SC - US Senate candidate: "You have to treat white people like $#@!"

[Anti Federalist]

What This Senate Candidate Is Caught on Tape Saying Is So Bad Her Fellow Democrats Want Her to Drop Out

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahba...ritas-n2612865

9 Sept 2022

U.S. Senate candidate and South Carolina state Rep. Krystle Matthews doubled down on comments she made in a leaked audio recording arguing white people needed to be treated like “sh*t.”

Her disparaging remarks were made in an undercover Project Veritas recording, which shows her at a restaurant speaking to an unidentified reporter about her radical beliefs.

“My district is slightly Republican, and it's heavily white. I'm no stranger to white people, I'm from mostly white town. And let me tell you one thing. You ought to know who you’re dealing with, like you gotta treat them [white people] like sh*t, like I mean, that’s the only way they’ll respect you,” she says.

Matthews, who is taking on Sen. Tim Scott in November, goes on to say white people are like children.

“I keep them right here -- like under my thumbs. That’s where I keep it, like you have to,” she continues. “Otherwise, they get out of control -- like kids. So, you know, like, for me I know other people are tip-toeing around them [white people]. And I’m like, ‘Yo, that’s some white sh*t. I ain’t doing that.’”

Matthews also criticized Sen. Bernie Sanders for the way he "They be like, ‘Well, I’m just gonna say some white sh*t.’ And that was my problem with Bernie [Sanders]. Because he was talking to an all-black crowd, and he was afraid to say black sh*t. I said, ‘If I’m talking to an all-black crowd, I’m saying black sh*t. Now if you don’t like it, you get your ass up and leave.’”

Rather than apologize, Matthews stood by her comments in a lengthy statement.

“Aren’t you tired of politicians selling out our communities, spitting on our working families, and exploiting the rights of our women and children? While taking community pictures and kissing our babies, our favorite legislators wash their hands and sweep what our community needs under the rug. What would you call that? I call that SH**, and my mother raised me to treat something exactly how it is!” she said in a statement, according to Live 5 News. So when I stated to that undercover journalist … in that satirical MAGA Powered news outlet Project Veritas, ‘to treat these MAGA Republicans like SH**.’ I SAID WHAT I SAID! Play the whole tape ‘PROJECT VERITAS’ so the people will know who I was referring to. Regardless of race, I love everyone. One thing you can learn from Project Veritas’ first audio attack on me is obviously, I have no biases towards a certain ethnic group. I expressed my disgust for Black legislators who exhibit the same hypocrisy as MAGA Republicans. This is why I am challenging MAGA’s favorite Black legislator, Tim Scott. Understand I never proposed to be an orthodox candidate. I’m a community advocate who the people favored enough to have me take the seat of a Republican incumbent.”

[Occam's Banana]

https://twitter.com/laralogan/status...91837339201537

//

[TheTexan]

That's racist empowering!

[Jenard Butler]

What This Senate Candidate Is Caught on Tape Saying Is So Bad Her Fellow Democrats Want Her to Drop Out

They may want her to drop out but it's not because they don't agree with her.

[Invisible Man]

Why does the thread title put quotation marks around something that isn't a quote?

[jkr]

DONE!

What is Step 2?

[PAF]

More bullsh|t where politicians sling sh|t at each other, and the People still have no clue what policies they support/oppose.

It's Campaign Season, Tim has a 90%. The threshold should be at least that every single year. His lifetime average is not even 70%, which makes him a SHILL.

Score Congress
68% Lifetime
90% 117th (2021-2022)
40% 116th (2019-2020)
50% 115th (2017-2018)
62% 114th (2015-2016)
87% 113th (2013-2014)
78% 112th (2011-2012)

https://thenewamerican.com/freedom-i...lator/s001184/


Does that mean I would ever support Matthews? Not-on-your-life. But I sure as hell wouldn't support SHILL Scott either. No worries, most folks will, because of the racial bickering, and they wouldn't think of rocking the boat now with another better candidate.

Congrats ahead of time, Tim Scott (R-Shill). After elections, maybe you'll beat your own record and go from a 40% down to a 30%.

[69360]

Isn't this this woman who also solicited shill donations from drug dealers?

[Anti Federalist]

Why does the thread title put quotation marks around something that isn't a quote?

I translated it from Ebonics/Millennial Newspeak into Standard English.

Rep. Krystle Matthews said:

"like, you gotta treat them, [white people], like $#@!"

My headline said:

"You have to treat white people like $#@!"

Her words, exactly as she spoke them, are at 10 to the 12 second mark:

[Invisible Man]

I translated it from Ebonics/Millennial Newspeak into Standard English.

