quote:Ousted Agriculture Department employee Shirley Sherrod said Thursday she will sue a conservative blogger who posted a video edited in a way that made her appear racist.
Sherrod was forced to resign as director of rural development in Georgia after Andrew Breitbart posted the edited video online. In the full video, Sherrod, who is black, spoke to a local NAACP group about racial reconciliation and lessons she learned after initially hesitating to help a white farmer save his home.
Speaking Thursday at the National Association of Black Journalists convention, Sherrod said she would "definitely" sue over the video that took her remarks out of context. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack has since offered Sherrod a new job in the department. She has not decided whether to accept.
Sherrod said she had not received an apology from Breitbart and no longer wanted one.
"He had to know that he was targeting me," she said.
Breitbart did not immediately respond to calls or e-mails seeking comment. He has said he posted the portion of the speech where she details her reluctance to help the white farmer to prove that racism exists in the NAACP, which had just demanded that the tea party movement renounce any bigoted elements. Some members of the NAACP audience responded approvingly when Sherrod described her reluctance to help the farmer.
The farmer's wife came forward after Sherrod resigned, saying Sherrod had eventually helped them save their farm.
Vilsack and President Barack Obama later called Sherrod to apologize for her hasty ouster. Obama said Thursday that Sherrod "deserves better than what happened last week."
Addressing the National Urban League, he said the full story Sherrod was trying to tell "is exactly the kind of story we need to hear in America."
- Then Breitbart backpedaled, saying the media took him out of context, that he wasn't out to prove that Sherrod is racist, that he was more focused on the NAACP's reaction to her speech
- Then Breitbart started claiming 'Sherrod's still a racist' and that the US Government was trying to destroy him unfairly as part of a conspiracy that they banked on
- The short copy of the whole story is that Breitbart is a media troll who actively and malevolently distorts, and if you get your news from him (which I know a few of you on this forum do) you're totally a fool at this point.
quote:Lord insinuates that Sherrod is a liar for using the word "lynch" to describe a 1940s murder in Baker County, Georgia. Bobby Hall, a relative of Sherrod, was beaten to death by sheriff's deputies who had come to arrest him for stealing a tire. Lord says Sherrod's characterization of the beating as lynching is dishonest and inflammatory:
quote:It's possible that Ms. Sherrod simply doesn't know the truth...
It's also possible that she knew the truth and chose to embellish it, changing a brutal and fatal beating to a lynching.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Yawn. If it quacks like a duck...
The Sherrods are racists, Samp. The fact that the media is bending over backwards to apologize to Shirley after they ran with the original story is pretty hilarious, though.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Yawn. If it quacks like a duck...
The Sherrods are racists, Samp.
Is this serious or are you trolling to get a rise out of people?
"If it quacks like a duck"? According to who? Breitbart, or reality?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Yawn. If it quacks like a duck...
If it handwaves like a Dan_Frank ...
quote:The Sherrods are racists, Samp.
Oh, I'd very, very much like to hear the rationale on this one. Tell me how you have come to this conclusion!
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Second of all, the unedited video doesn't show her not being racist, it just shows that she decided Marxism is higher on her list than racism. Specifically, lines like "It's not about black—well, it is about black and white, but it's also about the haves and the have nots," seem to be very telling.
Here's an interesting thought experiment I posted in another thread, reproduced here so it can be ignored again.
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: So let's imagine we've got a conservative, rich, white fellow—we'll call him Peter—who talks about how, twenty years ago, he was prejudiced against a black guy—he can be Paul—who was... I don't know, a partner at his firm. But then Peter realized that Paul was actually a great lawyer and a savvy businessman. He even voted for Ronald Reagan! So they became friends, and Peter realized it wasn't really about black and white after all. Well, no, it is about black and white, says Peter, but its also about how rich and conservative you are!
Why, that story certainly shows how much Peter isn't a racist, doesn't it? He's practically a member of the NAACP already.
Essentially Sherrod is saying "I'm not racist! Look, I've got a white friend!"
Is that really the bar? If so, people should probably stop ragging on Mal and his Jamaican friend.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
The argument that sherrod is racist is that she said she had a white friend?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Huh?
The argument that Sherrod is not racist seems to be that she eventually helped the white farmer and they're friends today.
Really? That was the best counterpoint you could come up with? Really? Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
I haven't offered a counterpoint yet, that was a question. Okay, now I'm really worried I am getting trolled. Sherrod is a marxist? Says who?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: The argument that Sherrod is not racist seems to be that she eventually helped the white farmer and they're friends today.
How about 'sherrod's speech was actually about how she learned she had to put aside her difference and not have race matter or influence her decisions,' which is both
1. completely different, and 2. not surprising that you would miss in favor of the irrelevant argument you have constructed on Sherrod's benefit.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: Okay, now I'm really worried I am getting trolled.
Dan_Frank is probably being serious. He actually does this, and he probably actually believes that Sherrod is a Marxist, purely on the virtue of a site/pundit about as credible as Breitbart & biggovernment.com
edit: i am super excited to have hit the jackpot. "If [sherrod] quacks like a [racist]."
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
Um. Has anyone who watched the video got a different take on her explanation? Cause if she claimed poor trumped white in the end, that sure sounds racist.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by AvidReader: Um. Has anyone who watched the video got a different take on her explanation? Cause if she claimed poor trumped white in the end, that sure sounds racist.
Why?
It was her job to give aid to poor farmers. She was talking about how she learned to overcoming her own racist stereotype -- a stereotype that said that white farmers were rich because of unfair advantages but black farmers were poor because of historic discrimination. The point she was trying to make was that she learned to overcome that prejudice and see individual circumstances and not just racial groups.
If people can't make that kind of admission about their past without being blackballed and labeled racist, then our society has no hope for progress.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:If people can't make that kind of admission about their past without being blackballed and labeled racist, then our society has no hope for progress.
Seriously. I hate this aspect of our society.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: She was talking about how she learned to overcoming her own racist stereotype -- a stereotype that said that white farmers were rich because of unfair advantages but black farmers were poor because of historic discrimination.
Ok, that's different from Dan's explanation of it. I'm fine with that.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by AvidReader: Um. Has anyone who watched the video got a different take on her explanation? Cause if she claimed poor trumped white in the end, that sure sounds racist.
quote:On July 19, Andrew Breitbart’s BigGovernment.com website posted a short video clip from a speech Sherrod had delivered to an NAACP gathering in March.
In the clip, Sherrod confessed to having deliberately declined on racial grounds to help a white farmer faced with a foreclosure on his farm. She was immediately terminated by the USDA and condemned by the national NAACP.
But a second look at the tape made it obvious that the tape had been severely edited, abruptly cut short. Within hours it emerged that the story on the tape was exactly the opposite of the story Breitbart had wanted to tell.
Sherrod was telling a story about overcoming her own racial antagonisms. She had repented, had helped the white farmer, had saved the farm, had formed a friendship with the farmer and his family that lasts to this day. Besides which: The episode in question dates back to 1986, long before Sherrod ever went to work at the USDA.
By the morning of July 20 the Sherrod-as-racist narrative had collapsed.
What is most fascinating about that second day, however, was the conservative reaction to the collapse. At midday on the 20th, Rush Limbaugh was still praising Breitbart: "I know that Andrew Breitbart's done great work getting this video of Ms. Sherrod at the U.S. Department of Agriculture and her supposed racism and so forth saying she's not gonna help a white farmer."
By the evening of the 20th, however, conservatives were backing away, acknowledging that an innocent women had been defamed.
Here's Glenn Beck.
Here's Rich Lowry, editor of National Review.
Here's Instapundit.
Here's the popular Anchoress blog at First Things.
Even the racially incendiary Eric Erickson tweeted his disquiet, and then posted this on his RedState website.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:- Then Breitbart backpedaled, saying the media took him out of context, that he wasn't out to prove that Sherrod is racist, that he was more focused on the NAACP's reaction to her speech
I haven't followed this story or watched any of the videos and really don't care at all but I want to clarify something with the posters.
Sherod's original video basically consists of her admitting that she had been racist but has changed her ways correct?
Breitbart's edit makes it look like she is still a racist correct?
So to me the argument is not whether or not she was a racist, that part is admitted. The question is has she really reformed or not?
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I think there is a difference between the "I have a white friend" versus "I changed because of my white friend." When I went to college, I was pretty neutral on gay rights, perhaps a little more on the negative side (I believed legal things like anti-sodomy laws were wrong, but that was more of an extension of my libertarian views than out of social justice). However, having a gay friend at college, who was actually stabbed at one point when leaving a club made me really think about my views and made me much more in favor of gay rights- not just as a sure, everyone should have rights, but I understood why it mattered a bit more and had a personal stake in it. I would hate for telling that story to make everyone label me as a homophobe. And my reason I am not a homophobe is not because I have a gay friend, but that having a gay friend made me rethink my positions.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: I would hate for telling that story to make everyone label me as a homophobe. And my reason I am not a homophobe is not because I have a gay friend, but that having a gay friend made me rethink my positions.
I agree but here is the problem. Once someone gets the "racist" label attached to them, it never goes away.
I mean if David Duke or someone like that came out tomorrow and said "my jewish, afro-american friend has convinced me of the error of my ways and I am no longer a racist" do you think the NAACP would accept him? Would all be forgiven? Maybe but I doubt it. And would anybody be raising a stink about anyone that posted any of his vids spouting racist slogans? I suspect they would be applauded rather then sued.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I mean if David Duke or someone like that came out tomorrow and said "my jewish, afro-american friend has convinced me of the error of my ways and I am no longer a racist" do you think the NAACP would accept him? Would all be forgiven? Maybe but I doubt it. And would anybody be raising a stink about anyone that posted any of his vids spouting racist slogans? I suspect they would be applauded rather then sued.
That's not a fair analogy. Sharrod isn't someone who had been labeled a racist until Breitbart tagged one on her. Breitbart didn't post an old video of Sharrod spouting racist slogans. He posted a new video of her telling a story about how she overcame her own prejudices and stripped the context to make her look racist.
Sharrod wasn't speaking as a former bigot seeking acceptance. She was speaking to a black audience with the message that poor and underprivileged people need to work together regardless of race and she told a personal story about overcoming ones own prejudices.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
Fair points there Rabbit, and all probably true.
All I was trying to say is that there is definitely a double standard in play when it comes to racism. This is a FACT. Now unlike some, I make no claims as to that double standard being wrong or right, I don't really care. I just wish more people would make the point to acknowledge its existence once in a while.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:ll I was trying to say is that there is definitely a double standard in play when it comes to racism. This is a FACT.
You are begging the question.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: The argument that Sherrod is not racist seems to be that she eventually helped the white farmer and they're friends today.
How about 'sherrod's speech was actually about how she learned she had to put aside her difference and not have race matter or influence her decisions,' which is both
1. completely different, and 2. not surprising that you would miss in favor of the irrelevant argument you have constructed on Sherrod's benefit.
But this is simply wrong. She never says she's not going to let race influence her decisions anymore. She just says that being poor trumps being white.
Once again, she's saying that the rich/poor dichotomy is more important than the black/white dichotomy.
Man, Samp, for somebody who gets extremely up in arms with Breitbart and his selective video editing, you sure do a lot of selective quoting.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
PS Thank you for not calling me a troll. I know, I know, being a conservative and being a troll are practically the same thing, but it's good of you to allow that there are slight differences between the two.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: ... it just shows that she decided Marxism is higher on her list than racism.
It appears Marxists have *really* lowered their admission standards.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: ... it just shows that she decided Marxism is higher on her list than racism.
It appears Marxists have *really* lowered their admission standards.
I may have been indulging in a smidgen of hyperbole.
