When this site was founded back on July 30, 2006 on the original free blogspot site with the white writing and the black background, our tag line was “A Vivid Description of the Dark Underbelly of the People’s Republic of Davis.” While that tagline is no longer in use, it remains perhaps the most poignant description of what we do.
This week is the reminder of why that remains an apt description of this site. We began this week with base ugliness. The hanging of a noose at the Davis Football Stadium, followed by the discovery of graffiti of a Swastika and the word “Nigger,” are stark reminders to us about a dark history from a not-so-distant past.
Whether we ever know why, really does not matter to me. It’s a reminder of where we are in this society and where we aren’t.
I thought Robb Davis struck the right point. He commented, “The noose, linked as it is to Juneteenth commemorations is a powerful symbol that gained its ‘power’ because of its use in lynchings of blacks (primarily, but also poor whites, Mexicans and Asians) at the end of the 19th and throughout the 20th century throughout our nation.”
“It is important to keep in mind that its use was often tacitly permitted or explicitly supported by the state at various levels–local, state and federal (the US Congress attempted to pass anti-lynching legislation several times throughout the 20th century and was stymied by filibusters by Southern Democrats in the Senate),” he added.
This is our history, he said. It is a history that we desperately want and need to escape. As he noted: “State permitted use of the noose as a means of extrajudicial murder… “
The critical point is: “This is why I think it is critical for the state–in this case in the form of our locally elected officials–to make a rapid and unambiguous statement condemning this act and promising an investigation. This is our leaders assuring all of us that if it is up to them, they will never go back to the sort of vigilante justice implied by the use of this symbol.”
Where we are is in a society where our democratically elected leaders: Joe Krovoza, Mayor of Davis, Susan Lovenburg, President of the School Board, and Rochelle Swanson, Mayor Pro Tem of Davis, all were willing to publicly speak out and condemn this.
Unfortunately, there is a where we aren’t moment either. Some people on this site took a moment that could have been a powerful reminder of the unity of this community speaking out against the ugliness of the past meeting the unfortunate present, and stepped all over it.
It was a disgrace that one of the first comments on the article in which our leaders condemned the act was that this was robotic.
The robotic comment, to those who read it, was almost as hurtful as the noose itself.
As I noted earlier in the week, I received a message shortly after, from a prominent member of this community in his or her own right. Like myself, this individual has raised mixed-race children in this community and at times, many people in this community would be surprised at the difficulties that they have had to face.
The individual wrote me: “Have to say I’m disappointed in some of the comments on the noose article.”
“Something like that doesn’t have to be directed at a specific person. When I saw the photo it literally made me sick to my stomach,” the individual stated, and added: “I have fear for the safety of my older boys in certain situations.”
The message concluded: “Most people won’t know what it feels like to be hated and possibly hurt for something they can’t control, like the color of their skin. Even if a prank, it stills feels ugly and can raise past trauma for those who have been targets.”
Unfortunately, instead of raising unified voices, we had some arguing that we need to ignore this and not give the individual the attention that some assumed the individual who did this craved.
That school of thought seems to be thoroughly rebutted and debunked by experts who have studied hate incidents.
Jann Murray-Garcia, a pediatrician, who has taught a very popular course at the high school on race and social justice, organized the meeting last Wednesday. She cited research and told the group we have learned as a community that if we try to ignore these incidents, they do not go away; rather, things escalate.
She noted many local stories where turning one’s head and stating it doesn’t matter did not solve the problems, but instead caused them to return even worse. She argued that we must take a strong stand.
She argued that ignoring or not taking hate crimes seriously is a mistake. She cited studies that show, “Youths graduate to more serious crimes, from property damage to physical injury.”
She cited a study by a researcher named Neiwert who found, “A slap on the wrist of a hate crime offender is a slap in the face to the community of victims.”
Lt. Doroshov likewise argued that ignoring such incidents was not the proper approach. In part, that is because the way that most of these crimes are solved is through tips. The public hears someone who is bragging about committing the act and it gets reported to the police.
The lieutenant noted that they have two goals. First, to determine who committed the act, and second to determine the threat assessment in order to avoid this happening again. Clearly, authorities are now concerned about this secondary incident and how it may or may not connect with the hanging of the noose at Davis High last Friday.
“For the city this is not a fine moment,” Mayor Joe Krovoza said. “I just want to echo what Jann said, the response needs to be clear, immediate, we need to send the signal that it’s not okay.”
