Hanging effigies in trees for Halloween

ETA: This is actually completely off-topic for this thread. My bad.

I'd be curious to know where the "tradition" of hanging effigies from trees on Halloween came from. Because, here in America, that visual is strongly linked to the lynching of blacks in the south.

It's not something I've thought about before, but I suspect that's much of the problem with these sorts of displays: the people putting them up simply don't think about them beyond, "Hey, it's Halloween; time to hang some "dark-skinned" dummies from trees!"

But now that I do think about it, I'm not sure "It's Halloween," or "It's tradition," should qualify as valid excuses to ignore the (potentially) terrible origins of said tradition.

Not that hanging people in general isn't terrible, but you do have to be careful about related cultural baggage.

Skeptic Ginger said:

For the record, all the news sources are saying those are blacks being lynched in that yard, however the homeowner apparently disagrees.

Dummies Lynched Next to a Trump Sign for Halloween in Kendall UPDATED

For the updated, scroll down to the followup picture. The owners added a sign.

Click to expand...

Any apologist has to be verging on dementia to entertain the idea that an adult in Florida could conceive of a display like this while being completely unaware of the clearly racist (and threatening) implications.

Knowing this, and then going ahead with such a display, while pretending that the motive is "it's Halloween" is unconscionable. Also blatantly disingenuous.

There is an infinite number of ways to decorate for Halloween without even approaching anything marginally racist. To do so to this degree can only be premeditated.

quadraginta said:

Any apologist has to be verging on dementia to entertain the idea that an adult in Florida could conceive of a display like this while being completely unaware of the clearly racist (and threatening) implications.

Click to expand...

Must be an American thing. At first I thought it was supposed to be Hillary and her VP.

Up here in Canada it'd just be a kickass Halloween decoration.

Cl1mh4224rd said:

ETA: This is actually completely off-topic for this thread. My bad.

I'd be curious to know where the "tradition" of hanging effigies from trees on Halloween came from. Because, here in America, that visual is strongly linked to the lynching of blacks in the south.

It's not something I've thought about before, but I suspect that's much of the problem with these sorts of displays: the people putting them up simply don't think about them beyond, "Hey, it's Halloween; time to hang some "dark-skinned" dummies from trees!"

But now that I do think about it, I'm not sure "It's Halloween," or "It's tradition," should qualify as valid excuses to ignore the (potentially) terrible origins of said tradition.

Not that hanging people in general isn't terrible, but you do have to be careful about related cultural baggage.

Click to expand...

Guy Fawkes night, is one theory.

/derail

Argumemnon said:

Must be an American thing. At first I thought it was supposed to be Hillary and her VP.

Up here in Canada it'd just be a kickass Halloween decoration.

Click to expand...

Does Canada have a history of threatening blacks with effigies such as this, and following it up with the task thing?

Argumemnon said:

Must be an American thing. At first I thought it was supposed to be Hillary and her VP.

Up here in Canada it'd just be a kickass Halloween decoration.

Click to expand...

Do you have a history of lynching a lot of black people (and whites, if they were poor enough) up there in Canada?

In the American South for a while it was almost a routine entertainment. Refreshments were sold and people took home souvenirs. People made up postcards.

There was no fear of repercussions.

And not really all that long ago. They were still not uncommon when my father was born. In 1930.

It was still going on while I grew up.

This is a part of the cultural history of the U.S. People here who try to deny it are serving racist agendas. And I doubt that many of them are doing it in ignorance.

quadraginta said:

Do you have a history of lynching a lot of black people (and whites, if they were poor enough) up there in Canada?

Click to expand...

You know, I didn't answer this the first time around but I find that not very convincing. Yes, the US has a terrible history about this. And? I don't think bringing up a bygone age, with people all dead by now, is very convincing. In fact I'd say that it would be much better to de-power words and meaning by not making them taboo. From a rational perspective, of course.