Really just using Marxism as shorthand for "views rich and poor as an us v. them scenario." I'm not actually making any specific claims about where she may stand on actual Marxism. I wouldn't exactly be surprised if she turned out to be a Marxist, but I also wouldn't be surprised if she claimed she wasn't.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: PS Thank you for not calling me a troll. I know, I know, being a conservative and being a troll are practically the same thing, but it's good of you to allow that there are slight differences between the two.
It IS possible to be a conservative without SOUNDING like a troll. You should try it.
And the martyr complex clashes with sarcasm. Just so you know.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
liberalism clashes with honesty
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
You know, Bill O'Reilly claims that his apology for unfairly attacking Sherrod was the first time he's ever publicly apologized for making a mistake.
Really emphasizes the ridiculous rush-to-judge that went into this debacle on all sides. Rush to demonize, rush to disavow, but no rush to defend, no rush to fact check. I think more than the lessons of racial progress in this story, that's the real observation to focus on from this thing as far as recognizing serious problems that need fixing in our civic methodology.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: PS Thank you for not calling me a troll. I know, I know, being a conservative and being a troll are practically the same thing, but it's good of you to allow that there are slight differences between the two.
I think I would have an easier time taking you seriously at all if you didn't jump in with handwaving and disdain and really poorly constructed arguments and then immediately proceed to martyr complexes and sarcasm. If you don't want to be called a troll, don't seriously act like one, because your participation in this thread makes you represent your own conservative viewpoint in the most trollish light.
This is what you do. You jump in, obviously incensed, and you don't give anyone much reason to give you the benefit of the doubt. you just took what is already a controversial side and, for all intents and purposes, made it look like the product of an indignant and short-sighted fool. It's your M.O. in at least the past three of my threads about anything politically controversial.
That people start actively wondering whether or not you're trolling them is of little surprise. using "marxist" as a shorthand descriptor of an already unfairly slandered Sherrod makes you look, for all intents and purposes, so entrenched in a discredited narrative that you'll come up with different pejoratives just to make the original labels sound fair.
quote:But this is simply wrong. She never says she's not going to let race influence her decisions anymore. She just says that being poor trumps being white.
Once again, she's saying that the rich/poor dichotomy is more important than the black/white dichotomy.
Again, absolutely wrong. here's a part of the complete transcript.
quote:But I've come to realize that we have to work together and -- you know, it's sad that we don't have a room full of white and blacks here tonight, 'cause we have to overcome the divisions that we have. We have to get to the point where, as Tony Morrison said, "Race exists but it doesn't matter." We have to work just as hard.
She's not saying that she needs to put her racist priorities over her "Marxist" priorities (if, in this case, "Marxist" priority means 'wanting to help poor people as part of a career or position where you help people experiencing financial crisis'), she's saying that she personally came to the conclusion that race should not matter, she found she had to overcome her own personal biases, and that there shouldn't be divisions between the races.
Oh wow, what a racist marxist. Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by James Tiberius Kirk:
quote:- Then Breitbart backpedaled, saying the media took him out of context, that he wasn't out to prove that Sherrod is racist, that he was more focused on the NAACP's reaction to her speech
quote:So, let's review the Breitbart gang's allegations:
When … she expresses a discriminatory attitude towards white people, the audience responds with applause. False. The NAACP … is cheering on a person describing a white person as the other. False. The NAACP audience seemed to have approved of her actions when she talked about not helping the white farmer. False. They weren't cheering redemption; they were cheering discrimination. False.
As Ms. Sherrod recounted the first part of her parable, how she declined to do everything she could for the farmer because of his race, the audience responded in approval. False.
First Breitbart and his acolytes falsely accused Sherrod of discriminating against whites as a federal employee, despite having no evidence for this charge in the original video excerpt. Strike one.
Then they misrepresented Sherrod's story as an embrace of racism, when in fact she was repudiating racism. They later pleaded ignorance of this fact because they didn't have the full video. Strike two.
Now, with the full video in hand and posted on their Web site, they're lying about the reaction of the NAACP audience.
The excuses are all used up, Mr. Breitbart.
That's a good article. Thanks for bringing that up, I hadn't read completely into breitbart's posted counter-argument that tried to change the subject to that.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: liberalism clashes with honesty
Whew, potential issue of conservative trollishness has been averted with this assuredly completely non-trollish soundbite. Thank you for contributing!
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: liberalism clashes with honesty
Whew, potential issue of conservative trollishness has been averted with this assuredly completely non-trollish soundbite. Thank you for contributing!
it might appear trollish but it was the first thing to come to mind when i read kweas post. this is why:
i dont see any honesty in reverting to attacking the general conservatism of another person after failing to present convincing arguments or to address the points of a discussion (referring to previous posts. not kweas). the 'conservative troll' attack is well overplay (3rd post in this thread). but come on, this thread is full of hyperbole, no?. i indulged.. calme-toi.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: This is what you do. You jump in, obviously incensed, and you don't give anyone much reason to give you the benefit of the doubt. you just took what is already a controversial side and, for all intents and purposes, made it look like the product of an indignant and short-sighted fool. It's your M.O. in at least the past three of my threads about anything politically controversial.
this is incredible! this is exactly what you do every single time you disagree with someone. in fact, if i had to define you as a poster, i would use these words exact. brilliant.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:i dont see any honesty in reverting to attacking the general conservatism of another person after failing to present convincing arguments or to address the points of a discussion (referring to previous posts. not kweas).
1. Nobody is "reverting to attacking the general conservatism" of Dan_Frank. Nobody is attacking his 'general conservatism.' I haven't even inferred he is a conservative at all. So you are 'not seeing any honesty' in something which isn't taking place. This is a really contrived invention to try to justify making that childish retort to kwea.
2. Which brings up the question as to why it was a response to kwea if kwea is apparently not guilty of whatever you're inferring was the excuse for your backbite response in this thread?
/edit
ALSO TO NOTE
quote:but come on, this thread is full of hyperbole, no?. i indulged.. calme-toi.
Yes, dan frank's silly slanderous use of Marxism definitely counts as hyperbole. I guess that's an excellent personal justification to engage in some worse hyperbole?
???
Man, I sure can pick the right topics these days. They really bring out the best in people.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: liberalism clashes with honesty
Whew, potential issue of conservative trollishness has been averted with this assuredly completely non-trollish soundbite. Thank you for contributing!
it might appear trollish but it was the first thing to come to mind when i read kweas post. this is why:
i dont see any honesty in reverting to attacking the general conservatism of another person after failing to present convincing arguments or to address the points of a discussion (referring to previous posts. not kweas). the 'conservative troll' attack is well overplay (3rd post in this thread). but come on, this thread is full of hyperbole, no?. i indulged.. calme-toi.
Nobody is attacking dan frank's conservatism. They are attacking his tone. Also I like your strategy of saying that this is all a resoponse based on "failing to address" dan franks argument, a completely asinine idea which requires one selectively read or NOT read the thread.
You waded into this thread with a dumb comment. Just admit it and move on.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
I think I should confess that as I have sat and watched this forum since I first looked in on it I have grown more and more frustrated with it and was all but ready to just dismiss it, but now I think my real problem isn't with the community at large, it is with a small handful of users which poison everything. Here is an excellent example. This thread is about a clear and practically undeniable vilification of a woman that she did not deserve but was subject to because Breitbart wanted to use her as a tool in his war against the institutional left, as he calls it. There are many links demonstrating this in the first post. An argument is made and cited. A position is taken. What is the first word in response? "Yawn". And at first I think it is just hatrack being hatrack but it takes me a while to see that it is just dan frank being ridiculous and inbetween his backbite there are other posts that get lost, that I should pay attention to while ignoring the predictble responses of some people. But at the same time, I enjoy watching them be challenged when they are aggressive and arrogant in their ignorance.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: I enjoy watching them be challenged when they are aggressive and arrogant in their ignorance.
proud to perform a public service
but seriously I had no idea that Sherrod would be subject to more personal slander here when I posted the thread. I expected controversy over the issue of whether Breitbart deserved to be sued, not the idea that he had falsely painted Sherrod as a racist.
I doubly did not expect "the unedited video doesn't show her not being racist, it just shows that she decided Marxism is higher on her list than racism."
But hey what's life without the little surprises
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wingracer: Fair points there Rabbit, and all probably true. Now unlike some, I make no claims as to that double standard being wrong or right, I don't really care. I just wish more people would make the point to acknowledge its existence once in a while.
I find those who wish to remind us all, to provide us with that constant point of perspective, are often more interested in harping on the unfairness of a double standard and how that may affect them. In my personal experience, and I think it's a common one, people who are so very interested in bringing up this supposed double-standard that supposedly disadvantages racial majorities feel put upon by political correctness not because they are above or beyond concerns of race, but because they are insecure about their own feelings on the subject.
It's an essentially weird complaint to harp on, in my view. Essentially it looks like this: PC culture is all about fairness, and that's not fair to *me*. Often this is concomitant with a lack of understanding about what racial sensitivity is or should be when people talk about it; that it's not: "pretend ethnicity doesn't exist," but "understand and put forth an effort to appreciate your differences rather than letting them bother you so much." If *that* all is bothering you, it's a problem, and I don't think it's a problem that has been thrust upon you, I think it's one *you* have to deal with.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: I find those who wish to remind us all, to provide us with that constant point of perspective, are often more interested in harping on the unfairness of a double standard and how that may affect them. In my personal experience, and I think it's a common one, people who are so very interested in bringing up this supposed double-standard that supposedly disadvantages racial majorities feel put upon by political correctness not because they are above or beyond concerns of race, but because they are insecure about their own feelings on the subject.
It's an essentially weird complaint to harp on, in my view. Essentially it looks like this: PC culture is all about fairness, and that's not fair to *me*. Often this is concomitant with a lack of understanding about what racial sensitivity is or should be when people talk about it; that it's not: "pretend ethnicity doesn't exist," but "understand and put forth an effort to appreciate your differences rather than letting them bother you so much." If *that* all is bothering you, it's a problem, and I don't think it's a problem that has been thrust upon you, I think it's one *you* have to deal with.
Many people bringing up the subject are exactly as you have described but I do not consider myself one of those. What I mean by a double standard is that in many people's view, it is completely acceptable for a minority to spew hateful, racists comments at majorities. My point is that I don't care who you are, that is not right.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:What I mean by a double standard is that in many people's view, it is completely acceptable for a minority to spew hateful, racists comments at majorities. My point is that I don't care who you are, that is not right.
I hate that double-standard, by the by. I dont think it's a very widespread view that if you're a racial minority you get a free pass for hatespeech though.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I hate that double-standard, by the by. I dont think it's a very widespread view that if you're a racial minority you get a free pass for hatespeech though.
Perhaps not widespread, but it definitely exists.
edit:
And then whenever someone tries to point it out, they get attacked as either a racist themselves or at least insensitive.
[ August 01, 2010, 10:53 PM: Message edited by: Wingracer ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:If people can't make that kind of admission about their past without being blackballed and labeled racist...
Don't get me started. Van Jones was, if not a personal friend of mine, at least a respected acquaintance. I have never forgiven Obama for rolling over on that one.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wingracer: And then whenever someone tries to point it out, they get attacked as either a racist themselves or at least insensitive.
I'm willing to risk it!
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: I think I should confess that as I have sat and watched this forum since I first looked in on it I have grown more and more frustrated with it and was all but ready to just dismiss it, but now I think my real problem isn't with the community at large, it is with a small handful of users which poison everything. Here is an excellent example. This thread is about a clear and practically undeniable vilification of a woman that she did not deserve but was subject to because Breitbart wanted to use her as a tool in his war against the institutional left, as he calls it. There are many links demonstrating this in the first post. An argument is made and cited. A position is taken. What is the first word in response? "Yawn". And at first I think it is just hatrack being hatrack but it takes me a while to see that it is just dan frank being ridiculous and inbetween his backbite there are other posts that get lost, that I should pay attention to while ignoring the predictble responses of some people. But at the same time, I enjoy watching them be challenged when they are aggressive and arrogant in their ignorance.
