looks like me, grew up like me, is the same sex as me, is the same race as me.  Quite frankly, I don't give a damn about who I can "connect" with.  My guess is, whether it's McCain or Obama, he's not going to be calling me up to go have a beer anytime soon.  I care about the issues and what they are going to do as President, but, as usual, our elections our boiling down to a bunch of nonsense. 

I never said that it was logical or reasonable or even adult.  I answered the question from an international and psychological viewpoint.  I also did not answer to what I THINK.  I answered the question as it was put forth.


Well wishes,
sunshine


_____________________________

Yes, I am a wonton hussy... and still sweet as 3.14

(in reply to rulemylife)
Profile   Post #: 25
RE: Curiousity about nuanced semantics. - 8/26/2008 1:34:52 PM   
celticlord2112


Posts: 5732
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius

I agree that there is always the option to not vote for any candidate in a given election. However suggesting that one is voting for somebody because they are white,black,male, or female, is very much along the lines of saying that I am not voting for so and so for the opposite reasoning. Is it not? Also, what would be the reaction to a person or block of people stating "I am voting for X because they are a white male"? I guarantee that such a statement would be pounced on as sexist and racist. No?

Question that I hope is not a thread hijack.....

Do any here argue that race, gender, religion, or any other GROUP characteristic should have relevance in voting selecting a candidate to vote FOR? If so, why, and which group characteristics?

Thadius, if this seems like a hijack I'll move it to a different thread.

_____________________________



(in reply to Thadius)
Profile   Post #: 26
RE: Curiousity about nuanced semantics. - 8/26/2008 1:53:16 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius

I agree that there is always the option to not vote for any candidate in a given election.  However suggesting that one is voting for somebody because they are white,black,male, or female, is very much along the lines of saying that I am not voting for so and so for the opposite reasoning.  Is it not?  Also, what would be the reaction to a person or block of people stating "I am voting for X because they are a white male"?  I guarantee that such a statement would be pounced on as sexist and racist. No?

This is reasonably easy to express in symbolic logic but fairly hard to express in english so I'll try again.

If the proposition is "I won't vote for black candidates" then the the opposite situation is "I only vote for black candidates."

The situation you originally described was "I choose to vote for this candidate because he is black" which is not so exclusive a proposition. Note that this is in relation to this singular instance rather than the sweeping generalization and the inherent implication that it is possible to choose to vote for people outside the group.

(in reply to Thadius)
Profile   Post #: 27
RE: Curiousity about nuanced semantics. - 8/26/2008 1:59:40 PM   
Hippiekinkster


Posts: 5512
Joined: 11/20/2007
From: Liechtenstein
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53
i see this how Ken does. The reason for voting for candidate A has no bearing on not voting for candidate B. I agree there is a fine line between the two schools of thought though.

If you vote for Candidate A, you are not voting for Candidate B. Except maybe in Chicago, each of us gets one vote and it is an exclusive vote--it can be used for one and only one candidate per election.

Therefore, any reason to vote for a candidate must be a reason to vote against another candidate, and vice-versa.

You are wrong. Anti-A is not the same as not-A. 

_____________________________

"We are convinced that freedom w/o Socialism is privilege and injustice, and that Socialism w/o freedom is slavery and brutality." Bakunin

“Nothing we do, however virtuous, can be accomplished alone; therefore we are saved by love.” Reinhold Ne

(in reply to celticlord2112)
Profile   Post #: 28
RE: Curiousity about nuanced semantics. - 8/26/2008 2:01:56 PM   
Thadius


Posts: 5091
Joined: 10/11/2005
Status: offline 		I understand what you are saying. However, the media and alas some campaigns, are suggesting exactly that a vote for one is a vote against the other, and thus the nuance of semantics.  I completely understand that there  are other reasons to vote for or against somebody, yet that is not how it is presented.  Too, you keep avoiding the obvious double standard in holding a position of "I am choosing to vote for X because they are Y race or gender."  Insert white or male for Y and it is reported and attacked, compared to inserting black or female being inserted for Y.  See the dicotomy in practice here, not just the theory that we wish was reality.

It is possible that I am completely off base here, as I am just going on my personal observations.

_____________________________

When the character of a man is not clear to you, look at his friends." ~ Japanese Proverb

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 29
RE: Curiousity about nuanced semantics. - 8/26/2008 2:42:20 PM   
kdsub


Posts: 12180
Joined: 8/16/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

Do any here argue that race, gender, religion, or any other GROUP characteristic should have relevance in voting selecting a candidate to vote FOR? If so, why, and which group characteristics?