“This is a community issue, it’s not a school issue. One segment of our community affects the whole community,” he continued.
“I want to endorse the fact that the response has to define the community,” he added authoritatively. “I think that the most powerful response is from the youth in this community, whoever did this, maybe I’m assuming it was a kid… but I really want to challenge the youth to say that if this was youth, to say that this is not okay, it is not cool, it does not give you social recognition. You need to learn, you need to go to school, you need to take RSJ and you need to join the human family.”
Chief Deputy DA Jonathan Raven noted that, under District Attorney Jeff Reisig, their office “takes hate crimes extremely seriously.”
“We’ve prosecuted some very serious hate crimes over the last few years,” he said. “Some of them who have had experience with this statewide have told us that other DA’s offices don’t prosecute these terrible assaults and batteries as hate crimes – we certainly do.”
Mr. Raven noted that people may ask him how do you know what this actually is, maybe it’s just a noose, a prank, a joke.
He said, “Well, these people don’t realize what it means to people to see a noose or a Swastika or a Burning Cross.”
And that I think is a tremendous point that was missed here. We had an opportunity – and most took – to condemn what is condemnable. To acknowledge our history and to not be trapped by it.
The fact that this type of act is abhorrent is nothing to run from. It shows in our aversion to it, just how far as a society we have come. However, the reaction from some shows how far in this society we must still go.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[quote]It was a disgrace that one of the first comments on the article in which our leaders condemned the act was that this was robotic.
The robotic comment, to those who read it, was almost as hurtful as the noose itself.[/quote]
In other words, no one is allowed to have a viewpoint contrary to the Vanguard or they are a disgrace? Really?
“In other words, no one is allowed to have a viewpoint contrary to the Vanguard or they are a disgrace? Really?”
Yes that’s precisely what I said {sarcasm}
I’ll say it again. It is this sort of nasty rhetoric (a contrary view is a disgrace) that is dividing the community, and is totally unnecessary. Let the police do their work. Our public officials have spoken. But we don’t need to vilify people who do not see the noose incident in the same way that others do (it is an attempt to stifle free speech), especially bc we do not know yet who the perpetrator was or what his/her motivation was. Why is it necessary for all citizens to jump to conclusions/have the same opinion? To me this shows a level of intolerance I find distasteful and puzzling…
I don’t see much division in the community, in fact, I see a community remarkably united except for a few inappropriate remarks on a public website.
E Roberts Musser: “To me this shows a level of intolerance I find distasteful and puzzling…”
and quite ironic, I might add.
I think Hpierce said it best: “slow noose week.”
vanguard: “Yes that’s precisely what I said {sarcasm}.”
It was implied. And it is the antithesis of democracy. You like free speech and free expression when it suits you. When it doesn’t you try to shut down your political opposition, as you are clearly trying to do here with your rhetoric.
vanguard: see a community remarkably united except for a few inappropriate remarks on a public website.
so now opinions that disagree with yours are “inapproprate remarks.”
Elaine
[quote]I’ll say it again. It is this sort of nasty rhetoric (a contrary view is a disgrace) that is dividing the community, and is totally unnecessary[/quote]
One thing that I think is missing from your analysis is that some of us found the comment about a “robotic” response from public officials as “nasty” as you find the Vanguards response to the comment. To me the word,
“robotic” implied a thoughtless, automatic, knee jerk response on the part of public officials. I found this quite demeaning, and not at all in keeping with what I found to be a thoughtful, calm and measured response on the part of our public officials.
As you probably know by now, I do not believe in demeaning or belittling anyone’s ideas. But I do think that it is worth pointing out that the author of the “robotic” comment has frequently pointed out that commenters need to have a thick skin and not take things personally, especially when it is the same individual who has made the questionable remark. I also do not believe in censorship, I think all voices should be heard. But if one side is going to employ divisive language,
I think that they can only anticipate that the other side, unfortunately, may choose to respond in kind.
btw: the “inappropriate remarks” as you put them were largely an agitated response to the vanguard stirring the pot and trying to pick fights with others. The vanguard targeted jeff boone (or was it rusty) by making him the issue in the third noose article. The vanguard had to have known that writing the article in that manner would only serve to upset him and further a confrontation.
“”robotic” implied a thoughtless, automatic, knee jerk response on the part of public officials.”
and it was! they didn’t (and still dont) have the facts to base their response on.