I've changed my own views on many things as a result of a decade on Hatrack, but have been pretty turned off by the aggressive, no compromise, no apology tone many discussions have slipped into these past few years. Time was when the majority was much more polite and respectful here despite the wide spectrum of views on politics, religion, and other perennially hot-button topics. Even when someone popped in with a trollish post, they were talked down gently, not blasted. Nowadays Hatrack resembles more like trench warfare than debate. I am sure I am not the only one here who, even when presented with a fairly convincing argument against their initial stance, would be loathe to admit they've changed their mind, or even backed off on some point or another. At best they'll be met with smarmy condescension. At worst, accusations of being two-faced or flaky. It's no way to carry on a discussion. Seriously. We're better than this.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Samp: If she doesn't think race matters, then why does she say it is about black and white, but also about rich and poor? (or have and have not or whatever the line is.) Why is she still married to a racist?
Mouthing a few platitudes is not enough to prove anything.
I was going to address all the other meta-crap but I think it's probably not worth it. All I'll say is it's kind of cute that Samp can be as sarcastic and flippant as he likes without any repercussions, but when other people do it they're called trolls or martyrs or whatever. But I guess them's the breaks.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
The phrase, "it is about black and white" is ambiguous. It could either be:
a) that race ought to matter in people's personal judgments, or
b) that regardless of whether or not it ought to, in a country where blacks are on average poorer, less educated, and less healthy than whites, race does in fact matter.
I'm inclined to think that, in a speech about trying to look past race, she included that line as an acknowledgment that, yes, race does matter in a very real way.
I suppose that, alternatively, she could have just slipped that line in there as a wink to the audience. Like, "hey don't pay any attention to the rest of what I said. it's still totally cool to hate on whitey." So the rest of the speech would be...what, cover? That's pretty devious. And it's been simmering all these 20 years, while Sherrod prepares herself for the limelight?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
The whole point was that race does matter in our society and we haven't gotten to a place where it doesn't.
And Dan, why on earth should somebody else dictate how you behave? Who cares how many people you think are dog piling you. They only really accomplish something when you elect to act in an inappropriate fashion. Samp, myself, and every other poster has strengths and weaknesses, so do you. What weaknesses they happen to exhibit at any given time has absolutely no bearing on the behavior you ought to exhibit. If somebody getting on your back bugs you, alright, say that it's bugging you. But don't reciprocate, you can do it, I promise.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Samp: If she doesn't think race matters, then why does she say it is about black and white, but also about rich and poor?
Let's see a part of the transcript where she concludes this in exactly the way you describe. My guess based on your consistent patterning is that you are either misreading her, or have just accepted that argument on faith from another person's transcript
Secondly, when you say "If she doesn't think race matters," do you mean "If she's not a racist?"
quote:Mouthing a few platitudes is not enough to prove anything.
If you actually believed that and applied it consistently, then she hasn't proved that she IS racist, either.
quote:I was going to address all the other meta-crap but I think it's probably not worth it. All I'll say is it's kind of cute that Samp can be as sarcastic and flippant as he likes without any repercussions, but when other people do it they're called trolls or martyrs or whatever. But I guess them's the breaks.
Yes, I'm super sure that the forum is just nice to me via double standards. I'm glad you find it cute, because it certainly doesn't get in the way of an actual argument I can levy against you (or anyone).
Here's an alternate answer: If you don't want to be called a troll, don't jump into a thread like this one with dismissive platitudes and continue to act like, well, YOU, in a matter of ideological conflict like this.
If you want a REALLY BIG HINT about how to do this, I could offer you a lost of words you could strike from your initial response (Like "Yawn." being your stunning opener) and then what pejorative silliness you could also avoid (like essentially also calling Sherrod a Marxist before being forced to backpedal from that line). You could follow my quick twelve-step program and watch people's comments about your trollishness vanish. you wouldn't even need to insinuate that it's just because of a 'cute' double standard!
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
The fact that you continue to get away with talking to people that way is pretty flabbergasting.
There's an obvious double-standard at work on this forum, Samp. Nobody minds when someone says reality has a liberal bias, but capax saying liberalism clashes with honesty is offensive.
And as far as the standard I'm applying to Sherrod... hey, maybe I'm just applying the standards you use to tar the tea party. One person at a rally with a racist sign makes them racists, so why doesn't her racist husband make her racist?
Here are two quotes of her indicating that her biggest priority should be helping poor people against evil rich people.
quote: That's when it was revealed to me that, y'all, it's about poor versus those who have, and not so much about white -- it is about white and black, but it's not -- you know, it opened my eyes, 'cause I took him to one of his own and I put him in his hand, and felt okay, I've done my job.
quote: Well, working with him made me see that it's really about those who have versus those who don't, you know. And they could be black, and they could be white; they could be Hispanic. And it made me realize then that I needed to work to help poor people -- those who don't have access the way others have.
When someone says "it is about white and black," in the same breath that they set up an us versus them rich versus poor dichotomy, it seems pretty clear that's supposed to be another dichotomy. She's certainly saying she realized the rich versus poor dichotomy is more important than the white versus black, but I'm still skeptical that she's completely let go of the white versus black.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Nobody minds when someone says reality has a liberal bias, but capax saying liberalism clashes with honesty is offensive.
Saying "liberalism clashes with honesty" is equivalent to saying "liberals lie" which is (at least from where I stand) far far more offensive than saying that reality has either a liberal or conservative bias.
Furthermore, I don't see that anyone in this thread has claimed reality has a liberal bias. What I've seen is numerous examples where claims made by a conservative blogger are inconsistent with the facts. There is a vast gulf between making snide quips about a the integrity of an entire side of the political spectrum and refuting specific claims made by an individual.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
To clarify, Rabbit, that comment was about a double standard on the board at large. I know nobody in this thread said reality has a liberal bias, but it's something I have seen pass unchallenged and unremarked in other threads.
From the other side, it looks just as offensive to me. I don't know. I guess it sort of boils down to which you think is more offensive: being called an idiot or a liar.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: To clarify, Rabbit, that comment was about a double standard on the board at large. I know nobody in this thread said reality has a liberal bias, but it's something I have seen pass unchallenged and unremarked in other threads.
From the other side, it looks just as offensive to me. I don't know. I guess it sort of boils down to which you think is more offensive: being called an idiot or a liar.
A person can be wrong without being an idiot. They can't be dishonest without being a liar.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
I think that being wrong and being an idiot are basically on the same spectrum. If you're consistently wrong and resist being corrected, that's pretty stupid, isn't it?
And the statement implies that conservatives are fundamentally, systemically wrong on many or all issues. That they're fighting against reality itself. I've never seen anyone use that phrase and not appear to be meaning it in an insulting manner. And I never used to use that phrase without intending to be at least smugly superior, if not blatantly insulting.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Dan: Maybe because it's one of those comments that doesn't really require a big response.
It's like saying, "I like steak." OK, that's nice. Do you really expect people to have a serious discussion with statistical data where they try to ascertain if "reality" really has a "liberal bias?"
It can't be done. As for whether there is an equal relationship between conservatives and liberals on this board, there just can't be equality, it's impossible. There's no way to control what sorts of people are drawn to this forum. Instead of worrying about becoming a martyr for conservatism, why not dig your heals in and give conservatism a good representation? There's plenty to recommend conservatism, you're bringing up a good point about Sherrod's husband, as well as other instances where Sherrod discusses race.
I think there is an argument to be made for Sherrod, often conflating white with rich and black with poor. I also think that by and large if you look at wealth distributions, there is a disproportionate number of poor African Americans and rich White Americans. So in that sense, black often does mean poor, and white can often mean rich. But Sherrod in the context of Breitbart's edited clip was not being racist and was trying to convey a very positive lesson.
Why not divorce yourself from the conservative pundits who jumped on this, and keep working the angle where you discuss comments she has made elsewhere?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
BB, I appreciate your conciliatory efforts. Re: the liberal bias thing, I don't expect it to garner a big response, I'm just commenting that capax's similar line, from the other side of the political spectrum, was considered very offensive. It did get a response. Insulting one political party gets a response, insulting the other... doesn't.
Certainly, there can't be perfect equilibrium between left/right posters. And I know Hatrack is dominated by a few leftist voices these days. That's fine. I'm really not trying to martyr myself at all. The remark I made that people took to be martyring was just an attempt at a sarcastic quip.
Re: Sherrod, I haven't found comments she made elsewhere, by the way, those were just other excerpts from the same full video Samp was excerpting. Your point about rich versus poor and white versus black being tied up in each other is quite valid, I think.
Lastly... what conservative pundits, exactly? Most media outlets jumped on this when it first hit. As Samp himself demonstrated, most conservatives were also quick to back off after the full video surfaced. My point is, I think they may have done so too quickly.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I think that being wrong and being an idiot are basically on the same spectrum. If you're consistently wrong and resist being corrected, that's pretty stupid, isn't it?
I simply disagree. Refusing to admit you are wrong in the face of compelling evidence is irrational and I would consider it a character flaw.
But being wrong, in and of itself, is not the same as being an idiot and is certainly not evidence that you're stupid. Brilliant people are often wrong. Facts and the ability to analyze those facts critically are learned skills. Even geniuses aren't born knowing everything and able to critically weigh conflicting data.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I think when you have an issue as complex as race and have dealt with the ramifications of being black in our society, it is very difficult to simply dismiss it. In our society, black/white matters. Being white gets you a whole bunch of unspoken privileges that white people don't even think about. I would love to be able to say black and white doesn't mattter, but that would be ignoring reality. If I was talking to a room full of black people, I would be even more cautious about dismissing the persecution that they have faced.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: The fact that you continue to get away with talking to people that way is pretty flabbergasting.
There's an obvious double-standard at work on this forum, Samp. Nobody minds when someone says reality has a liberal bias, but capax saying liberalism clashes with honesty is offensive.
If you think 'nobody minds' when someone says reality has a liberal bias, you're ignoring plenty. And neither would it change that capaxinfiniti's opening salvo in this thread was in no way productive and does not help out a side that doesn't want to enhance its accusations of trolling. Neither still does your attempt to defend a useless comment with what essentially boils down to a Tu Quoque.
quote:hey, maybe I'm just applying the standards you use to tar the tea party. One person at a rally with a racist sign makes them racists, so why doesn't her racist husband make her racist?
I'm sorry, but if you came away from your time being lectured by me in the tea party threads with the internal idea that I say that "one person at a rally with a racist sign makes them racists," then you're displaying a huge case of reading comprehension failure. You're basically saying "I can't be trusted to figure out what samprimary actually said in another thread, how could you trust me to correctly parse Sherrod's or Samprimary's words in THIS one?"
quote:She's certainly saying she realized the rich versus poor dichotomy is more important than the white versus black, but I'm still skeptical that she's completely let go of the white versus black
So now we've gone from you translating her words to "well, it IS about black and white" to you now saying "I'm still skeptical that she's completely let go of black and white."
You are also still pulling some of her quotations out of their element, in a Breitbartian fashion. She talks about this with a bltantly non-racist conclusion. It is a story about her repudiation of racial discrimination. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Dan...you're being very silly and obtuse here. It can all be highlighted by your saying that a few platitudes aren't enough to exonerate her.
As others have noted, though, a few phrases are enough to condemn or possibly condemn her, it seems. Listen to yourself. If she says something bad, she's a racist or at least you can't be sure she's not a racist. If she says other good things - regardless of where they are in the overall speech, wrapping things up or what - well then 'a few platitudes' aren't enough. It's a silly double-standard.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Dan...you're being very silly and obtuse here. It can all be highlighted by your saying that a few platitudes aren't enough to exonerate her.
As others have noted, though, a few phrases are enough to condemn or possibly condemn her, it seems. Listen to yourself. If she says something bad, she's a racist or at least you can't be sure she's not a racist. If she says other good things - regardless of where they are in the overall speech, wrapping things up or what - well then 'a few platitudes' aren't enough. It's a silly double-standard.
