Toronto Escorts

Former Trump Adviser Uses Racist Slur to Attack Black Guest on Fox News

bver_hunter

Well-known member
Nov 5, 2005
27,331
5,556
113
David Bossie, President Trump’s former deputy campaign manager, used a racist slur to attack Democratic strategist Joel Payne, who is black, during an appearance on Fox & Friends on Sunday. In the midst of a contentious exchange, Bossie told Payne that, “You’re out of your cotton-picking mind.”


The purpose of the segment was to debate “the left’s racists rants” — referring to people calling members of the Trump administration Nazis — and Bossie’s remark came not long after Payne criticized Trump and his allies for using racist “dog whistles.”

Payne immediately called out Bossie’s “cotton-picking” slur, adding that, “Brother, let me tell you something, I got some relatives who picked cotton and I’m not going to sit back and let you attack me on TV like that.”

Bossie then tried to discredit Payne, objecting to the idea that what he had just said was an attack. After more talk-over, with Fox News host Ed Henry trying to end the segment, Bossie angrily added,“This is ridiculous, this is what’s gone on in America. This is what we’re about.”

Henry did not acknowledge the slur as it happened, but said that “obviously we don’t appreciate some of the language back and forth” after ending the segment. He then addressed the incident for viewers after a commercial break. Bossie “used a phrase that clearly offended Joel Payne and offended many others,” Henry commented. He did not acknowledge that it was a racist remark, and claimed he didn’t know what Bossie meant to say, adding instead that he has known the right-wing activist “a long time” and that “I’ll let him address exactly what he said.”

“I want to make clear that Fox News and this show, myself — we don’t agree with that particular phrase,” Henry continued. “It was obviously offensive and these debates get fiery, that’s unfortunate. We like to have honest and spirited debates, but not phrases like that, obviously. And so I will just leave it at that.”

In a statement to Daily Intelligencer, a Fox News spokesperson added that Bossie’s comments “were deeply offensive and wholly inappropriate,” and that they “do not reflect the sentiments of FOX News and we do not in any way condone them.” It is not clear, however, if the network will discipline Bossie in any way over the incident.

Bossie also apologized in a tweet on Sunday afternoon, insisting he had not meant to use the “offensive phrase” to call Payne crazy:


Payne shared his experience later in the day on MSNBC, explaining that he felt “demeaned” and enraged by Bossie’s comment, particularly because his great-grandfather (and namesake) was a sharecropper:


Bossie is a regular Fox News contributor and has been the president of the conservative advocacy group Citizens United for almost two decades. He served as Donald Trump’s deputy campaign manager from September 2016 through the end of the election, and eventually co-authored the campaign memoir Let Trump Be Trump with former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/06/former-trump-adviser-uses-racist-slur-on-fox-news.html

True colours of the racist right wingers employed by Trump.
 

Smallcock

Active member
Jun 5, 2009
13,703
21
38
I've never thought of that phrase as racial. I've heard it all my life.
 

Polaris

Well-known member
Oct 11, 2007
3,076
58
48
hornyville
I've never thought of that phrase as racial. I've heard it all my life.
Get you cotton picking hands off mah ...

That is borderline today, probably racist.

Then again, what about dog whistle?

Guess Biff did not like that ...

That's America today! Eight years of Obama, and the racial divide got worst, not better.

:apathy:
 

Butler1000

Well-known member
Oct 31, 2011
28,707
3,405
113
I've never thought of that phrase as racial. I've heard it all my life.
It is. Just as the Phrase "what in Tar Nation?" Is one as well.

When Clinton in the campaign used the Phrase " They went off the Reservation" to describe sime sort of stupidity it was also a racist remark.

There is alot of it out in terms used by our parents without thinking.
 

Aardvark154

New member
Jan 19, 2006
53,773
3
0
Unthinking -- but not racist. Everyone who has lived in the United States knows that the expression is analogous to "are you nuts!"

It is still a routinely used expression particularly for those over 40.