91 Octane
[quote]they didn’t (and still dont) have the facts to base their response on.[/quote]
This is a major point of respectful disagreement. I feel that the very existence of the noose was cause enough for the community to respond with condemnation of the act of placing it. You obviously disagree. We both have our opinion and that is exactly what they are, our opinions. Neither of us has the lock on “the truth”. My belief that our community leaders actions were thoughtful, appropriate and timely is just as strong as your belief that they were not. Do you really see that as cause for either side to denigrate the other ?
Upon reading Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald’s great early-morning Guest Commentary, I got to thinking: What if we made a special effort to be more tolerant than we’ve been the last few days of people who think differently than how we do?
I’m specifically considering those who, in effect, have said:[quote]–“Let’s wait until we find out who did this–minority students or certified hate group members or ?– and why they did it before we decide how incensed to be.”
–“Let’s not ‘overplay’ this incident for fear of generating a series of copycat crimes or generating hate or division.”
–“Don’t you just know that the liberal Davis folks will make this more than it deserves.”
–“One noose-hanging doesn’t say much of anything about Davis or even much about the larger society.”[/quote]Wouldn’t it be good to encourage open discussion rather than attacking people who think and express the thoughts they have in the half-dozen stories the [i]Vanguard[/i] has run?
How can we have a “teachable moment” if we’ve already labeled those targeted wrong-thinkers (who have make these comments) as ignorant sickos who need treatment and whose attitudes and remarks just encourage racism and racist acts?
What would happen (negative or positive) if we entertained Ms. Escamilla-Greenwald’s “View from the Other Side?
To medwoman: The intolerance shown for other people’s views have resulted in threats being made against commenters on the Vanguard who are not in lock step w jumping on the racism bandwagon. It is most definitely dividing the community.
91 Octane
[quote]the “inappropriate remarks” as you put them were largely an agitated response to the vanguard stirring the pot and trying to pick fights with others. [/quote]
Which to me is an indication that the Vanguard should not “stir the pot and try to pick fights” ( if indeed you are correct in your assumption of motivation) and that perhaps responders should take time to become less “agitated” and able to respond calmly and respectfully before they post. hpierce for example did a wonderful job of backing away from a potentially overly inflammatory response once the potential for inciting a war of words was recognized.
I found this quite admirable.
Elaine
[quote]To medwoman: The intolerance shown for other people’s views have resulted in threats being made against commenters on the Vanguard who are not in lock step w jumping on the racism bandwagon. It is most definitely dividing the community.[/quote]
I do not doubt that you believe the veracity of those who told you of threats. I do not doubt that these individuals believe that they were threatened. But until these threats are made public, they have for some of us who are not aware of the specific examples, imbued with as much credibility as Sue Greenwald’s statements regarding “experts that she had consulted” held for you on previous topics.
[quote]“Which to me is an indication that the Vanguard should not “stir the pot and try to pick fights” ( if indeed you are correct in your assumption of motivation)….”[/quote]I actually don’t think you two are correct about David’s purpose.
Rather than a calculation to pick a fight, I see David as just documenting his personal outrage. It does generate comments that he’s going overboard which then encourages responses that are angry which then fosters upset which then….
Different strokes and all. Must make for some interesting discussions at the dinner table.
Medwoman: “I do not doubt that you believe the veracity of those who told you of threats. I do not doubt that these individuals believe that they were threatened. But until these threats are made public, they have for some of us who are not aware of the specific examples, imbued with as much credibility as Sue Greenwald’s statements regarding “experts that she had consulted” held for you on previous topics.”
Medwoman, I was on this blog at the same time as a new poster showed up asking personal things about another regular poster. I didn’t see the actual threat as it must have been pulled down almost immediately but I could see where that poster (who posted under an alias) was going. So I definately believe ERM when she states that threats were made. In fact, even though I don’t always agree with her, I know that ERM has much integrity and would take her word on things. I haven’t seen another post from that regular poster who was supposedly threatened, I hope he comes back because I value his judgement and he is missed on this blog.
rusty49
[quote]Medwoman, I was on this blog at the same time as a new poster showed up asking personal things about another regular poster. I didn’t see the actual threat as it must have been pulled down almost immediately but I could see where that poster (who posted under an alias) was going. So I definately believe ERM when she states that threats were made. In fact, even though I don’t always agree with her, I know that ERM has much integrity and would take her word on things. I haven’t seen another post from that regular poster who was supposedly threatened, I hope he comes back because I value his judgement and he is missed on this blog.[/quote]
I agree with everything you have said. But I also think this misses a couple of key points.