Not really, and again I am talking in general here, not about her specifically. Here is why:
A person isn't generally lying or misinformed when they spew inflammatory, racist or other derogatory remarks. Often this is when they are being the most honest since anyone who took the time to think about what they should say wouldn't say such a thing. Only afterwords do we get the damage control and backpedaling which is almost always nothing but pure spin containing very little truth.
Of course, this isn't always the case as there are always exceptions but I don't consider it a double standard to be dubious of spin that comes after controversial statements. It's just common sense.
But I admit, this probably doesn't apply to Sherrod since we are talking about just one speech, not one speech followed by a statement for damage control.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
I don't really think she has a case against Breitbart. He may have edited the video for political purposes, but turn on your television any given night and you will see campaign ads doing the same thing.
Here in Nevada I see it every night. Harry Reid and Sharon Angle are both running ads that include only a snippet of a speech, then paint the other person as "out of touch."
Harry Reid has an interesting one that claims Sharon Angle sided with the Church of Scientology and wanted to give massages to inmates. I researched it a bit, and it turns out the bill was part of a rehabilitation program aimed at getting newly admitted inmates off of hard drugs such as heroin and meth. There are two methods that are used to get the inmates off the drugs. One is to give them another drug and slowly ween them off of it, however this drug is also addictive and inmmates can develop a dependence.
The other method is cold turkey. If an inmate however stops cold turkey, very bad cramps can develop and cause the person extreme pain. The "massages" are for those inmates that stop cold turkey to work out the cramps and loosen the toxins in the tissue, helping the inmate get over their addiction more quickly.
Sherrod can sue Breitbart, but I don't think she will win. While I think what Breitbart did was deplorable, I don't believe there is a case against him.
I don't believe Sherrod is racist but I DO think there were racist elements in her speech. When she said she referred the farmer to one of "his own kind" I took offense to it. I know she did not mean anything racist by it, but she could have chosen her words more carefully.
There is another side to all of this from the media perspective. There is quite a bit of outrage over Breitbart editing this video, and rightly so. I haven't really seen any over the "Journolist" fiasco, in which many reporters came together and collaborated and planned to paint certain members of the republican party as "racist" without any evidence.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"I don't really think she has a case against Breitbart. He may have edited the video for political purposes, but turn on your television any given night and you will see campaign ads doing the same thing. "
Possibly not. But she can probably demonstrate that she lost her job because of him, which puts the lawsuit into the realm of "has a shot to succeed." And if it DOES succeed, it might help the political climate in this country. If it doesn't succeed, we will continue collapsing under the weight of slanderous assholes claiming to be news outlets.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Sherrod can sue Breitbart, but I don't think she will win. While I think what Breitbart did was deplorable, I don't believe there is a case against him.
I think that the chances of Sherrod pushing a successful case are slim, but not nonexistent. In other countries she'd have a good chance, but America has such loose laws regarding slander and libel that breitbart could admit that he willingly spreads disinformation in order to tear down a political institution (which he's at least straightforward enough to almost say) and still have a good set of legal workarounds that could get him off scott-free.
However, due to the clear and present defamation and the fact that it's beyond easy to argue the case that a reasonable person can conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the tape's re-editing and presentation was willful removal of context to defame through misleading presentation, and that furthermore it actionably resulted in the unjust loss of her job, I won't say it's impossible. The lividness of the case could possibly push it through to settlement, in or out of court.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I haven't really seen any over the "Journolist" fiasco, in which many reporters came together and collaborated and planned to paint certain members of the republican party as "racist" without any evidence.
I think that misrepresents the events on Journolist a bit, actually. During the 2008 campaign, on a private listserv, a handful of journalists (and by no means a majority of the people on the list) sympathetic to Obama started discussing strategic ways to defend against what some of them perceived as a right-wing misinformation (i.e. "smear") campaign directed at Obama's associates, namely Rev. Wright -- but also likely to be almost anyone he knew from his days as a local activist. One poster noted that even choosing to engage the issue at all on those terms would basically be handing the Republicans the "win;" by discussing it, the "charges" -- even though there were no "charges" at all, simply hints and allegations of vaguely "unamerican" beliefs that Obama might be accused of holding simply through association -- would be legitimized and promoted. That poster argued that the only rational way to frame the story without hurting Obama's campaign was to simply deflect it: to instead report that one or more of the people reporting on the story were themselves racists, and simply doing it because they hated black people. Response on the listserv was muted; only a few people replied, almost all of whom said they thought it was a bad or impractical idea for a variety of reasons -- whether because it was unethical, or because the charge of racism itself was a cliche which had lost any effectiveness, etc.
The Journolist "scandal" isn't about what was actually said; it's about the idea that journalists discuss things with other journalists and aren't entirely impartial in both their personal lives and in the stories they choose to report. It's only being circulated now to further blunt the force of the "traditional" media in advance of the next election cycle.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I haven't really seen any over the "Journolist" fiasco, in which many reporters came together and collaborated and planned to paint certain members of the republican party as "racist" without any evidence.
I think that misrepresents the events on Journolist a bit, actually. During the 2008 campaign, on a private listserv, a handful of journalists (and by no means a majority of the people on the list) sympathetic to Obama started discussing strategic ways to defend against what some of them perceived as a right-wing misinformation (i.e. "smear") campaign directed at Obama's associates, namely Rev. Wright -- but also likely to be almost anyone he knew from his days as a local activist. One poster noted that even choosing to engage the issue at all on those terms would basically be handing the Republicans the "win;" by discussing it, the "charges" -- even though there were no "charges" at all, simply hints and allegations of vaguely "unamerican" beliefs that Obama might be accused of holding simply through association -- would be legitimized and promoted. That poster argued that the only rational way to frame the story without hurting Obama's campaign was to simply deflect it: to instead report that one or more of the people reporting on the story were themselves racists, and simply doing it because they hated black people. Response on the listserv was muted; only a few people replied, almost all of whom said they thought it was a bad or impractical idea for a variety of reasons -- whether because it was unethical, or because the charge of racism itself was a cliche which had lost any effectiveness, etc.
The Journolist "scandal" isn't about what was actually said; it's about the idea that journalists discuss things with other journalists and aren't entirely impartial in both their personal lives and in the stories they choose to report. It's only being circulated now to further blunt the force of the "traditional" media in advance of the next election cycle.
I halfway agree with you. Everyone is entitled to their own political opinions. My problem here is that these people posted their intentions of using the media to excoriate people on the other side of the political spectrum in the attempt to move attention from the Rev. Wright story. Obama was asked about him and he replied that he never heard anything like the inflammatory statements he had made while he attended church. After that the news outlets gave themselves a pat on the back for a job well done and moved on to different subjects.
As for Sherrod, I still don't think she has a chance. The burden of proof is on the plaintiff for charges of libel. She may have a case based on some of the text Breitbart put in between videos that claims Sherrod admits to practicing descrimination. The problem with this is that she would have to prove she didn't. (Watching the full video it seems to me she did, but admitted it was wrong)
New York Times vs. Sullivan is an interesting Supreme Court ruling though that could cause Breitbart some trouble.
To quote from the Wikipedia page on the case:
quote:
The Court held that a public official suing for defamation must prove that the statement in question was made with actual malice, which in this context refers to knowledge or reckless lack of investigation, rather than the ordinary meaning of malicious intent. In his concurring opinion, Justice Black explained that "'[m]alice,' even as defined by the Court, is an elusive, abstract concept, hard to prove and hard to disprove. The requirement that malice be proved provides at best an evanescent protection for the right critically to discuss public affairs and certainly does not measure up to the sturdy safeguard embodied in the First Amendment."
Since it was a video and the only statements made by Breitbart were those in between parts of the video, I don't know how much of a case she would have, but she can sure give it a shot.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Reality has a liberal bias. Since liberalism clashes with honesty, we must be living in the Matrix.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Reality has a liberal bias. Since liberalism clashes with honesty, we must be living in the Matrix.
Pretty interesting. Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Neither still does your attempt to defend a useless comment with what essentially boils down to a Tu Quoque.
Of course it's a tu quoque! I was trying to point out a double standard. Pointing out a double standard by definition is a tu quoque. You're saying that somebody else is doing the same bad thing and getting away with it. I'm not using this to defend capax's line; I think it was obviously insulting. I'm saying that I think it's very unfortunate insulting comments on the other side so frequently pass unremarked.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Dan...you're being very silly and obtuse here. It can all be highlighted by your saying that a few platitudes aren't enough to exonerate her.
As others have noted, though, a few phrases are enough to condemn or possibly condemn her, it seems. Listen to yourself. If she says something bad, she's a racist or at least you can't be sure she's not a racist. If she says other good things - regardless of where they are in the overall speech, wrapping things up or what - well then 'a few platitudes' aren't enough. It's a silly double-standard.
I don't think her comments just in the one video are, by themselves, enough to condemn her. I don't think they make her out to be a shining example of enlightenment, either. There are a few things she says that rankle me, a bit, but overall, I wouldn't have much opinion of her, but for one thing. My first point has always been that her husband said some very racist things. That, to me, is a huge red flag. Shouldn't it be?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Dan, Charles Sherrod left an organization he helped to found when its new president refused to allow white people to join (and expelled the white people who were already members). Yes, he's guilty here of speaking in racial shorthand in a way that white people can't get away with; he can say phrases like "Uncle Tom" and accuse "white folks" of coming in the day before an election with lies to "take, to steal" that election, in front of an audience without being pilloried by that audience, and it is a double standard.
My own position is that "black folks" have earned the right to maintain that double standard for a while. It's only been one generation; expecting them to let go of lifetimes of thoroughly deserved resentment just so white people don't have to feel like there's a double-standard -- or, even more reprehensibly, so white people don't feel justified in clinging to their own racism -- is pretty darn selfish.
If Sherrod wants to use the phrase "Uncle Tom" in a way everyone understands, let him; he's a member of the last generation who'll be able to pull that off. Some things will only heal with time, and what many white people don't realize -- because they were never actually affected by any of this stuff, themselves -- is that the clock didn't actually start with the Civil War; it started in the late '60s.
Yeah, the language of black activism is often remarkably ill-chosen for mixed-race audiences. I have every confidence that this will change, even as it continues to be less inclusive than we'd like for another few generations. Even worse than black people being bitter, though, is white people being whiny about it.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I don't think her comments just in the one video are, by themselves, enough to condemn her
quote:The Sherrods are racists, Samp
quote:the unedited video doesn't show her not being racist, it just shows that she decided Marxism is higher on her list than racism. Specifically, lines like "It's not about black—well, it is about black and white, but it's also about the haves and the have nots," seem to be very telling.
yeah, one of these things is not like the other.
The comments in the video 'aren't enough to condemn her,' yet that doesn't stop you from saying things like that the video is 'very telling' about her racism,' and that what the video actually does is indicate that her 'marxism' is just a higher priority than her racism.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Neither still does your attempt to defend a useless comment with what essentially boils down to a Tu Quoque.
Of course it's a tu quoque! I was trying to point out a double standard.
I don't think you understand what tu quoque actually is. Unless you are trying to make the case that every instance where pointing out a double standard is, like your usage, logically fallacious.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"If Sherrod wants to use the phrase "Uncle Tom" in a way everyone understands, let him; he's a member of the last generation who'll be able to pull that off. Some things will only heal with time, and what many white people don't realize -- because they were never actually affected by any of this stuff, themselves -- is that the clock didn't actually start with the Civil War; it started in the late '60s. "
Unfortunately, I'm not sure the late 60's is accurate. My black cousins had guns pulled on them by police in the early 80's because they were playing in the yard of a house owned by white people, and, later, in the late 90's, my cousin was pulled over in a white town and asked by the sheriff "What are you doing in this town?"