Although I'm not at all surprised that New York Magazine chose to describe this still commonly used expression as "a racist slur," I rather doubt that a magazine supposedly about Topeka or Omaha would similarly categorize it.
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,495
11
38
I've never thought of that phrase as racial. I've heard it all my life.
So have I. So have all sorts of Black people. But the difference lies in which of us had enslaved relatives who were compelled to pick cotton.

Unthinking young white boys in Canada get a pass for using a quaint phrase they heard on American TV half a century back. In 2018 White professional pols publicly debating Black ones should have more smarts, and class enough to acknowledge the sensitivity they just trampled over and politely apologize.
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,495
11
38
Unthinking -- but not racist. Everyone who has lived in the United States knows that the expression is analogous to "are you nuts!"

It is still a routinely used expression particularly for those over 40.


Although I'm not at all surprised that New York Magazine chose to describe this still commonly used expression as "a racist slur," I rather doubt that a magazine supposedly about Topeka or Omaha would similarly categorize it.
Like telling a woman, "You look wonderful, for your age", it doesn't matter that you meant no harm or thought it was a compliment. if it causes pain and discomfort, you apologize and learn not to do it again.

Even if you live in Topeka — is that in 'Bleeding' Kansas? — learning should never stop. Especially if you're all grown up.
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,495
11
38
It is. Just as the Phrase "what in Tar Nation?" Is one as well.

When Clinton in the campaign used the Phrase " They went off the Reservation" to describe sime sort of stupidity it was also a racist remark.

There is alot of it out in terms used by our parents without thinking.
Google's Dictionary says "1775–85; blend of ’tarnal, dial. form of eternal, and damnation", presumably to escape the Commandment against swearing. But remembering the fuss over the Uncle Remus Tale about Br'er Fox and the Tar-baby, I think I'll take your etymology to avoid unthinking offence.

We have real threats to our individuality to concern us; a right to be thoughtless, uncaring and rude isn't among them.
 

Bud Plug

Sexual Appliance
Aug 17, 2001
5,069
0
0
Like telling a woman, "You look wonderful, for your age", it doesn't matter that you meant no harm or thought it was a compliment. if it causes pain and discomfort, you apologize and learn not to do it again.

Even if you live in Topeka — is that in 'Bleeding' Kansas? — learning should never stop. Especially if you're all grown up.
But how low is the bar? I agree that trying to avoid unnecessary and unintended offence is a good general strategy. It's often helpful to any dialogue if the other party isn't angry with you, particularly over something tangential to the discussion. Better chance they might be persuaded of your argument. However, when you unwittingly offend, and the offense taken is unreasonable, do you always adjust your behaviour to the lowest common denominator of sensitivity? While all words and phrases have their etymology, their connotations change over time with usage. Put another way, many words in the English language don't mean what they used to.

Is the new rule that all words with troubling etymology (troubling to at least someone) need to be purged from the language, regardless of whether that connotation has changed?

This sounds a lot like an idea favoured by Stalin (in the real world) and by Big Brother (in the world of fiction).

However correct that panelist was about the origins of "cotton-pickin" (although I have some doubts about it's complete etymological accuracy, given that cotton picking pre-dated and post-dated slavery, and was done by some poor whites in addition to slaves on the plantations, as well as by white farmers on their own land who were not slave owners), to my eye he comes off as looking for way to win a debate (which wasn't about slavery) without have to present convincing arguments.
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,495
11
38
But how low is the bar? I agree that trying to avoid unnecessary and unintended offence is a good general strategy. It's often helpful to any dialogue if the other party isn't angry with you, particularly over something tangential to the discussion. Better chance they might be persuaded of your argument. However, when you unwittingly offend, and the offense taken is unreasonable, do you always adjust your behaviour to the lowest common denominator of sensitivity? While all words and phrases have their etymology, their connotations change over time with usage. Put another way, many words in the English language don't mean what they used to.

Is the new rule that all words with troubling etymology (troubling to at least someone) need to be purged from the language, regardless of whether that connotation has changed?