1) You and Elaine both seem to be sensitive to the feelings of the poster who felt threatened even without clear evidence of intent. I believe that the posts that I saw were enquiries regarding address of the posters business. I also saw this as potentially threatening, but cannot be sure without knowing his or her intent from that person.
The individual who felt threatened and those who agreed that these were threats obviously came to this conclusion without interviewing the anonymous poster. What I cannot understand is how you seem to not see that some of us in the community felt equally threatened by the very presence of the noose and yet you all demanded that there be no consequences prior to a complete investigation. You do not seem to demand the same standard for an anonymous poster before deciding that those threats were credible.
2) The second point is that all sides have been involved in posting their opinions with out having full facts. As Elaine once pointed out to me, this is part of the purpose of a blog is to be able to express opinions prior to having all the information, and hopefully to change those opinions as JustSaying and hpierce have done recently when confronted with a different point of view or more compelling evidence than we have seen in the past.
I also miss the poster in question and hope he will return soon. Who else will I get to banter with so freely ?
Elaine
[quote]jumping on the racism bandwagon[/quote]
You found David’s comment disrespectful and a form of censorship.
I find this comment “jumping on the racism bandwagon” equally disrespectful of the feelings of those of us who because of our life circumstances, had a visceral reaction to the presence of the noose. My children and my ex who are all significantly darker skinned than I am are no longer in town, so I did not feel any direct threat. However, it did bring back for me, times in this town ,when I was concerned that racist comments called out to my
rather hot headed husband could escalate in to a situation threatening to my children.
My plea would be for us all to not abandon the conversation, or decide that because something does not feel threatening to us personally, that it should not feel threatening to anyone who may have a very different experience with racism than we have had. Rather I would like all to make their comments, but to make them in a nonjudgemental way with respect for the beliefs and values of others.
Medwoman, read my post again. I never said that I read the actual threat, I said I could see where the conversation was headed and the threat must have been pulled down quickly before I had a chance to read it. My original thinking was the reason that the poster was asking what his business was because he wasn’t going to give him any business. So I didn’t make any judgements and never stated that the threat was credible, I’m saying that ERM was told by someone that they were threatened on here and I stated that I believe her. Please don’t put words in my mouth.
rusty49
[quote]I didn’t see the actual threat as it must have been pulled down almost immediately but I could see where that poster (who posted under an alias) was going. [/quote]
I “put no words in your mouth”. In the above quote you stated that “you could see where that poster ….was going.” I do not see how you could “see where the poster was going” without having spoken with them directly. Obviously there was more than one possible interpretation here. Someone else said that they saw it as a treat that the person might show up for a direct confrontation, or to do damage. Since there are at least three distinct interpretations of the same event, I fail to see how you could have “known where it was going” any more than I know the intent of the person who hung the noose. My response was to the comments that you made and nothing else.
It is so ironic that there are several users on this website who think a noose is an innocent prank, but they jump to the conclusion that asking which business Jeff Boone owns is a threat?
For everyone who missed that exchange, I asked which business Jeff Boone owned because I do not wish to direct my money toward people who think racism is not an issue in this town. I also posted a link concerning conversations about racism and the various methods people use to derail those conversations.
Then, Jeff Boone called me a coward for being anonymous, and rusty said something about me being liberal. Now apparently there are rumors floating around about people being threatened?
[b]And those of us who think the noose is serious are the ones overreacting? Please.[/b]
Medwoman, I normally just ignore you but I felt ERM deserved a little backup. You have reinforced that I was right to be ignoring you. Adios.
Momo,
I didn’t see the initial exchange between you and Jeff on this post; but don’t you think it would have be prudent, if you are asking Jeff what business he owned (in the context of, presumably, a strong disagreement concerning an inflammatory topic), that you include the reason that you are asking for that business address (as you finally did post above on 6/24)? This would help to prevent misunderstandings, which presumably is consistent with goals in dialogues on racism.
Personally I thought the reason would be self-evident since Don Schor had mentioned Jeff as being a local business owner a few times in that same article thread. Because of that, coupled with the fact that Jeff then wrote a longer reply inviting me to share my views, I had no idea that he or anyone else would interpret that as a threat, and thus no reason to explain my question.
If someone said “I’m a really lousy neighbor,” would you not ask “well, where do you live?” in order to avoid renting next to them?