These types of incidents still happen every day to hundreds if not thousands of black people, and every time those incidents happen, it resets the clock for those people.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
I was making both of those statements based in large part on her husband, Samp; they, as a couple, seemed to be racists. Her comments were telling because, as she's married to a racist, the remarks she made that had racist undertones were seen in that light. The comments alone were not the whole reason. From the very beginning, I mentioned her husband as a primary explanation of my claim. And you consistently never addressed it.
If you use the double standard to excuse your own behavior, that's pretty much textbook tu quoque fallacy. I wasn't. I think any time you point out a double standard there are elements of tu quoque, at least taken literally.
But it doesn't matter. Samp, right now I'm apparently so thin-skinned that your constant barrage of condescension is really getting to me. So, yeah. I'm done talking to you for now. You can declare this a victory if you like.
Finally, Tom: I didn't know that, about Charles Sherrod. That does cast things in a new light. Thanks for the information.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: [QUOTE] Brilliant people are often wrong. Facts and the ability to analyze those facts critically are learned skills. Even geniuses aren't born knowing everything and able to critically weigh conflicting data.
Being both brilliant and often wrong, I wholeheartedly agree.
I would wager that intelligent people are as often wrong as anyone else, if only by dint of extending themselves into areas in which they are likely to make mistakes. You can have trouble making change for a dollar bill, and never be wrong about much of anything, if thinking is not something you spend your energy on doing. It would be nice if we could all relish our mistakes for how they help us grow.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Got to agree with Paul here. The past still haunts us and there are still massive inequalities that resulted from them. For example, white flight- we are still seeing the effect of that. What happened, the mistakes that were made before I was born, are still affecting people's lives for the worst. That doesn't mean it is my fault, but when discussing these issues, I cannot simply say, well, that bad happened before my time. It no longer counts. Major injustices occurred. We have to now look at how to fix that, not keep denying the bad ever happened.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: I was making both of those statements based in large part on her husband, Samp; they, as a couple, seemed to be racists. Her comments were telling because, as she's married to a racist, the remarks she made that had racist undertones were seen in that light. The comments alone were not the whole reason.
Keep in mind that the story was made public and "newsworthy" through the dishonest representation of a statement she made. So while we can entangle vague character attacks on her family and herself, and look at her career and other statements looking for malicious intent or racist attitudes, we should remember how we got here. The comments alone *were* the whole reason this became a public debacle- because while vague character attacks and mumblings about racism are all very interesting, this piece of video, which was in *no* wise what it claimed to represent, is the poison fruit from which we have been fed.
To put a finer point on it, imagine you are the cops, and you are given a video of someone that appears to show them committing a crime. Then you find when you investigate that the video is in fact doctored. The person who doctored the video, or anyone who knows the person can claim "this person is an unsavory character and possibly a criminal," but the fact that the person is unsavory would not have caused you to accuse them of committing this particular crime. To say "the video was not the only reason we suspected this person of *this* crime, and in fact we *still* suspect this person of committing this crime at some other point in some other place because of how they appear to us" is very weak. Not only is it blaming the victim of what is a bald-faced fraud, it rewards her dishonest accuser for committing that fraud. It also ignores the practical reality of this case- there would not have been a public upset over this incident if it had not been fraudulently represented, and therefore the most important aspect of this incident is the fraud itself. If a case for her being a dangerous racist with a grudge could have been made without committing such a fraud, perhaps you would have a point. As it stands, vague dithering about her spouse and her supposed latent attitudes look at best like very sour, and very stale grapes.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: I was making both of those statements based in large part on her husband, Samp; they, as a couple, seemed to be racists.
So you maneuvered from "If it quacks like a duck" to "If her husband quacked like a duck that one time..."
quote:From the very beginning, I mentioned her husband as a primary explanation of my claim. And you consistently never addressed it.
You didn't use him from the very beginning; you brought him up when initially pressed for your rationale. And if I were to address it, summarily, I'd have to say that's a bad backpedal from claiming that she is a racist and a marxist to saying only you 'can't rule out' her being a racist, and that this can't be done from what we hear HER say but because of an association to what her husband said one time. That's the pattern. Weaker rationalization, but the same resolve to stand by your initial agreement with what Breitbart tried to assert, dishonestly, about her character.
quote:But it doesn't matter. Samp, right now I'm apparently so thin-skinned that your constant barrage of condescension is really getting to me. So, yeah. I'm done talking to you for now. You can declare this a victory if you like.
It's only a 'victory' insofar as I can hope that in the future you either won't respond, or will think a lot harder about your tone before you respond, to threads I make or stances I take. Thus, the quality of my threads might be improved.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
I hate to defend him Samp but his very first post did say "Sherrod's" plural. No, he didn't actually use the word "husband" until his second post but to me, he has been pretty clear that he is talking about the family combined right from the get go.
Orincoro, great post. I actually understood what you were getting at.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Thanks- my mom says one day I'll be a high-quality poster again*.
*My mom does not say this.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wingracer: I hate to defend him Samp but his very first post did say "Sherrod's" plural. No, he didn't actually use the word "husband" until his second post but to me, he has been pretty clear that he is talking about the family combined right from the get go.
oh yeah huh! That I should absolutely grant.
but I .. don't know if that makes his angle any less disagreeable.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I checked, it doesn't.
Posted by sinflower (Member # 12228) on :
quote: I think when you have an issue as complex as race and have dealt with the ramifications of being black in our society, it is very difficult to simply dismiss it. In our society, black/white matters. Being white gets you a whole bunch of unspoken privileges that white people don't even think about. I would love to be able to say black and white doesn't mattter, but that would be ignoring reality. If I was talking to a room full of black people, I would be even more cautious about dismissing the persecution that they have faced.
Exactly. Talking about prejudice directed towards white people and prejudice directed towards minorities as if they're the same thing is dangerously naive at best. You're ignoring all the context. White people have most of the power in our society, and have inflicted and continue to inflict more harm to the black community than black people will ever be able to inflict in retaliation. Racism is a system of advantage tilted heavily towards one side. It's not isolated acts of meanness, and white people need to stop pretending that it is.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
That's racial innequality, not "racism." Racism is not a system of advantage, it's a false set of beliefs. You can have a racially unequal society that is not full of racists. And you can have inequality without racism per se. There are matters of class, family history, education, cultural attitudes, etc.
I feel it would strengthen your argument considerably to disentangle your statements about a) racial and economic disparities, b) systemic racism, c) overtly racist attitudes or beliefs and d) systemic class inequity. These are not the same things, nor are they concomitant or mutually exclusive.
Posted by sinflower (Member # 12228) on :
To clarify: When I say "racism," I am using the definition of racism supported by the anti-racism community, which refers to systematic racism and racial privilege. I am not using the common definition of racism, which looks at racism from the perspective of individual beliefs (for this we use the term "prejudice"). For a brief explanation of why it's considered more productive to look at racism from a systematic rather than an individual perspective, see Beverly Daniel Tatum's Why are all the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria?.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by sinflower: To clarify: When I say "racism," I am using the definition of racism supported by the anti-racism community, which refers to systematic racism and racial privilege. I am not using the common definition of racism, which looks at racism from the perspective of individual beliefs (for this we use the term "prejudice"). For a brief explanation of why it's considered more productive to look at racism from a systematic rather than an individual perspective, see Beverly Daniel Tatum's Why are all the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria?.
It may indeed be helpful to look at it that way. It is not helpful to balloon the word "racism" to include everything from the anthropological phenomena of racial myths and folk beliefs straight through to "historically, economically and socio-politically driven systemic injustice."
"Racism" doesn't mean much if it means both: "I don't like Black people because they are monkeys," and also "I am black and therefore it is statistically less likely than average that I will own a successful small business in America, or attend college." Talk about it any way you see fit, but define your terms and use them appropriately and carefully, please. This subject is difficult enough to discuss without sloppy diction getting in the way.
Because, as we all know, this topic is only made harder discuss by "racism." :read irony:
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Shouldn't Sherrod be suing her employer for wrongful termination? I mean she can sue Breitbart too but I still think the real rush to judgment was in her dismissal.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by sinflower: To clarify: When I say "racism," I am using the definition of racism supported by the anti-racism community, which refers to systematic racism and racial privilege. I am not using the common definition of racism, which looks at racism from the perspective of individual beliefs (for this we use the term "prejudice"). For a brief explanation of why it's considered more productive to look at racism from a systematic rather than an individual perspective, see Beverly Daniel Tatum's Why are all the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria?.
I don't think it is useful to redefine the term racism to also include patterns of systemic racial inequality in a society, or any and all racial inequality. Racism can be and is a cause of racial inequality; racism is not racial inequality.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I don't think it is useful to redefine the term racism to also include patterns of systemic racial inequality in a society...
That's actually how it's usually defined, though, by the community that studies it. What we generally call "racism" is called "racial prejudice."
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I'm pretty sure that the community that studies it says that racism is a belief of the superiority of some races/a race over others, and that it considers racial discrimination an EFFECT of racism. Racism is not racial inequality, racism is a belief that leads to racial inequality.
Also what we generally call "racism" is just called "racism," unless we're the United Nations.
Unless you're talking about a declaration of the definition of racism that I'm not aware about ...
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I love that we're literally having a semantic argument. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Wouldn't racism be an effect of racial inequality as well as a cause?
As in, "black people are always poor and criminal so white people must be better."
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Wouldn't racism be an effect of racial inequality as well as a cause?
As in, "black people are always poor and criminal so white people must be better."
That's why you can't use the terms synonymously. They're fairly meaningless if you do.
Posted by sinflower (Member # 12228) on :
quote:I'm pretty sure that the community that studies it says that racism is a belief of the superiority of some races/a race over others, and that it considers racial discrimination an EFFECT of racism. Racism is not racial inequality, racism is a belief that leads to racial inequality.
I've actually participated in anti-racist groups both online and IRL. I'm sure there are divisions in the movement, but I've only ever heard the words "racism" and "prejudice" defined in the way I outlined.
We apply the term "racism" to systematic privilege because we think that's the most urgent problem to solve, and therefore the strong connotations of the word "racism" are appropriate for it. We apply the term "racial prejudice" to prejudiced beliefs on an individual level. Under our set of definitions, a white person can experience "racial prejudice" but not "racism". In the vernacular, a white person can experience "individual racism" but not "systematic racism". (Or "racism," but not "societal inequalities.")
The crux of it is that "individual racism" and "systematic racism" have about equally negative connotations, whereas "racism" has much more negative connotations than "prejudice." (The terms "societal inequalities" and "racism" also have very different levels of negative connotation, but in the wrong direction). This more accurately reflects the fact that experiencing systematic racism is far more crippling than experiencing individual acts of prejudice while the system still overwhelmingly favors you.
This is significant. Using the common set of definitions, a white person can (and very, very often does) walk out of a conversation about race thinking that their experiences with "racism"-- being called a slur name, receiving hostility from minorities on several occasions--is comparable to the racism experienced by minorities in almost every aspects of their lives. It makes it too easy to ignore the 99% of the time when their race gave them privilege and focus on the 1% of the time when it didn't; ignoring the big picture, as it were. You may not do this, but trust me: many people do, and this redirects attention from solving broad systematic inequalities into nitpicking individual alleged cases of prejudice (perfect example: the Shirley Sherrod debacle). Differentiating systematic racism from individual acts of prejudice through using two different words completely--racism and prejudice-- makes the line between them clearer and more accurate than simply attaching different adjectives to the word "racism," and also emphasizes that one of them is orders of magnitude more severe.
So yes, it is a matter of semantics, but words have power, and there is a reason we use the definitions that we do.
Edit: But I'm fairly new to this. Anyone who's active in the anti-racism community should feel free to correct me or clarify my explanations.
[ August 04, 2010, 05:05 AM: Message edited by: sinflower ]
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: Shouldn't Sherrod be suing her employer for wrongful termination? I mean she can sue Breitbart too but I still think the real rush to judgment was in her dismissal.
