skzbrust ([info]skzbrust) wrote,
@ 2008-01-10 15:41:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
A Ron Paul inspired linguistics question
Ron Paul's response to the racist, homophobic, and generally disgusting filth that was published under his name was, "I have publicly taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name."

I've been puzzling over that statement.  What, exactly, does it mean?

Am I missing something, or does "I take moral responsibility" actually mean, "I deny moral responsibility?"

Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>

(Post a new comment)


[info]casacorona
2008-01-10 11:56 pm UTC (link)
It means nothing at all. It's a non-denial denial.

(Reply to this)


[info]markgritter
2008-01-10 11:57 pm UTC (link)
It means "I already apologized for that." Which makes it all better, right?

(Reply to this)


[info]den_down_unda
2008-01-11 12:07 am UTC (link)
It means "I am too a politician! I can twist the language just as well as any of 'em."

(Reply to this)


[info]ker_thwap
2008-01-11 12:08 am UTC (link)
I'd say you nailed it. Either he's a racist seeking to revise history or he was incapable/negligent of any sort of oversight over a publication bearing his name.

CNN will now be attacked by the mindless bloggites incapable of expanding their world view based on new information.

(Reply to this)


[info]rozk
2008-01-11 12:10 am UTC (link)
It means 'I've taken responsibility for it, so it would be unconscionably tasteless ever to mention it, or my responsibility for it, again.' It is a small child screaming 'I said I was Sorry!!!!!'

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]harmfulguy
2008-01-11 12:35 am UTC (link)
That sounds like the most practical interpretation.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]allandaros
2008-01-11 12:10 am UTC (link)
Huh, where'd Ron Paul say that?

And yeah, I think it is essentially trying to pull the "I already apologized, leave me alone" card on Ron Paul's part.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]litch
2008-01-11 06:43 am UTC (link)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7FwULXnM_E

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]lothannon
2008-01-11 12:11 am UTC (link)
Note however that he hasnt said anything about the contents of what went out under his name (that I've seen). Just that he should have been more careful about it going out.

So yes Mr Brust, thats pretty much what Im hearing too.

(Reply to this)


[info]ckd
2008-01-11 12:14 am UTC (link)
If there was a demand for a real apology, the market would provide one.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]iterum
2008-01-11 12:45 am UTC (link)
I rarely actually "LOL" when reading, but I did here.

I did not, however, ROFL.

(Reply to this) (Parent)
(no subject) - [info]minnehaha, 2008-01-11 12:45 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]bawrence, 2008-01-11 12:47 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]skzbrust, 2008-01-11 01:20 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]dogofthefuture, 2008-01-11 10:06 am UTC

[info]snippy
2008-01-11 12:14 am UTC (link)
I read it to mean: I didn't read the stuff before it was published, and when I was accused of being a racist, I went back and read it, and boy am I sorry I didn't read it, because I might have taken some action, but it's too far in the past now and frankly I'm not going to bother about it.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]chamois_shimi
2008-01-11 12:20 am UTC (link)
Pretty much, yup. Gosh I should have read that but I didn't and I wish it hadn't gone out under my name, but y'all better stop badgering me about it now because I already SAID I was SORRY, ya heeeer???

Heh.

(Reply to this) (Parent)
(no subject) - [info]docstrange, 2008-01-11 12:20 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]kimuro, 2008-01-11 01:36 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]rsheslin, 2008-01-11 04:26 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]jenab6, 2008-01-12 12:53 am UTC

[info]ferricide
2008-01-11 12:21 am UTC (link)
i think it means "i deny actual responsibility."

(Reply to this)


[info]ivymcallister
2008-01-11 12:24 am UTC (link)
He's not saying that he's taken moral responsibility for these statements. What he's saying is that he's sorry someone has called him on it. It's the old, "He's not sorry he did it--he's sorry he got caught."

(Reply to this)


[info]cjtremlett
2008-01-11 12:29 am UTC (link)
"If I mess with this sentence enough, no one will know what I mean, because you all are complete idiots. Vote for me."

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]gramina
2008-01-11 12:38 am UTC (link)
Love the icon!

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]cos
2008-01-11 12:29 am UTC (link)
It means "whatever I say, no matter how stupid it sounds, is going to sound better than the truth, which is that I actually wrote some of that stuff and knew about the rest and was fine with it. So I'll just say something so people who really want to support me can have their rationalization."

(Reply to this)


[info]gramina
2008-01-11 12:38 am UTC (link)
I think he's trying to claim the moral high ground for admitting that it's possible somebody else said something on his behalf that he didn't read ahead of time.

That is, he's accepting culpability for carelessness, while denying responsibility for what was actually said.

Personally, I'm not finding it persuasive.

(!)

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]copperwise
2008-01-11 12:52 am UTC (link)
It might be more persuasive if it were a one time instance, and not years and years worth. Like, even 1% persuasive, instead of 0%.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]minnehaha
2008-01-11 12:44 am UTC (link)
Lately, this kind of thing has come to be called a non-denial denial.

B

(Reply to this)


[info]fitzthetoad
2008-01-11 01:00 am UTC (link)
You should actually put his entire comment out so that it can be taken in context.