Let me rephrase. I had no idea that he or anyone else would [s]interpret[/s] [i]twist[/i] that into a threat.
I had been planning on joining the dialogue here more often, but after reading all of the commentary on the noose incident, I think I would prefer to keep my blood pressure at a normal level. I came out of my lurk phase this last time to clarify so that some of you can now tone down the hysteria over an imagined threat. Maybe some of you can reflect a bit on why you are so resistant to the idea that a noose was more than a harmless prank, yet you jumped to the conclusion that a simple question was a threat.
And once again, the real discussion is hijacked by a conservative crying about a compatriot feeling threatened by words from the left, but not giving a damn about the feelings of those threatened by a noose . Whether from the missing channeler of Ayn Rand or the obtuse oracle of regurgitated right-wing rhetoric, it is beyond their capacity to offer any words of condemnation for the act and solidarity with their neighbors, but they cannot resist exploiting any opportunity to champion their social views .
If the sensitive social Darwinist feels so threaten by comments from someone, how does he think the people he so freely calls looters and moochers and worse feel ? The irony in this side discussion is rich in its absurdity .
To medwoman: Do you better understand why this whole issue is dividing the community? Now there is talk of boycotting a business, and a commenter has had to cease voicing his opinion. Has this result really helped the dialogue about the noose? I would prefer more positive discussion as Cecelia posted, or as the high school kids did w the video. Not incendiary claptrap, that has resulted in innocent people who dare express a contrary opinion being targeted for retribution. This is just the sort of nonsense that went on at Emerson Junior High, when UCD tried to discuss West Village. The discussion became so vitriolic, the police had to come.
[quote]I find this comment “jumping on the racism bandwagon” equally disrespectful…[/quote]
I lit on that choice of words after a lot of thought. I couldn’t seem to come up with a good selection of words to express what I was thinking. I still really cannot. What I was referring to is the intolerance of those who feel racism was inherent in the act of hanging the noose, and resent anyone who feels they were over-reactiing or that the hanging of the noose may have had less racist implications. See how unwieldy that wording is? I needed to condense it into about 2-3 words, and hence the “racism bandwagon” phrase, altho not quite indicative of all the nuances of what I was really trying to say.
I don’t post much but the level of vitriol and nastiness is really very interesting when it comes to discussions of racism. One would think we lived somewhere else than tolerant (and mostly White) Davis. What’re ever happened to tolerance, patience, and gratitude.
Elaine
[quote]To medwoman: Do you better understand why this whole issue is dividing the community? Now there is talk of boycotting a business, and a commenter has had to cease voicing his opinion. Has this result really helped the dialogue about the noose? I would prefer more positive discussion as Cecelia posted, or as the high school kids did w the video. Not incendiary claptrap, that has resulted in innocent people who dare express a contrary opinion being targeted for retribution.[/quote]
I fully agree with you. My point is that the animosity filled language has come from both sides, not just one. I completely agree with you that positive actions such as those posted by Cecelia and the action done by the students are optimal. But I do believe that both sides are doing a lot of finger pointing without being willing to own up to the same actions and assumptions coming from their favored side.
Elaine
[quote]Do you better understand why this whole issue is dividing the community? [/quote]
I believe that while we probably agree that this issue is dividing the community, we probably do not agree on the underlying cause of the divisiveness. I firmly believe that what caused the divisiveness was the presence of the noose itself whereas it seems to me that you believe that it is the subsequent conversations about the noose that are the problem.
You may have heard this before “sometimes a cigar is just a cigar”
Those on the racism bandwagen (a phrase only problematic to those on the bandwagen), without any evidence, have determined that racism was the reason for the noose.
That is not an opinion it is a theory based on ideology and racial paranoia.
Stormy
“racism was the reason for the noose. “
I have made no such conclusion. I find the presence of this particular symbol objectioanable regardless of the reason it was placed.
I also find any phrase such as “racial bandwagon” which is dismissive of another’s beliefs to be objectionable. Elaine, to her credit acknowledged that there was more nuance to her point than this choice of words implied.
Momo,
First let me say that I agree with you that the noose was likely a racist provocation (coming on the particular date that it came on), and that the ‘N-word’ grafitti in the tunnel was clearly a racist provocation. I sincerely hope that law enforcement catches up with the person(s) who did this; I would venture that nearly everyone in Davis would like to see the perp(s) caught.