Right? Obviously, there's a boss somewhere up the chain who panicked without looking into the charges at all. You'd think whoever's at the top of the food chain there would find out who it was and get rid of them. Most employees don't get their reputations validated on national television, after all.
Plus, I wouldn't want a guy who runs off half-cocked and "fixes" problems he doesn't understand working for me. I worked for that guy. It's a mess.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:We apply the term "racism" to systematic privilege because we think that's the most urgent problem to solve, and therefore the strong connotations of the word "racism" are appropriate for it. We apply the term "racial prejudice" to prejudiced beliefs on an individual level. Under our set of definitions, a white person can experience "racial prejudice" but not "racism". In the vernacular, a white person can experience "individual racism" but not "systematic racism". (Or "racism," but not "societal inequalities.")
Sociologically there was a spat of definitions defined by individuals as part of a thesis, but in general they study both (a) racism, as a belief structure, and (b) racial discrimination, as a mostly resulting consequence. As wall as the looping cycle of justification (disadvantaged group has negative trait because of disadvantage, majority group uses negative trait as justification for continued discrimination, personal bias).
I was actually not aware of the use of racism to define racial disadvantage ITSELF, so it leaves me a few questions. Like, when you extrapolate that extended meaning, that makes something like 'native american reservation alcoholism-related morbidity and mortality' definable as 'racism.'
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Not quite. As I learned it, racism = racial prejudice + systemic/institutional power. Which I think is closer to the definition that sinflower was going for and still leaves racial disadvantage as a result of racism, not the thing itself.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
If racism is racial prejudice PLUS systemic/institutional power, how can you label an individual a racist just for his beliefs, regardless as to his power or lack thereof?
Posted by sinflower (Member # 12228) on :
You don't. That's the point.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: Not quite. As I learned it, racism = racial prejudice + systemic/institutional power. Which I think is closer to the definition that sinflower was going for and still leaves racial disadvantage as a result of racism, not the thing itself.
Yeah... no. I'm sorry, that's not the accepted sociological or anthropological definition of racism. It just isn't. If sinflower or you would like to provide some evidence that it *is* the most common or useful definition, or the "accepted" definition, please do so. I'm interested to know who on Earth uses it that way.
And notice, Sinflower, that this exchange has gone back and forth a couple of times due to you're not having noticed what others were talking about: Samp says: "not the sociological definition," to which you respond: "anti-racism activists say..." Political activist groups may use their terminology in any way they wish, they often use terminology in ways that run counter to others' ability to parse what is being said, or to determine its truth value. This is a common *political* tactic. Sociologists are not political activists when working in their professional capacity as sociologists, and so when they use a word, they use it for a reason, and that is so that you *do* understand what they are saying, and why.
So to break it down:
1. Political activists use words imprecisely and often misleadingly to produce results.
2. Sociologists use words very precisely and carefully to produce understanding.
quote: You don't. That's the point.
Ok, this represents a serious misunderstanding of the word in common usage, and in its more officially recognized function.
OAD:
quote:racism |ˈrāˌsizəm| noun the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, esp. so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races. • prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on such a belief : a program to combat racism.
Nowhere in either definition is systemic injustice included as part of an umbrella term for racism. The definition clearly defines it as first a belief system, and second, a form of prejudice. The narrowest shadow of connection to your idea of the term is "discrimination," but even that is predicated upon the belief outlined in the first definition, and it specifically states: "directed against someone," not "engrained in a social system." It just doesn't say that.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by sinflower: You don't. That's the point.
That seems odd. Wouldn't that lead to some strange results?
It seems to me that under that definition, a Ku Klux Klan member back a few decades when they actually had power and reach would be classified as a racist. However, that same person transported into a nice comfy bubble on Mars with no power or reach wouldn't be a racist.
Posted by sinflower (Member # 12228) on :
quote: I'm sorry, that's not the accepted sociological or anthropological definition of racism. It just isn't. If sinflower or you would like to provide some evidence that it *is* the most common or useful definition, or the "accepted" definition, please do so. I'm interested to know who on Earth uses it that way.
Wiki page on racism, section on sociological definition
Sociological Some sociologists have defined racism as a system of group privilege. In Portraits of White Racism, David Wellman has defined racism as "culturally sanctioned beliefs, which, regardless of intentions involved, defend the advantages whites have because of the subordinated position of racial minorities”.[8] Sociologists Noël A. Cazenave and Darlene Alvarez Maddern define racism as “...a highly organized system of 'race'-based group privilege that operates at every level of society and is held together by a sophisticated ideology of color/'race' supremacy. Sellers and Shelton (2003) found that a relationship between racial discrimination and emotional distress was moderated by racial ideology and public regard beliefs. That is, racial centrality appears to promote the degree of discrimination African American young adults perceive whereas racial ideology may buffer the detrimental emotional effects of that discrimination. Racist systems include, but cannot be reduced to, racial bigotry,”.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:1. Political activists use words imprecisely and often misleadingly to produce results.
2. Sociologists use words very precisely and carefully to produce understanding.
Actually because of that aforementioned stuff I would not be surprised if there were many overlapping definitions by individual sociologists.
/edit
welp, there you go
Posted by sinflower (Member # 12228) on :
quote:It seems to me that under that definition, a Ku Klux Klan member back a few decades when they actually had power and reach would be classified as a racist. However, that same person transported into a nice comfy bubble on Mars with no power or reach wouldn't be a racist.
Yes.
A racist is a person who 1) Is prejudiced against a racial group which doesn't have power in the society in which he/she resides 2) Is part of the racial group which does have power in the society in which he/she resides
A KKK member magically transported to world where black people have all the power and white people are an oppressed minority would not be labeled "racist," but rather "prejudiced."
As for the Mars bubble scenario, if he's the only person in that isolated bubble society there is no context to speak of and the whole discussion becomes irrelevant...
Wait, actually that's a perfect illustration of how NOT to look at racism: as existing in a vacuum, or in the mind only.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by sinflower: culturally sanctioned beliefs, which, regardless of intentions involved, defend the advantages whites have because of the subordinated position of racial minorities
Sinflower, tell me what you think this means, because from where I'm sitting, this supports my argument, not yours.
Or are you completely misunderstanding what others mean when they say: "systemic injustice." Racism *is* systemic. It's societal, it is a social belief structure, reinforced by a community. It is not, however, in and of itself systemic injustice. It is not both simultaneously, and it is most *certainly* not injustice before it is simple bigotry.
If you are in fact basing your argument on the line: "Some sociologists have defined racism as a system of group privilege" remember that this is an anonymous submission by a wikipedia poster with potentially zero accountability. The wording of a wikipedia entry is proof of absolutely nothing, and if you actually intended that as evidence, you've made a grave error.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
also to note: the 'some sociologists' line doesn't supersede the definition given.
I've studied fairweather v. overt racism in appications of institutional racism/racial privilege, but never in any context that allows that redefinition.
Posted by sinflower (Member # 12228) on :
Wikipedia isn't God. I get it. I used it as a quick way to get quotes from different sociologists, since I don't have access to specific texts at present.
As for the quote you listed
quote:culturally sanctioned beliefs, which, regardless of intentions involved, defend the advantages whites have because of the subordinated position of racial minorities
This is a classic example of "racism as privilege"-- it only goes one way. A black person who believes in black supremacy wouldn't be racist under this construct because 1) his beliefs aren't culturally sanctioned by the wider society and 2) It doesn't defend white advantage.
Cazenave and Maddern are more explicit about this point. Although like I said earlier, I've probably been influenced most by Tatum.
If you want to argue that racism as systematic privilege isn't a widely used definition in sociology, you should probably support that argument too.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by sinflower: A KKK member magically transported to world where black people have all the power and white people are an oppressed minority would not be labeled "racist," but rather "prejudiced."
But thats just bizarre. Forget the Mars bubble actually. Consider the case of the Mongolian neo-Nazis. Such a person would have power in Mongolia but would be powerless in say, bordering China. He could control whether or not he is saying racist things by simply crossing over the border every minute he wanted to say something that was "not racist."
Now imagine that he's standing with one foot in Mongolia and one foot in China. Has he become some sort of quantum racist?
This seems like a pretty odd and easily abusable definition.
Posted by sinflower (Member # 12228) on :
quote:But thats just bizarre. Forget the Mars bubble actually. Consider the case of the Mongolian neo-Nazis. Such a person would have power in Mongolia but would be powerless in say, bordering China. He could control whether or not he is saying racist things by simply crossing over the border every minute he wanted to say something that was "not racist."
Now imagine that he's standing with one foot in Mongolia and one foot in China. Has he become some sort of quantum racist?
This seems like a pretty odd and easily abusable definition.
Odd... maybe. I don't know how to defend that one.
Abusable. Yes, possibly, and you've chosen a good example there. Actually, one of my early complaints against the sociological/anti-racist definition of racism was that there were too many ambiguous cases such as the one you listed. And when someone's privileged in his province/community/enclave/etc but not in the country/region/world, you have to put some work into ascertaining which level is most relevant in each interaction being analyzed.
This ambiguity is a weakness in the construct, but hardly a fatal one. It applies to most words, after all. For example, the word "tall" is a pretty common word. People think they understand it. But... tall relative to what? What is the line that separates tall from short? And etc. Few words map an exactly delineated area in concept space. This usually isn't a problem. Does the Mongolian neo-Nazi spend most of his time on the border between Mongolia and China? Probably not; he'd get arrested ^___^
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: liberalism clashes with honesty
Whew, potential issue of conservative trollishness has been averted with this assuredly completely non-trollish soundbite. Thank you for contributing!
it might appear trollish but it was the first thing to come to mind when i read kweas post. this is why:
i dont see any honesty in reverting to attacking the general conservatism of another person after failing to present convincing arguments or to address the points of a discussion (referring to previous posts. not kweas). the 'conservative troll' attack is well overplay (3rd post in this thread). but come on, this thread is full of hyperbole, no?. i indulged.. calme-toi.
Actually, you indulged AND found a way to look completely ignorant and foolish. Good job.
I love how people who have no clue assume I am a liberal, and then think it is OK to question my honesty and integrity simply because our views differ. Not that they check, or attempt to debate any actual points, mind you. Assumptions are PLENTY of grounds for it, according to them.
I simply was pointing out that if you don't want to seem like a troll....which I know for a fact Dan isn't, because I have an actual history posting here, and I have interacted with him in the past...then he should discuss actual facts, and ask people WHY they believe what they do, rather than assume it's because they are stupid, dumb, and obviously ignoring his "reality".
But he uses the same phrases as some trolls, and is every bit as dismissive as they are if you don't agree with him. You never disagree with him because you have thought about it and came to a different conclusion....it's always because of the liberal slant of the board, or the willful ignorance of facts (most of which are not factual at all), or because people don't like him.......
In this case, all of his claims have been refuted, over and over again, by multiple sources. So he once again because with the persecution complex, because no one agreed with him. Not even Bill O'Riley, for God's sake!
If he wants a discussion, he should try to not sound like a troll looking to get a rise out of people. Perhaps then an actual discussion can happen.
Not that I expect facts to sway you, cap. After all, facts have a liberal bias. Which explains why no one fact checks any more. LOL
L
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: I think that being wrong and being an idiot are basically on the same spectrum. If you're consistently wrong and resist being corrected, that's pretty stupid, isn't it?
And the statement implies that conservatives are fundamentally, systemically wrong on many or all issues. That they're fighting against reality itself. I've never seen anyone use that phrase and not appear to be meaning it in an insulting manner. And I never used to use that phrase without intending to be at least smugly superior, if not blatantly insulting.
Dan, do you know where that phrase first popped up? It was a funny counter to the battle cry of the neo-cons from 10 years ago....who claimed any news service who didn't agree with their party line was "liberally biased". The Neo-cons were using that phrase as an insult, BTW.