This sounds a lot like an idea favoured by Stalin (in the real world) and by Big Brother (in the world of fiction).

However correct that panelist was about the origins of "cotton-pickin" (although I have some doubts about it's complete etymological accuracy, given that cotton picking pre-dated and post-dated slavery, and was done by some poor whites in addition to slaves on the plantations, as well as by white farmers on their own land who were not slave owners), to my eye he comes off as looking for way to win a debate (which wasn't about slavery) without have to present convincing arguments.
If you unintentionally gave offence you apologize. Full stop. The hurt was real, accidental though it was.

If the injured party isn't mollified, or retaliates, you have a different issue and you'll need to follow a different strategy. But the first and most important thing is for you to say you're sorry for the pain you did not intend. Only when that has registered and been accepted is there any point in stuff like explaining, excusing or defending yourself. If you try any of those tactics before they heard your regret and recognized it, you are as good as saying it was intentional after all. And who are you to waste a thought deciding someone else's pain is unreasonable, when you didn't intend to cause any? Just say you're sorry. Not wanting to cause pain is no bar at all, neither high or low. It's what makes us human. It's essential.

Of course people also use words to deliberately attack, offend and wound, but that isn't the topic here. Nor has anyone proposed — except as a reductio ad absurdam like yours — that the language be purged or NewSpeak decreed, for all the resentment aroused in those who don't like being reminded we always have to think what we say, and we can never count on the other person hearing what we intended. We often need to try again. That's why English has acquired so many words.

Literally 234,765,895 words have indeed changed their meanings over time: 'pregnant' was once a very polite euphemism, not the blunt medical term; literally once meant 'exactly stated', now it means the opposite "anything in the area of", and I should have said, "Literally thousands of words" (or even better, not used 'literally' at all). But only artificial intelligences like Google's need to treat such stuff as exact measurements and rules. Genuine intelligences like ours are concerned with actually communicating with all the directness and subtleties that can encompass. That's why we constantly want and use new words and adapt old ones. If your usage accidentally offends or hurts, confuses or misleads, you do what you can to straighten things out and smooth over the difficulty so you can proceed onward with your valued interlocutor. Repeatedly insisting on the same words they didn't 'get'(another changed meaning), gets you nowhere with that audience. Even if you are forced use poetry, or to claim you are, you either give up and get nowhere, or you 'use your words' until you get through.

As for who picked cotton when, what difference does that make to feeling that you and the entire long sad suffering history of your family and people are being mocked out of a habitual thoughtless ignorance and wilful blindness to American's shared history? That stuff hurts.
------
PS: "Don't mention the war!"
Oceania has never mistreated Eastasians
 

Bud Plug

Sexual Appliance
Aug 17, 2001
5,069
0
0
If you unintentionally gave offence you apologize. Full stop. The hurt was real, accidental though it was.
And then what? Do you thereafter delete the word/phrase from your vocabulary, even if the offence taken was unreasonable? Is there never any onus on anyone to justify their offence?

Sounds a lot like social programming through language as well as supporting a victim culture.
 

Butler1000

Well-known member
Oct 31, 2011
28,707
3,405
113
And then what? Do you thereafter delete the word/phrase from your vocabulary, even if the offence taken was unreasonable? Is there never any onus on anyone to justify their offence?

Sounds a lot like social programming through language as well as supporting a victim culture.
There are only two ways I've heard "cotton pickin'" used.

One " Get your cotton pickin' hands off (something)" implying theft

Two "Are you out of your cotton pickin' mind" implying a dumb and or crazy thought.

And it is quite clear without a doubt it is a southern USA insulting term for former slaves. Is he a racist? I think he might be if he doesnt get it.

Look im of the transition age where when i was a kid we heard it, the horrible jokes passed between dads, the outbursts at bad driving. The homophobia. The polite face but dont bring one home atmosphere.

But if we cant realize and accept its hurtful, and perpetuates a stereotype, and change certain language, what does it say about us?
 

Bud Plug

Sexual Appliance
Aug 17, 2001
5,069
0
0
There are only two ways I've heard "cotton pickin'" used.