“They were never my words, but I had some moral responsibility for them . . . I actually really wanted to try to explain that it doesn’t come from me directly, but they campaign aides said that’s too confusing. ‘It appeared in your letter and your name was on that letter and therefore you have to live with it.’”
Ron Paul 1996

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]mamajenzie
2008-01-11 01:10 am UTC (link)
Yeah, but I think there's a difference between acknowledging that something happened, and taking ownership for it.

Your kid spilt the milk.
Yup, I acknolwedge that.
Someone should clean that up.
Yup, I acknolwedge that as well.
Since your kid spilt it, and you're responsible for their actions, you should clean it.
Boy you're right again! I really SHOULD clean it up.

And the milk still sits.

To say you are responsible but not ACTUALLY apologize, is not acting responsible for it.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
(no subject) - [info]touchstone, 2008-01-11 03:35 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]mamajenzie, 2008-01-11 03:54 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]amysuemom, 2008-01-11 04:45 am UTC

[info]thedragonweaver
2008-01-11 01:09 am UTC (link)
It means that Mr. Paul is quite easily shown to be a "minor league" politician.

Major league politicians can come up with much better excuses.

(Reply to this)


[info]dirkcjelli
2008-01-11 01:10 am UTC (link)
He is on the record, more recently, as being against the separation of church and state... so I'm guessing he didn't learn his lesson.

(Reply to this)


[info]sinboy
2008-01-11 02:30 am UTC (link)
Andrew Sullivan (a gay conservative pundit) thinks that Ron Paul does not seem like a racist.

Keep in mind that Sullivan thinks that The Bell Curve is chock full of real science.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]thedragonweaver
2008-01-11 02:06 pm UTC (link)
Also keep in mind that most conservatives burst into laughter at Sullivan's self-description; he may think he's a conservative but he hasn't held a conservative position in at least four years.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
(no subject) - [info]sinboy, 2008-01-11 02:15 pm UTC

[info]unixronin
2008-01-11 02:37 am UTC (link)
I interpreted this as, "I didn't know someone was putting this crap out under my name, but I consider myself morally responsible for not catching it."

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]theweaselking
2008-01-11 05:40 am UTC (link)
"So, why are the writers and publishers and subscription agents still your employees, and why are they running your Texas campaign? And did you seriously not read *any* of your own newsletter's writing for TWO DECADES? And why should anyone vote for you when you've displayed such Bush-equivalent incompetence and mismanagement since the 1970s?"

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
(no subject) - [info]unixronin, 2008-01-11 11:31 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]sethb, 2008-01-11 03:54 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]skzbrust, 2008-01-11 09:46 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]hellmutt, 2008-01-11 11:13 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]unixronin, 2008-01-11 11:27 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]skzbrust, 2008-01-11 01:47 pm UTC

[info]mamculuna
2008-01-11 03:48 am UTC (link)
It's better than Barack Obama's response to my complaint about the homophobic gospel singer representing him in SC: "We need to bring all the voices into the discussion." I asked if that included the racist voices, and got no response. Hate is hate, right?

However, I'd vote for Obama several times before Paul once. Just wish he'd pay attention.

(Reply to this)


[info]prodigal
2008-01-11 04:04 am UTC (link)
It's a non-apology apology - he's saying, in effect, "I am sorry that you were offended", without being honest enough to admit that what he wrote (or was written under his name) was offensive.

(Reply to this)


[info]sethb
2008-01-11 04:08 am UTC (link)
What it means is that he isn't repudiating the statements in question.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]theweaselking
2008-01-11 05:43 am UTC (link)
Of course not. Repudiating the statements in question would alienate the entirety of his core fanbase, and they'd start coming out of the woodwork, reveal a few more choice facts of his dealings with them, and alienate his newfound fans.

If he denies being a racist, he loses the racists, and they out him even further as one of their own, which loses him everyone else. Ron Paul *cannot* repudiate his past statements or even come out against white supremacists in any way, or he loses everything.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]nolly
2008-01-11 06:56 am UTC (link)
"I'm sorry I didn't notice my kid was shoplifting before the alarm went off and security tackled him. Can we go now?"

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]rustybitch
2008-01-11 10:33 am UTC (link)
Heh. Good one ;>

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]litch
2008-01-11 06:58 am UTC (link)
in his response he then goes on to say he is the anti-racist candidate because he would abolish the drug laws and pardon non-violent drug offenders

as if that is the only issue effecting the black community

then the way he goes on at length about how "the blacks" support him

I fully believe that, for a white man in his eighties who's lived most of his life in southeast texas, he is not a racist. But that's pretty paltry.

Considering the prevalence of racists in his supporters, the racist things which have been said in his name, and the opposition he's had to so many laws which have helped minorities it is ludicrous to pretend he isn't supporting the forces of racism in america.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]alierakieron
2008-01-11 03:50 pm UTC (link)
FUnny, isn't it?
"I am not a racist.
In fact, I'm so anti-racist, I want to eliminate drug laws.
Therefore, The Blacks must love me, because..."

Does he NOT see that this is a fundamentally racist line of reasoning?

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>

Create an Account
Forgot your login?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…