Argumemnon said:

I don't think bringing up a bygone age, with people all dead by now, is very convincing. In fact I'd say that it would be much better to de-power words and meaning by not making them taboo. From a rational perspective, of course.

Click to expand...

Holocaust.

Cl1mh4224rd said:

Holocaust.

Click to expand...

Good example. I don't think Germany's laws against displaying the Swastika is doing anyone any good. It's creating a taboo that gives the symbol and the ideology that used in in the 30s and 40s way too much power.

Argumemnon said:

You know, I didn't answer this the first time around but I find that not very convincing. Yes, the US has a terrible history about this. And? I don't think bringing up a bygone age, with people all dead by now, is very convincing. In fact I'd say that it would be much better to de-power words and meaning by not making them taboo. From a rational perspective, of course.

Click to expand...

Who's all dead? The lynching victims?

Well, yeah.

If you mean people who were around or alive when it happened.

Well, no.

Did you see the dates in the quote I provided? 1968 wasn't all that long ago. I was still in high school. When my father was born the practice was still nearly at its height. He's still alive.

It really isn't all that bygone. Friends and relatives of lynching victims are still alive and kicking. How bygone is that?

=======================================

The word isn't taboo. It's just ugly. So is the meaning.

You can't pretend or ignore that away, and I don't think it's a good idea to try to.

It's better to remember how depraved and evil it is, in hopes that it doesn't happen again.

And at any rate, setting up a lynching tableau, especially in a deep South state with racial tensions already plenty high, goes a lot farther than words. It's basically a **** You presentation, issued like a dare. "See! Here's some free speech for ya, chump. Wotcha gonna do about it?"

Then the coward who puts it up tries to pretend it was all harmless fun.

Yeah. Right.




It is an unequivocally deplorable act, and I am at the very least deeply suspicious of the motives of anyone who wastes time and energy trying to find some apology and justification for it.

At best they are blind and ignorant. And that's the kindest thing I can think of to say.

At worst they are every bit as guilty of perpetuating racial hatreds and tensions as the most blatant White Supremacist. Maybe more so, since at least the White Supremacist is upfront about it and doesn't try to come up with mealy mouthed, transparent excuses for their actions after the fact.

Argumemnon said:

Good example. I don't think Germany's laws against displaying the Swastika is doing anyone any good. It's creating a taboo that gives the symbol and the ideology that used in in the 30s and 40s way too much power.

Click to expand...

Does it matter to you that there are no laws in the U.S. against that Florida cretin displaying his little "Halloween decoration"? Even without the dissembling.

You seem to be drawing a comparison between two different things.

Argumemnon said:

You know, I didn't answer this the first time around but I find that not very convincing. Yes, the US has a terrible history about this. And? I don't think bringing up a bygone age, with people all dead by now, is very convincing. In fact I'd say that it would be much better to de-power words and meaning by not making them taboo. From a rational perspective, of course.

Click to expand...

The problem with this line of thought is that the attitudes which allowed encouraged acts such as lynching are NOT dead, they have been passed along from generation to generation.

quadraginta said:

Who's all dead? The lynching victims?

Well, yeah.

Click to expand...

Nice.

Did you see the dates in the quote I provided? 1968 wasn't all that long ago. I was still in high school. When my father was born the practice was still nearly at its height. He's still alive.

Click to expand...

My mistake, then. I thought it was longer than that.

The word isn't taboo. It's just ugly. So is the meaning.

Click to expand...

What? Lynching? I was talking in general terms.

Then the coward who puts it up tries to pretend it was all harmless fun.

Click to expand...

Again, if not for the Trump sign it wouldn't be so obvious.

quadraginta said:

Does it matter to you that there are no laws in the U.S. against that Florida cretin displaying his little "Halloween decoration"?

Click to expand...

It does. I think people should be able to express their ideas freely, even if those ideas are monstrous to us. An evil idea is better purged by light than by shadow.

And there's also the matter of de-powering the evil idea, as I said earlier.