One " Get your cotton pickin' hands off (something)" implying theft

Two "Are you out of your cotton pickin' mind" implying a dumb and or crazy thought.

And it is quite clear without a doubt it is a southern USA insulting term for former slaves. Is he a racist? I think he might be if he doesnt get it.

Look im of the transition age where when i was a kid we heard it, the horrible jokes passed between dads, the outbursts at bad driving. The homophobia. The polite face but dont bring one home atmosphere.

But if we cant realize and accept its hurtful, and perpetuates a stereotype, and change certain language, what does it say about us?
While I'm not suggesting this is authoritative work, have a look at this: https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/cotton-picking.html. On that analysis, "cotton pickin' mind" alludes to the mind numbing activity of picking cotton, rather than uses cotton picking to identify the race of the picker.

The WaPo seems to agree that the etymology is not necessarily tied to race or slavery, and that the phrase is used by people to address whites as well as blacks: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...speech-to-a-black-man/?utm_term=.8b718d1a6d3e

In modern use, it appears to be nothing more than an intensifier: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cotton-picking

It would appear that some people choose to associate all cotton picking with slavery, and since slavery was about race, to associate cotton picking with race.

So the question remains, if this association is not connected to current usage of the phrase, and additionally, may not be etymologically accurate, is it now expected that words must be excised from the lexicon whenever they offend anyone, regardless of the quality of their reasoning as to why they are offensive?
 

Aardvark154

New member
Jan 19, 2006
53,773
3
0
While I'm not suggesting this is authoritative work, have a look at this: https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/cotton-picking.html. On that analysis, "cotton pickin' mind" alludes to the mind numbing activity of picking cotton, rather than uses cotton picking to identify the race of the picker.

The WaPo seems to agree that the etymology is not necessarily tied to race or slavery, and that the phrase is used by people to address whites as well as blacks: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...speech-to-a-black-man/?utm_term=.8b718d1a6d3e

In modern use, it appears to be nothing more than an intensifier: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cotton-picking

It would appear that some people choose to associate all cotton picking with slavery, and since slavery was about race, to associate cotton picking with race.

So the question remains, if this association is not connected to current usage of the phrase, and additionally, may not be etymologically accurate, is it now expected that words must be excised from the lexicon whenever they offend anyone, regardless of the quality of their reasoning as to why they are offensive?
Good post, that is my experience and those are my questions as well.
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,495
11
38
And then what? Do you thereafter delete the word/phrase from your vocabulary, even if the offence taken was unreasonable? Is there never any onus on anyone to justify their offence?

Sounds a lot like social programming through language as well as supporting a victim culture.
Isn't your word choice, at the moment or on-going your business alone? Banish it if you choose, use it more judiciously, or soften it with qualifiers, as you choose . Within the laws of speech we impose on those who fail at such decision-making, you're even free to continue to cause hurt, but who are you or anyone else to judge whether someone was or wasn't 'reasonably' hurt? And of course others are equally free to wound you, as they choose however 'unreasonable' you think the, or they judge your pain. As for an onus on someone to justify being hurtful, I've never heard of such a thing. How would it work or benefit anyone? Who would impose it? But if it's self-imposed we call it making excuses.

I can't speak to a mindset or world view that includes "social programming" or "victim culture" until you define those terms and give them context. Like Edmund Burke, who I quoted elsewhere. I am speaking of human considerateness, common courtesy and ordinary manners.
 

Bud Plug

Sexual Appliance
Aug 17, 2001
5,069
0
0
but who are you or anyone else to judge whether someone was or wasn't 'reasonably' hurt?
Who I am is a reasoning human being. Reasoning human beings, in response to being told they have given offence, will then decide whether that response was reasonable (in which case they will modify their behaviour in the future) or unreasonable (in which case the "offended" party should modify theirs). We all try to anticipate reasonable responses to our actions. When we learn that offense to what we say is reasonable, we modify our speech. We should not be tailoring our actions to anticipate unreasonable responses. Taking offence when there is no reasonable basis for doing so is not just a problem for the person accused of being insensitive, it is also a limiting behaviour for the person who allows him/herself to be unreasonably offended. I think there is too little focus on this latter point, to the detriment of all concerned.
 