I just found it funny that you seem to think that phrase, which is most commonly found on a bumper sticker, is an actual argument against conservatism. Posted by sinflower (Member # 12228) on :
quote:Yeah... no. I'm sorry, that's not the accepted sociological or anthropological definition of racism.
[...]
OAD:
Orincoro: Did you seriously just cite the dictionary as the arbiter of sociological truth? The dictionary tracks how words are used by the majority of the population. Sociologists (and anti-racists) are not the majority of the population. If you just mean to argue that I'm not using the word "racism" the way most people use it... you're absolutely right and I've never denied it. But that's unrelated to your point about what anthropological and sociological circles think!
Here is the dictionary definition of slut:
Main Entry: slut Pronunciation: \ˈslət\ Function: noun Etymology: Middle English slutte Date: 15th century 1 chiefly British : a slovenly woman 2 a : a promiscuous woman; especially : prostitute b : a saucy girl : minx
You can bet that's not the sociological definition.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Dan, I just read your explanation of your first comment. Thanks for clarifying, and I am sorry if I came across stronger than I thought I would at first.
Tone is hard to convey online, as we both just demonstrated. Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
lol. what IS the sociological definition of slut
*breaks the glass marked 'in case of semantics, break glass, but not in the sense that one would have their water 'broken,' if by a third party acting on willful intent, but rather act upon it physically the glass as a nonwilling entity such that its physical composition is degraded along points of fracture, rendering it incapable of holding it in its former position; note that our use of the word 'break' is not in the sense that it is rendered unable to perform as it used to perform insofar as its function is concerned, as it is arguably the glass's function to be broken where warranted, but rather broken in the sense of physical shearing to create an explicable and one-way revocation of its otherwise present barrier to the contents contained within ...*
*pulls out parachute*
*jumps out window*
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
quote:Originally posted by sinflower: A black person who believes in black supremacy wouldn't be racist under this construct because 1) his beliefs aren't culturally sanctioned by the wider society and 2) It doesn't defend white advantage.
Out of curiosity, is this right here kind of the point of this definition?
I'll go back to kindergarten here. Two wrongs don't make a right. And to go Biblical, remove the plank from your own eye first.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Two wrongs don't make a right.
I don't think anyone's saying it does. They are, however, deliberately trying to indicate which they consider the greater wrong.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by sinflower: A KKK member magically transported to world where black people have all the power and white people are an oppressed minority would not be labeled "racist," but rather "prejudiced."
But thats just bizarre. Forget the Mars bubble actually. Consider the case of the Mongolian neo-Nazis. Such a person would have power in Mongolia but would be powerless in say, bordering China. He could control whether or not he is saying racist things by simply crossing over the border every minute he wanted to say something that was "not racist."
Now imagine that he's standing with one foot in Mongolia and one foot in China. Has he become some sort of quantum racist?
This seems like a pretty odd and easily abusable definition.
When you're looking at racism as systemic power, whether or not an individual person is "racist" is largely irrelevant. That's in fact part of the point of the definition -- to get away from the idea of racism as an attribute of individuals and recognize it as a societal structure.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Sure, but when we're, say, identifying Breibart or Sherrod as either racist or not, it seems needlessly complex to make the identification dependent on their geographical location and/or what media/people they have access to.
*shrug* It seems to me that the concept is different enough from the common understanding that maybe they should have just used a different word and be done with it
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
It's a common thing to hear from African American activists. They say they can't be racist because they don't have the power. Therefore they can say whatever they want to. Who knows, maybe they are right. All it is is an attempt to justify prejudice.
[ August 05, 2010, 01:50 PM: Message edited by: Wingracer ]
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Sure, but when we're, say, identifying Breibart or Sherrod as either racist or not, it seems needlessly complex to make the identification dependent on their geographical location and/or what media/people they have access to.
Again, the definition isn't about defining who is or isn't a racist. (Which is pretty much a pointless exercise anyway.) It's not a definition of racist, it's a definition of racism.
Posted by sinflower (Member # 12228) on :
quote:All it is is an attempt to justify prejudice.
It's an attempt to redirect the focus of anti-racist efforts to a sphere where it would be more productive, i.e., not lynching people like Shirley Sherrod for alleged racism.
No one's justifying prejudice, they're just saying it's less detrimental to society and therefore should be less of a priority to combat than systematic racist structures.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: It's not a definition of racist, it's a definition of racism.
*shrug* Maybe you're having a different conversation
quote:Originally posted by sinflower: A racist is a person who 1) Is prejudiced against a racial group which doesn't have power in the society in which he/she resides 2) Is part of the racial group which does have power in the society in which he/she resides
As for whether there's a point to defining whether a particular person is racist, isn't that what this thread was specifically for? It seems to me very important whether a government official with power and influence to discriminate on racial lines is in fact racist or not. For example, if Sherrod *had* turned out to be a flaming racist, whether she was a white supremacist or black supremacist, she should be out either way.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Or maybe I disagree with that part of sinflower's definition and was offering a complementary, but not identical, perspective.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by sinflower:
quote:All it is is an attempt to justify prejudice.
It's an attempt to redirect the focus of anti-racist efforts to a sphere where it would be more productive, i.e., not lynching people like Shirley Sherrod for alleged racism.
No one's justifying prejudice, they're just saying it's less detrimental to society and therefore should be less of a priority to combat than systematic racist structures.
Personally, I consider intolerance OF ALL KINDS to be detrimental to society and should be fought at all levels. I could care less about any distinction between degrees. I will NOT stand for it no matter how justified someone may be for their feelings. Is racism as you define it wrong? Absolutely! But I give it no special status above any other form of intolerance. To do so merely reinforces the traditions of intolerance.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
dkw: Fair enough I remove myself from the discussion as to whether racism is "independent" (for lack of a better word) from racist. I think there's enough oddity for me in the discussion as to whether racists are racists only in context with a society Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Is racism as you define it wrong? Absolutely! But I give it no special status above any other form of intolerance.
Why not? Do you believe there is no distinction to be made between intolerance that is supported by social and legislative structures and intolerance that exists only between two individuals?
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Is racism as you define it wrong? Absolutely! But I give it no special status above any other form of intolerance.
Why not? Do you believe there is no distinction to be made between intolerance that is supported by social and legislative structures and intolerance that exists only between two individuals?
Obviously from a legal standpoint, yes there are varying degrees to anything. There is first degree murder and there is manslaughter but the distinction is primarily one of determining the level of punishment. Either way, a wrong has been done and something should be done about it.
Sinflower's statement was "It's an attempt to redirect the focus of anti-racist efforts to a sphere where it would be more productive, i.e., not lynching people like Shirley Sherrod for alleged racism."
To me, that is using this "sociological" definition of racism to excuse something that is wrong. That's like saying "let's ignore all the burglaries and rapes going on until we solve all the murders." So let's leave the term racist out completely and say it this way:
"IF" she is racially prejudiced, should she still keep her job? If so, why?
Posted by sinflower (Member # 12228) on :
quote:Sinflower's statement was "It's an attempt to redirect the focus of anti-racist efforts to a sphere where it would be more productive, i.e., not lynching people like Shirley Sherrod for alleged racism."
To me, that is using this "sociological" definition of racism to excuse something that is wrong. That's like saying "let's ignore all the burglaries and rapes going on until we solve all the murders." So let's leave the term racist out completely and say it this way:
"IF" she is racially prejudiced, should she still keep her job? If so, why?
The answer to your counterfactual: No.
But the question is whether this case should've been pursued in the first place.
Since I, and other people genuinely interested in anti racism, only have a limited amount of time to devote to this cause, should I be spending this time pursuing systematic change in racial power disparities? Or going on fruitless witchhunts against individuals, minorities no less, getting so lost in my need to place moral blame on others that I'm willing to fudge and ignore facts? Which overall strategy would be most productive in creating lasting racial equality? (Assuming, of course, that this is my goal).
If the people who spend so much time fighting "reverse racism" as they see it spent orders of magnitude more time fighting systematic racism against minorities, then I would applaud them. But the rest of us are limited to 24 hour days, and need to set priorities.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by sinflower:
But the question is whether this case should've been pursued in the first place. [/QB]
That would depend on the facts. If she is racially prejudiced and evidence came out supporting that, absolutely. If she isn't and there wasn't, then no. To say anything else is to justify racial prejudice.
Now I can certainly understand if someone working for racial equality would not specifically target her in lieu of any evidence. There are more likely targets out there. But if compelling evidence should come out, then something should be done.
Posted by sinflower (Member # 12228) on :
Okay. Then we're not in significant disagreement on that point, although we may disagree on what constitutes compelling evidence.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: ...You never disagree with him [Dan] because you have thought about it and came to a different conclusion....it's always because of the liberal slant of the board, or the willful ignorance of facts (most of which are not factual at all), or because people don't like him.......
I just want to say that I'm perfectly willing to accept that people simply came to different conclusions than I did. Heck, I live in the Bay Area. Virtually every one of my friends in real life is a liberal. I'm okay with that.
My complaint about the "liberal slant of the board" is exclusively regarding what I perceive as a double-standard in terms of what level of condescension and non-value added commentary is acceptable. Samprimary in particular has a very sarcastic, condescending tone to a lot of his posts about politics. I was actually trying (perhaps failing) to mimic that tone, when I came into this thread. Obviously, that was a silly idea. Regardless, however, as soon as I did that, people said I was acting like a troll. But I've never seen anyone call Samp a troll, and only very rarely do they even seem to object to his style. That's the part that I was trying to complain about.
As far as the actual topic at hand, I don't think the people disagreeing with me are willfully ignorant, or that they don't like me, or anything like that. I'm fully aware that my opinion of Sherrod is in a minority, even amongst conservatives. That's fine. Maybe I'm wrong. It wouldn't be the first time!
I've been giving a lot of thought to what Tom said about her husband, and the use of "Uncle Tom" as shorthand, and it's very interesting. I still have some misgivings, though. Mainly because the most prevalent way I've seen "Uncle Tom" used in the last decade or so has been a catchall term for black conservatives, so it doesn't sit well with me. But, to be honest, my partner's parents have been in town all week, so all of this has sort of been on the back burner in my mind.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:But I've never seen anyone call Samp a troll
FWIW, I have called Samp a troll/accused him of trolling, and I agree with him about 90% of the time. Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote: But I've never seen anyone call Samp a troll, and only very rarely do they even seem to object to his style.
Very rarely, eh?
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote:If the people who spend so much time fighting "reverse racism" as they see it spent orders of magnitude more time fighting systematic racism against minorities, then I would applaud them. But the rest of us are limited to 24 hour days, and need to set priorities
Yeah but I wonder sometimes whether we truly understand the notions which belie the foundations of what some call "reverse racism", because I think that if we did we could better fight institutional racism. In some sense, how we understand "reverse racism" is the same way we should understand anti-feminism and other movements against discrimination.
Though I disagree with the belief, reverse racism draws it's roots from the same beliefs in an intrinsically unfair playing field used to identify racism. By your own sociological definition, it's not difficult to imagine someone who believes that there are those who believe they are racist simply because they are not a minority, and that from that belief, would want to fight back against a playing field where one side is perceived to be able to break the rules in the name of systemic racial healing and eventual fairness. Moreover, it's even more plausible, and common I would argue, that when a minority is, by definition, unable to be a racist even when claiming the same beliefs against one race that the racist holds against the minority because that minority does not have power, that feelings of racism grow stronger and beliefs in reverse racism grow out of a need to bring about fairness in the racism debate.
Before I continue, I would like to share a story. I teach at a High School in Texas and I have classes of applied mathematics that have mostly minority kids and I teach AP Calculus and Statistics where mostly white and affluent kids learn math. The thing I find most interesting is the debates we had last year in AP Statistics. Most of my white students argued that the only reason Barack Obama became president is because African Americans voted for him soley based on his skin color (and by extension because he *wasn't white), and most of my black students argued that those white students were racist and were making unsubstantiated claims because they were angry their white candidate hadn't won.