SezMe said:

The problem with this line of thought is that the attitudes which allowed encouraged acts such as lynching are NOT dead, they have been passed along from generation to generation.

Click to expand...

Amazing how hard it is to change an idea, isn't it?

Argumemnon said:

An evil idea is better purged by light than by shadow.

...snip..

Click to expand...

Evidence?

Darat said:

Evidence?

Click to expand...

You know, this pseudo-skeptical, knee-jerk response to every single declaration made by someone is neither clever nor useful. How would you even go around providing numbers for that?

But sure, have it your way. I'm sure that an evil idea festering where no one can see it will be far less dangerous than one that is exposed, mocked and de-fanged.

Argumemnon said:

Amazing how hard it is to change an idea, isn't it?

Click to expand...

I wish that would sink into the thick skulls of people who think Trump will somehow defeat ISIS because of his alpha male shtick.

quadraginta said:

It would be exactly as obvious. There isn't anything subtle about it. No Southerner and few Yankees could look at that display and not instantly understand what the intent was. Not if they are honest with themselves.

Click to expand...

So all hangings from tree refer to black lynchings automatically?

I don't necessarily disbelieve this. I just find the difference between cultures interesting.

Argumemnon said:

So all hangings from tree refer to black lynchings automatically?

I don't necessarily disbelieve this. I just find the difference between cultures interesting.

Click to expand...

It is a deep cultural meme. Look up the song "strange fruit." Only white folk you see hanged from a tree are horse thieves, but they get cut down by someone. The only bodies that get LEFT hanging are pirates and n-words. And we don't have pirates inland.

Jrrarglblarg said:

And we don't have pirates inland.

Click to expand...

The hell we don't! They collect candy later today.

Argumemnon said:

It does. I think people should be able to express their ideas freely, even if those ideas are monstrous to us. An evil idea is better purged by light than by shadow.

And there's also the matter of de-powering the evil idea, as I said earlier.

Click to expand...

I agree.

The purpose of the First Amendment is to protect unpopular, disgusting, vile, repugnant, or even evil and unforgivable speech. Popular or forgivable speech doesn't need protection.

eerok said:

You wouldn't be the first. The display looks racist as hell to me, and I'm born and raised Canadian.

Click to expand...

Me too, and I'm British. But I have listened to Billie Holiday.

Fast Eddie B said:

As promised...

Racist?

Click to expand...

No. The difference is because skeletons are spooky, and look old, whilst hanged effigies of what looks like brown people people dressed in clothes associated with black teenagers, in a region of the country where people hanged blacks in the same manner are a threat.

Argumemnon said:

So all hangings from tree refer to black lynchings automatically?

Click to expand...

Try as I might I can find nothing I have said which remotely suggests that.

Perhaps you could cite the posts where I did.

Or maybe not.

Could this be an example of that "Rule of So" people invoke so often?

I don't necessarily disbelieve this. I just find the difference between cultures interesting.

Click to expand...

Perhaps a difference in cultures, but certainly a difference in histories.

Nearly three quarters of a million Americans died over a dispute about slavery. In a five year war that had been building up through guerrilla actions and border disputes for fifteen years or more before it started.From the end of the Reconstruction to the civil rights movements of the Sixties, a time still fresh in some of our memories, minorities, especially blacks (although Hispanics weren't left out) were legally abused. Any hint of resentment was quickly and ruthlessly snuffed out.

This is a series of events spanning nearly a century and a half which has irrevocably affected the American social fabric.

Some want to forget this as an inconvenient and disturbing representation of what this country was for more than seven decades after the Reconstruction was sabotaged, but it still pops up its ugly head even today. Trying to pretend that that history is over and insignificant does not make it go away or address its lingering effects.

I'm not sure if there is any analogue to this in the history of Canada. Not to anything like the same extent, burned with blood and terror into the social memory for generations.

So if you are looking for comparisons between the two you may not find them.