OK. But those brackets there mean someone supplied words she didn't say.

[TheTexan]

OK. But those brackets there mean someone supplied words she didn't say.

Except for autistic people, there's not any meaningful difference between "I'm no stranger to white people, ... you gotta treat them like $#@!" and "you gotta treat [white people] like $#@!."

It's an accurate quote.

[Anti Federalist]

OK. But those brackets there mean someone supplied words she didn't say.

Seriously...you're going to grammar Nazi me over that?

Seriously?

Using Square Brackets in Quotes

Writers use brackets in academic writing to add information to a quote without changing the meaning of the sentence.

This means that the writer can add words, if necessary, to make the sentence clearer or add a correction or comment to quoted material.

Normally, a quotation must be presented exactly as it was spoken or written. The square bracket allows the writer to fix mistakes, add explanatory information, change a quote to fit in a sentence, or add emphasis to a word through bold or italics.

https://grammar.yourdictionary.com/p...n-grammar.html

So, what's your purpose here?

To prove I'm an $#@!? Too $#@!ing late, that's a given, even the wife thinks I'm an $#@!.

To correct a blatant misrepresentation? You saw and heard her with your own eyes and ears. Are you claiming the PV video is ginned up or fake?

Or to throw up a bunch of FUD to protect this woman's statement because you agree with it? That wouldn't surprise me. What would be a career ending gaffe for a white man is nothing more than speaking truth to power if done by a colored woman, amirite?

[Anti Globalist]

I can only imagine the reaction leftists would have if some Republican US Senate candidate said this.

[Invisible Man]

Seriously...you're going to grammar Nazi me over that?

Not grammar nazi-ing. Just wondering why quotation marks were used for something nobody actually said.

[Invisible Man]

Except for autistic people, there's not any meaningful difference between "I'm no stranger to white people, ... you gotta treat them like $#@!" and "you gotta treat [white people] like $#@!."

It's an accurate quote.

You just did the same thing by adding that ellipsis there to make it look like the antecedent of the pronoun was "white people" in the original context. If it's that clear that she was talking just generically about how you have to treat any and all white people, then you shouldn't have to alter her words to "clarify" her into saying that.

The video in the OP started playing the recording in the middle of her talking, and it isn't clear what the antecedent actually was. Later on the OP she claims that she was misrepresented, that she was talking about MAGA Republicans, and she challenged them to play the whole tape. If they're not willing to play the whole tape, then I'd say she's probably right that they deliberately misrepresented her. In any rate, just quote the actual words, and if in the actual words she actually used she didn't say what you wanted to make it look like she said, then oh well.

[TheTexan]

You just did the same thing by adding that ellipsis there to make it look like the antecedent of the pronoun was "white people" in the original context. If it's that clear that she was talking just generically about how you have to treat any and all white people, then you shouldn't have to alter her words to "clarify" her into saying that.

The video in the OP started playing the recording in the middle of her talking, and it isn't clear what the antecedent actually was. Later on the OP she claims that she was misrepresented, that she was talking about MAGA Republicans, and she challenged them to play the whole tape. If they're not willing to play the whole tape, then I'd say she's probably right that they deliberately misrepresented her. In any rate, just quote the actual words, and if in the actual words she actually used she didn't say what you wanted to make it look like she said, then oh well.

The antecedent is clear and obvious. She can claim to have misspoken but she can't claim to have been misquoted.

"Just quote the actual words"

Why? The meaning is the same regardless, and one requires less keyboard strokes. Her "actual words" are in the video if people like you care.

[Anti Federalist]

You just did the same thing by adding that ellipsis there to make it look like the antecedent of the pronoun was "white people" in the original context. If it's that clear that she was talking just generically about how you have to treat any and all white people, then you shouldn't have to alter her words to "clarify" her into saying that.

The video in the OP started playing the recording in the middle of her talking, and it isn't clear what the antecedent actually was. Later on the OP she claims that she was misrepresented, that she was talking about MAGA Republicans, and she challenged them to play the whole tape. If they're not willing to play the whole tape, then I'd say she's probably right that they deliberately misrepresented her. In any rate, just quote the actual words, and if in the actual words she actually used she didn't say what you wanted to make it look like she said, then oh well.

She said them.

After referencing white people numerous times.

Who is them?

Aliens?

Dogs?

Grasshoppers?

If I said:

"People on Ron Paul forums are jerks. We know people on Ron Paul Forums are jerks, we have known it all along. I often post with Ron Paul forums people. And you have to treat them like jerks".

