This 11-year-old boy, Sebastien De La Cruz, can really belt them out. Here he is singing the national anthem:
It’s an awful song, but De La Cruz can cope — I hope he’s getting some serious voice training.
But…do you want to hear how people reacted to “a beaner singing the national anthem”? No, you probably do not. There are so many proud and unabashed racists in this country.
The facts are that De La Cruz is a native American citizen and the son of an American Navy veteran. But he’s brown.
He was a last minute replacement for Darius Rucker. I wonder how many of the dumbasses making racist comments about Sebastian would make similar comments about Rucker’s current country singing career. Or Charley Pride.
Sad.
The linked tweets are not surprising, but the whole thing does make me sad.
The comments are just abhorrent. I hope someone is protecting this talented young man from the outpouring of slime directed his way.
Yes, water is wet and the internet is still full of nuts to pick. Try the comments at YouTube, they’re especially nutty this week!
Water’s properties are not likely to change, but the continuation of the internet’s awfulness is at least partly dependent on the ongoing willingness of people like you to attack the people who object to racism rather than the racism itself.
Sick. My husband’s mom is half Native American and half English. She has dark hair but light skin, his dad is average European Clevelander, so his family doesn’t come across as a “family of color”. He has much darker coloring but he never thought of himself as a POC. In Cleveland, being Native American is more seen as a novelty and not so much something to openly hate like in some areas of the country (except for that little thing, Chief Wahoo. Wha? those people actually still exist and take offense?)
In retrospect I think he now is more aware of how people have responded to him because of his appearance. Being asked, “What ARE you?” since childhood, many, many people thinking he’s Hispanic (even talking to him in Spanish), and getting acting roles as a Native American, Korean, and Hispanic gave him something to think about. (In one movie he didn’t even know his character was Hispanic until he listened to the director commentary! I guess his racial identity was obvious to everyone but him.)
We also discussed that if we ever go to the south west we’d need to be prepared for double potential racism against both Hispanics and Native Americans. He didn’t even know some of the slurs they use against Native Americans until I told him. We are trying to raise our awareness of issues of race and the complexities of it. I always hated Wahoo, but now I think, oh, so that’s what my husband and his family are supposed to look like. It’s a big joke. Gee, thanks.
I wonder how many of the dumbasses making racist comments about Sebastian would make similar comments about Rucker’s current country singing career.
Well, Darius Rucker is black so…oh, that was a rhetorical question.
I love the sub-title of that page: “Tweets of privilege.” Priceless.
Bookmark this and/or save it to your PC for the next time some right-wing nut comes out with the BS that the U.S. is “over” racism therefore we do not need anti-discrimination laws. I can’t get over this bizarre logic that because we have an African-descended President the country is not full of racists anymore therefore all the racists come out of the woodwork to speak their toxic crazy freely but we’re not supposed to call them racists because we have an African-American President. Yikes! Circular logic at its finest.
Note to above, I misinterpreted the above as he was also Native American- missed the lowercase “n”, but obviously it’s not any less offensive that he’s not. (Just to explain my off-topic comment!)
@5, hey, if P.Z. wants to find nuts to pick that’s his business as it’s his blog. I just prefer something a little more substantial than today’s outrage du jure.
These nuts are not hard to find.
Racism is substantial, whether it negatively affects you or not.
Hey, if you want to do something more substantial, how about you stop dictating what PZ blogs about, stop dismissing racism as “welp, typical, so why bother noting it”, and go do something productive instead of defending the status quo in the holy name of defeatism?
@David Wilford
So go somewhere else then.
Back on topic…
The answer to your question, PZ, would appear to be “very”. I fail to see how anyone can be so offended by the mere sight of someone who’s a different colour to them.
Hell, it’s not even a different colour! It’s just a different shade of brown. “White” people aren’t actually white. Jesus but their idiocy annoys me.
Good to know that you don’t care about racism, even when its so blatantly directed at a little kid.
I prefer that you just fuck the right off now.
More substantial? More substantial than racism? Right. So, not only are you the type of person who refuses to take the tiniest action (like, say, speaking or writing a couple of sentences in public) to fight back against racism, you’re actually bothered when someone else takes a couple minutes out of his day to push back against racism. So bothered that you take a minute out of your day to tell him to STOP talking about racism.
You’ve already established that you’re basically an awful human being; are you also trying to convince that you yourself are racist? Because I’m having trouble imagining another motivation for being bothered that some person who is not you took a couple of minutes out of his day to talk about how he doesn’t like racism.
Is there anybody in the USA not descended from immigrants? It’s painful to see such naked racism, but you shouldn’t feel so surprised – it seems to be ubiquitous everywhere in the world, and unfortunately not restricted to white Americans.
When are we going to grow up?
Racism is “insubstantial”?
Go take a nap in a bag of asps Wilford.
Really? You think these people have privilege? How can you tell?
All I see are racists with some very unfortunate tweets, all of which have been shouted down by a legion of negative tweets. These are hardly mainstream ideas. They are disgusting to most people. You can literally lose your job for less.
Oh no, Daz, racism is real and I deplore it. Taking aim at the usual twits who twitter racist nonsense is fine too, if that’s what you want to do. I can also express my own weariness about it being a subject of discussion and then look elsewhere on the internet for something more interesting to me, personally. I did at least like hearing the national anthem sung very well.
No, I’m sorry, you literally cannot “express your weariness” about racism being the topic of conversation, call it “insubstantial,” and then expect to be believed when you claim that you deplore racism. Reality does not work that way. Pick one. Either racism is real and you deplore it, or it doesn’t bother you that other people take time out of their day to express the fact that racism is real and THEY deplore it.
Well, great. Go look somewhere else. Is it OK if everyone else here finds such naked rascism is be interesting to them, personally?
Maybe I sould go to a community where people have an interest in science fiction (amongst other topics) and complain that Star Trek just isn’t very interesting to me, personally, an they should all just shut up about it, becaue I’ll talk about it on my own blog if I feel like it…
Sorry, got my (not false, 100% valid!) dichotomy mixed up:
Translation:
…but I find it so darn wearisome when folks point out actual cases of it. Why, I might have to actually take notice of it instead of congratulating myself on finding it deplorable.
Then fucking do it and spare us. We are fucking weary of you and those like you perpetually expressing their “weariness” whenever someone dares to criticize something that you and those like you find too obvious or not sufficiently large. We don’t fucking care. If you have something better to do, want to see something more interesting, go fucking find it and don’t sit around and whine about how you’d prefer something better. It’s like going to a grocery store, plopping your ass on the floor, and complaining for 30 minutes about how they don’t have veal. Go somewhere fucking else and stop wasting other people’s fucking time, you fucking self-absorbed asshat.
Oh, please do!
You had the option of not commenting at all. Instead you thought it important to tell us you don’t think racism is a very important issue. Given that, I suggest you stop whining.
Just fyi, Matt: your quote was Daz mocking David Wilford. Your point still stands, though.
Matt Penfold
Matt, I was paraphrasing David Wilford @21. I should’ve mentioned that in the comment you quote, I realise. My bad.
Yeah, I just realised that! Sorry Daz. Can you consider my reply directed at Wilford instead ?
Nice that you can just look elsewhere and not be forced to think about racism. Not everyone can do that.
#20- Not being forced to think about racism in a very personal way every day is the privilege they have.
Indeed. These things happen, and yes I can :-)
David Wilford’s not a racist but…. Look pal, if you want to get rid of racism you slam it EVERY godamn time it rears its ugly little head. Period. And thanks PZ for calling these turds out.
Thanks sundiver for the kind word. I’m happy the kid did the song not as a whitewashed Amurrican but as someone proud of their cultural heritage. I’d rather focus on that than the turds, myself.
I’m curious — when PZ posts cute pictures of squid or other wildlife, do bozos like Wilford show up to chastise him for not doing “more substantial” topics, or is it only subjects like racism that they feel obliged to be dismissive of?
Reading those comments made me so very sad.
My son and his wife just had a baby last month. My grandson will probably look much like this handsome young man. His beautiful mother is from Mexico and has Italian, Spanish and Aztec heritage.
My son’s heritage is also quite a mixture, with English, Scottish, German and Native American among others in our family’s background. My son is a former Marine and Iraq War veteran. My family can count war heroes all the way back to the Revolution, and I could even be a member of the DAR if I wished.
I worry that their beautiful little boy will also face this kind of racism, even though he will be from a long and proud American heritage.
David Wilford is obviously finding it difficult to find something more interesting to him personally.
Regarding PZ’s implied characterization of America being as racist as some twits who tweet on twitter about what ticks them off, well, keep in mind that it’s easy to draw an unrepresentative sample if you’re not careful, so no, I don’t think Americans actually are that racist. That’s what bores me about this kind of nut-picking, really. It goes well with Cheetos though.
screechymonkey, as it happens I enjoy the cephalopod, metazoan and other biology-related posts. The nut-picking ones, not so much.
sundiver:
David Wilford:
lulz were had.
David Wilford says he would prefer that we talk about something “substantial”. David Wilford also says that he would prefer if we talk about how a kid is proud of his heritage instead of the racist assholes who froth at the mouth because they think he looks too Mexican. David Wilford thinks “substantial” means “doesn’t make me uncomfortable”.
Does. Not. Follow.
@ David Wilford #35
Is your sarcasm meter not working today? The phrase “… is not a racist, but …” comes from the very typical meme of “I’m not a racist, but I think all *whatever* are *something bad*”. In other words the “I’m not … but …” is often a strong indicator that the speaker is a racist. Sundiver was not giving you a “kind word.”
David: First rule of holes: When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. If you find something boring, then don’t read it/comment on it. By commenting, you show that it isn’t boring to you. Truly bored people can’t be bothered to comment. That leaves us trying to figure out your real reason for commenting.
So, question: are you white? If you’re white then on what basis do you claim that “America’s not that racist”? The fact that the racists don’t pester you personally? I mean, look at you right here, actively campaigning AGAINST talking about racism – seems like an obvious sign of a person who deliberately avoids being exposed to evidence of racism, so your claim is suspect from the get-go. Not to mention, supposing America is only a _little bit_ racist, how are we going to get rid of that little bit if racist (yes I said it, asswipe, what you’re doing here is doing racism) assholes like you won’t stop throwing a fit whenever someone brings it up?
{Leans back into his wing-backed chair, takes a draw on his cigarette holder which is supporting a Gauloise}
Well I for one, am so bored by racism. It’s so easy to find on the internet you know. Why I can google Stormfront and hey presto, lots of racism. Why take this seriously? It’s so last year. I deplore it, obviously, but it’s not a genocide.
Speaking of genocide, it’s excruciatingly dull you know. Why there are loads of them going on. Why bother repeating the outrage du jour* about it? It’s just so easy. Why PZ is just manufacturing outrage about insubstantial matters. It’s all about the blog hits you know.
It’s not possible that by drawing attention to incidences of racism, however minor, we continually lower the bar of what is tolerable in terms of the degree of racist expression. It’s almost like society doesn’t change in increments or something.
Louis
*At least when I am being a (comically) patronising pissant, I can spell the pseudo-intellectual phrase I am trying to use correctly.
Well, be sure to post regularly about your preferences. Perhaps you can rate each post on a 1-10 scale, so PZ and Chris know exactly how to run their blog.
That’s appalling. The thought of that little boy seeing these kinds of things on the net just for DARING to look more brown than “normal” (GAG!) is just heartbreaking.
I’m detecting a serious rise Xenophobia going on in most of the world these days, including my own country (South Africa). What’s interesting to me (because it’s either get curious or get crying) is that it seems to be mainly directed towards Others from the same continent.
@David Wilford #40:
Ever stopped talking about how not racist you are long enough to consider that the reason you do not find Americans to be all that racist is probably because you have the option of walking away from racist shit which doesn’t affect you and forgetting about it?
anteprepro, it’s because you can’t rely on self-selected groups to be representative of the whole, especially one particular self-selected subset of tweeters on one news subject is representative.
Luckily his parents have taught him well.
Tell us more about how deploring racism means denying the extent of racist thought in America (based on nothing but your own confirmation bias) and actively trying to prevent people from talking about racism, Wilford.
David Wilford has persuaded me. Clearly, racism in America is confined to a few “nuts” who can be safely ignored. I mean, it’s not like children of Congressmen are doing it, too.
David Wilford-shut the fuck up. We don’t need yet one more white dood telling the Disgruntled Minorities how people aren’t that racist, aren’t that sexist, aren’t that homophobic.
The fact that anyone here bothers to reply to you is more than you could reasonably expect given your sullen, self-centered doodery.
I’d be happy if you just FUCKED RIGHT OFF.
Dumb shit.
I’d like to know this too.
That you think the racism directed at Sebastien De La Cruz is an isolated incident reveals how pathetically ignorant you are.
No, it’s not like this isolated incident of racism is an any way symptomatic. Or this other incident. Or this other incident, or this whole mass of other incidents. Lordy no! We need to treat each incident of racism as entirely unconnected to any other incident of racism. Noticing trends is not something we should ever think of doing. Trends are merely graph-lines drawn through anecdotes. Thousands upon thousands of entirely unconnected anecdotes.
</snark>
Okay, you fucking idiot, let me spell it out for you. I am completely aware of the above, but that is irrelevant. What does not follow is “so no, I don’t think Americans actually are that racist.” This isn’t the one, single line of evidence showing that Americans are racist. You can’t just say “null hypothesis proven” by tossing out Twitter. Or by dismissing this blog post. Do you really need it spelled out for you, why it is fairly certain that racism is still alive and well in America? Are you really that fucking clueless?
There are to types of racism. Negative racism and positive racism. An example of the latter: http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/14/18957325-jeb-bush-touts-pro-family-fertile-immigrants-as-economic-boon?lite
Yep, different looking immigrants are fertile. How benevolent our god is?