Jrrarglblarg said:

It is a deep cultural meme. Look up the song "strange fruit." Only white folk you see hanged from a tree are horse thieves, but they get cut down by someone. The only bodies that get LEFT hanging are pirates and n-words. And we don't have pirates inland.

Click to expand...

You left out Hispanics, who comprised a very outsized proportion of the "whites" mentioned in the lynching statistics I cited earlier.

They were the N-word of the west, never really accepted even though they were compelled by force of arms to become American. Sort of become, anyway.

Maybe 3/5ths American, eh?

Ladewig said:

I agree.

The purpose of the First Amendment is to protect unpopular, disgusting, vile, repugnant, or even evil and unforgivable speech. Popular or forgivable speech doesn't need protection.

Click to expand...

Those are some of the purposes, yes.

Yet more would be speech that -popular or not- is critical of public officials, exposes abusive acts of powerful interests, or impacts public sentiment in a way that creates trouble for them. I would say that there is probably a fair amount of correlation between my list and yours. I would also say that some of that is because public officials and powerful interests have ways of spinning the things on my list into the things on your list.

quadraginta said:

You left out Hispanics, who comprised a very outsized proportion of the "whites" mentioned in the lynching statistics I cited earlier.

They were the N-word of the west, never really accepted even though they were compelled by force of arms to become American. Sort of become, anyway.

Maybe 3/5ths American, eh?

Click to expand...

Hernandez v. Texas being a prime example.

ETA: Chinese, as well. The ending passages of People v. Hall are seared into my memory from college courses.

A white man could not be convicted by only non-white testimony, although Chinese were not specifically listed among those deemed non-white in the definitions.

After a lot of hand-wringing over the 'intent of the legislature' as a dodge from having to take responsibility for anything, the court offered such enlightened wisdom as:

The same rule which would admit them to testify, would admit them to all the equal rights of citizenship, and we might soon see them at the polls, in the jury box, upon the bench, and in our legislative halls.

This is not a speculation which exists in the excited and overheated imagination of the patriot and statesman, but it is an actual and present danger.

The anomalous spectacle of a distinct people, living in our community, recognizing no laws of this State, except through necessity, bringing with them their prejudices and national feuds, in which they indulge in open violation of law; whose medacity is proverbial; a race of people whom nature has marked as inferior, and who are incapable of progress or intellectual development beyond a certain point, as their history has shown; differing in language, opinions, color, and physical conformation; between whom and ourselves nature has placed an impassable difference, is now presented, and for them is claims, not only the right to swear away the life of a citizen, but the further privilege of participating with us in administering the affairs of our Government.

Click to expand...

Emphasis mine. Plus note that the very cornerstone of democratic institutions, "participating in administering the affairs of government," is (if 'we', in 'our' magnanimous benevolence, deign to allow it) a "privilege" they would be receiving.

I feel like I need a shower after every time I read this, it's just mired in pretentiousness and hatred. It's simultaneously flawed on its face in overt, scornful summations of an entire people and in the way subtly embedded cues undermine their worth as human beings. Half the time when I go back over it, I can't even articulate a full rebuke of it because there's so much interwoven bias, it's like getting stuck in a spiderweb.

quadraginta said:

Try as I might I can find nothing I have said which remotely suggests that.

Perhaps you could cite the posts where I did.

Or maybe not.

Could this be an example of that "Rule of So" people invoke so often?

Click to expand...

Maybe but then perhaps you should clarify the difference between what you said and my intepretation.

Argumemnon said:

Maybe but then perhaps you should clarify the difference between what you said and my intepretation.

Click to expand...

Do I really need to? You honestly can't puzzle it out on your own?

Okay. I'll be patient this time. Here's a couple of hints;

See if you can manage on your own from there.

(NB: It isn't all that uncommon an argumentative technique. There's probably even a name or too for it in addition to our own RoS. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt since you're so new here.)


ETA: And while you're at it, why don't you go ahead and cite the posts where you think that's what I said.

