"White Elevators" sign spotted at Republican National Convention

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

Okay guys, feedback???  

‘White elevators’ sign spotted at Republican National Convention

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/white-elevators-sign-spotted-republican-national-convention-article-1.2714148

[zil]

What, whoever saw this didn't have a cell phone on them to take a picture?  Were there also "Red Elevators" and "Blue Elevators"?

I suspect this is kinda like NeedleInA's recent post.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

Someone did take a picture.  You can see the picture in the article.   

I agree with the point of Needle's post, and that's why I posted this here...not to be inflammatory, but to hear what the other side has to say about this...beyond what was in the article which was "no one knows nothin'".  Apparently the signs put themselves up...

Edited July 17, 2016 by LiterateParakeet

[zil]

I _hate_ sites that only load the main content if javascript is enabled - without javascript, you see the old picture at the top and the outside of the convention center, but not the sign inside.

No one knows nuthin cuz they don't want to - they do everything in their power to pretend like they're not lying while still falsely accusing.  Non-news used strictly for hype.  10:1 "Byron Tau" knew full well what that sign meant and decided to create a controversy - and I'll add to those odds that there are indeed "Red" and "Blue" elevators and he knew it (or could easily have confirmed it) but didn't because that wouldn't get the kind of attention he wanted.  I'm done helping him be stupid.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

20 minutes ago, zil said:

"Byron Tau" knew full well what that sign meant and decided to create a controversy - and I'll add to those odds that there are indeed "Red" and "Blue" elevators 

I also wondered if there were red and blue elevators but if so then why wouldn't the Republican Party just point that out instead of taking the signs down?  That doesn't seem logical.  

[zil]

6 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

I also wondered if there were red and blue elevators but if so then why wouldn't the Republican Party just point that out instead of taking the signs down?

Really?  The reason they're taking them down is as obvious as the lies of the person who started it all.  Byron Tau is why they're taking them down.  Liars and idiots are why they're taking them down.  It's easier to take them down than to deal endlessly with said liars and idiots.

[LeSellers]

7 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

I also wondered if there were red and blue elevators but if so then why wouldn't the Republican Party just point that out instead of taking the signs down?  That doesn't seem logical.  

Hyper sensitivity and cowardice.

The charge of "racism" doesn't allow one to defend himself: charged = guilty. It's even worse than a charge of rape, at least (unless on a college campus) one gets his day in court. With racism, it's not just guilty until proven innocent, it's guilty even if proven innocent.

Lehi

[unixknight]

4 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

I also wondered if there were red and blue elevators but if so then why wouldn't the Republican Party just point that out instead of taking the signs down?  That doesn't seem logical.  

Ok, which do you honestly think is more likely:  That

A.  The Republicans are openly segregating elevators, in 2016, in an election year, in full view of the national media, at a time when racial tension is at its height

or

B. It was an arbitrary designation for the elevator of some kind.

If that was an actually segregated elevator system then where was the sign for the "colored elevators?"  Did this photographer manage to find that?  Because that would be pretty conclusive, wouldn't it? 

As to why they're changing the signs I think the answer is pretty obvious:  The HuffPo crows who wants to believe the RNC is segregated (which is hysterical when you consider that the Democrat party has always been the party of Segregation) are going to keep circulating that picture and new pictures will be taken as "proof."

I agree that taking the signs down does make them look bad but that speaks to just how spineless we've become when people panic at the slightest hint of being accused of racism in this country.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

5 minutes ago, unixknight said:

If that was an actually segregated elevator system then where was the sign for the "colored elevators?" 

This is a good point.  

You have to admit this looks pretty bad though, especially with Trump at the helm . . . honestly if it weren't for Trump I would choose your option B is the most likely choice, but with Trump and all his supporters, Option A is not so hard to believe. 

Edited July 17, 2016 by LiterateParakeet

[unixknight]

2 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

This is a good point.  

You have to admit this looks pretty bad though, especially with Trump at the helm . . . 

From where I'm sitting, the only part that looks bad is that they took the signs down like they were guilty of something.  That was a stupid decision by whoever made it.  Yes, more and more trolls would have shown up to take pictures of the "segregated elevators" and they'd have to deal with that, but I think it's preferable to validating the accusation by implicitly agreeing that the signs were bad.