Thanks for the link to the nice news story, rothron. It’s a far more satisfying and effective reply to the racists out there as far as I’m concerned.
I am amazed at PZ for claiming that these people represent all Americans. Frankly that sort of claim is exceedingly extraordinary and requires evidence.
Except that he didn’t actually claim that. Gosh! It’s like reading for comprehension is a thing.
Louis
He certainly has a penchant for ‘self-selection’, that one does. He’s self-selecting all over this thread.
I remember the days when young men would reserve their self-selection for quiet times alone in their room. Then we went and invented the fucking internet.
David Wilford is just a few inches away from tone trolling. Seriously, just fuck off. Just fuck right off.
anteprepro, racism exists, absolutely, and should be discouraged. It’s just not as prevalent as some tweets would have one believe though.
ATTENTION: WHITE MAN HAS SPOKEN.
Prissy McStufferPuff is trying to instruct you on Correct Interpretation, anterepro. Stop being so insolent.
Hey isn’t it funny (and by funny, I mean fucking annoying) how there’s suddenly been a minor onslaught of people all parroting the same “I like your blog, PZ, but don’t talk about anything I don’t like” line. And by funny/annoying, I mean is this the latest Pit tactic?
Satisfying? For you? Who gives a fuck about you?
And you gauge it effective how, exactly?
Since you’re a full blown fucking dipshit, I’m going to give you a tip: your answer to this question better be in the form of some actual fucking evidence. You can take your “as far as I’m concerned” and shove it up your ass.
People like you are the problem. As far as I’m concerned.
Assuming, unwarrantedly, that you’re sincere about deploring racism, but the above:
How about quietly saying to yourself “I don’t understand the intricacies of this subject or have enough personal experience to reasonably discuss it with any confidence” and then going someplace else without making a self-important announcement, then? What would be wrong with that?
No, it’s just not as loud. It is still pretty fucking prevalent. Try to actually read something or FUCK OFF.
You lie, you fucking chickenshit.
Because when racism was being discouraged, some fucking piece of shit wrote “@5, hey, if P.Z. wants to find nuts to pick that’s his business as it’s his blog. I just prefer something a little more substantial than today’s outrage du jure”
You are the problem, David Wilcox. You are why racism still exists. Own it.
Shit like this is why it took damn near thirty years for me to recognize that I am Chicano, and not just a white kid who tans well.
When I was young, I didn’t understand the history of racism in the USA, the relationship between “idle” jokes and national policy, or the power of tribalism. I just knew that the brown kids got picked on and did worse in school, so, since I was light enough to pass thanks to my white mother, I concluded that I must be 100% white.
My grandfather made the same choice when he changed his name from Juan to John.
We have to pretend to be somebody else just to survive.
Who is going to tell the non-white population of the US that they need to ration the number of complaints they make about racism as David Wilford has decreed they are making too much fuss and the problem is nothing like as bad as they think ?
I don’t think you can fight racism with more hate. Fight hate with hate, and hate wins. Deny racists their power by pointing out how they are wrong, unacceptable, backwards, marginalized and misguided their opinions are.
There are only two ways to stop racism. Make racists into non-racists, or wait for them to die off.
Wilford takes an example of benevolent racism as an “answer” to racists.
He is really fucking stupid.
Interestingly, low cognitive ability has been linked to prejudiced attitudes, including racism.
What does that even mean? If I hate it that people are racist against a kid, “hate” wins? Wins what? A toaster oven-microwave combo?
It’s one of those sayings that seems profound, but turns out to be nonsense.
Oh look:
From here.
Why it’s like people have thought about this before!
Louis
Also, it’s outrage du jour, not outrage du jure.
Sorry? The only thing you appear to be concerned about is PZ’s taking a whole minute of your time and forcing you to read a ninety-odd word post about a subject you find wearisome. Under which you found it oh-so-necessary to spend probably twice as long composing a comment about how you thought the subject wasn’t worth commenting on.
How many totally separate and unrelated incidents of racism does it take before you can recognize that this is a problem? How many people must be raped, and then blamed by the system, before we, as a society, recognize that rape culture is a problem? How many misogynist jokes does it take before we can recognize sexism as a problem? To claim that this is a self-selected group and that we can safely ignore their racism implies that the blatant and overt racism shown in these tweets exists in a vacuum. It implies that we do not have a political party, a mainstream political party, that uses racism, fear, hate and xenophobia to win elections. It implies that employers do not prejudge candidates based on accent, or last name, or colour. It implies that there is no systemic racism in US culture. Ignoring hate does not make it go away. Ignoring race baiting does not make it go away. Ignoring discrimination does not make it go away. Do you understand this?
I am shocked—shocked I tell ya—that “an apple a day keeps the doctor away” isn’t actually sound health advice.
Ah I see rothron’s asinine evidence free aphorism and raise you a Batman:
“To conquer fear, you must become fear”.
Thusly, we arrive at:
“To conquer hate, you must become hate”.
There, I’ve run rings round you logically. Argumentum ad Batmanum. Totally water tight that is.
Louis
Who is “fighting hate with hate?” What behaviors of anti-racists, precisely, constitute “hate”? Please be specific.
UnknownEric@66:
I don’t know if it’s more prevalent now than before. There’s always been the “I like your posts about science; why do have to talk about atheism so much?” brigade. (Interestingly, science seems to be the one touchstone — I don’t recall seeing comments about “stop posting all this science stuff and get back to bashing theists!”)
And it seems like that’s a common feature of blog commenters everywhere. It’s amazing how many people feel entitled to tell bloggers who publish for free which subjects they should write about. I mean, hey, I have preferences, too, but I just take the crazy step of skipping over the ones that don’t interest me. If a blogger actually wants to know what people want to read more/less of (and can’t figure it out from the stats), he or she can ask.
And yeah, I suspect a lot of people who post stuff like that are insincere. They aren’t really fans of the blog, but they think that pretending to be gives them more credibility. It’s like people who are complaining to a business about some issue like to make a big deal out of what a big customer they supposedly are. (“I really love your restaurant, and I come here often. Now let me tell you all the grievances I have from one visit, so that you will give me free stuff.”)
Sally Strange, #77,
Oh but my dear you are too late. I, a man, have already mentioned this. Thus you can get back to the kitchen or what not. Men are talking about bigotry and it’s not like women experience any of that, so run along.
;-)
Louis
P.S. Oh fuck I’m dead! :-)
It’s not a deepism.
You can’t hate someone into changing their mind. If you fight hate with hate nobody changes their minds and all you are left with is more hate. I see how you’re talking here that hating racists is obviously not enough for you.
Anthony, it’s not a literal truth, but Apples are still healthy.
I reraise with the Litany Against Fear:
Just not on this blog, apparently.
Uhm, what?
Nah, but you CAN shame them into not acting out their prejudices in public.
Ever fired one point blank out of a potato gun at someone’s sternum?
rothron—Who is “fighting hate with hate?” What behaviors of anti-racists, precisely, constitute “hate”? Please be specific.
What a darling, talented kid. The page of tweets hurts the soul.
Thank Dog we’ve got a smart white dood around to bless us with his ever-so-rational instruction on exactly how much we’re allowed to care about racism.
Sorry, that was a reference to Anthony K and his vitriol.
This is a common mistake. It comes up in discussions of LGBT rights, feminism, atheism, racism, and all the rest.
Changing individual minds is not the only or primary goal in every situation. It is not possible to change everyone’s minds, and even if it were, it would take far too long going one by one.
Another goal is, as SallyStrange notes, to shame into silence or into ever smaller spheres those people who feel absolutely comfortable spewing racism without challenge. Making them face social penalties is a legitimate goal of those who want reform.
rothron—What behaviors constitute “fighting hate with hate?” Please be specific.
I don’t see David Wilcox defending the ignoring of racism on this thread anymore, do you?
You’d be surprised at how powerfully effective hateful vitriol is.
Hate: 1 Rothron’s Grandparents’ Aphorisms: 0
Re: fighting hate with hate. I think you are possibly confusing contempt with hate. But I think it’s better to fight hate with contempt and derision than apathy and status quo mongering.
…
David Wilford: I’m reminded of when folks would first bring up racism/sexism/homophobia as a serious problem, and people would say, “Where’s your evidence?” and you’d mention one or two more recent incidents and they would dismiss it as “Anecdotal.” So we started posting our amassed daily evidence, spotted every day, and now people want to say that it’s an outrage du jour. No, it’s not. It’s Exhibit Number The Umpteenth in a huge, ongoing, systemic societal issue. Your minimizing is unhelpful and now that it’s been pointed out to you as minimizing by multiple people, you need to take a moment, and reassess instead of trying to weasel your way to a judgement where we pat you on the back and say, “Good not-racist man.” As Sally said, you can’t deplore racism and then get squiffy when people point it out and discuss the ramifications. If you are truly weary, the appropriate thing to do is say, “Fight the good fight, folks,” from the sidelines. Instead, you thought you’d try to transfer your weariness to us, to make us say, “Hey, this isn’t worth fighting for,” or “Why are we discussing this AGAIN? It’s Sisyphean!” when we plainly disagree on that point.
Finally, there are topics and comment threads I don’t care for on Pharyngula myself, but weirdly, I just don’t post on those, if it’s not explicitly interesting to me. Weird how that works out.
Free link for anyone who only ever wants to see blog-posts discussing things which they want to discuss:
http://wordpress.com/
SNORFLE at Daz.
I saw a quote somewhere that seems appropriate…oh yeah, it was in another thread.
“The standard you walk past is the standard you accept.”
– Lieutenant General David Morrison, Australian Army
Oh, but there’s walking past, and then there’re people like David Wilcox, who actively try to persuade others that they should walk past too.
Wait, if I am reading Wilford correctly, he is admonishing PZ and the Horde that the way to counter racism is to call it out *by not talking about it when it happens?* No, rather, one should just leave the racist shit to stand unchallenged and assume that because not everyone feels that way, our benevolent, silent, magic good feels will make all the racism disappear. ‘Cause don’t feed the trolls has worked so well up to this point?
A victory for all anti-racists, I’m sure. You really should eat more fruit.
If you take a look at the replies the listed tweets got. It’s not hard to see. Perhaps shouting down and shaming is effective, but it makes for a pretty unwelcome environment, and not just for the people being shouted down. With that I’ll shut up for now. That’s 2 for Anthony K.
You’re goddamn motherfucking right that is, and don’t you fucking forget it.
…which was of course created by the people shouting down the racism, not by the fucking racists posting hateful racist shit in the first place.
Head, meet desk. Desk, meet head.
1. You do a massive disservice to the conversation when you conflate actual hate (bigotry) with contempt. They are not the same. Words that make you uncomfortable are not “hate” on their face. Please don’t make that confusion. Some contemptuous responses are ethically justifiable; nay, morally demanded.
2. Your assessment of how “welcoming” the environment is has no relationship to whether tactic X is effective. I don’t know if you noticed, but you subtly shifted from talking about how X tactic was ineffective at combating hate to talking about how X tactic made you feel unwelcome. Notice that elision because it’s not OK to do.
3. If you personally feel uncomfortable, that’s one thing. What it is not is anything to do with whether the rhetoric is justified and appropriate. This is such a common error—mixing together one’s own personal etiquette comfort level with “what works in the world.” Don’t do it. It’s bullshit.
If you’re willing to say, “Well, that *may* work, but it makes me feel bad,” then understand that you’re stating “My squeamishness at harsh language is important enough that I’m willing to exhort others to stop using it even if that means they lay down an effective weapon against bigotry.”
I know you’re reading this and saying, “But I never said that.” No doubt you don’t consciously mean to. But it is exactly what you’re saying.
Shorter—If you prize cocktail party comfort over getting real world work done then get the fuck away from me. No one of that bent has ever done a fucking thing to advance human rights. All you do is suck energy away from people who have the courage to say things you’re too meek to do. People like that have bedeviled me for 25 years of LGBT activism, just as they’ve bedeviled every other social activist in history.
Don’t flatter yourself. You are notcrucial. You are notspeaking for the “silent majority.” You are not necessary in this fight at all. I’d sooner you go away forever if you can’t get a grip and sort your priorities.
Nice try Anthony K, lemme get real world on your arse…
We have nothing to fearhate but fearhate itself.
Louis
P.S. Wait….what point was I making? Oh, that aphorisms in absence of evidence are almost terminally pointless and wickedly patronising. That was it. Sorry I was getting lost in taking the piss out of tone trolls and muppets.
On the plus side, Sebastien is way more mature and well-adjusted than all of the people slinging hate at him put together. (Of course, that doesn’t say much, but his response is still ridiculously impressive.)
Of course, on the (very, insanely) negative side, “This is part of the American life” is one of the saddest things I’ve ever read. This is clear evidence that this is not the first time he’s had to deal with racism. (Again, not a surprise, but anyone who supposes we are “over” racism in this country: Pay attention. This is not an acceptable state of affairs.)
You probably meant that sarcastically, but actually it is. It shows any people of color and their allies who are reading Pharyngula that they have friends here, and this is a blog where racism and apologists for racism will have their bigotry challenged, and that racists will be excluded. They won’t have to worry about being the lone “trouble-making” voice speaking up to *gasp horror* bore privileged clueless gits like David Wilford. They can be confident that if they speak up about their experiences, they won’t be shouted down by a bunch of jerks who, like Wilford, prefer that people STFU about racism already. It’s a small victory, sure, but it is a victory.
Thank you, Anthony.
I am continually amazed at those folks who think that “ZOMG NORTY WERDZ!” is more important than actual bigotry, whatever that bigotry actually is.