Argumemnon said:

No, I'm just that *********** stupid.

Why don't you just answer my goddamn question?

Click to expand...

I know you dislike it when I interrupt a Winning The Internet volley to talk about the ball, but I'll address your question if it's the one it think it is: all hangings in trees are taken to be lynchings of blacks in American cultural context.

Yes.

Lynchings were a real thing and the image of them is so ugly and the wound still raw enough culturally that we are not in the general habit of hanging effigies for art or commentary.

Similarly, Nazis ruined the swastika for Europeans and Americans, thus today Hindus chalking designs on their American or European homes for holidays send us into semantic confusion.

When Americans see effigies, it's usually our POTUS or Uncle Sam next to people spitting on a burning US flag on the evening news. There are no "fun" versions of effigies in our American cultural language.

Effigies, when executed by people with a cultural history of them to draw from, utilize caricature elements of the effigied person, like a voodoo doll. Halloween masks, iconic hairstyles or garments are usual, but sometimes they just use signs on the effigy to label who they're symbolically hanging. An effigy is a voodoo doll of the person, symbolically.

We do not use hanging as a symbol of "us" committing violence. We use it as a symbol of "them" committing violence. Rough and tough frontier justice with a rope was "them" the cavalry hanging deserters, or "them" the angry townsfolk hanging the unconvinced murder suspect or horse thief. We don't tell ourselves stories of "us" hanging innocent schoolgirls for witchcraft, and we didn't get to catch pirates and tell ourselves how much better we were by hanging them and leaving the bodies to rot.

The hanged horse thief gets cut down and buried with a plain plank for a headstone. But buried, as a human being with at least that dignity.

The bodies-in-trees iconography tells Americans someone died in the dark, by flickering torchlight. Nobody owns the body, nobody wants it, claims it, is disturbed by it enough to go mess with it. The South has a deeply held cultural value of "That Ain't My Problem" they use as a palliative delusion system to avoid freaking out over things. A dead n-word hanging in a tree is not a human body, culturally, it's a dead dog on the side of the road.

Your personal cultural argument of incredulity has now been curbstomped with Emic perspective. Deal.

Argumemnon said:

No, I'm just that *********** stupid.

Why don't you just answer my goddamn question?

Click to expand...

I did. And your pretense grows tiresome.

Since merely highlighting the problematic wording does not seem to be sufficient to get the point through to you I'll try one more time.

At no point have I suggested, intimated or insinuated that;
I never said that. I never said anything even faintly resembling that, and there is nowhere that it could be honestly construed that anything I have said could be mistaken for that.

What I have said is that this hanging in this instance from this tree obviously refers to black lynchings. This time.

Not "all".

Not "automatically".

If that isn't sufficient to enable your understanding then nothing ever will be.

Now you can quit stalling and cite the posts where you believe I said something which supports the strawman you fabricated.

Go ahead.

Jrrarglblarg said:

I know you dislike it when I interrupt a Winning The Internet volley to talk about the ball, but I'll address your question if it's the one it think it is: all hangings in trees are taken to be lynchings of blacks in American cultural context.

Yes.

<snip>

Click to expand...

No.

There has been a pic posted up thread a couple of times of a Halloween skeleton hanging from a tree. This would not be taken as lynching of blacks by most Americans. Not by me, at any rate. And probably not even by most blacks. Although they can be forgiven for being a bit hypersensitive on the subject of hangings, given that cultural context you mention.

The idiot in Florida, had he really been interested in a Halloween display, could easily have found some other subject for his display that would not have prompted the sort of controversy that this one has. Just like that skeleton demonstrates.

Instead he chooses to construct effigies which even the most mealy-mouthed apologists have to stretch credulity to try and gin up some sort of half-assed plausible deniability. At which they fail abysmally.

It isn't that such a display cannot be done without offense. It is that this particular one not only made no effort to do so, but, quite the opposite, clearly set out to provoke it.

quadraginta said:

I did. And your pretense grows tiresome.

