Bigotry at the Tea Party Protest

[readherring.livejournal.com]

Given some of the discussions generated from my last post, I wanted to share with you one last picture from the April 15 Tea Party protest.

But first, I wanted to thank everyone for all of the positive comments. I was trying very hard to be open minded and fair, and I am genuinely happy that people found my post to be so. I am even more happy that people from "both sides" liked it for that reason. This is an incredibly positive political sentiment - that we have a common preference for fair and balanced presentation. It gives me some hope that this hyper-polarized climate might collapse one day.

I also wanted to apologize for not being on line much after posting - I'm on limited internet these days.

Anyway, I hope this doesn't destroy the fair and balanced vibes, but a lot of the commenters believed that the Tea Party is a bigoted movement. Not only do I insist that this is wrong, but I also believe that making this wrongful accusation needlessly pushes Tea Partiers and their liberal counterparts further away from ever listening to each other, or making any compromise. I therefore wish that I could say that I saw no evidence of bigotry at the Tea Party, but I can't. Here's the last picture:



This is one of the counter-protesters. Her shirt reads "F*ck your God". I didn't intentionally leave this out of the original post because I was embarrassed by it, although I am embarrassed by it. I only left it out because in choosing from my hundred photos to post, this one was just va poor quality shot.

I'm not trying to make liberals look bad with this picture. I'm just trying to show that while there are people with ugly beliefs on both sides, these ugly beliefs don't define those sides. The Anti-Tea-Party movement (or Coffee Party, or whatever) isn't an anti religion movement, even if some members of the Atheist Takfiri show up in the crowd. The same goes for racists (of which I saw none) or anti-abortionists (of which I saw the nutter truck driver - his rear billboard was all about fetuses) who show up for an anti-tax movement. The movement isn't about those other things, even if some of the participants go way off message.

Sorry if this post doesn't offer much new information over the last one, but given that there was such a strong belief in Tea Party racism in the first set of comments, I felt that I had done everyone a disservice by leaving this picture out.

Comments

[paft.livejournal.com]

PFT: 'Displaying a gun in public invokes violence.'
mb: So... how many cops have you taken down? Fight the violence!

It's the job of a cop to arrest criminals, execute search warrants, conduct traffic stops and searches, etc. Their guns are part of their job.

PFT: 'It is likely to be taken -- quite reasonably -- as a threat, especially given the language used by some on the right.'
mb: You're insane.

No, just well informed.

mb: like the work that your friends did last week in New Orleans. Kicking a woman on the ground until your break her leg four times is awesome.

What makes you think those thugs were my friends? And are you saying you object to what happened her? I should think you'd have been into it, given your comments about another female victim of violence in New Orleans.

Did they fact they didn't kill her deprive you of a good laugh?

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

"It's the job of a cop to arrest criminals, execute search warrants, conduct traffic stops and searches, etc. Their guns are part of their job."

Then you're admitting its a matter of cultural expectations. We expect cops to be wearing a sidearm, so no harm no foul.

However, in states where it is allowed to openly carry firearms, then there must also be a local expectation that when in public one may see ordinary citizens openly carrying sidearms.

Also, who are they threatening? Presumably most of the people at these events agree with liberalized gun policies.

(And we can't exactly use the DC rally's counter demonstrators as ones threatened due to the fact that the laws aren't such in that locality).

[paft.livejournal.com]

PFT: It's the job of a cop to arrest criminals, execute search warrants, conduct traffic stops and searches, etc. Their guns are part of their job."
JC: Then you're admitting its a matter of cultural expectations. We expect cops to be wearing a sidearm, so no harm no foul.

Somebody else has pointed out that the wearing of guns by uniformed cops is about telling criminals they're armed and prepared to use their weapons. Cops are trained, and are expected to act within legal guidelines.

jc: However, in states where it is allowed to openly carry firearms, then there must also be a local expectation that when in public one may see ordinary citizens openly carrying sidearms.

When someone shows up at a political rally holding a gun and declaring that a gun is part of their "message," the most obvious message implied is one of intimidation. And that's precisely what I hear these gun-toting right wingers boasting about amongst themselves when they talk about putting the "fear of God" into liberals and elected officials.

What do you think the sign "We came unarmed THIS time" was supposed to mean?

jc: Also, who are they threatening?

Elected officials and liberals who -- many of these these gun-toters imagine -- have committed "treason" by legally electing someone the gun-toters dislike, and legally passing legislation the gun-toters disagree with.

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

I await the outbreak of murders at tea parties commensurate with the level of concern you give it with your repeated warnings and near single-minded argumentation.

I myself believe that most of these people, even the ones holding signs with the 'unarmed this time' line, are using the rhetorical device known as 'bravado'. It's not a particularly bright way to express angst, but 'not-bright' is not the same as having actual murderous intent. I think that it's quite possible you diminish what it takes for someone who is not psychotic to commit cold-blooded murder. That's the non-self interested reason.

Might an actual psychotic take some kind of extremely violent action? Yeah, it's always possible, but with that in mind, actual risk from tea party folks themselves is small by my observation, and there's a solid reason for that assessment.

Having known many people here locally who are a part of the protests and being myself someone who is involved in aspects of the tea party locally, all are quite aware that with scrutiny as heightened as it is on the tea parties, such an attack would utterly destroy all efforts. Among the population in general, the tea party members themselves are the ones who least would like to see violence. That's the self-interested reason.

[paft.livejournal.com]

jc: I await the outbreak of murders at tea parties commensurate with the level of concern you give it with your repeated warnings and near single-minded argumentation.

How many murders (or assaults) would there have to be for it to be "commensurate" with my level of concern?

JC: I myself believe that most of these people, even the ones holding signs with the 'unarmed this time' line, are using the rhetorical device known as 'bravado'.

It's not the majority of these people I'm concerned about. It's the individual nutjobs who could take their "hyperbole" at face value.

jc: Might an actual psychotic take some kind of extremely violent action? Yeah, it's always possible, but with that in mind, actual risk from tea party folks themselves is small by my observation, and there's a solid reason for that assessment. Having known many people here locally who are a part of the protests and being myself someone who is involved in aspects of the tea party locally, all are quite aware that with scrutiny as heightened as it is on the tea parties, such an attack would utterly destroy all efforts. Among the population in general, the tea party members themselves are the ones who least would like to see violence. That's the self-interested reason.

Sorry, but I'm not impressed by this. It sounds like little more than a desire to maintain deniability. The Tea Party movement still tolerates a level of ...uh..."hyberbole" that ups the chances of an "actual pscyhotic" acting on it. I still see too many Tea Partiers framing the debate, not as if the rest of us were merely people who disagree with them, but as if we were an enemy on a par with Al Qaida. I still see too many tea partiers who plainly are incapable of distinguishing between a communist and a liberal.

I think this "'Gee, we don't need any bad PR" approach is best summed up in a video I saw recently, in which a screaming Tea Partier berated someone questioning him by calling him a communist and yelling "The only good Communist is a dead communist." Farious Tea Partiers off camera can be heard applauding him. Sure, a nervous TPer came up to lead him away out of an obvious fear he would actually assault the reporter and create an incident -- but what am I to think of all those people I hear agreeing with this freak?