If I have to prioritise who I am going to demonstrate my displeasure to, why choose the person calling out the bigotry, or admonishing the tone used by this person, rather than admonishing the actual bigot? Why is calling a bigot a bigot worse than being a bigot?
It always staggers me.
Louis
There’s an old poker saying that goes something like: if you can’t recognise the weakest player at the table within a few hands, that player is you.
All in.
Josh- I see your points. I’m sorry.
Onamission5, I was stating my preference for posts that weren’t exercises in nut-picking. Yes, racist nuts do exist, but as I recall, we celebrate Martin Luther King Day as a national holiday because it was his practice of non-violent protest in the face of racist violence that helped lead us as a nation to acknowledge our legacy of racism and begin rejecting it.
It’s homeopathic dilution.
Please point to anyone on this comment board or in the OP advocating violence. If you can’t, wtf is your point?
Daz, the point is that even when confronted with violence MLK turned the other cheek and didn’t give in to hatred, illustrating that that love is more powerful than hate when it comes to changing minds.
Anthony K,
Since when did the strike thingy not work. I blame Space Aliens. Bon Jovi lyrics?
Raise again.
Louis
Correct me if I’m wrong, but MLK did actually comment publicly on the subject of racism now and again, though, yes? Rather than, for instance, not talking about it because he found it—what’s the word I’m looking for?—”wearisome.”
Why do you consider blatant racism directed towards a child nut-picking? WTF do you think racism is fer crying out loud?
Judging people based on skin color is bigotry. It doesn’t matter that it is twitter versus lynching. It is still proud and loud racism and it needs to be called out every fucking time if we are want to progress as a society.
If you can’t bring yourself to do that, could you at least stop attacking the people who are?
David Wilford didn’t you say something about finding things more interesting to you than this? Because you were strongly encouraged to fuck off, and you really should have just cut your losses. Because after your last couple of posts I have to say FUCK YOU.
Fuck you HARD for appealing to MLK as though he would have approved of your limpwristed, actionless moderation. That speech brought out by Louis @76? Yeah that’s by MLK at people like YOU. Martin Luther King may have endorsed non-violence but he didn’t endorse inaction like you’re doing when you casually dismiss Racism.
Maybe Martin Luther King wouldn’t be pleased by the language we use, I don’t know. However I’m damn sure that every single person calling out racism as NOT OKAY is following in his footsteps better than every single person like you who shrugs and dismisses racism as not a problem.
David Wilford:
How nice for you. Let me guess, you aren’t a POC. How veddy surprising! Crispy fried Christ, you’re a fuckwit. As a woman who is a halfbreed,* I can tell you, you are wrong.
*Yes, I get to hear that on a regular basis, along with things like the leftovers of my filthy, savage race should be exterminated, finishing the job that was started in the first place. Yeah, no racism here. :eyeroll:
Daz, with respect to racism MLK shined a light on injustice rather than curse the darkness. I don’t think MLK was a nut-picker.
And he lived happily ever after.
@125 – MLK’s legacy certainly does live on. That matters.
Yes, by pointing it out. Which is what the OP here, along with countless others, does.
Jesus frickin’ Christ on a four-masted tricycle, this is not a difficult concept.
You are doing neither of those things, you are dismissing racism as an issue and therefore dimming the lights cast on injustice. Stop it.
Also if we are “Cursing the darkness” what do you suggest we do instead? And why exactly is it a bad idea to make it absolutely positively clear to anyone listening that we consider racism NOT OKAY.
Of course since you’ve dismissed racism as a real problem I’m going to assume your response to “What should we do about racism” will be along the lines of “Shut up and take it because it isn’t real and doesn’t matter.”
I think David is incapable of reading and understanding the quote from “A Letter from a Birmingham Jail” I posted above in #76.
Therefore I may have to mock him some more!
Louis
One of the best things about being an atheist, is that I have no need to do stupid things like “turn the other cheek” when confronted by bigotry or other forms of discrimination. Ignoring it does not work, has never worked, and this shit needs to change. Say something racist/sexist/ awful…I will happily point that out and shame you for it.
Do not mistake anger and outrage at hateful behavior, for hate.
Yes, Martin Luthor King was the ONLY leader in the civil rights movement. That’s why it was so successful. Because they only used ONE approach, that of MLK, and that approach worked 100% of the time. Malcolm X? Who’s that? Never heard of the guy.
Wilford, you really need to shut the fuck up.
Since we’re battling it out with dueling aphorisms…
With each passing moment you make yourselves more my servants. It is unavoidable. It is your destiny.
Though MLK has a day largely because it’s convenient to pretend that politeness is morally superior, and/or more effective, than direct calling-out. And that’s why so many cities in the US, large and small, have an MLK Boulevard or Drive going right through the poor black part of town, which remains poor and black to this day; and why so few of us whiteys have ever heard of his contemporary, Malcolm X.
J’sayin.
http://ideas.time.com/2012/01/20/we-need-a-malcolm-x-day/
Well, to make another sf reference, it’s more like Servants of the Wankh if you ask me, PZ… :^p
Oh, we’re not doing Star Wars? How about this, then?
Better?
MOTHERF….!
PZ you stole my trump card. I’m going to have to go with:
Aphorisms: Because thinking for yourself is hard.
Louis
And you can’t show an intelligent statement with fuckwittery like this. Who here is hating?
That’s fine PZ, and it’s good to be reminded that MLK was indeed a community organizer.
David Wilford:
He wasn’t running a rec center, Cupcake. You haven’t read anything he wrote, have you? The noxious shit you dropped in the ‘non-eurocentric SF/F’ thread makes more sense now, given that the article revolved around women of color writers. You’re quite a toxic mess.
The version of MLK that lives in David Wilford’s head:
Chas:
Ohhhh, nice!
Since we’re making cultural references, this seems apropos:
You say you want a revolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world
You tell me that it’s evolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world
But when you talk about destruction
Don’t you know that you can count me out
Don’t you know it’s gonna be all right
All right, all right …
Racism didn’t bother Wil-ford.
Point it out, and he’d be bored;
So bored in fact, he had to tell
The pointers-out that they’d do well
To note that, ‘cept for the nutty fringe,
It isn’t really a real thing.
He didn’t see why folks got pissed—
What he can’t see, cannot exist!
There’s something happening here, but you don’t know what it is, do you, Mr. Wilford?
I find it wearisome.
Wilford’s studiously, actively ignoring the existence of civil rights leaders apart from Martin Luther King. Note how he has refused to address any of the comments making reference to… you know. That OTHER guy. What was his name again?
Wilford demonstrates that part of MLK’s legacy is having his memory abused by racism denialists.
@145 –
Love, love, love.
Love, love, love.
Love, love, love.
There’s nothing you can do that can’t be done.
Nothing you can sing that can’t be sung.
Nothing you can say but you can learn how to play the game.
It’s easy.
@143
Oh wait… We aren’t just pasting random song lyrics that have words like revolution in them*? My bad.
*Sorry for subjecting everyone else to this. But the awesomeness that is The Ark should be known to all. Because Love. And Saturday.
@ #139
A community organizer who unapologetically called out moderate white people who shed crytears about how mad all those black people trying to stop injustice were and why couldn’t they just be nicer about it so white people would be more willing to listen to them. Notice he gave precisely no speeches about pretending racism isn’t all that bad because calling it out makes white people uncomfortable so we should all focus on the good things people do instead.
When you tone police the people who call attention to a problem, you are sending the message loud and clear that you consider calling attention to a problem to be worse than the problem itself. Do you, Wilford? Do you really think that pointing out racism is worse than racism? ‘Cause if you don’t, maybe you could, I don’t know, show some support or something, and if you do, you may want to take some of that fucking off advice you’ve been repeatedly given.
SallyStrange:
Along with tossing buckets of whitewash all over Martin Luther King.
Chris:
:Snort: +8
So far, if I may paraphrase, we have, from Wilford:
So the pierce screwed up your face
‘Cos your girlie liked the taste
You’re infected by the tease
Political
So your dirty guilty braids
Made your body smell of mace
So debauched in your slick mink
Political
Yes it’s fucking political
Everything’s political
Yes it’s fucking satirical
Everything’s satirical
Yes it’s fucking political
Everything’s political
The wild ones like to hide
As the dirty priest confides
In the love of baby whores
Political
Negative are all your views
So you to can prop up your fake cool
A puppet all the same
Political
Yes it’s fucking political
Everything’s political
Yes it’s fucking satirical
Everything’s satirical
Yes it’s fucking political
Everything’s political
–Skunk Anansie
My wife is a dog trainer and one of her dicta is to reward a dog when it does something you like and not reward undesirable behavior. For example, when a dog wants a treat from you and pushes at your hand you don’t reward such pushiness because that will simply reinforce it. No, you wait until it sits politely and reward that. It works. The same applies to homo sapiens sapiens, which is why when someone insulting demands a reply, I don’t bother as it only reinforces boorish behavior. Asking politely on the other hand, is really its own reward… :^)
Caine, I am SO stealing “crispy fried christ “, or at least using it as an alternative to one of my favorites, jesus iced haploid christ. And unfortunately I have to go take a shower as I’m beginning to smell like I’ve hiked across Grand Canyon. Twice. And then to crash as work beckons tonight. G’night.
To the tune of Henry the 8th, by Herman’s Hermits:
I’m politically correct I am,
politically correct I am, I am
I’ve been corrected by the women next door
I’ve been corrected many times before
’cause everything is political
it’s never just a joke or a mistake
I’m an ape of a man so analytical,
politically correct I am.
— me
(second verse, same as the first… :^)
rothron—THANK YOU. It’s very satisfying when someone gets it, because a lot of well-meaning people make that mistake. I appreciate your saying so.
Now David wants a fucking cookie before he’s told to go fuck himself. This isn’t going to end well.
I wish that for just one time, you could stand inside my shoes
You’d know what a drag it is to see you.
Also I’d burn my fucking shoes afterward.
Wilford you are the living picture of self-satisfied white America. Tut tutting and Disney-fying actual leaders who’d reach up out of their graves and smack the smug right off your face if they could.
Yeah, with that “politically correct” shit he’s pretty much outed himself as a reactionary twerp, though it’s not like we hadn’t all twigged.
Which totes explains the fact that you have ignored my polite questions, but responded to rude ones as long as they were written by males.
Boorish, thy name is David Gilford.
ps…stop being such an asshole!
Nothing like vitriol to get a fucker to drop the turn the other cheek bullshit and reveal himself as a truly despicable human being.
David Wilford said something that was wrong, got corrected. He said it again and got corrected. He gets corrected all the time, because no matter how much people try to tell him that he’s wrong, he just ignores it and continues spouting bullshit.
Apparently this is a point of pride for him.
Also, when he said he “deplores” racism? Clearly a lie. He deplores people talking about racism.
David Wilford, #156,
Can you explain to me what “politically correct” means, please?
Louis
David Wilford can be seen here whining about the tone argument. I thought I recognized him from a previous Pharyngula thread; hasn’t he recently mansplained that the sexism in the SWFA magazine wasn’t really a big deal?
Sundiver:
Have fun with it. :)
As far as I am concerned, with racism, ONE TWEET, is indicative of a prevalence that is too high.
And as for David Wilford, how is his version of “deploring” racism, quietly and in private, any different, in real-world effectiveness, from prayer?
But Ms Daisy Cutter, sexism in the SWFA isn’t a big deal. Tchoh, silly women, getting their over emotional, politically correct knickers in a knot about things. It’s not thinking for yourself you know like brave David Wilford who dares to challenge uppity blacks and women. I wonder what he thinks about Teh Ghey? Let’s see if the trifecta appears.
Louis
There’s a 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 … 09% chance that prayer might work.
That’s right. You get to feel good about yourself, and your own personal purity/politeness/self-control, while being ignored and having no useful impact on anything for other people.
Again now:
How is this different from prayer?
I don’t know, PZ.
The last guy who said that ended up getting thrown down a VERY long shaft by one of those servants….
I don’t think I am going to get an answer. I has a sad.
Louis
What the actual fuck?
Now I wish I could drive through the Bible Belt and see dozens of floodlit, multi-story roadside peace symbols and statues of MLK and Malcolm X, instead of all those damned crosses.
You know what, David Wilford?
For a lot of people, LOTS of people, it’s not political. It’s not correctness.
It’s fucking life.
I do not recall MLK being particularly polite or quiet in his practice of non-violent protest.
Daisy, that SFWA quarterly cover wasn’t a big deal, no. It was what Resnick and Malzberg wrote that was the problem.
As for the tone argument, yes, you bet it gets brought up and abused. See @62 here for an example of someone invoking it for all the wrong reasons.
mythbri, I’m poking fun at myself. It helps to know the song.
Amphiox, MLK was forthright and outspoken but he didn’t let his temper get the best of him either.
I see David Wilford is invoking MLK without seeming to actually understand that MLK wasn’t about forever turning his cheek. A Letter From a Birmingham Jail has some choice quotes re: his own arguments with white clergy who thought he was being too extremist, too not polite enough. He was non-violent, not non-verbal. Using MLK as a mallet to silence people speaking up about racism, as if speaking up about it in harsh terms (because it’s a horrible thing and should be described harshly) is equivilant to the violence turned on people is pretty nasty equivilancy.
“You deplore the demonstrations taking place in Birmingham. But your statement, I am sorry to say, fails to express a similar concern for the conditions that brought about the demonstrations. I am sure that none of you would want to rest content with the superficial kind of social analysis that deals merely with effects and does not grapple with underlying causes.”
Oh, look, it’s our friend “deplore” again.
http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html
@David Wilford
I know the song. I just think your lyrics are mocking you in a way you definitely did not intend.