Now, who is right? Are the white kids racist? How about some context? When President Obama won the presidency, the next few days at my high school were a little tense because our African American students would run around the halls shouting about how they had beaten "whitey" and how Obama was going to show the world what a black person could do, and in turn, our white students would react negatively. Alright, now are the white children racist? How about the African Americans? In context, I don't think those questions are so easily answered.
It's funny how our children can show us, in vivid and immature detail, how race relations in our country can be seen to sometimes play out (even on a national political level), but to me, it was eye-opening to see the reactions amongst even seniors in high school to the racial tensions we still see in our own country. And though I don't think this applies to Breitbart and Sherrod because Breitbart was simply trying to make an ugly political statement, when charges of reverse racism are leveled against an African American, for instance, I don't think it's something we should so easily dismiss because I think part of the problem we face in solving racial disparities is that we forget that the *manner* in which we fight injustice is just as, if not more, important than the injustice itself. But more than that, I think that we sometimes forget that good people can sometimes be unintentionally racist, and that the labels we place on people usually fail to tell the entire story of that person.
I think we face an entire block of people in this country who feel they have been unfairly singled out, labeled with an ugly label and treated with much less respect than they deserve, and I think that we could more easily and effectively fight racism if we recognized that those people would be more willing to become introspective about race if we worked with them and not against them. It's a basic sociological and psychological tenet that when a person is attacked, that person tends to become more entrenched in their beliefs in order to defend themselves, and that's clearly not what we want.
So why do it?
Posted by sinflower (Member # 12228) on :
Why do we call people out on racism at all, you mean? Because when people know that they can't get away with doing racist things without being called out on it, they are less likely to do racist things. It does lead to some lip service, true, and plenty of resentment. But psychological research has indicated strongly that people tend to become what they pretend to be. This is why most people are shitty liars. If we make it so that people who are prejudiced are incentivized to pretend not to be prejudiced, many of them will actually become less prejudiced. You can only say "I support racial equality" so many times before the psychological principle of "commitment and consistency" comes into play and you actually start supporting racial equality in your actions more.
Of course, the problematic aspect of this is that people also have less incentive to talk honestly about their racism/prejudice and how they're trying to overcome it, so we do need to strike a balance between making it absolutely clear that racism is unacceptable and yet not leaping on people who are genuinely trying to become less prejudiced. I absolutely agree with you, though, that this balance currently isn't being struck. It takes some skill to distinguish people who demand "less political correctness" because they want to be free to be prejudiced without being shamed for it from people who want less PC-ness because they actually want to talk about the issues and work towards equality, but it's a valuable skill that more people should acquire.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I remember reading a story that showed me a very important point to remember when discussing race relations.
I knew a woman when I was young, about 16, who was a white, well educated woman who ran our local library. She was about 60, and a very nice lady, and since I read so much when I was younger, and delivered her newspaper for about 2 years, I knew her pretty well. She was telling a few of us a story about something that happened to her the previous week....she had been out late at a friends house, and her car broke down in a fairly bad section of town about 11pm.
This was before cell phones, and she went to a pay phone to call her son, but while she was digging in her purse for change to call, a group of about 5-6 black kids headed right at her. She got worried, as she had been mugged the previous year, and she gave up calling and crossed the street to not be near them.
One of my friends, Terry, is black, and he looked at her and said " Well that's not right. Maybe they wanted to help you. I can't believe you did that, that's racist!"
She just looked at him and shook her head. Then she said "How do you know that I was being racist. I would have been just as worried, and acted the same, had it been 5-6 white kids. It was white kids who mugged me the first time, after all.".
Humean, I would have said the black kids were acting in a racist manner, and that some of the white kids probably were as well.
There are enough idiots of every race, creed, sexual orientation to cover us all. That's why I hate everyone equally. Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote:Originally posted by sinflower: Why do we call people out on racism at all, you mean? Because when people know that they can't get away with doing racist things without being called out on it, they are less likely to do racist things. It does lead to some lip service, true, and plenty of resentment. But psychological research has indicated strongly that people tend to become what they pretend to be. This is why most people are shitty liars. If we make it so that people who are prejudiced are incentivized to pretend not to be prejudiced, many of them will actually become less prejudiced. You can only say "I support racial equality" so many times before the psychological principle of "commitment and consistency" comes into play and you actually start supporting racial equality in your actions more.
Well, I guess my point would be that that's the way I manage my classroom. I give my students incentives for being good and punishment for being bad, and yet, on some level there is an understanding that I am teaching teenagers, children who need that kind of incentive.
But should that be the way we treat adults and our own citizens? We complain all the time about how politicians treat us like children, how they seem to think that we can only understand something if it's packaged in some nice slogan or cliche, and yet, it seems to me that in our fight for racial equality (or even gender equality), we do the same thing to other rational adults. In fact, I believe this is the very basis for the anti-intellectualism movement in this country, and that's speaks not to a hatred of elites but more to a movement against those who think the adults of this country aren't smart enough to understand or change when faced with rational arguments. Conditioning may work for Pavlov and his dogs but I think sometimes that the reason we still face some of the same problems we did 100 years ago is that we aren't dogs and shouldn't be conditioned to feel a certain way. I know this is in no way what you are claiming but people aren't stupid, for the most part, and they understand when they are being tricked or conditioned into believing what others believe to be correct. When we shame people into believing what we know to be correct, whether we like it or not, we create division and hierarchy both intellectually and racially.
I really am looking for balance because I think we do have to call out racism when we see it, but I also think we need to evaluate how we call out that racism and why there are those who are so adametely opposed to the manner in which we do so. We can't be high school teachers where a hierarchy and division are expected but we also cannot be lax in calling out the racist elements of our society, and to me, that's an important distinction that we should make as we evaluate how race relations can progress.
Edited to add: Kwea
quote:Humean, I would have said the black kids were acting in a racist manner, and that some of the white kids probably were as well.
When we talked about it in Stats, I brought up the argument about power and you know what their reply was?
"They do have power! Do you know what it's like to be called a racist!"
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
quote:Originally posted by sinflower: Because when people know that they can't get away with doing racist things without being called out on it, they are less likely to do racist things. It does lead to some lip service, true, and plenty of resentment. But psychological research has indicated strongly that people tend to become what they pretend to be.
Ok, this would seem to be counter to your earlier argument. Before, you were saying that individual racism is less effective to combat than systematic racism due to time restraints. Perfectly logical, and I agree. And yet, this would seem to say that racism is best fought on an individual level through unified resistance.
I guess my question is, haven't you already won the systematic battle? Everyone knows you can't not hire someone for being black. You can't refuse them service in your restaurant, or deny them housing, or tell off color jokes about them at work. We have a whole day set aside each year to remind us of that so the company can't be sued for piles of money.
So anyone still being racist is doing so from a personal level where they feel they won't be caught. Wouldn't individual perceptions seem to be the only thing left to fight?
(Excluding the justice system. I'm not sure if I think they're still racially motivated or if they're socio-economic, but that might be your last systematic holdout that needs to be fought.)
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I guess my question is, haven't you already won the systematic battle?
Heh. Ask someone who's not white some time. Here's an example: imagine that 1200 resumes are sent in to various accounting jobs, split evenly between the names "Thad," "Juan," and "Tyrone." Imagine, too, that all else is held essentially equal (and the differences are randomized.) Would you expect statistically identical callback results for the three imaginary candidates?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Hep
quote: Instead, they found that resumes with "White-sounding" names--like Jay, Brad, Carrie and Kristen--were 50 percent more likely than those with "Black-sounding" names to receive a callback. The results were striking, holding both for jobs at the lower end of the spectrum--cashier and mailroom clerk positions--and for those at the executive level. Put another way, a White job seeker would have to send out at least 10 resumes to receive a single contact from a potential employer. A Black candidate, meanwhile, would have to send out 15--and this in a "soft" economy with a relatively low rate of new job creation.
The most intriguing--and troubling--aspect of the study was that the discrimination effect held even for candidates with stronger credentials: those who had gone to better schools, or won awards, or had fewer resume "gaps," periods of at least six months without employment.
"We really thought a higher quality resume would help the African American candidate--that the employer would put less weight on the names," Bertrand says.
And indeed, improving the resume quality helped candidates with White-sounding names significantly--their chances of receiving a callback rose 30 percent. But for candidates with Black-sounding names, "we found none of that. If anything, we found the opposite," Bertrand says.
quote:In fact, after sending out thousands of resumés, the study found those with an English name like Jill Wilson and John Martin received 40 per cent more interview callbacks than the identical resumés with names like Sana Khan or Lei Li.
“If employers are engaging in name-based discrimination, they may be contravening the Human Rights Act,” said the study’s author, Philip Oreopoulos, economics professor at the University of B.C. “They may also be missing out on hiring the best person for the job.”
quote:Originally posted by Humean316: ... In fact, I believe this is the very basis for the anti-intellectualism movement in this country, and that's speaks not to a hatred of elites but more to a movement against those who think the adults of this country aren't smart enough to understand or change when faced with rational arguments.
I'm not particularly convinced that would be the mechanism. The anti-intellectualism movement is definitely out-sized in the States but I'm not so sure that there's an out-sized movement against perceived adults that aren't smart enough (for lack of a phrase) though.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
Yes, I remember the name study. But it's not legal. If anyone can prove the companies are doing it, they can sue the pants of them. The campanies get away with it because someone in HR wants to and figures they can get away with it.
So now your options are cumbersome rules that inconvenience all businesses, or you can address the companies that you can show engage in discriminatory interviewing.
I just think we've reached a point where systematic needs to focus in a bit in order to efficiently use its reseources.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: [QB]
quote:I guess my question is, haven't you already won the systematic battle?
Heh. Ask someone who's not white some time.
I have actually but he may be a bad one to ask. Not only is he African-American but he's also an atheist and a HARD LINE Libertarian.
Note, not disagreeing with you at all. Sounds spot on to me. Just pointing out that asking a "non-white" is no guarantee of getting the answer you would expect.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:But I've never seen anyone call Samp a troll
FWIW, I have called Samp a troll/accused him of trolling, and I agree with him about 90% of the time.
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote: But I've never seen anyone call Samp a troll, and only very rarely do they even seem to object to his style.
Very rarely, eh?
It may be totally inappropriate, but this makes me feel much better. My impression was that it's very rare, Samp. But I'll be the first to admit, I don't read every post. I'm perfectly happy to be wrong in this case. You and Tom say my impression was incorrect, so I'll take you guys at your word.
So, Samp, in case it wasn't clear, I would like to apologize for my tone when I first came to this thread. "Yawn" is not a substantive statement. I shouldn't have said it.
PS: Please, please, please stop calling me Dan_Frank, if you could? That stupid underscore is sooooo cringe-inducing. Just... Dan, is fine. If you don't mind. Or even Dan Frank, if you want to distinguish me from, say, Dan_Raven (does he like the underscore?) or whatever other Dans may be here.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: ... it just shows that she decided Marxism is higher on her list than racism.
It appears Marxists have *really* lowered their admission standards.
I may have been indulging in a smidgen of hyperbole.
Really just using Marxism as shorthand for "views rich and poor as an us v. them scenario." I'm not actually making any specific claims about where she may stand on actual Marxism. I wouldn't exactly be surprised if she turned out to be a Marxist, but I also wouldn't be surprised if she claimed she wasn't.
Like you need to be a Marxist to have some sympathy with that statement. It's not like it hasn't been frequently true in the past or anything.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: liberalism clashes with honesty
Tee-hee-hee. Sorry, that brought a smile to my face ,accusing Kwea of liberalism.
Don't get me wrong, he's a good man, with a lovely wife, but a liberal?
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)