Comments on: ‘Racist, homophobic’ campaign fliers distributed in Maplewood

By: baker

baker — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 15:42:53 +0000

I think that by slinging these words around loosely without scrutiny, YOU are making the words useless.

By: Erica M

Erica M — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 15:41:11 +0000

All I have to say is “what jeffk said.”

By: mnblrmkr

mnblrmkr — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:33:56 +0000

but empathy is evil jeff.

By: jeffk

jeffk — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:00:16 +0000

baker, by limiting your definition of “homophobic” and “racist” to having be absolutely literal statements of dislike of certain groups, you’re making the words fairly useless. Homophobia and racism are subtle and can be just as harmful that way. I’m not suggesting you base the definitions on how they make people *feel*; I’m suggesting you read between the obvious lines and take note of the strange word choice and strange choices of issues to emphasize.

By: mnblrmkr

mnblrmkr — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 03:50:28 +0000

“A little who, what, were and how would be beneficial.”

Well the who is a bit tough because they’re anonymous fliers. But the what, where and how is all there.

By: Max Sparber

Max Sparber — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 03:31:41 +0000

Apologies, Baker; this InterWeb can be confusing sometimes.

By: swandog

swandog — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 01:27:15 +0000

You seem to be suggesting that Llanas himself was responsible for the flier, Baker. If that was your suggestion, I would ask that you refrain from tossing around such accusations unless you can present something resembling evidence.

It was me, swandog. I am suggesting that the article itself lacks evidence. What do they have a piece of paper with blue tape. A little who, what, were and how would be beneficial.

By: baker

baker — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 00:23:58 +0000

Ok, I see a distinct difference.
To call a document homophobic and racist, it must be that. You can’t label something because of the emotions it may elicit from people. Emotions are subjective. If the document said something outright racist, like ‘Hispanics shouldn’t be in leadership positions’, or outright homophobic, like ‘gays are not fit to serve the citizens of Maplewood’, this is one thing. There is not room for interpretation there. But the way ‘non-native’ was interpreted was very much up to the reader in this case. The document may be interpreted to be racist by some, but not others.

The motive is really pretty obvious–the flier is trying to create aversion to this candidate by eliciting emotions. It’s politics. It mentions the candidate’s involvment with gay groups over and over, hoping to create a negative association for the readers that may have some aversion to homosexuality. But it is not in itself a homophobic publication. I see a difference.

By: baker

baker — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 23:18:22 +0000

Because the context it is used. Did you read it?

“Llanas, a non-native of maplewood,apparently spends much of his time in Minneapolis supporting gay politicians. How does this qualify him to run for the Maplewood city council?”

It is obvious that they are trying to make him seem like a ‘big-city’ politician, that doesn’t have Maplewood’s bests interests at heart. It is a slam on the guy, no doubt, but I would not call it a racist slam.

By: jeffk

jeffk — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 23:04:04 +0000

Oh come on. Like using the phrase “non-native” to describe the brown guy isn’t supposed to conjure enforce the image of him as an outsider with respect to his race. And the phrase “supporting gay politicians” is being used clearly as a negative; only a homophobe is going to respond to such a thing with “oh, my! How terrible! He’s working with teh homosexuals!”, which is clearly the intended response.

I think it takes pretty willful eye-closing and ear-covering to pretend this is just hyper-sensitive liberal overreaction.