You’re implying that someone here has done so, then? Where?
um. yes.
unless you wanna stretch the meaning of “immigrant” to include prehistoric migrations, but then there will be no place (other than the Rift Valley) with non-immigrant-descended populations
Pixelfish,
I quoted and linked that above. It got ignored. I’m betting it will get ignored again. Any takers?
;-)
Louis
@181, well, then I’ve done my job… :^)
ORLY
http://rollingout.com/culture/how-mlk-became-an-angry-black-man
From the mouth and pen of Martin Luther King:
Wilford also spent time explaining that using drones to kill brown people at wedding parties was better than not doing so, because of reasons.
Like Mr. Wolford, I am logging in to “express my weariness.”
My weariness that s*** like this keeps happening, over and over. Racism and sexism (and a lot of other stuff that I’m too exhausted to make an exhaustive list of) are like an infestation of bedbugs. Short of burning the whole d*** house down, it seems like there’s no way to get rid of them. (And I’m not sure that even burning the house down works — don’t they just move next door?)
There was a time when I thought it was getting better. Maybe it’s just my weariness, but when I compare things as they are now to what it was like ~50 years ago (“in the ante-bellum South”, as I like call the place I grew up), I’m not sure any more.
There may not be much evidence for the existence of Ghod (or FSM), but I keep seeing more and more evidence for the existence of the Evil One. Lots of His minions running around….
Louis: Sorry, I missed seeing it before. Yeah, Letter from a Birmingham Jail ought to be required reading along with “I have a dream” which is where most folks stop.
As was PZ in the OP.
Nor did PZ in the OP.
Thanks for conceding the point, Wilford.
It feels like there might be some unconscious sexism there, especially with “prissy.” Maybe not the best choice of words? Or am I overthinking this? :/
Oh, hey…
Money quote:
It’s like he’s speaking to YOU, Davie.
About that letter: How MLK Became an Angry Black Man
The Wilford’s of the world are spurned and despised by all sides. No convictions, no passion, nothing except the desire to have their tiny life move on a safe track, undisrupted.
@David Wilford
David Wilford, in I Totally Meant To Do That, With Smiley. Summer 2013.
Caine:
I disagree.* The out-and-out racists and misogynists, the people who feel no shame in declaring their evil, look at the Wilfords of the world and think to themselves “see? the voices of Reason really agree with me.”
*please don’t veto me!
Pixelfish,
Oh deary me there’s no need for any apology! My snark was most certainly not directed in any way at you. No no no! I was mocking the rather wonderful blindness of Mr David Wilford. Yay one can lead a persistent moron to useful literature, but one cannot make them think about it.
;-)
Louis
P.S. I love to demonstrate to the David Wilfords of this universe that they are beneath my serious consideration. They deserve and earn mockery and nothing more. It’s a jolly good lark as it happens.
Jadehawk @186 beat me to it. (My comment’s in the moderation trap.)
http://rollingout.com/culture/how-mlk-became-an-angry-black-man
—–
I also found this:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/08/29/1011562/-Most-of-you-have-no-idea-what-Martin-Luther-King-actually-did
Azkyroth,
Bonne chance!
;-)
Louis
Chris:
You’re right. The massive block of enablers, providing the succour of silence and the ever civilised murmurs of polite moderation.
Pffft, not today. I’m listening to Tracy Chapman, had a smoke and am now interacting with the rats. It’s good day, in spite of Wilford.
D’oh.
Just read a little further in this comment thread.
Do I detect a resurfacing of the myth that MLK conquered racism by being such a gentle little lamb? As someone who watched that show live and in real time, I beg to differ.
1. At the time, MLK was widely regarded as a wild-eyed radical who was tearing down the pillars of America, and it was presumed he was in league with the Communists. I remember my father’s friends talking about how his March on Washington was going to bring the s to DC to burn the entire city to the ground. (FWIW, I think the word for this is “projection.”)
2. I don’t recall the Civil Rights movement getting more than isolated victories prior to about 1964. IMHO, it was the urban riots (“long hot summer”) which made the White world suddenly see MLK as the less of evils. Middle (and upper?) class Whites suddenly envisioned mobs of angry black men invading their lily-white neighborhoods and doing the same rioting, looting, burning, and killing they were seeing on TV. Suddenly, the White people who had been happy to treat “racial equality” as an academic issue (like some people here) were begging MLK for advice. Malcolm X (“I don’t know if I could start a riot. I don’t know if I’d want to stop one.”) then became the “bad cop” to MLK’s “good cop.”
Non-violence was a useful tactic, much as it was for Gandhi, but the implication of the alternative was a good chunk of what made it effective.
yeah, other people’s oppression is so exhausting, innit.
Anyway, why aren’t you elsewhere on the internet?
LOL.
because racism will just go away if you stop paying attention to it.
1)what the fuck makes you think this is the sole base for claiming America is racist?
2)What evidence do you have for claiming America is not an incredibly racist country?
3)Calling out racism of non-representative samples bores you? Interesting.
fascinating. how exactly is what the kid (calling the racists and the racist parents even out for their shit) did different from this? Is it the patriotism tacked on at the end?
and you’re basing that on what evidence? AFAICT, the tweets are peanuts compared to e.g. “stop and frisk”, “stand your ground (but only if you’re a white dude)” laws etc.
I wonder how you imagine this non-sequitur ties into this conversation. Is pointing out racism on twitter and commenting on how that’s an example of America’s racism not “non-violent” now? Also, just because MLK helped push anti-racism one step further doesn’t mean it’ll just automatically keep on disappearing by itself, without constantly being pointed out and condemned.
bullshit. that’s the whitewashed, white-history-friendly version of MLK. In reality, MLK was an “angry black man” as it were, and one who condemned a lot of American culture and rightly thought that whites were all subconsciously racists.
right. “love” is what ended segregation in the south. it probably ended the cold war too, while we’re at it. wtf is this ignorant shit?
– – – – – –
ok, you’re going to have to show your work here. How exactly would it be bad if hatred of bigotry won?
what the fuck is this shit.
1)racism is not “opinions”. if it were just about some assholes; opinions, racism would not be particularly dangerous of extensive (it would be about as dangerous as the occasional prejudice against white ppl is to white folks). racism is systemic discrimination and perpetuation of (sub)conscious racial prejudice in everyone.
2)It’s deeply naive to think that simply explaining to racists why they’re wrong is going to “deny racists their power”. Not once has systemic discrimination ended by calmly explaining to the most obvious representatives thereof why they’re wrong. Marginalization of them on the other hand is a good start towards marginalization of increasingly more subtle racist prejudices and actions.
Holding racists in contempt and condemning them visibly and actively over and over is perfectly good psychological conditioning that connects negative emotions with the appearance of bigotry. If everyone ended up feeling contempt and/or hatred for bigotry, we’d live in a much better world.
explain how bigotry and Anthony K’s “vitriol” are equivalent.
please explain why your “comfort” is more important than the marginalization of bigots and bigoted ideas.
Re: 90 Anthony K 14 June 2013 at 12:06 pm (UTC -5)
And cheerios don’t work when applied topically, either, so what?
huh. so “love is more powerful than hate”, but apparently only when the target is white people. When it’s brown people, then clearly the only thing standing between civilization and the forces of evil is the U.S. military and its deadly toys.
So you then agree that aphorisms like “an apple a day keep the doctor away” require a few more specifics in order to even begin to approximate truth, let alone utility.
Thanks for your contribution, but I got this.
By the way, Crissa, you’re still wanted on the Knowing a little history clarifies issues thread. When you’ve admitted you done fucked right up, and apologised for it, then you can come back and ask me for thread synopses.
So I went searching on “long hot summer”, never having heard the term before. (Thanks, US fundie schools!)
1964 murder of civil rights workers in Mississippi
http://www.ushistory.org/us/54g.asp
MLK in St Augustine
Crissa:
When your primary talent seems to be missing the point in a most spectacular way, you should keep it to yourself.
What is it with dudes like Wilford, who on the one hand say we shouldn’t bother with blatantly super-racist loons, wearing hoods or cursing children on the internet or whatever the fuck. No, we should focus on legitimate, civil, reasonable, level-headed racists like him. We can have a productive dialogue with those folks, to discuss the Real Problems™ with race, like how it’s boring and we’re impolite and we’re not learning enough from the white dude contingent, about their pig ignorant fantasies about MLK for example. But then on the other hand, as the topic inevitably does turn to well-mannered civilized gasbags like them, their first fucking move is to claim they don’t belong in that group at all. Because they say so. Suddenly, they’re in the middle of the fucking middle, with no particular view about anything, except that they’re fucking superior to all of us. Not racially superior, no, of course not. Don’t be ridiculous. Superior in some totally different way which is so wonderful it can’t even be expressed with words. It’s like music. You just have to savor it as they drone on and on, without worrying if there’s any kind of message, and eventually it might sink in.
Caine, are you vetoing poor Crissa? How tyrannical of you!
Cool, Cool, Considerate Men (youtube link)
How can an American say that America “isn’t that racist”, or whatever crap Wilford was trotting out? Fox News channel has the highest ratings of any cable news channel in this country and half their time is spent blowing incredibly loud racist dog whistles (the other half is spent being racist while not using whistles).
But, I’m sure the largest news channel in this country is just a couple of nuts. Or …millions. Potato, potato.
SallyStrange:
No! I swear, I don’t have a cornfield. That there’s a massive one about a half mile up the road means nothing. Nothing, I say.
Yep.
CR:
All the more reason to shout.
Ooh, ooh, I know this one! “Politically correct” is what you are if you dare to disagree with me Me ME!
Don’t work for WHAT when applied topically to WHERE?
“That” would be compared to what?
Maybe if America is compared simply to other countries it doesn’t fair so badly. Maybe many, if not most, other countries are even worse.
But no one said we are comparing America just to such a low bar.
We are comparing America to what America should be, or at least should be aspiring to be.
I rather liked Neil Gaiman’s Valentine’s Day post regarding the term “politically correct:”
Hey, Wilford, was that your daughter?
More insidiously, “politically correct” is when I think you’re saying that thing just to curry favor with a particular group, but I’m actually the one who’s right and I think you secretly agree with me, but just can’t say it due to your sucking up to the other group. People don’t call out those in the other group for “political correctness”; they only call out their own, because they assume whoever doing it is being disingenuous.
Glad to see that the Spurs invited him back to sing again and that the whole city from the mayor on down told the asshats to suck it up.
Mexican TV news carried the whole thing and the point was very clear that the US has an overabundance of ignorant savages running loose in the streets.
Having seen this kid sing and the week before having caught the beginning of the Texas Speedway on Pox Sports, I have to say that the poor dear that sang the National Anthem there could learn a whole lot about voice control from Sebastien. And his English pronunciation was a lot better than hers as well.
texasaggie:
Way to be a douche. Yikes.
I am coming into this very late and most of the regulars have done a fine job shredding David Wilford’s fantasy version of MLK. But I have to ask David Wilford two questions. For what reason was MLK in Memphis? And what project was MLK working on when he was assassinated?
You don’t have to call me Waylon Jennings, and you don’t have to call me Charley Pride…you never even call me by my name!
I like that. I also like replacing “politically correct” with “not being an asshole.”
224 Caine, Fleur du mal 14 June 2013 at 5:02 pm (UTC -5)
Yes, one would expect someone born and raised in San Antonio to have pretty darn good pronunciation. A sight better than the average Texan, anyhow.
Is everyone else so much better at identifying races than me? I would not have pegged him as being racially different from myself even if I was asked to think about it.
Callinectes:
1) Latin@ people can come from many different racial backgrounds. In my own family, there are pale, blue-eyed blonds and a freckled redhead who are Latin@, as well as some cousins who match the “black hair, brown skin” expectations so many anglo Americans have.
2) He’s wearing a Mariachi suit and has a Spanish last name. Do you think bigots needed anything more complex than that?
from Ms. Daisy Cutter’s link at #221:
I like it. And I’m not in the slightest surprised that some privileged brat felt “uncomfortable” enough to get the course cancelled and the teacher transferred.
It’s my understanding that “politically correct” was originally a Communist phrase, so its use by the Right to describe efforts to discourage racist and sexist language has its roots in old-fashioned red-baiting. (It’s also my impression that the communists were also fond of proclaiming that certain assertions were “objectively true”, which is why I’m always suspicious of that phrase.)
Jadehawk 232
Unfortunately, the article does not specify what the student found offensive. That means we can only speculate.
In Seattle you do have a strange PC problem. I know from a former student that Lit professors at UW can not teach The Merchant of Venice in the Shakespeare class anymore. A large contingent of self-appointed PC police bring whistles to class to disrupt and shut-down the lecture because the play is “racist.” Evidently they do not read the play and are too busy blowing their whistles to hear the “What is a Jew?” speech. These are the same sort of people who do not allow Huckleberry Finn to be taught in High Schools either.
Rothron # 20
They evidently think that they define what a citizen of the U.S. is, should look like, etc. They, as happens with many in the U.S., remain oblivious to how privileged they are. As the expression goes, they don’t notice because they’re soaking in it. Privilege finds itself woven into the fabric of many people’s lives so fully that any attempt to point it out they will dismiss out of hand.
As for losing your job for less – depends on the state and the community and obviously also the employer. As for mainstream ideas, maybe not but they remain very prevalent. Surveys of people who self-identify with the Tea Party “movement” found over 60% consider blacks inherently less intelligent than white people. Keep in mind that these are the ones who voted in the Republicans who hold up most of the work in Congress now and for the last 4 years. Not mainstream but enough of them to screw up life for the rest of us.
He was on Americas Got Talent last year, and there is a nice clip on youtube where he talks about his love for Mariachi music, and performs Besame Mucho.
Such an amazingly big voice for such a small human. I am pleased he is getting more recognition, he seems like such a sweet kid.
154 David Wilford
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot… Sorry to point this out, but you are really one fucked up tadpole. Here let me paraphrase that for you:
“My wife is a negro trainer and one of her dicta is to reward a negro when he does something you like (like the “nice” MLK) and not reward undesirable behavior. For example when an uppity negro (or hispanic or what have you) wants a treat from you (or just your lilly white approval) and pushes your hand you don’t reward such pushiness because that will simply reinforce it (who knows what they’ll ask for next). No you wait until the negro sits politely and reward that. It works. The same applies to poor white trash (homo sapiens, not superior white gods like us) which is why when someone insulting demands a reply (which often is someone demanding a reply at all), I don’t bother as it only reinforces boorish behavior (this particularly effective if they are not in the same room with me or if I’m in a car and can quickly drive away). Asking politely on the other hand is really it’s own reward… (because my mere approval enriches so many of the lesser life forms around me). (Oh yeah lest I forget, insert winky here).”
Pick the scab, there is a racist under it.
@sadunlap
Citation, please? Your anecdata sounds interesting, but I’d like to see how that relates to Seattle as a whole, and why in Seattle you have a strange PC “problem”. Please, do tell.
The little man singing the American anthem? The one set to the tune of a brothel song? I saw him struggle with the first couple of lines as the adrenaline was messing with him. But he pushed past that and very close to nailed it. At 11 years old. It’s like a metaphor for the racism aimed at him.
I love the horde the best when the “hatred” swells their breast. Yet not one mention of what it was we’re supposed to be hating anyway. Or why hatred in every context is unjustified. Or that in this context there is even any hatred whatsoever. Intolerance of the intolerable? Yes. Despising of the despicable? Yes. I know which side I find myself on, and I take pride in my hatred, if that’s what you want to call it.
I sure as fuck don’t care what method anyone like David approves of because they would advocate for passionless and unfeeling advocacy, standing in the way, waving their hands with their back turned to the truly despicable. But I will continue to despise the things some people say, and I will not tolerate the bullshit they lay at my feet, and I will shout it loudly and angrily because, goddamnit, racism/sexism/bigotry are injustices, iniquitous ravagers of human life and liberty. At every level it MUST be pointed out in order for it to not exist at ANY level – and if it’s tedious that’s because we have obfuscators providing cover, saying that we’re doing it wrong, lukewarm on both fronts, aiding nothing but rationalizations of being wronged on the horrid side and invoking the false notion that the hatred on either side is equalized. Fucking bullshit.
And I expect there will be assholes like David caught between all sides, backpedaling away, waving their hands at us to calm down and approach it with love, and rational arguments, and other obstructionist pandering to the status quo, for as long as there are racists, while never turning to direct some of that love at the opposition in any type of leadership role. Were we to ever actually have the desired effect of ending racism or sexism or other bigotries, then our final battle would be against all the Davids of the world, bemoaning the silencing tactic of our loud intolerance of actions and speech which dehumanize. So right now I really could give a rats ass if someone’s right to free speech feels trampled any more: shut the fuck up David. You’re not helping so just kindly get the fuck out of the way you belligerent, stagnant canker on humanity’s backside.
@Louis
Oh! I’ve got a good aphorism!
Aphorisms: Because thinking for yourself is hard.
Racist enough to be noticeable when I visit.
Chris Clarke:
Really? Dismissing David Wilson’s remarks because of his gender and ethnicity is the right way to address this?
Never mind the distinct lack of self-awareness this comment indicates… the moral high ground it ain’t.
Hush. grownups are talking.
oh the article specifies plenty, given that it does not take a lot of effort to figure out what Singleton’s Curageous Conversation’s are about. What we have here is another spoiled brat whining because they were confronted with their (white) privilege.
that is indeed true; Seattle does have a Microsoft problem.
Yazikus # 238
http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/~mbolin/kupfer2.htm
The Merchant of Venice: Schools, Libraries, and Censors (Library Philosophy and Practice 2009).
As for the anecdotal evidence, it comes from a conversation with a person who was a student there about 20 years ago. It is admittedly very old data (as well as 2nd hand for everyone here) and an internet search did not turn up any articles on this. I vaguely recall my friend forwarded one to me which mentioned the behavior I described but I long since lost it and have no cite.
And FWIW my whole post was intentionally speculative. We do not know what, exactly, the student found offensive in the class.
What I found strange was that a play that contains one of the most eloquent speeches denouncing anti-semitism would itself be subject to censorship for containing anti-semitic parts. How does one combat bigotry and racism through literature without showing it? That remains the main point.
That I arrive there by way of anecdotal evidence I have no defense: sometimes my mind just goes to these stories. A skeptical view of information you encounter online is always a good idea. I sometimes lose sight of the fact that the people who read my comments have no context from which to evaluate my reliability (or lack thereof – I realize you don’t know me nor have any other basis for evaluating what I write).
A white guy, privileged and shielded from racism, unilaterally decides that racism Isn’t That Bad based on absolutely nothing.
Chris Clarke mocks him for making such definitive assertions while being a member of group that doesn’t experience the negative element of society that he dismisses.
And you disapprove of the mockery.
Things that make you go “hmmmmm”.
As for the anecdotal evidence, it comes from a conversation with a person who was a student there about 20 years ago.ROTFLMAO
also hilarious, from the link in #246:
yeah, that’s totes a serious response to the question whether Shakespeare should be privileged over other english writers. “necessary for the classroom”, lol.
Just thought I’d note that though Daz linked to this in the Beale thread, many of the points presented pertain neatly to this thread. Just maybe something that Wilford can read if he returns, if he finds something resembling reading comprehension before he does so.
Chris Clarke:
LOL. :-)
Well, now I’m totally convinced that dismissing someone’s comments due to that person’s ethnicity and gender is OK when you do it.
@#154:
it was a sign of things to come.
eh, I’m not buying either of these ideas.
The term has evolved rapidly since I forst heard/used it (in a self-referential and semi-ironic way) in the early 1980s, and it’s true that today it’s used almost exclusively about language, in a sneering way, by right-wing white men (’twas not always thus; off the lawn). But the basic meaning of the term–espousing ‘treating other people with respect’ isn’t bad–hasn’t really changed, just who uses it and for what purpose.
I wonder what the many Cubans living in Miami think about these yahoos’ racist comments. Surely some are Heat fans. I would like to see the Heat choose a Cuban origin singer for a home game. Or they could choose a Jewish singer among large Jewish community there. What kind of tweets do you think we would get then?
Skeptex:
Assuming you only quoted a portion of Gaimans post…do you have a link to it? It sounds quite interesting.
****
David Wilford:
I do not agree with anything you have said in this thread, but I am curious– are there any social inequalities that are substantial? If so, what is the best manner to confront these problems?
Crissa:
Taken to judging people based on how they speak?
Damn the only thing lower than my opinion of you is the hole David has dug.
@250:
You must not realize the level of privilege David has displayed across this thread (and said privilege is directly related to the opinions he espouses). His white, male privilege reeks through, as do his attempts at moral superiority. At a guess, I would say the other white men in this thread fully understood Chris’ point (right gentlemen?), while it sailed over your head.
aspidoscelis:
Your inability to attach the correct surname [Wilford] to David takes the shine off your smug, Cupcake.
253 Tony! The Virtual Queer Shoop
Scooby snacks.
You know what makes people unwelcome? Bigots.
This bone-headed analogy assumes that racists give a shit about getting cookies from POC.
Oh, please, if it’s not too much, can I be treated with the minimum decency owed a human being? If it’s not too much to ask, I mean, pardon, if it makes you uncomfortable I’ll just shut up and forget I ever asked, sorry, do you want me to lick your boots clean too?
Caine, Fleur de Lis, 256:
Well, that is embarrassing. My apologies to David Wilford.
Tony! The Virtual Queer Shoop, 255:
If someone is wrong about a topic, it’s because of the substance of that person’s statements, not because of who that person is. “White, male privilege”, when used as a stick to beat one’s opponent with in discussion, is just ad hominem with a lovely frosting of sexism & racism on top.
I think you might be overthinking it. (This is a case where intent matters, since it’s my alleged unconscious intent you’re critiquing, not the effect of the word out in the world). Prissy=persnickety, affectedly concerned with “coarse” behavior, hung up on formal etiquette to a fault. It occupies no particular gendered space in my head.
Kind of late to the party here, but the thread’s still active, so what the hell.
Young Mr. De La Cruz is a hell of a singer already, but when he finishes growing into that voice, he’s going to be utterly magnificent.
Amphiox
Similarly, it used to be a lot worse in the U.S. You hardly ever see mobs of white people get to gether to go burn down a minority community these days, but damn if there aren’t still a whole lot of white people who wish they could still get away with that shit, and come as close as they can (see “Stand your ground as a white man” laws, for instance), and it sometimes seems like law enforcement only shut down the freelance lynch mobs because they feel that murdering random nonwhites is their prerogative. But hell, racism’s over ’cause we don’t keep slaves anymore, amirite, Wilford?
aspidoscelis
Wow, you can’t get anyone’s name right, can you? It’s called copy/paste, cupcake.
David Wilford, if you’re still around.
You really have absolutely zero clue what you’re talking about, and should ideally shut up until you learn something.
aspidoscelis:
That’s Caine, Fleur du mal. You don’t actually read, do you? You just skim and fill in stuff according to your own experience and bias. No cookie for you.
aspidoscelis
No one has said “You are wrong because White Male Privilege.” No one has attempted to invalidate whatever fecal substance he splattered in the thread by dismissing him as white or male. What was said, if you would apply your comprehension skills a bit more robustly, is that there is an apparent substance of such privilege showing through the arguments David Wilford has been trying and failing to make.
Yeah, you’re speaking nonsense now and should observe the rules of digging. Though I doubt you shall as you are apparently predisposed with policing the adequacy of arguments on one side. I’m only presuming its due to a slimy nit which you wish to pick. Mind, that is not a conclusion or an indictment of you nor, indirectly, any “argument” which you have made, it is just a casual observation of how the stereotypical gnat behaves before giving us ever more clear signs that it is deigning to be a nuisance intentionally.
aspidoscelis:
This is an excellent example of your very poor reading comprehension. In the U.S., at least, being a white, hetero male is being on top of the heap, privilege wise.* It’s a simple fact, it’s not someone’s fault. The thing about privilege is being aware of it, and how it can shape your thoughts, attitudes and perspective. When someone refuses to examine their own privilege in life, they are being willfully ignorant of reality.
That’s not a stick used to beat with someone with, and the fact you think it is one goes to show that you understand very little. It’s also not an ad hominem,, nor is it sexist or racist. I’m an older female, mixed race and bisexual. I fit into a lot of categories in which people are routinely subject to bigotry, oppression and discrimination. All that notwithstanding, I’m still walking around with a whole hell of a lot more privilege than many people. It’s my responsibility to be aware of my privilege and not use it to marginalize others, nor allow it to shape my attitudes when it comes to social justice issues.
*Male privilege check Straight privilege check White privilege check
Caine, Fleur du mal:
I spelled it correctly this time. Now can I have a cookie? I do like cookies.
Willful misreading never helps.
Possibly. I wasn’t intending to critique your intent, though. It’s just that lot of the usage I’ve encountered has a pretty clear connotation of effeminacy and feminine-inflected fussiness. *shrug*
(Oh, I see where you’re coming from about intent. Let me rephrase: I think the statement perhaps carries some sexist baggage, though not intended as sexist.)
Right and who a person is could never have any impact on their view.
throwaway, extra beefy super queasy, 263:
I take it, then, that comments such as Chris Clarke’s, “ATTENTION: WHITE MAN HAS SPOKEN,” are not in any way intended to suggest that David Wilford is incorrect, nor to mock him or any such thing, but are simply value- and judgment-free observations of a poster’s group membership?
I find this somehow implausible.
Caine, Fleur du mal, 264:
I suppose my comments above are equally applicable to your post. We are really supposed to believe that statements indicating that one is “willfully ignorant” and that one’s opinions are shaped by privilege (and thus, presumably, both wrong and unconsidered) are not intended to be belittling and dismissive? If that is not the intent, this kind of wording is very poorly chosen.
For a statement like, “His white, male privilege reeks through, as do his attempts at moral superiority,” what exactly is the alternative interpretation here? Is Tony! The Virtual Queer Shoop’s statement to be interpreted as a value-free observation? Or is “white, male privilege” to be interpreted as an attribute that is somehow independent of one’s group membership? Neither seems at all plausible to me, but short of accepting one or the other, well, it’s a statement of disapprobation based on gender and ethnic identity–i.e., ad hominem with a lovely frosting of sexism & racism.
I don’t see where any ‘intent’ was alleged or critiqued, unconscious or otherwise. Residual sexism has nothing to do with intent.
There are lots of gendered connotations of ‘prissy’ out there, as g**gle will quickly show. All you can say is you didn’t intend it that way; your personal set of connotations are different But that’s structurally the same argument as the British-sense-of-‘cunt’ (though not, of course, the same degree of offense).
Just as I find your opinion implausible. Don’t tell anybody what they should think about privilege. Prima facie evidence of toxic privilege. You show the same signs behind a facade of rationality. We see through your facade.
aspidoscelis:
Aaaaand, you apparently didn’t read any of Wilford’s statements. The rest of us did, which is why he got the various responses you don’t like.
All this shit you’re vomiting up tells me you’re here to troll, nothing else. If you ever become something other than a boring troll, send up a shout.
aspidoscelis:
If two Turks were talking about horrible economic conditions in Anatolia, and a Swede who had lived his whole life in northern Europe interrupted to tell them that things couldn’t be so bad as the Turks are making out because of something he read a couple years ago in The Economist, the Turks could be excused for saying “ECONOMIST-READING SWEDISH PERSON HAS SPOKEN.”
At the very least, the burden of proof would be on the Swede to demonstrate that he had any expertise in the area at all. Which would generally gained by paying attention to what people with closer familiarity with life in Anatolia are saying, writing, how they live, taking the various bits of often mutually contradictory assertions about life by Anatolians and sorting them out, and stuff like that.
It’s not about gender and ethnicity as signifying innate characteristics. It’s about the perspectives that the person you’re born into will tend to have, and the effort you put into seeing things from other perspectives. White Men can have perfectly valid points of view about sexism and racism — IF they take whatever opportunities they find to learn about other people’s perspectives. If not, then they’re just being the kind of people we slam creationists for being: spouting occasionally sophisticated garbage in order to prop up their comforting ideologies.
Wilford marched in here to lecture a mixed group on racism with his tepid intellectual grasp of Civil Rights Movement history as it had been sanitized for his protection. As someone with more than a half century’s experience in being a white man, I know White Man behavior when I see it: the condescension*, the sanitizing of other people”s history to support the status quo, the presumption of a spurious objectivity.
You can spend your time building intellectual walls or breaking them down. I start to suspect Wilford has no choice but to be as intellectually incurious as he is. Those of us who actually want to learn about the world outside our own skulls sometimes get a little impatient with the arguments from ignorance, the repetitions of disproven received wisdom, the absolute refusal to fucking listen.
And that’s what the comment of mine you didn’t like was shorthand for.
One thing: I’m curious, aspidocelis, whether you can provide a link to a place online where you’ve criticized someone for a gender- or ethnicity-based slam against someone who isn’t a white male. Feel free to link to the no doubt copious examples of your evenhandedness in this thread.
* which, yes, I engage in myself. But I try to make it explicit rather than passive-aggressive.
Rev. BigDumbChimp:
Obviously, yes, group membership does influence a person’s opinions; it may be why a person holds a particular incorrect opinion, but it is not why that opinion is incorrect.
Consequently, if one’s intent is to indicate that a statement is incorrect I believe it is appropriate to indicate why that statement is incorrect, not to indicate that the person who made it is a member of a group that can be expected to have certain incorrect opinions. The latter option does not do anything to establish that the statement is in fact incorrect. Worse, it involves arguing from average characteristics of a group to particular attributes of an individual. This is, to be blunt, prejudice based on gender and ethnicity. Various social groups certainly do have various differences in the average characteristics. That’s a fact, and IMO it’s perfectly fine to acknowledge those differences when they can be empirically demonstrated. However, the particular attributes of an individual are not determined by the average characteristics of the group to which that individual belongs. Arguing in that direction is both logically and morally insupportable.
Male privilege check
Straight privilege check
White privilege check
It was not intended to “suggest” he’s incorrect. That horse burned down the barn long ago. My bon mot was intended to hang his manifest and thoroughly documentable incorrectness on a theoretical framework.
Also to get him to shut the fuck up and listen.
No, but if those opinions are filtered through toxic privilege, those opinions can be dismissed. There is nothing of reality to those opinions. They are just hot air. Like your opinions.
And, if I want the opinion of a woman, do I ask a man or a woman? The man might try to tell me what he thinks the woman’s opinion should be, but I will take his word with a grain of salt the size of Montana. Null hypothesis, nothing but self-serving bullshit.
Is there anything which you actually do understand? “Attention, white man has spoken” was nothing more than a simple statement of fact, delineating Wilford’s stance on matters of racism. In truth, it was quite kind, as Wilford went on to compare us all to dogs and what we would need to do to get a biscuit.
Chris Clarke:
Oh, so it’s not about immutable innate characteristics. We are born with a special blot of privilege on our souls–but we can be saved!*
Well, that’s just fine, then. Nothing the least bit prejudicial or discriminatory about that.
Sorry, but your group membership doesn’t give you special powers any more than it gives you special sins.
I’ve heard these various justifications for dismissiveness, belittling, prejudice, etc., on the basis of privilege quite a number of times before; your description, “spouting occasionally sophisticated garbage in order to prop up their comforting ideologies,” seems to me as apt in describing your own point of view as mine or those of creationists, and I find it increasingly difficult to take explanations purporting to demonstrate that “it isn’t really racism or sexism when I do it!” seriously, regardless of who is saying it and to what group that person belongs.
There’s no particular reason for you to care about my opinion on the matter, of course, but IMO what it comes down to is… if you don’t want me to think it’s sexism or racism, don’t reject or belittle a person’s viewpoint on the basis of gender or race. Sticking a bunch of sophistication on it afterward doesn’t really change anything.**
Anyway, I suppose I’ve expressed myself about as well as I can here, and doubt I have anything further to add.
*Or, as Red Green put it: “I’m a man, but I can change, if I have to, I guess.”
**Neither, BTW, does this silly notion that I ought to demonstrate to you that I have spent a certain amount of time denouncing group X before I get a shiny star and the privilege of criticizing group Y.
Yes we are.
Such is reality.
Live with it.
Actually it does. Just as my three score years as a male gives me insight to the male way of thinking, and to know toxic male privilege showing when I see it. As you demonstrate with each of your posts behind your facade of pseudorationality.
Then you are missing the argument. And why you don’t have one. Nothing but hot air.
It’s not sexism to reject what a fuckwitted privilege idjit has to say, if what he has to say is self-serving bullshit without reality. Just his prejudices showing overtly. Those prejudices are dismissed, as they aren’t rational, and nothing cogent to respond to. And he isn’t listening to the response to learn, but rather to keep preaching nonsense.
OK, so you’re just a tendentious jerk arguing in bad faith. So noted. I won’t waste my time on you in the future.
Except for that link to you criticizing sexism and or ethnic prejudice aimed at people who aren’t white males. Still waiting on that. Should I hold my breath?
Yes, but such statements as, “Racism is bad when it happens, but I don’t notice it that much, therefore it’s unimportant” have been debunked many times, including on this thread.
Pointing out group membership is ***not at all intended to debunk the statement***.
It is exasperation at the fact that a debunking of the imputed logical connection between “I haven’t noticed much” ==> pretty much anything
as well as the imputed is/ought conflation (what’s really being said is, “I haven’t noticed it much, when I do it’s from people that I disagree with, I consider this a fundamental value, I consider people who don’t hold my fundamental values to be outliers, because all my fundamental values are expected to be the default fundamental values of everyone, therefore the people who do this are rare, therefore racist acts are rare since there aren’t a ton of people engaging in them, therefore fighting racism ought not be a significant concern”.
There are just all kinds of wrong in David’s argument, both as condensed here and in the phrasing he himself used. It’s a wrong that is quite common. It is, to use a random adjective, wearisome to have to debunk the previously debunked.
And therefore we look for reasons why someone would cling to such a position.
The group to which a person belongs can help us understand why a person might cling to that position. It may be that David clings to it for some completely idiosyncratic reason. Perhaps after developing a kick-ass anti-racist analysis, his Ku Klux Klan Grand Dragon great-uncle had him kidnapped and sent to a hypnotist to re-instill the racist family values of his forebears, but the hypnotism didn’t completely take because he was such a good, good anti-racist, so the hypnotist decided to simply cause him to continue to believe racism is bad, but to constantly deemphasize its importance. As a smaller step, that post-hypnotic suggestion *did* take. And now we have a fully coherent explanation for clinging to this that might apply to someone, somewhere.
But since we know that we can’t know David’s history, and since we know that disproportionately many white people will cling to the racism-is-bad-but-fighitng-it-is-unimportant hypothesis, and that race is central to exactly *why* white people disproportionately hold such beliefs, David’s race is raised so that David will have to think about this.
Maybe he fights back and says, “No way, race has nothing to do with it.” But maybe he also goes away and thinks, sure I think of myself as having friends of color, but it’s not like they’re my *best* friends, and even the person of color with whom I spend the most time is not someone with whom I talk about race…maybe race does have somthing to do with it.
I, personally, don’t care whether David’s minimization of fighting racism comes out of his racialized experiences or not. He’s the expert on his own life. He can examine why he thinks that going onto someone else’s blog and telling that person that they should condemn racism less is a good thing to do. But it’s going to be a problematic search for reasons if he doesn’t interrogate his own racialized experiences along the way. Assuming that other people’s races affect their experience but one’s own race doesn’t affect one’s own experience is a particularly awful way that racism infects a lot of minds – in the US, overwhelmingly white minds – and because many people of good will and good intellect have been able to notice this dynamic in their own lives only after denying it for years should make any skeptic cautious about moving on to other causes before ruling out a skewed racial perspective.
Shorter Crip Dyke:
The reason race is called out but not expounded upon is because this is David’s work to do.
The reason race is called out is NOT to disprove already disproved things.
Nope, souls aren’t real.
indeed, Wilford’s bullshit would have still been bullshit had it actually come from a non-white, non-male person. But it was a clueless thing to say very specifically because of Wilforb being white and male; because it means that unless he spent his days interviewing non-white, non-male people about their experiences, he wouldn’t know how big of a problem racism is, to whom, where. Consequently, he’s got nothing to base his claim that racims isn’t prevalent other than his privilege induced freedom from being subjected to it. That’s what makes it worth pointing out and laughing at.
to absolutely no one’s surprise, you’re wrong again.
of course they’re “dismissive”. There’s really nothing else to do with the opinions of those who are completely clueless but are convinced that their deeply ignorant opinion is actually worth something and contributing anything of value.
Well no, you can also ridicule them, I suppose.
it’s an observation. you know those are not ad homs, right?
1)it’s not a statement of disapprobation, it’s an observation.
2)even if it were, it still wouldn’t be an ad hom, it would just be prejudice. An ad hom requires the dismissal of an argument based on an arbitrary unpleasant charactertrait, which is not happening here.
you’re the only one who thinks that Wilford is being dismissed because he’s white and male, rather than because he’s wrong; the comments on privilege are because he’s not just wrong, but convinced that he actually knows better than people affected by racism how big of a problem racism is in the US. that makes him not just wrong, but also clueless yet self-important. That’s worth pointing out and ridiculing, over and over.
oh, no. That’s not being done. We’re rejecting the viewpoint AND using race to suggest that some introspection would be helpful in determining why someone clings to arguments that are logically and/or empirically false long after proven so AND some of us have the temerity to phrase things as if such clinging to the disproven was, well…
wearisome.
If you don’t like people suggesting people’s opinions are wearisome, well, I think you missed an opportunity to slam David upthread.
@274:
Do you understand how David’s unexamined white male privilege act as an impediment to understanding the extent of racism in the US?
Tony:
I’d say it’s pretty clear that aspidoscelis is not arguing in good faith, and is loathe to give up the position that we’re all meanies.
it does however give you benefits or disadvantages relative to others, and a life-long perspective and character shaped by that location in the matrix of oppression.
there it is again, the odd belief that your opinion is valuable.
Tell me, why would I care about the opinion of someone deeply ignorant of the concepts and issues under discussion? That’s like caring about the opinion of a Flat Earther about geology/astronomy.
howsabout you too stop making yourself look ridiculous by talking about stuff you so clearly don’t know shit about?
Privilege is not inherent, privilege is put on a person by the society they live in; and unless you wanna claim that you can change all of society, sorry, you can’t be “saved” from being privileged; you can only work on your privilege-induced blind-spots (which isn’t going to happen with “colorblind” whines like yours). Also, “privilege” actually gives you a shitload of benefits (at the “price” of being blissfully ignorant of all the shit that people without that privilege have to deal with on a daily basis), whereas a “blot” is a negative thing. Privilege is also not a character trait but a position in the matrix of oppression, although it does create certain character traits (such as the belief that one’s opinions are always valuable, regardless of actual value of the contributions; or the belief that one’s experiences are universal or at least average)
Playing off Jadehawk:
Which was thoroughly rampant in David Milford’s posts.
i don’t remember… please remind me, who exactly made you the arbiter of what is appropriate?
Also, it’s still only you who thinks chris’ comment was meant to indicate that Wilford’s statement was incorrect. it wasn’t. That was already clear. Chris’ comment was a step beyond that, ridiculing the tendency of the privileged to think their opinions are valuable and likely to be correct even when they’re talking about shit they don’t know shit about.
An action that is wrong is not wrong because of who does it. But WHY someone specifically does something that is wrong may be, and often is, related to who that person is.
Privilege is a mechanism for error.
Evidence based scientific thinkers are supposed to care about mechanisms.
Perhaps more accurately, we are not “born” with privilege, but we are GIVEN privilege by others the moment we are born (and sometimes even before). We did not earn it. We do not always deserve it, but we are GIVEN it nevertheless. And some are GIVEN more than others.
Yeah, he’s playing the Vulcan game pretending dispassionate analysis. Yet his white male privilege shines through. Not very introspective, nor is his inane analysis worth more than ridicule.
ATTENTION: WHITE MAN HAS SPOKEN = This person is speaking from a place of privilege and thinks they know better than the actual victims of racism.
246 @ sandalup
I am an actual teacher in Seattle, so why don’t you shut the fuck up with your speculation, since you obviously (and admittedly) know fuck-all about this?
229 @ Crissa
I know you have some kind of ridiculous comprehension problem, but even you should be aware that you were responding to texasaggie, not Caine.
To all
aspidoscelis is obviously sheaf, right? Same biases, same inability to get ‘nyms right.
Cyranothe2nd:
Seems that way to me.
Could be. Only PZ knows for sure.
I’m not familiar with this sheaf person, but I was going to say that after consuming this entire thread this afternoon, it certainly looks like David Wilford and aspidoscelis could very possibly be the same person.
That hand off was certainly worthy of an 8.6 from the Bulgarian judge…
Cyranothe2nd, ladyporn aficionado and Caine, Fleur du mal:
No, I am not sheaf.
Also, because I can’t quite contain the snark…
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls, 282:
I think you win my personal Award for Absurdity of the Thread. Congratulations! Unfortunately this award carries no prize beyond the satisfaction of knowing that I happen to think you said something silly.
And Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls, 295:
Perhaps you could let me know what level of emotional display would meet your approval? Or, better, don’t.
Not just the nym’s if I recall correctly, but a very similar tone troll. I’ll try to dig up the quote after this, but it was something on the lines of “well, so and so responded in a hostile way, that is why I was hostile back.” Very similar style as well.
twincats, 300:
I now stand accused of getting my own name wrong. Woe is me.
No, I am not David Wilford. I am only myself. Surely you all have something better to do with your time? Not that I have much room to say anything on that count…
Compared to your saying silly things? Gee who the fuck cares what you think. As you don’t think.
Gee, don’t you have something better to do with your time? Like quitting your trolling with bad attitude?
I’d just like to point out that the name of the city hosting the NBA finals is “San Antonio”, ~not~ “Saint Anthony”.
Think about that for a moment.
@303:
One of the first items on your list of ‘better things to do’ should be ‘learn what ad hominem attacks are’ followed closely by careful readings of the bold blue links in Caine’s #276.
Racist, sexist meanies! For identifying race and sex as a determining factor in how people perceive racism and sexism. Tu quoque is all the rage these days – the bigots are casting around for ways to keep classifying their critics as unserious and dismissable.
SallyStrange, 307:
You may wish to re-read my posts, as I’ve tried to be pretty clear on this particular point.
Identifying race and sex as determining factors in how people perceive racism and sexism is just fine. I have not said anything whatsoever indicating either that I do not think these are important factors in our perceptions or that there is anything wrong with saying so.
I just don’t think it’s a good idea to use this as a justification for treating people as mere stereotypes, or as marionettes pulled by the strings of their social group’s interests. Identifying causes of societal phenomena = good. Putting particular people into little boxes and attributing beliefs, experiences, or motivations to people because of their social group membership = bad.
E.g., “the bigots are casting around for ways to keep classifying their critics as unserious and dismissable”: Probably true as a general explanation for a lot of the noise on race out there. Not a productive way to approach discussion with a particular individual–unless, of course, your goal in the discussion is just to classify your critics as unserious and dismissable. (I thought you might need a straightforward and unambiguous tu quoque to point at; you’re welcome.)
Why should we care what you think if your can’t evidence the consequences. Without evidence, we have nothing but your inane OPINION.
Who says we engage productively. Funny how those who make this claim, when asked to present evidence their method works as they claim, bow out from confronting those bigots. Because they know it doesn’t work. They think it may work on a more “rational” group. Until you provide evidence, you have nothing but hot air.
Oh my. I’m being asked to provide evidence that prejudice based on stereotypes is a bad idea.
I guess I thought that was one of the few premises we could agree on.
You’re also being asked to provide evidence that you’ve ever spoken up against prejudice toward people who aren’t white men.
Chris Clarke — I responded to that earlier:
No, I am not interested in playing this game of showing you that I’ve spent my time and energy in the way you want me to spend my time and energy. I’m not here to submit myself for your approval and frankly the rest of my life is none of your business.
So… that’s a no then is it?
Who gives a shit about your OPINION then? We aren’t interested in playing the game you keep trying to make us play. That won’t happen. You play by our rules or you go away. Make up your mind cricket. Choose wisely.
true enough; you’ve merely ignored the fact that this is what happened, in order to go on a holier-than-thou triade about ad homs and reverse racism/sexism
that’s nice, but once again entirely irrelevant to the conversation at hand, since no one is doing this.
since this also didn’t happen… why are you here? why are you telling us this worthless stuff?
aspidocelis:
So you’re willing to spend an inordinate amount of time decrying slights to white men, at incredible and tedious length, but cannot bring yourself to strengthen your own rhetorical position by pointing out that your concern extends to the rights and dignity of people who are not Just Like You.
Though you DO have time to pop into one of my threads and suggest that a young woman of color might not be doing science right. Which is very interesting in retrospect.
The rest of your life is indeed none of my business. For that fact I am grateful, trust me. All I can go by is what you’ve presented here, and what you’ve presented here is a persona of a thoughtless, condescending bafoon* who couldn’t parse an actual realworld argument to save his life.
How about you take your tiresome defense of the powerful against the less-powerful somewhere else?
* meant to
Jadehawk:
Conveniently, Chris Clarke’s post 316 answers this. Chris is clearly concerned not with the substance of a statement, but with trying to pigeonhole the writer and evaluate the statement only in light of the writer’s group membership. That’s what I am objecting to, plain and simple.
Pigeonholing people in this fashion serves no legitimate purpose other than to establish the right stereotype to apply. “Ah, this is a bigot with unexamined white male privilege; therefore he has such-and-such characteristics, is making this statement due to such-and-such motivation, and can be dismissed for the following reasons…” It’s a shortcut that allows one to avoid interacting with people and ideas directly in favor of viewing and interacting with the world through the lens of one’s ideas about social groups. We (i.e., members of the same in-group) all know it’s wrong when other people (i.e., those perceived to be members of an out-group) do it. There’s no purpose in arguing that point for the simple reason that there does not seem to be anything to argue about.
However, maybe it’s wrong when we do it, too. Maybe it’s just a bad idea regardless of where it’s coming from.
Yes, showing toxic privilege can and will be dismissed here. We find there is no way to engage these folks in the sense that they will shut up and listen. They preach, like you are preaching. Which is why you are dismissed too. Until you can be wrong, you can’t be right. And your attitude says you can’t be wrong, and can’t be shown to be wrong.
Which is why we insist on evidence, not opinion. The Slymepit and their sycophants show nothing but opinion and preachy bad attitude.
And as an addendum, we have had many racists here who try preach their racism, but use a Vulcan approach to pretend they aren’t racists. So we are very wary and totally skeptical of your approach.
Oh, and forgot to add, the first step these racists do is to try to make calling out racism worse than the racism itself, which is I interpret aspidoscelis to be saying behind his verbiage and sham equality. Evidence of why we are wary of xis intentions, and will treat everything xe says with extreme skepticism.
This is the conclusion, dipshit, not the premise. You’re having it bass-ackwards. We know the people you’re defending are bigots with unexamined privilege because they can’t help but vomit their ignorance all over the place. FFS, if you’re going to do a false equivalence, at least try doing it right.
Nerd of Redhead:
Response in cartoon form. If you are experiencing failures of communication frequently, it may be worth considering that the problem is not always the other party.
vaiyt:
I do not believe* that is the case. Surely some evidence is used in deciding to stick someone in the appropriate pigeonhole. However, the evidential bar here is apparently very low.
In Wilford’s case, his initial comments suggest that (although P.Z. can post what he likes, etc.) nutpicking is not a substantial commentary on societal racism. That’s not much evidence but it’s enough, apparently, to conclude he’s a bigot with unexamined white male privilege. OK, maybe that wasn’t the premise, but if you set the bar low enough there’s not much difference.
* Just for you, Nerd of Redhead.
Yes, that was what he was initially saying. And it wasn’t what Clarke was responding to.
The original exchange is below, for those who are actually capable of intellectual honesty (this simplifies matters by only following the brief “conversation” I had with Wilford from 39 onward through Chris Clarke’s response to Wilford’s response to me at 63). Emphasis is mine.
Wilford: (On the OP and Twitter) “…well, keep in mind that it’s easy to draw an unrepresentative sample if you’re not careful, so no, I don’t think Americans actually are that racist… ”
Me: “Does. Not. Follow.”
Wilford: “anteprepro, it’s because you can’t rely on self-selected groups to be representative of the whole, especially one particular self-selected subset of tweeters on one news subject is representative.”
Me: “Okay, you fucking idiot, let me spell it out for you. I am completely aware of the above, but that is irrelevant. What does not follow is “so no, I don’t think Americans actually are that racist.” This isn’t the one, single line of evidence showing that Americans are racist. You can’t just say “null hypothesis proven” by tossing out Twitter. Or by dismissing this blog post. Do you really need it spelled out for you, why it is fairly certain that racism is still alive and well in America? Are you really that fucking clueless?”
Wilford: “anteprepro, racism exists, absolutely, and should be discouraged. It’s just not as prevalent as some tweets would have one believe though. ”
Chris Clark: “ATTENTION: WHITE MAN HAS SPOKEN”
Wilford was, repeatedly, dismissing the prevalence of racism, beyond dismissing the relevance of Tweets. Baldly asserting that racism isn’t that bad, without quite specifying how bad we thought it was versus how bad it really is, let alone proving that America wasn’t that racist. That is what Clarke DIRECTLY responded to. And yet you play this game of obfuscation, chiding us for thinking Wilford was not just innocently repeating the same drivel over and over, for thinking there might be a hint of privilege clouding his vision, for not playing Hyperskeptic and forbidding ourselves to speculate that his consistent minimization of the significance of American racism might just be intentional. Especially considering his outright contempt for vocal opposition to racism.
And yet, despite all this, you don’t even want to defend Wilford. You just want to complain about one instance of snark, skewing the context such that you can say “Hah, FTBully caught in the act!”. You keep wringing your hands, but you have no point. Even if you did, it wouldn’t even be a significant one. Just. Shut. The. Fuck. Up. Already.
As long as the shoe fits and all that.
I think ample evidence for “pigeonholing” Wilford into the cluless white guy box is found in his dismissal of racism in the US.
Given that we KNOW racism is a big problem in the U.S., we know Wilfords opinion is not based on facts. What could possibly affect his opinions, if not facts? How about the fact that he has been able to navigate through life without facing obstacles due to his race. This would be called white privilege.
Example: ‘Stand your ground’ and ‘Stop and frisk’ are both deeply racist, and white people bear little, if any of the brunt of these policies.
Gee, could have fooled any literate and intelligent person who understands privilege and racism. You haven’t shown evidence otherwise.
Who gives a shit what a racist apologist believes. That is how you come across. And it isn’t place I would want to be unless I was a racist or racist sympathizer.
Sorry, you are the problem. Not anything else. You sound like an apologist for racism by trying to handwave it into not being a problem. It is a problem and will remain a problem until the US is truly race blind. I won’t live to see that day.
anteprepro:
I didn’t rehash the whole long string of comments because I’m not sure what the point is. You can see kneejerk pigeonholing beginning in the first response to Wilford, so why continue through the whole slog?
But, since you do apparently want to go there, I’ll oblige. AFAICT what’s happening is that Wilford is intending his comments in the particular context of the topic at hand–i.e., commentary on a few particular tweets–but is being interpreted as though his comments applied to the problem of racism in general. The referent of “that” in “that racist” is not as obscure as you are suggesting. Just read the full comment 39:
“That racist” = “as racist as some twits who tweet on twitter”. It’s the same sentence fer chrissake! The entirety of Wilford’s contribution to this debacle can be condensed to: P.Z. rhetorically asks, “Just how racist is America?” and gives a link to some racist tweets as an implied answer; Wilford replies, “I don’t think Americans actually are as racist as those twits on.” This is such an utterly mundane observation on Wilford’s part. Yeah, a small, cherry-picked list of tweets is not representative of the entirety of racism in American society–no shit, Sherlock. The response to this banality is baffling. The only way I can make sense of it is that the reaction is almost entirely to who people think Wilford must be, and what therefore he must be really be saying, and not to anything he posted in this thread.
And, yeah, this is just one little trivial example, of itself pretty well irrelevant to everything. Clearly the phenomenon is larger.*
*[citation needed], just to save you the trouble.
Oh, bugger. I left out a “twitter”. Placing it correctly is left as an exercise for the reader.
Tony! The Virtual Queer Shoop:
Except that… that didn’t actually happen. Why everyone thinks it did is the interesting question.
Oh, is that what’s interesting? Well don’t hold back, tell us your theory! What do you think, conspiracy or mass delusion?
Except for all the parts where he gets into a huff about people bothering to criticize such things, and the parts where he keeps repeating this dismissal apparently just about “nutpicking” tweets when people are explicitly telling him that it isn’t just Twitter .
How else are we supposed to take “well, it’s not as bad as twitter would have you believe”, repeated multiple times, in response to comments saying that we have other reasons, aside from tweets, to believe that racism is actually pretty damn bad in the U.S.? How else are we supposed take those kinds of fucking responses? Your willingness to presume bad intent from us while whitewashing Wilford’s nonsense is noted.
Is the irony of that intentional?
@329:
Ok, I see that I made an error in word choice:
“I think evidence for “pigeonholing” Wilford into the clueless white guy box is found in his dismissal of the extent to which racism is found in the United States. “
SallyStrange, 330:
Um. That’s what I’ve been doing. Seven word version: People make unwarranted assumptions about other people.
On top of him blatantly ignoring that we were explicitly saying that no-one was claiming Twitter to be the end-all-be-all evidence regarding American racism, he went on to insist and continue to insist that MLK really really really was a super moderate who didn’t approve of meanness and criticism when the thread was fucking flooded with evidence to the contrary. You are defending a man under the pretense, under the best case scenario, that he was simply failing to engage us and was mindlessly repeating the same thing over and over again without concern for what we were actually saying. We aren’t allowed to see all of this blatant denial and dishonesty, and assume that he might be slightly biased/disingenuous on the subject, and must assume instead that he is an animatronic brick wall? You, however, are allowed to assume that we are irrationally assuming that he is a bigot from the outset and basing all later criticism on that?
“e-psychiatry for me, but not for thee”
One thing aspidoscelis misses is that if the fuckwits didn’t mean what they said, words of apology and contrition would follow. As happened recently in a case from Australia, where a man said what could be construed as bigoted words, and then publicly apologized and tendered resignations. Which, since he showed honesty and integrity, were rejected. Where is the apologies from the racists? They have no integrity.
Tony! The Virtual Queer Shoop, 332:
That… didn’t happen either.
Unless, I suppose, you are suggesting that that list of tweets is a representative and typical sample of American attitudes on race? I guess I’ve been assuming that this wasn’t something anyone here actually believed, but I could be wrong.
David Wilford says that Twitter isn’t a representative sample! Therefore racism isn’t That Bad.
We say no shit but that we have other reasons to think that racism really is That Bad.
David Wilford says that Twitter isn’t a representative sample! Therefore racism isn’t That Bad.
We say holy shit, you are minimizing American racism.
David Wilford starts to tone troll us with MLK.
We say MLK isn’t as moderate as he thinks he is.
David Wilford continues to tone troll us with MLK.
aspidoscelis appears to chide Chris Clark for improperly questioning The Intent of one David Wilson.
We say WTF.
aspidoscelis continues to whine about how unfair we all are and defends David Wilford without defending David Wilford.
We say Really?
aspidoscelis continues to ignore all context and insist that we are all irrational kneejerkers who had Bad Intent in improperly assuming that David Wilford had Bad Intent.
I wonder why we are wasting our fucking time.
Oh. Gee, well, I think the deductions and inferences made about Wilford were accurate. I’m not sure what assumptions you are referring to. White and male? That’s an inference, and explanation offered for the particular flavor of wrong Wilford was.
You sure you aren’t just accusing everyone of being deluded? I think that is what you’re doing. “Oh THAT isn’t an example of Wilford dismissing racism!” Where the phrase dismissing racism seems to mean something different in your mind than it does in ours. Wilford was gaslighting us about racism, you’re gaslighting us about gaslighting.
Generally when you open your mouth and let ideas flow from it you are giving evidence, and if anyone claims “this is how this argument sounds, because we’ve heard it all before, and generally from this type of person”, that is not an assumption. Your whole complaint hinges upon your first false accusation when you entered the thread:
Clearly you have been obfuscating the same tired fucking point you originally tried to make and pin on Chris Clarke and the rest of the commenters who said anything about SWM David Wilford. It won’t stick because you still have the sequence backwards. Ridiculous that you think we can’t see this. Pitiful if you do not see that that is indeed what you’ve been doing.
Nuts. Not substantial enough to be interesting or important. Faux outrage due to trendiness or being PC.
All three taken together = dismissing racism.
He stuffed himself in the pigeonhole, don’t get all huffy because the horde noticed and called out his casual racist attitudes.
Amazing how our troll doesn’t understand some of us have been dealing with race issues since the ’50s, and knows the techniques and dog whistles used by racists, and are able to decipher public pronouncements with ease. If someone isn’t a racist, they don’t use that language. When the techniques of oblique racism are used, it is easy to tell when someone is being a bigot with the proper experience. Experience does count in certain things.
Actually, I do think that this list of tweets is representative of a significant portion of Americans’ attitudes about race. I think it’s a very good explanation for why an explicitly racist political party can continue to consistently win ~50% of the vote. It also explains the 813% increase in hate groups since we elected a black man president. It explains the reintroduction of racist laws, like Stand Your Ground, Arizona’s SB1070, and the election monkeying in ‘ethnic’ neighborhoods. It explains why, in 2002, 35% of white Americans still opposed interracial marriage (though, to be fair, that number has been decreasing since then, though it still hovers at 20%). It also explains why 91% of white Americans polled think that discrimination against black people is not a significant factor in a lack of success, and blame instead a lack of ability.
It would explain the inequities in housing, in education, in income and in representation between POC and whites in this country.
Fuck, read some anti-racist theory and educate yourself on race in the US. I assure you, this type of racism is alive, well, and prevalent.
aspidocelis:
You are arguing in what appears to be deliberate bad faith. I suggest you not attempt to continue.
anteprepro:
and
Yeah, you were talking past each other for a good while. Maybe take it as, “Well, it’s not as bad as those tweets would have you believe,” and accept that he’s not talking about what you’re talking about.
and
Although I’ve tried to maintain a good faith reading of the various posts in this thread and avoid accusing people of bad intent, I do find it difficult and you’re right, I fail too often. My apologies for that.
Misunderstandings of others don’t necessarily require bad intent, of course. I think most, at least, of the kneejerk assumptions about people in this thread come from honest misunderstanding rather than intentional misrepresentation. This isn’t some particular bizarre failing of FTBers, it’s just something people do… and we only see it when “they” do it, but we all do it. There is no amount of being on the right side or examining one’s privilege that makes someone magically immune from basic human failings.
No, but it is entertaining now that you point it out.
SallyStrange, 338:
I wouldn’t have chosen the word “accused”, but I’m pretty sure I am claiming that most commenters in this thread are deluded–letting preconceptions and stereotypes about groups run the show and seeing things that are not there.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
I know you believe yourself to have such special insights. I do not believe that this is actually the case.
In my own field, racism plays a huge role in assessment and gatekeeping of higher education. A lot of the theory surrounding modern assessment comes from books like The Bell Curve, which treads upon old ground–ground that comes directly from late-19th century racial and eugenic theory. The idea behind standardized testing was to scientifically prove the superiority of the “white race.” Such testing is STILL used to keep POC out of higher education, despite the fact that 1. we have no real definition of intelligence, 2. we know standardized testing often failed to measure what it purports to (either an individual’s aptitude towards certain tasks, their “innate” intelligence, or their knowledge of conventions.) and 3. that standardized testing has been proven to contain gender and racial biases. So, again, the racism that I deal with every day, while often not as overt as those tweets (though sometimes it is!) is still real, and widespread, and it has real-world consequences for my students.
Chris Clarke:
To be honest, my impression of your arguments is the same. I’m willing to bet that I am wrong, but I can’t shake the appearance.
In any case, I can’t think of any reason apart from a concern with pigeonholing over substance for you to repeatedly try to evaluate my comments based on how much time I spend doing what. If I’m wrong (I hope I am but can’t come up with an alternative explanation), I can only tell you that it is an honest mistake on my part.
aspidoscelis
*sigh* Chris’ original comment had nothing to do with group affiliation (he is, after all, also a white man.) It had to do with his perception that Wilford was speaking from blind privilege. This has been explained to you many times. Your instance that Chris meant something that it is clear to everyone else here that he didn’t mean makes it seem that you are arguing in bad faith.
You clearly mistake my previous comment for an attempt to engage in conversation. It was a hint that you should drop this now. Clearly said hint was too subtle for you.
Drop this now.
Mea culpa. Dropping it.
Holy shit.
The rest of your post seems fine (more or less), but here’s one question: What groups are we talking about here? What group do we have preconceptions and stereotypes about that affected our interactions with David Wilford? Straight, white men? Racists? What category do you think we have unfair prejudices about? Or that we were unfairly placing him into?
I can’t vouch for anyone else, but I personally put David Wilford into a category I’ve been seeing a lot of lately: Privileged Fencesitting Anti-Advocacy “Moderate”. He may have been racist to some degree, but I never suspected that he was any more than average. He’s just a schmuck who overvalues civility and the Golden Mean and wants to believe really, really hard that he doesn’t have to do anything but feel good about progress. A hardcore, evangelical apathist. A condemner of Both Sides who just wants every to shut up about the bad shit and appreciate things as they are instead of searching for ways to improve. Common in every field of discussion. A dime a fucking dozen. Not malicious. Not stupid. Just self-absorbed, detached, and lazy. Not as much evil as horrifyingly neutral. And I doubt I’m alone in that opinion.
Sorry, took too long to see that the issue is dropped. Consider the above rhetorical and/or irrelevant.
I knew this sounded weird: They inexplicably flipped the position of Yes and No on the chart for that question. 91% is the amount who said No to the idea that lack of innate ability was the answer. That’s still 9% who said yes, and the wording of the question is blatantly fucking racist (“less in-born ability to learn”). I think it is safe to say that this is roughly the number of Super Fucking Racist people we have in America, give or take (Interestingly, 10% is the number in another post that voted for Teddy Beale and were speculated to have bigoted motivations for the choice. Go figure!)
But other alarming details in Cyrano’s link (for the edification of all):
70% of people don’t think discrimination is a factor in racial inequality.
50% of people think the inequality suffered by black people is due to lack of motivation.
60% of people think black people should just try harder (only 22% oppose the idea).
Nearly 75 fucking percent agree with a statement essentially saying that black people should pull themselves up by their bootstraps “without special help,” like Irish and Italian people did.
Only 37% of people think that black people are suffering the after-effects of generations of slavery and discrimination
Interesting to note that the last two together mean that at least 12% of our population (and thinks black people are suffering the after-effects of slavery and discrimination, but say that black people should still be expected to pull themselves up by their bootstraps just like those European immigrants did anyway. Despite the fact that those immigrants never had to deal with such massive fucking hurdles. I suspect that the relevant group is either diabolically racist or incredibly, dogmatically opposed to “handouts”.
Results from Two thousand and fucking ten, people. More or less consistent across the last decade too. Sleep tight.
we are quite aware what the “that” was referring to. He’s wrong though, as I noted in one of my previous comments. America is for more racist than “that”. And the reason he’s wrong yet so certain that he’s right is because of his privilege.
that’s an argument from ignorance. in reality, it’s that tweets like that are already known to be a good example of what POCs in the US have to deal with; a mild example even, since no one is being shot or beaten up by cops for looking at them the wrong way.
yes, Americans are that racist; and regularly far more dangerously so.
but it is “as bad as those tweets would have you believe”; actually it’s quite often worse.
The whole poit here is that Wilford was convinced that Americans are generally less racist than the non-random sample of tweets shown here; whereas most POC (and whites who listen to them) are aware that it’s actually that bad or worse.
Some final food for thought :
Percent who think the government should have a major role in improving economic/social conditions of minorities:
Whites: 19% Blacks: 59%
Percent who think the government should have NO role in improving those conditions:
Whites: 30% Blacks: 8%
Percent who think a black person has as good of a chance to get a job as a white person:
Whites: 78% Blacks: 39%
Percent who think new civil rights laws are needed:
Whites: 15% Blacks: 52%
Percent who think racism is widespread:
Whites: 49% Blacks: 72%
Percent satisfied with how blacks are treated:
Whites: 63% Blacks: 35%
Percent who think a black person has as good of a chance to get good housing as a white person
Whites: 83% Blacks: 52%
Percent who think blacks have equal job opportunities:
Whites: 60% Blacks: 24%
Percent who think discrimination has no role in the higher percent of black people in jail:
Whites: 20% Blacks: 6%
Percent who trust police to treat races equally:
Whites: 81% Blacks: 45%
Look at the gap there. Despite how much the likes of Ron Lindsay abhor the very idea , I think that this is clearly a matter where white Americans need to learn to “Shut Up and Listen”.
Wow, I guess it doesn’t take all that much to get folks excited ’round these virtual parts. Who knew? Anyway…
“The whole poit here is that Wilford was convinced that Americans are generally less racist than the non-random sample of tweets shown here; whereas most POC (and whites who listen to them) are aware that it’s actually that bad or worse.”
It’s actually more complicated than that. No, I don’t think most Americans are the sort of racist buffoons who twitted off about a singer of the national anthem. I do however think there is a general unawareness of the effects of institutionalized racism in the form of continuing poverty and diminished opportunities due to poor schools, unsafe neighborhoods, etc. I’m not one of those who think racism is over because Obama was elected President, even though I think his election was a sign of progress. I merely think that nutpicking at buffoons, while perhaps entertaining from a blogging POV, kind of distract us from other more insidious manifestations of racism as we pat ourselves on our blogging butts.
David:
Did you stick your fingers in your ear for the whole thread? Its like you ignored everything we have said.
Racism is still prevalent in the United States.
At times, it manifests overtly, in easily recognizable ways (disproportionate number of African Americans in prison and Stop and Frisk being two immediate examples). Other times it is subtle and more difficult to see (see the redistricting efforts of Republicans in many states).
Sometimes the racism is considered so minor as to be unimportant (see your insinuations in this thread). Other times the racism is big enough to warrant firing Food Network hosts.
It behooves progressives to call out racism in whatever form it takes. You might think this is trivial, but thats beside the point. Its still an example of racism. All the minor things, the trivialities add up. They help maintain a foundation of acceptable racism. People like you are part of the problem. No, you may not be a white supremacist, but your choice to dismiss some racism because it is too minor is tacit acceptance…nay, support for that shit to continue. The big loud screaming examples of racism should be condemned. So too should the smaller ones.
In some ways, this is similar to sexism in our culture. Some people dismiss the the minor harassment women receive: “I would love for women to talk to me like that.”, “I was just kidding, quit being hysterical”, or “thats just Uncle Bob. He likes to grab girls’ butts. He doesn’t mean anything by it.”. All of these examples may seem minor, but by not being challenged, they allow people to continue acting in a sexist way. It helps continue a culture of devaluing women and treating them as if their appearance is the only source of their worth.
Likewise, not challenging so-called minor racist infractions sends a subtle message that it is ok to be bigoted.
In addition, what you are doing has the effect of normalizing certain levels of racism. . There are no “acceptable” levels of racism. It is not acceptable.
So here you sit, in your little bubble of privilege, unaffected by the minor problems of others and dismissing them as inconsequential. At the same time, you insinuate that PZ should blog about something that you deem acceptable. Go start your own blog. Better yet, learn what privilege is. Learn to recognize it in yourself. Then you may have a better understanding of how wrong you are.
Until then SHUT THE FUCK UP.