Click to expand...

You know, you did that to Phiwum a short while ago, too. What is it with you and constantly assuming that the people you disagree with (assuming we even disagree at all) are "pretending"? Do you have such a small amount of respect for other posters that you'd rather spend your time typing about that than engaging them in actual conversation?

Since merely highlighting the problematic wording does not seem to be sufficient to get the point through to you I'll try one more time.

Click to expand...

Repeating my own words to me is not answering my question, as you well know.

What I have said is that this hanging in this instance from this tree obviously refers to black lynchings. This time.

Click to expand...

No, that's not what you said. You said:

quadraginta said:

It would be exactly as obvious. There isn't anything subtle about it. No Southerner and few Yankees could look at that display and not instantly understand what the intent was. Not if they are honest with themselves.

Click to expand...

What is it about the display that makes it refer to lynchings? Is it the fact that people are hanged? That seems rather broad. Is it the fact that they are hanging from a tree? Perhaps that's specific enough. Is it that they are hanging from a tree in Florida? I can't make out the "ethnicity" of the dummies so I can't comment about that. Your comment here makes no distinction at all, hence my question: would any display of hanging people automatically refer to those lynchings?

quadraginta said:

No.

There has been a pic posted up thread a couple of times of a Halloween skeleton hanging from a tree. This would not be taken as lynching of blacks by most Americans. Not by me, at any rate. And probably not even by most blacks. Although they can be forgiven for being a bit hypersensitive on the subject of hangings, given that cultural context you mention.

The idiot in Florida, had he really been interested in a Halloween display, could easily have found some other subject for his display that would not have prompted the sort of controversy that this one has. Just like that skeleton demonstrates.

Instead he chooses to construct effigies which even the most mealy-mouthed apologists have to stretch credulity to try and gin up some sort of half-assed plausible deniability. At which they fail abysmally.

It isn't that such a display cannot be done without offense. It is that this particular one not only made no effort to do so, but, quite the opposite, clearly set out to provoke it.

Click to expand...

You appear to be too thoroughly invested in being Right On The Internet. I say this because you appear to be disagreeing with my Anthropology report.

A skeleton in a tree is a different symbolic construct than a dressed body. The semiotic understanding for Americans of hanged skeletons has to do with pirate movies and graveyards generally.

Jrrarglblarg said:

You appear to be too thoroughly invested in being Right On The Internet. I say this because you appear to be disagreeing with my Anthropology report.

A skeleton in a tree is a different symbolic construct than a dressed body. The semiotic understanding for Americans of hanged skeletons has to do with pirate movies and graveyards generally.

Click to expand...

It's hard to keep track what y'all are arguing about. Didn't he just agree that a hanging skeleton has an entirely different connotation?

And to put in my .02, no... not all "lynching in trees" are associated with racial lynchings in the south. Many a western movie has cattle rustlers or horsethieves being strung up, IN A TREE, when they get caught up to by a posse.

So, it's not a 100% certainty, but cowboys and rustlers and horse thieves? Well, they wear boots and cowboy hats.

Argumemnon said:

<snip>

What is it about the display that makes it refer to lynchings? Is it the fact that people are hanged? That seems rather broad. Is it the fact that they are hanging from a tree? Perhaps that's specific enough. Is it that they are hanging from a tree in Florida? I can't make out the "ethnicity" of the dummies so I can't comment about that. Your comment here makes no distinction at all, hence my question: would any display of hanging people automatically refer to those lynchings?

Click to expand...

The quote of mine you just cited clearly uses the words "that display".

Are you going to explain how that translated into "all" and "automatically" in your mind?

The paragraph above does not do that. One part of one post does not represent all of what has been said here on this subject by myself and others. Unless you are going to make the claim that that is the only excerpt you have seen out of all which has been posted.

And if you "can't make out the "ethnicity" of the dummies so I can't comment about that." then you shouldn't have. Commented, that is. You just stated that you have no basis to do so, by your own admission.