Butler1000

Well-known member
Oct 31, 2011
28,707
3,405
113
While I'm not suggesting this is authoritative work, have a look at this: https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/cotton-picking.html. On that analysis, "cotton pickin' mind" alludes to the mind numbing activity of picking cotton, rather than uses cotton picking to identify the race of the picker.

The WaPo seems to agree that the etymology is not necessarily tied to race or slavery, and that the phrase is used by people to address whites as well as blacks: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...speech-to-a-black-man/?utm_term=.8b718d1a6d3e

In modern use, it appears to be nothing more than an intensifier: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cotton-picking

It would appear that some people choose to associate all cotton picking with slavery, and since slavery was about race, to associate cotton picking with race.

So the question remains, if this association is not connected to current usage of the phrase, and additionally, may not be etymologically accurate, is it now expected that words must be excised from the lexicon whenever they offend anyone, regardless of the quality of their reasoning as to why they are offensive?
It is used against whire people to COMPARE them to black people in a derogatory tone. Cmon Aardy. I'm not a SJW by a long shot. But this one is clear cut.
 

bver_hunter

Well-known member
Nov 5, 2005
27,331
5,556
113
If it is NOT RACIST OR OFFENSIVE, I wonder why Fox are apologising:

But in a statement, a Fox News spokesperson said "David Bossie's comments today were deeply offensive and wholly inappropriate. His remarks do not reflect the sentiments of Fox News and we do not in any way condone them."

http://money.cnn.com/2018/06/24/media/david-bossie-racist-remark/index.html

Hilarious to see the comments from the right wingers in defence of this statement!!
 

Bud Plug

Sexual Appliance
Aug 17, 2001
5,069
0
0
If it is NOT RACIST OR OFFENSIVE, I wonder why Fox are apologising:
No you're not. When you are running a business, it's cheaper to apologize for something that you shouldn't need to apologize for than to lose a single dollar of advertising from a sponsor who doesn't want any controversy in connection with their advertising placements.

Don't look to corporate media to push back against counterproductive and/or incorrect claims of victimhood. They aren't in business to advocate for a better society. Its all about the Benjamins. What do they care if one of their invited panelists flew off the handle (used this idiom intentionally, hoping to find out it has some nefarious origin)? It doesn't help the bottom line to point it out. Only people who are not getting paid by anyone to pontificate on such issues (like TERB members) can afford to speak honestly about them.
 

bver_hunter

Well-known member
Nov 5, 2005
27,331
5,556
113
No you're not.
What do you mean "No your're not"??? It is a RACIST statement.

When you are running a business, it's cheaper to apologize for something that you shouldn't need to apologize for than to lose a single dollar of advertising from a sponsor who doesn't want any controversy in connection with their advertising placements.

Don't look to corporate media to push back against counterproductive and/or incorrect claims of victimhood. They aren't in business to advocate for a better society. Its all about the Benjamins. What do they care if one of their invited panelists flew off the handle (used this idiom intentionally, hoping to find out it has some nefarious origin)? It doesn't help the bottom line to point it out. Only people who are not getting paid by anyone to pontificate on such issues (like TERB members) can afford to speak honestly about them.
So Fox News is a dishonest media that are not in the business to advocate for a better society but only suck up to their advertisers and the POTUS. Off course, that is what we have been aware of all along. But the notion that certain TERB members who are not getting paid by anyone to pontificate about such issues, sums up their passionate support for that Charlottesville killer James Field's innocence. Seriously, when you are live on the Newsmedia that is being broadcast to millions around the globe, you have to keep your personal extremists beliefs in check, as it may come to haunt you. This is especially true when you think that as the person that you once served can broadcast whatever he wants and then knows that he can get away with it even though it has offended certain sections of the population that he is supposed to serve in his position as the POTUS.
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts