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.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
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.Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 891 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Reality has a liberal bias. Since liberalism clashes with honesty, we must be living in the Matrix.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 891 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 241 | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?.
Posts: 241 | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged |
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:
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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."
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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 ...
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.'
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