The appearance of those effigies has everything to do with the offensiveness of this display. (I had to emphasize that in case it slipped by you. Again.)

If you do not deem yourself equipped to comment on that then you really aren't equipped to comment on the offensiveness of the display at all, since it is specifically the appearance of those effigies themselves which are the problem.

This aspect of the display has been discussed thoroughly by myself and others in this thread. You can't pretend that it has somehow been overlooked in the discussion of why this display is representative of the lynching of blacks in the South.

quadraginta said:

The quote of mine you just cited clearly uses the words "that display".

Are you going to explain how that translated into "all" and "automatically" in your mind?

Click to expand...

Let me illustrate. If I show you an orange, and you tell me that that orange reminds you of your mother, I would be likely to think that all oranges remind you of your mother, especially if I see nothing special about said fruit.

So yeah, you said "that" display, but since I don't see that the dummies represent black people, and can't specify what it is about the display that makes it what you say it is, then I can only conclude that anyone on US territory displaying dummies hanging from a tree would refer to the lynching of blacks.

And if you "can't make out the "ethnicity" of the dummies so I can't comment about that." then you shouldn't have. Commented, that is. You just stated that you have no basis to do so, by your own admission.

Click to expand...

Now this is just being dishonest. First of all, if we can't see that they are meant to represent blacks, then we cannot conclude that they are. Second, not seeing this specific aspect of the display does not disqualify me from commenting, because were it the case that it does, it would disqualify every single member of this forum from doing so as well.

You just don't like the fact that some people don't automatically reach the same conclusion than you, and you're trying to find reasons for why I should just shut up instead of using a discussion forum to, you know, discuss.

The appearance of those effigies has everything to do with the offensiveness of this display. (I had to emphasize that in case it slipped by you. Again.)

Click to expand...

I see you've decided to continue to either imply that I'm an idiot or that I'm pretending to disagree with you.

Argumemnon said:

<snip>

I accepted it right off the bat. I was simply asking about the why, and nothing to differenced with Canadian culture.

Click to expand...

If you had been "simply asking about the why" (Is that like "just asking questions"?) then you would not have used the terms "all" and "automatically" in your post.

This rephrasing of the points being made into an extreme and untenable position is not the sort of approach used for honest discourse. It is a rhetorical ploy intended to distort the conversation in a direction of your choice.

Why don't you explain why you chose to do that instead of actually simply asking why?

quadraginta said:

If you had been "simply asking about the why" [snip] then you would not have used the terms "all" and "automatically" in your post.

Click to expand...

That was later, champion. Keep up.

(Is that like "just asking questions"?)

Click to expand...

No, JAQing off is making a veiled accusation in the form of a question (ex.: Did GWB order the execution of 9/11? We don't know! We're just asking questions). Now, for some reason the very people who argued against truthers have forgotten what the term means!

This rephrasing of the points being made into an extreme and untenable position is not the sort of approach used for honest discourse.

Click to expand...

Of course it's ludicrous, which is why I asked it: you can't possibly be saying it, so what is it about this specific display that makes it so? It's not a difficult question to answer, but so far all I've gotten as an answer is essentially "it's an American thing, kid. Deal."

quadraginta said:

Or maybe Halloween?

Unlike dark effigies attired in stereotypical urban black street clothes.

I disagreed with it because I don't agree with your anthropological analysis.

I thought it was simplistic and limited.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry. Next time I'll post the bibliography.

PM me your disagreement points please. I would like to know what I got wrong but it doesn't further the thread.

Argumemnon said:

You know, this sort of condescending, adversarial approach by you is kind of ironic given the accusations you've leveled against me, don't you think? It's hard to seek some sort of reconciliation with someone who engages in exactly the behaviour they decry in others. Specks and beams and all that.

Click to expand...

I've never pretended I'm not a condescending twat. It's hard not to look down on y'all from here.