We are living in a time where there are more people alive who never saw Government-enforced segregation than people who are old enough to have seen it.  How are we not past this?

(The answer, of course, is fearmongering and people stirring up racial tension for their own ends.)

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

4 minutes ago, unixknight said:

From where I'm sitting, the only part that looks bad is that they took the signs down like they were guilty of something.  That was a stupid decision by whoever made it.  Yes, more and more trolls would have shown up to take pictures of the "segregated elevators" and they'd have to deal with that, but I think it's preferable to validating the accusation by implicitly agreeing that the signs were bad.

Yes, I definitely see the latter as a preferable way of dealing with the situation.  After all when the KKK supports your candidate for President, you better try extra hard to not appear to support them in return. 

Quote

“I think Donald Trump would be best for the job. The reason a lot of Klan members like Donald Trump is because a lot of what he believes in, we believe in. We want our country to be safe."  http://www.snopes.com/2016/05/02/klan-leader-endorses-trump/

 

[zil]

What looks bad is Byron Tau, all the people involved in getting that article onto the website, and everyone who hyped the lie as if it were true.  Rather than helping to make the world a better place, these demons are doing their best to ensure we ignore real problems and waste our precious time, thought, and energy on a lie.  If that is not Satanic, what is?

[unixknight]

3 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

Yes, I definitely see the latter as a preferable way of dealing with the situation.  After all when the KKK supports your candidate for President, you better try extra hard to not appear to support them in return. 

 

Agreed, which is another reason I find it unlikely that this sign represents what this photographer claims it does.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

5 minutes ago, zil said:

What looks bad is Byron Tau, all the people involved in getting that article onto the website, and everyone who hyped the lie as if it were true.  Rather than helping to make the world a better place, these demons are doing their best to ensure we ignore real problems and waste our precious time, thought, and energy on a lie.  If that is not Satanic, what is?

zil, let's be logical about this.  You this a lie, what do you base that on besides ad hominem attacks?  I'm not saying it's true.  My position is let's explore this.  We know what it looks like, but what are some possible explanations.  Possible explanations, that's what I'm hoping to get out of this thread.  

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

14 minutes ago, unixknight said:

Agreed, which is another reason I find it unlikely that this sign represents what this photographer claims it does.

It's not "what the photographer claims it does", it what some people seeing the picture, not just the photographer, think it says.  When I saw it, I was shocked.  Then I thought, "Wait, maybe there's some explanation here...I can't imagine what it might be, but maybe."   I knew just where to find some Republicans to discuss it with.   I'm leaning toward some KKK leaning person's idea of a joke that didn't get taken down in time.  
 

Edited July 17, 2016 by LiterateParakeet

[unixknight]

4 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

It's not "what the photographer claims it does", it what some people seeing the picture, not just the photographer, think it says.  When I saw it, I was shocked.  Then I thought, "Wait, maybe there's some explanation here...I can't imagine what it might be, but maybe."   I knew just where to find some Republicans to discuss it with.   I'm leaning toward some KKK leaning person's idea of a joke that didn't get taken down in time.  
 

That could be.  What saddens me is that this will be perpetuated not only by gullible people who will believe whatever the HuffPo tells them, but also by people who know the truth perfectly well but will help propagate the lie because it serves their politics.  Ends justifying the means and all that.

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

It's not "what the photographer claims it does", it what some people seeing the picture, not just the photographer, think it says.  When I saw it, I was shocked.  Then I thought, "Wait, maybe there's some explanation here...I can't imagine what it might be, but maybe."   I knew just where to find some Republicans to discuss it with.   I'm leaning toward some KKK leaning person's idea of a joke that didn't get taken down in time.  
 

Or a setup. Maybe Byron Tau put it up.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

25 minutes ago, Eowyn said:

Or a setup. Maybe Byron Tau put it up.

A set up is an interesting possibility.  I wouldn't guess Byron Tau though. I don't know him, I'm just thinking it must be hard to get a job as a journalist with a major news paper, why risk your career? But stranger things have happened.  

27 minutes ago, unixknight said:

That could be.  What saddens me is that this will be perpetuated not only by gullible people who will believe whatever the HuffPo tells them, but also by people who know the truth perfectly well but will help propagate the lie because it serves their politics.  Ends justifying the means and all that.

Yes, unfortunately, I think that sort of shenanigans happens on both sides.  It makes it hard to know how or what to believe.  

[unixknight]

5 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

A set up is an interesting possibility.  I wouldn't guess Byron Tau though. I don't know him, I'm just thinking it must be hard to get a job as a journalist with a major news paper, why risk your career? But stranger things have happened.  

Yes, unfortunately, I think that sort of shenanigans happens on both sides.  It makes it hard to know how or what to believe.  

Yeah...  You just can't trust any single source anymore.  Every little story has to be vetted.  It's why I'm close to going full political hermit.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

6 minutes ago, unixknight said:

Yeah...  You just can't trust any single source anymore.  Every little story has to be vetted.  It's why I'm close to going full political hermit.

Yes, I agree.  Never has "two or three witnesses" been more important....and with politics it's even more complicated. Political hermit, LOL, I'm with you.  

[Guest MormonGator]

1 hour ago, unixknight said:

That could be.  What saddens me is that this will be perpetuated not only by gullible people who will believe whatever the HuffPo tells them, but also by people who know the truth perfectly well but will help propagate the lie because it serves their politics.  Ends justifying the means and all that.

 Unix is exactly right here. If you disagree with republican policies you'll believe anything about them that makes them appear negative. It's the same with those who disagree with democrats. Also works with religion-if you don't like Mormonism you'll believe anything negative about us.   

Edited July 17, 2016 by MormonGator

[Just_A_Guy]

My head is still spinning over how "racism"--which dmittedly has killed thousands--suddenly became an unspeakable horror while "communism"--which has killed millions--is suddenly all hunky dory; and "Islamic radicalism" isn't even worth mentioning (CNN spent the better part of a day before connecting Islamists with the Nice attacks, even though ISIS claimed responsibility immediately).

This article isn't about eradicating hate.  It's about marginalizing your opposition by creating hate against the folks who haven't bought the Kool-Aid that modern leftists are selling.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

You lost me JAG. Who is saying Communism is okay? And who is endorsing radical Islamism? It appears that you mean "the leftists" but I'm still unclear where this is coming from.  I have friends on both sides of theach political spectrum and I try to read media from both sides....still I'm lost here.

Both sides marginalize the other side, you're doing it right now. That doesn't make it okay, we can all agree on that, but was there some other point that I'm missing here?

[SpiritDragon]

I can't speak for JAG,LP - but I can say that as a Canadian following what's going on in the States it's just bizarre to see how the current President and the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party can say actually racist things and openly support a racist group in BLM and yet the Republicans and especially the man at the helm this election cycle are painted as racist because of wanting to be tough on immigration.

The left may not be "endorsing" communism or radical Islamism per se, but they are careful not to suggest they're problematic either. They also seem to have policies designed to encourage their spread. Look at the syrian refugee situation - clearly we want to help the innocent and oppressed, but it doesn't have to put westerners at risk on mass scale by inviting people into the country that cannot possibly be properly screened for security. This is about making a politcal show of caring, without doing anything to solve the underlying problem. The left (from the top - not necessarily the supporters who may be duped) are the ones who find a victim in everything and make everyone out to be a victim - except of course white christian males. They are using racial tensions and gender issues, LBGT issues to create a split in the nation so that the republicans look like monsters and can be dehumanized and can't possibly be trying to improve the country. 

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

5 minutes ago, SpiritDragon said:

The left may not be "endorsing" communism or radical Islamism per se, but they are careful not to suggest they're problematic either. They also seem to have policies designed to encourage their spread.

Thanks Spirit Dragon, that is really helpful. I understand what JAG was saying now. Not saying I agree with either of you,  but I understand. (I would have to parse it out more to see which parts I agreed with and which I didn't. I suspect there is some common ground here.) 

I also appreciate hearing the perspectives of people from Canada or others who live outside the US.