There would be no doubt whatsoever that I meant "Ron Paul Forum people" when I said "them".

And no editor or proofreader in the English speaking world would have an issue if I was quote thusly:

Anti Federalist is on the record as saying "You have to treat [Ron Paul Forum people] like jerks."

Aside from making smoke, what are you trying to do here?

[Invisible Man]

The antecedent is clear and obvious. She can claim to have misspoken but she can't claim to have been misquoted.

Except for the parts where people add or remove words from her actual quotes in order to "clarify" them. In those instances, she was misquoted.

[Invisible Man]

She said them.

After referencing white people numerous times.

Who is them?

Probably certain white people in particular.

If it's that obvious, then why was there any need to change her words? Let the actual quote stand on its own. Then it's all on her.

[acptulsa]

Probably certain white people in particular.

If it's that obvious, then why was there any need to change her words? Let the actual quote stand on its own. Then it's all on her.

Were you aware that the number of characters this software allows in thread titles is limited?

[Invisible Man]

Were you aware that the number of characters this software allows in thread titles is limited?

Yes. But there's no requirement that the thread title use quotation marks. And the problem didn't really begin with the thread title. The article itself represents the woman's words deliberately to lead people to think that's what she said. A critical reader would see through that and not come away very impressed with the journalist who wrote it or the editors who let it slide. But someone who is already eager for more ammunition to support the conclusion that we're on the brink of a white genocide is going to lap up that story and its baked in conclusions without a second thought, and then turn around and put a quote like what we have in the thread title in quotation marks and not even be aware of how someone else manipulated them to do that.

The woman said, "Play the whole tape ‘PROJECT VERITAS’ so the people will know who I was referring to."

That seems reasonable enough to me. And it's worth asking why they didn't play more of the tape in the first place. Why did they only begin right in the middle of a conversation, starting with the sentence right before the one the thread title paraphrases, instead of playing more sentences leading up to that, so as to leave no room for doubt about what the antecedent of the pronoun was?

I think if we're honest we all know why they didn't. The reason is because playing more of the context leading up to that would have made it harder to supply the words "white people" as the understood antecedent.

[TheTexan]

Yes. But there's no requirement that the thread title use quotation marks. And the problem didn't really begin with the thread title. The article itself represents the woman's words deliberately to lead people to think that's what she said. A critical reader would see through that and not come away very impressed with the journalist who wrote it or the editors who let it slide. But someone who is already eager for more ammunition to support the conclusion that we're on the brink of a white genocide is going to lap up that story and it's baked in conclusions without a second thought, and then turn around and put a quote like what we have in the thread title in quotation marks and not even be aware of how someone else manipulated them to do that.

Level of autism: Over 9000

That is all. I am leaving thread lol

[RJB]

Level of autism: Over 9000

That is all. I am leaving thread lol

Oh. How is he going to grow if you don't feed him attention?

[Anti Federalist]

Yes. But there's no requirement that the thread title use quotation marks. And the problem didn't really begin with the thread title. The article itself represents the woman's words deliberately to lead people to think that's what she said. A critical reader would see through that and not come away very impressed with the journalist who wrote it or the editors who let it slide. But someone who is already eager for more ammunition to support the conclusion that we're on the brink of a white genocide is going to lap up that story and its baked in conclusions without a second thought, and then turn around and put a quote like what we have in the thread title in quotation marks and not even be aware of how someone else manipulated them to do that.

The woman said, "Play the whole tape ‘PROJECT VERITAS’ so the people will know who I was referring to."

That seems reasonable enough to me. And it's worth asking why they didn't play more of the tape in the first place. Why did they only begin right in the middle of a conversation, starting with the sentence right before the one the thread title paraphrases, instead of playing more sentences leading up to that, so as to leave no room for doubt about what the antecedent of the pronoun was?

I think if we're honest we all know why they didn't. The reason is because playing more of the context leading up to that would have made it harder to supply the words "white people" as the understood antecedent.

Her words:

“My district is slightly Republican, and it's heavily white. I'm no stranger to white people, I'm from mostly white town. And let me tell you one thing. You ought to know who you’re dealing with, like you gotta treat them [white people] like $#@!, like I mean, that’s the only way they’ll respect you,”

It does not matter what was said before or after.

That statement stands on its own, by itself, as an individual thought.

She's desperately trying to spin this statement as moving back, suddenly, to "them" being MAGA Republicans.

Even if true, that doesn't make it any better.

You're running for US senator and you're openly stating that you intend to treat one third of your constituency "like $#@!"?

