You didn't know? But you did know? |
Davenport read the written apology she issued earlier this week, and went on to say she did not intend to offend anyone by forwarding the email. She noted, however, that she didn't send the email to some people who she thought she might be offended.
"I felt they might just not like it too well and might be a little offended about it so I didn't step on that feeling of theirs,'' she said.
"Those who would be offended would be those who perhaps would be of another race or in some cases that aren't black or brown or any other, some of my own race would be offended,'' she said.
Stop shoveling! |
But now she says the she didn’t send the image to some people because it might offend them, which implies that, when she sent the image, she was aware of its potential to offend.
Is she contradicting herself? Or is she now distinguishing between two kinds of offendedness? That is, maybe she’s thinking that recipients of the image might be non-racially offended (whatever that might be). She had thought of that. Only later did she realize that they could also be racially offended.
Is that it?
Above, she seems to be talking about her thinking when she sent the image. And she seems to say that, at that time, it occurred to her that recipients “of another race” might be offended. So she didn’t send it to them.
So is she saying that she knew that some people might be racially offended (and that’s why she didn’t send it to them)? Well, yes.
Lady, you need to shut up. Really.
The latest on "Westphal v. Wagner"
8 comments:
First rule of holes.
Ah man, I was just arguing on her behalf tonight: "Maybe she didn't know it was racially insensitive and perhaps it was a response on behalf of this image."
"This image" being:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_k9YRGIDlJZw/S5DwR1SuX0I/AAAAAAAACfc/WvykSiioesM/s400/Bush+Monkey.jpg
So, when I first saw Davenports picture I immediately interpretted it as a conservative response to all of the bashing people did with regards to Bush being a monkey, as if to say "Who's the monkey now?" You know, the standard political banter I can't stand.
However, in light of this potential contradiction... she's approaching racist status!
Well, I'm not arguing that she's a racist, though I think she's seriously clueless. I have defended her in a way. I think she's being used. She should have apologized and disappeared. Silly woman
Right, I've read your bloggins'. As you are probably well aware, just because you are acting in defense doesn't mean you agree with her actions. It's a truthy thing I figure.
Good for you, BS, for daring to defend her in a sensitive and thoughtful manner. BvT has taught you well! (Your were sensitive and thoughtful even before encountering that man, I suspect--but I think that Philosophy does alert one to complexity in a healthy way.)
MAH
MAH!
It's a real pleasure to read a compliment from you again. I'm not so certain I can take credit for being a sensitive person on any scale what-so-ever, but I do try to be thoughtful.
I, to this day (and possibly for all time) blame Chunkerton for alerting me to organized thought, and equipping me with some basic essentials such as knowledge of inductive fallacies that I still use on a regular basis (being so close to the sciences and all). I think the obsessiveness with logical and reasonable thought is something that is just a part of me (and other people, like yourself and Chunk) and I was just lucky enough to pass through Chunk's little room. Had I not though, I think my life would've been gravely different so, 'natch' I'm grateful I did.
-BS
Golly!
Yep; well-done, BvT! I hope your year at UCI was great, BS. Excellent to encounter you on the blog occasionally. And thank you for reminding me of BvT's real name (or, I guess, his real *title*): the Chunkerton! Be well,
MAH
Post a Comment