I think most of us like someone who has the same background and reasonably thinks like themselves... I would tend to vote for someone like me if given a choice..only because I would understand them better.

As a wild example I would not vote for a man that walked the streets with his pants down to his knees.. I may follow him around hoping they fall..lol... but not vote for him. racists...maybe...

I alway talk from the heart  and the truth.. and I think most will deny they feel my way but I'll bet the majority do

Butch

(in reply to celticlord2112)
Profile   Post #: 30
RE: Curiousity about nuanced semantics. - 8/26/2008 3:10:21 PM   
Evility


Posts: 915
Joined: 12/19/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius
What is the difference between voting against somebody because of race and gender, or voting for somebody because of race or gender?


I see no difference.

(in reply to Thadius)
Profile   Post #: 31
RE: Curiousity about nuanced semantics. - 8/26/2008 3:30:44 PM   
philosophy


Posts: 5284
Joined: 2/15/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112


You cannot vote for a candidate without voting against his (or her) opponent.


....still stuck on that two value logic i see.

So, let's keep it simple. There are two candidates in a given election. An individual voter has a wide variety of potential starting positions, they may like both candidates, like neither candidate, like one more than the other, dislike one more than the other......and a whole bunch of nuanced shades of meaning inbetween.
By reducing it to the simple model you refer to, you miss the rich possibilities inherent in the situation.
You have also missed another point. To vote against something assumes you have the right to vote yes or no on a given point. In the US presidential election you don't have that situation. You can only vote yes for one of them. There is no possibility of voting against. You confuse a passive side effect with an active intention.

Life is not digital CL, no matter how hard you try to see it that way, it is analogue.

(in reply to celticlord2112)
Profile   Post #: 32
RE: Curiousity about nuanced semantics. - 8/26/2008 3:44:06 PM   
celticlord2112


Posts: 5732
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy
You can only vote yes for one of them.

I don't ever recall voting "yes" for a candidate. I vote for a candidate, and against his/her opposition. Every time.

As do you. Every time.

The "passive side effect" concept is invalid, because said side effect is the foreseeable, inevitable and unavoidable outcome of what you term the active intention. The two entities are inseparable; they are therefore a single entity.

How do you cast a vote for a candidate and avoid "not casting" a vote for that candidate's opposition? Answer: you can't.

How is "not casting" a vote for the candidate's opposition distinguishable from voting against the candidate's opposition? Answer: It isn't.

< Message edited by celticlord2112 -- 8/26/2008 3:46:55 PM >

_____________________________



(in reply to philosophy)
Profile   Post #: 33
RE: Curiousity about nuanced semantics. - 8/26/2008 3:47:09 PM   
Politesub53


Posts: 14862
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53
I used to see it as CL stated it Kittin. Now though i think differently, voting for someone who has something in common with you, isnt, in my opinion, racist.

It is if the "something" in common is race, and that "something" is the reason you vote for that person.


Hi CL, In reply to this post and post 12, i will try and make myself clearer. If someone votes for someone of the same gender or colour, because they fell that that candiate may empathise with issues they have faced. then no, i dont see it as racist or sexist.

However, if they vote for that person purely because they are the opposite gender or colour,and the operative word is purely, then yes, i see it as racist or sexist.

Voting for someone who will empathise with you, is simply that. One doesnt even have to consider any other candidates. " I like X he/she knows my issues and so gets my vote "  Y and Z dont enter into it. Again this is just my opinion.

(in reply to celticlord2112)
Profile   Post #: 34
RE: Curiousity about nuanced semantics. - 8/26/2008 3:50:32 PM   
celticlord2112


Posts: 5732
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53
Hi CL, In reply to this post and post 12, i will try and make myself clearer. If someone votes for someone of the same gender or colour, because they fell that that candiate may empathise with issues they have faced. then no, i dont see it as racist or sexist.

Now that is an interesting splitting of the hairs. In such a scenario, are you voting because of the race/gender or because of the perceived empathy?

_____________________________



(in reply to Politesub53)
Profile   Post #: 35
RE: Curiousity about nuanced semantics. - 8/26/2008 3:51:16 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius

I understand what you are saying. However, the media and alas some campaigns, are suggesting exactly that a vote for one is a vote against the other, and thus the nuance of semantics.  I completely understand that there  are other reasons to vote for or against somebody, yet that is not how it is presented.  Too, you keep avoiding the obvious double standard in holding a position of "I am choosing to vote for X because they are Y race or gender."  Insert white or male for Y and it is reported and attacked, compared to inserting black or female being inserted for Y.  See the dicotomy in practice here, not just the theory that we wish was reality.

It is possible that I am completely off base here, as I am just going on my personal observations.

I'm not avoiding any double standard. I only vote for white candidates is a different proposition than I am voting for this candidate because he is white. It is possible to be actually hold the first position but express the second but it isn't necessarily true that if you state the second statement that you hold the first position.

Going back to the original post the question was "Do any of the panelists think there were some white folks that wouldn't vote for Obama simply because he was black?" which implies the position of "I will not vote for any black candidate."

Then the second proposition is presented thus "Were there any blacks that were voting for Obama simply because he was black, and were there any women out there that voted for Hillary simply because she was a woman?" which implies "I'm voting for this candidate because he is black."

The first and second propositions are similiar but not identical and that is the crux of the issue.

(in reply to Thadius)
Profile   Post #: 36
RE: Curiousity about nuanced semantics. - 8/26/2008 3:54:51 PM   
philosophy


Posts: 5284
Joined: 2/15/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

How do you cast a vote for a candidate and avoid "not casting" a vote for that candidate's opposition? Answer: you can't.



...you really are stuck with that two value thing aren't you?

Ok, let's imagine an election where there are more than two candidates. Let's say there are six candidates. All party based. You like the stance of party A, hate the stance of party B and have no particular opinion of parties C, D, E and F.
Now, usually we get to vote for just one candidate. So our imaginary voter votes for party A, which gives us a result of A- 1 vote, B,C,D,E,F- no votes.
Now let's imagine an electoral process where you get two votes, one for a candidate and one against. That would mean the result of our imaginary voters vote would be A- 1 vote, B- -1 vote, C,D,E,F no votes.
In the latter case there would be a possibility of actively voting against someone. In the former case our imaginary voter is not, in fact can not, vote against someone.

Do you get it yet?

Now, in a two party vote there is a possibility of voting against, and that's the concept of a protest vote. Note how the intention is key here. By suggesting that a vote for someone is necessarily a vote against their opponent you make assumptions regarding the voters intentions.
i'm sure you'll argue that the result is the same, but only in a two party vote and even then in order to make that assertion you have to make the model very crude.
Life is complex and varied. It wont change its nature just because two value logic is easier to wrap your head round than pesky grey areas.

(in reply to celticlord2112)
Profile   Post #: 37
RE: Curiousity about nuanced semantics. - 8/26/2008 3:54:53 PM   
celticlord2112


Posts: 5732
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
Going back to the original post the question was "Do any of the panelists think there were some white folks that wouldn't vote for Obama simply because he was black?" which implies the position of "I will not vote for any black candidate."

Then the second proposition is presented thus "Were there any blacks that were voting for Obama simply because he was black, and were there any women out there that voted for Hillary simply because she was a woman?" which implies "I'm voting for this candidate because he is black."

The first and second propositions are similiar but not identical and that is the crux of the issue.

Why does the second proposition not imply "I will vote for any black candidate"?

_____________________________



(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 38
RE: Curiousity about nuanced semantics. - 8/26/2008 3:55:35 PM   
Emperor1956


Posts: 2370
Joined: 11/7/2005
Status: offline 		FR:  What I don't understand is why so many of you assume that voting for someone who "looks like me"/"thinks like me"/"comes from my background"/"empathises with me" is a good thing.  To the extent I'm an elitist, fine...call me an elitist.  But look at the "average American."  Do you really want HIM or HER running your country?

A supporter famously called out to Adlai Stevenson "Mr. Stevenson, you have the vote of every thinking person!"
Stevenson shot back "Its not enough!  I need a majority!"

Remember, he lost, too.

E. 

_____________________________

"When you wake up, Pooh," said Piglet, "what's the first thing you say?"
"What's for breakfast? What do you say, Piglet?"
"I say, I wonder what's going to happen exciting today?"
Pooh nodded thoughtfully.
"It's the same thing," he said.

(in reply to Politesub53)
Profile   Post #: 39
RE: Curiousity about nuanced semantics. - 8/26/2008 4:04:34 PM   
Politesub53


Posts: 14862
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53
Hi CL, In reply to this post and post 12, i will try and make myself clearer. If someone votes for someone of the same gender or colour, because they fell that that candiate may empathise with issues they have faced. then no, i dont see it as racist or sexist.

Now that is an interesting splitting of the hairs. In such a scenario, are you voting because of the race/gender or because of the perceived empathy?


The empathy i would hope. As i said, otherwise it is racist/sexist.
I agree its a fine balance, but its one i am prepared to acknowledge.

(in reply to celticlord2112)
Profile   Post #: 40
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Curiousity about nuanced semantics. Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.093