One thing about Jeff that I think many Vanguard readers might agree with is that Jeff has a caustic way of expressing himself about many issues, not just issues around race. In other words, its not as if Jeff reserves any particular blunt comments for racial issues alone; he expresses himself in a way that many (usually not me) would call ‘insensitive’ on a wide range of issues. It seems to me Jeff has helped make for a more lively dialogue, since the majority of the contributors to this blog are to the left of center on most issues; and tend toward a softer style. Hope you and Jeff can smoke a peace pipe someday; everyone in the world will never agree on all issues (or even perceive them in the same way); but in many cases people have successfully and amicably agreed to disagree!
I should qualify my previous comment; I think Jeff has made for a more lively and interesting dialogue on many issues on this blog; unfortunately seems to have provoked more negative reactions on this particular racial issue. Well, this is bound to happen at times in arguments around politics or religion, ever since the early days when man first learned how to work his jawbone to talk.
A post from David Greenwald on the Bulletin site:
“I need to make a few points here.
I was at the meeting last night until late in the evening and so Don handled the moderation and I did not see comments until this morning.
I did receive an email from Don letting me know that there was a problem with a particular comment by an anonymous individual that was a threat against a non-anonymous individual. Don removed the threat and the resulting conversation. Don acted as he should have.
Don could not explain that decision without re-opening the can of worms. That is why his response was to email him. it is your choice as to whether or not to do so. But there is a reason why moderation decisions should be discussed privately rather than through a public discussion.
Don acted in my view entirely appropriately here. In all of the years on the Vanguard, I think this represented the single-most dangerous breech of etiquette.”
[quote]I believe that while we probably agree that this issue is dividing the community, we probably do not agree on the underlying cause of the divisiveness. I firmly believe that what caused the divisiveness was the presence of the noose itself whereas it seems to me that you believe that it is the subsequent conversations about the noose that are the problem.[/quote]
The noose clearly was incendiary, and was meant to be. However the dialogue that followed was not constructive, and only served to exacerbate the situation. Serving up the noose incident repeatedly in the Vanguard, harping on the idea that racism is alive and well in Davis to the extent national news media wanted to cover the story was not helpful IMO. It just gave the perpetrator the attention they were craving; and began dividing the community.
Furthermore, I respect Jeff Boone’s right to have an opinion and be able to express it however he sees fit, w/o being threatened. The rank intolerance expressed on this blog for those who don’t feel this noose incident warranted the attention it has been given is very disheartening, and quite ironic I might add…
To rusty49: Thanks for the post; and thanks to Don for pulling the offending comment. However dmg essentially poured gasoline on a fire by dredging up the “offending” comment, furthering the divisive conversation and knowing full well it might result in more threats…
At what point is enough enough? Let the police do their investigation and find out who did this. There is no need to poison the atmosphere further by turning on each other…
OK, last post and then I’ll be out of everyone’s hair for good.
Elaine, I think it is very unfortunate (and dishonest) that you are still claiming Jeff was threatened, unless it is in reference to something other than my asking what business he owns. Furthermore, you might want to stop putting words in people’s mouths. I never said Jeff does not have a right to his opinion. He is as free as I am to say what he wants. However, that does NOT mean people can express their opinions without consequences. For instance, the owner of Ken’s Bike and Ski supported Prop 8. Some people chose not to give him business anymore. That is their prerogative, and it is not ‘threatening’ him or ‘silencing’ his opinion. Let’s focus on the real victims in the situation, shall we?
To Momo: We’ll have to agree to disagree on this one 😉
Just as an aside Momo, do you boycott everyone you disagree with?
I repeat a couple of lines from David’s post:
“I did receive an email from Don letting me know that there was a problem with a particular comment by an anonymous individual that was a threat against a non-anonymous individual. Don removed the threat and the resulting conversation. Don acted as he should have.”
“In all of the years on the Vanguard, I think this represented the single-most dangerous breech of etiquette.”
It would not be hard to find someone’s business in the age of the internet if that was your goal. i did it in about one nanosecond. However i think it is dangerous when we start boycotting a business because we don’t like a person’s beliefs. The point of posting is to make others think about things differently then they might otherwise think. When I don’t agree with people i call them out but i don’t let my distaste for what others believe become a line in the sand.
Still all you defenders of unprotected hate speech are wrong and should be ashamed of yourselves for creating an environment where its okay to engage in that behavior by not slamming it no matter the intent of the perp. Now I’ll have a bottle of whine from your store please.