[A Son of Liberty]

Her words:

“My district is slightly Republican, and it's heavily white. I'm no stranger to white people, I'm from mostly white town. And let me tell you one thing. You ought to know who you’re dealing with, like you gotta treat them [white people] like $#@!, like I mean, that’s the only way they’ll respect you,”

It does not matter what was said before or after.

That statement stands on its own, by itself, as an individual thought.

She's desperately trying to spin this statement

Yep. And, oddly, so is Invisible Man...

What she's saying is as a clear as a Wyoming winter night sky (except when it's snowing like a MF'er!).

[Invisible Man]

It does not matter what was said before or after.

Clearly it doesn't matter to you.

It does, however, matter to anyone wanting to know whom she meant by "them."

And if it doesn't matter, then we're back to the question of why those who released that video conspicuously edited it to prevent the audience from hearing what came before. If they could show that what came before wouldn't change the interpretation, then including it would only have helped their case.

If the statement stands on its own, then good. Let it stand on its own. No ellipses, no brackets, no changing words, no use of quotation marks around something that isn't a quote. Nobody who isn't trying to put a different spin on it should have a problem with that.

You're running for US senator and you're openly stating that you intend to treat one third of your constituency "like $#@!"?

But that's not the point you or the authors of the article you quoted were trying to make by "clarifying" her words.

[acptulsa]

And if it doesn't matter, then we're back to the question of why those who released that video conspicuously edited it to prevent the audience from hearing what came before. If they could show that what came before wouldn't change the interpretation, then including it would only have helped their case.

Maybe the edited it that way for other reasons, and simply didn't expect to have to put "their case" before the Spanish Inquisition.

If the statement stands on its own, then good. Let it stand on its own. No ellipses, no brackets, no changing words, no use of quotation marks around something that isn't a quote. Nobody who isn't trying to put a different spin on it should have a problem with that.

Is holding conservative opinion to a standard that is above reproach a TownHall priority? And if so, since when?

[Invisible Man]

Maybe the edited it that way for other reasons, and simply didn't expect to have to put "their case" before the Spanish Inquisition.

That's correct. They were aiming at a sympathetic audience and needing to be able to stand up to scrutiny as to the facts was not a concern they had.

Is holding conservative opinion to a standard that is above reproach a TownHall priority?

No, it isn't. I just wanted to point it out.

It's one of my peccadilloes that I like to hold journalists to standards like that and to think that those who are more credulous of what their favored purveyors of opinion tell them could benefit from having those types of transgressions pointed out.

Sometimes, even when they are pointed out, those who insist on believing certain conclusions still can't see them.

Edit: It hit me that we used to be able to count on Zippy to inject critical thought into threads with sensationalized titles and confirmation biases. We're all the worse for the lack of his keen eye for those things to keep us in check.

[Anti Federalist]

But that's not the point you or the authors of the article you quoted were trying to make by "clarifying" her words.

What was that point?

What point was I trying to make?

Because of all the smoke you just laid, that point was lost.

[A Son of Liberty]

That's correct. They were aiming at a sympathetic audience and needing to be able to stand up to scrutiny as to the facts was not a concern they had.




No, it isn't. I just wanted to point it out.

It's one of my peccadilloes that I like to hold journalists to standards like that and to think that those who are more credulous of what their favored purveyors of opinion tell them could benefit from having those types of transgressions pointed out.

Sometimes, even when they are pointed out, those who insist on believing certain conclusions still can't see them.

Edit: It hit me that we used to be able to count on Zippy to inject critical thought into threads with sensationalized titles and confirmation biases. We're all the worse for the lack of his keen eye for those things to keep us in check.

I remember when I was young enough and naïve enough to actually consider that maybe a post like this was sincere... now I just recognize it as ordinary gaslighting... and not even very good gaslighting, at that.

She referred to WHITE people THREE times before she switched to "them" ("them" being those who need to be "treated like sh!t"). You might have some success convincing some of the folks lurking this thread that there is some doubt as to whom she's referring, but you're not getting anywhere with me.

Again, just READ the sentence. AGAIN, she referred to WHITE people THREE times before saying "they need to be treated like sh!t". If she really meant "MAGA Republicans, then she is REALLY bad a communicating. Because anyone speaking with her would safely and rightly assume that, given the context, she was referring to white people.

And I'm not even into this race thing - I think it's all a divide-and-conquer strategy... but for you to push this nonsense that she wasn't really talking about what she was CLEARLY talking about is just absurd, elementary, and transparent. You're peddling in some really D-grade gaslighting here. It's actually embarrassing.