Toad, you sound like the one doing the “whining”.
ERM, I totally agree with your post:
“The noose clearly was incendiary, and was meant to be. However the dialogue that followed was not constructive, and only served to exacerbate the situation. Serving up the noose incident repeatedly in the Vanguard, harping on the idea that racism is alive and well in Davis to the extent national news media wanted to cover the story was not helpful IMO. It just gave the perpetrator the attention they were craving; and began dividing the community.
Furthermore, I respect Jeff Boone’s right to have an opinion and be able to express it however he sees fit, w/o being threatened. The rank intolerance expressed on this blog for those who don’t feel this noose incident warranted the attention it has been given is very disheartening, and quite ironic I might add…”
Well said…………….
Momo: “However, that does NOT mean people can express their opinions without consequences.”
Momo, you’re expressing your’s without “consequences”.
Ms. Musser writes:
“[All this is] furthering the divisive conversation and knowing full well it might result in more threats…”
I totally agree; in fact, all this (this blog entry and all the comments), plays into the hands of the perpetrator(s): providing tons of free publicity for their ick-minded gesture.
Elaine
Just a thought about the value, or lack thereof, of ongoing conversation or publicity of the noose incident.
What it boils down to for me as far as national coverage goes: I would much rather read a headline that says
” Noose Publicly Displayed in Davis – Town Promptly Condemns its Presence” to one that reads:
” Noose Publicly Displayed in Davis – Town Ignores It While Awaiting Investigation. “
I know that we see this differently, but I would be much more proud of my community if we could have spoken against this travesty ( regardless of intent) as one.
Elaine
[quote]do you boycott everyone you disagree with?[/quote
I know you directed this to Momo, but I would like to respond.
For me, this is a matter of the degree of the disagreement. If I consider the disagreement minor, lets say a difference in opinion about a local issue such as the ban on plastic bags, or the internal possession law, I would not boycott. If the disagreement was over an issue I consider of major importance, say a vendor of products known to be produced by forced labor ( essentially slavery by any other name) I would boycott and do so when I have knowledge of this situation. Granted I have presented what for me are the extremes as examples, and there is a broad spectrum involved here. I see the use of boycott as a legitimate choice of “voting” with ones own money and as such I belief it is the right of the individual to express themself in this manner. I obviously cannot speak for Jeff
since we are usually in amicable disagreement, but I see this position as in alignment with his free market views.
Brian Kenyon
[quote]I totally agree; in fact, all this (this blog entry and all the comments), plays into the hands of the perpetrator(s): providing tons of free publicity for their ick-minded gesture.[/quote]
This statement is dependent upon whether or not the perpetrator reads the Vanguard. If one is supposing that this was an adolescent prank, how many adolescents do you believe follow the Vanguard closely ? Any information on this David ? I know that my own adolescents response when I mentioned the Vanguard was, “the what ? ” If one supposes that it is a more mature person looking for attention in venues such as the Vanguard, then I would think this is a potentially more ominous situation. Again, I do not think it is the conversation that is the problem, but rather the act itself.
[quote]“This statement is dependent upon whether or not the perpetrator reads the Vanguard. If one is supposing that this was an adolescent prank, how many adolescents do you believe follow the Vanguard closely ?”[/quote]This is, as they say, a distinction without a difference.
We have to assume that the [i]Vanguard[/i] is as public and accessible as the [i]Enterprise[/i].
In any case, once one adolescent who was involved in a prank gets the word about something on the WWW, everyone who might be interested is notified within minutes.
Of course, the noose act itself is terrible. I think Elaine and some others are suggesting that the level of “mature conversation” about this topic and the handling of it is problematic as well.
JustSaying
[quote]Of course, the noose act itself is terrible. I think Elaine and some others are suggesting that the level of “mature conversation” about this topic and the handling of it is problematic as well.[/quote]
I would agree whole heartedly with the Elaine and others that the maturational level of the conversation could have been improved.
I would disagree with your comment “of course, the noose act itself is terrible” from the community point of view. I think what escalated at least some of the heat of the commentary was that it did not appear to be
“obvious ” at all to some of our corresponding community that the act of the noose was “terrible”. It seemed from the tenor of some of the comments that the poster was completely willing to ignore its presence until such a time ( if ever) that the perpetrator was apprehended. This to me would be a completely insensitive and unacceptable community response to the public use of this symbol regardless of intent.