Quote:
Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall
Look, I'm trying to have a conversation. I am purposefully asking open-ended questions. You seem to be responding to them as if you know the answers or you think I'm asking for your wisdom. This is a discussion. If you want to discuss this stuff, I'm here for it. But your dismissal of the topic because there is nothing of interest to you in a press release is fucking annoying.
|
You asked questions, like, is it denial? Yes. I think it's denial. Massive, systemic denial. Is that an over-generalization? Sure. But so is your characterization of how white people act. We both know it's not all white people. Adder, for example, will confess to acting out of latent racism even when he hasn't said anything, nttawwt. But we're having a conversation with high-level generalizations, so I thought that was appropriate. I wasn't being dismissive. I tend to agree with almost all of what you've said, so the room left to discuss between us is more about emphasis on the margins.
Quote:
|
Why is it that you can instantly look into this excuse and come to a conclusion about why it's used (removal of agency), while any discussion of an outright denial when it comes to racism is a pointless waste of time because it's just an empty press release?
|
Because I've been involved in drafting too many press releases to believe that they are an honest reflection of anyone's real state of mind.
Quote:
|
Clearly there are reasons why one approach is taken over the other. If the goal is simply to get beyond it, why wouldn't a straight denial of drug use have the same effect?
|
People put out press releases copping to drug abuse or saying racist things when they've been caught and they don't want to try to keep denying that it happened. My two cents. YMMV.
Quote:
|
I think when it comes to a public figure being caught in a racist moment it depends on who that person is addressing--his or her intended audience. If it's mostly white people, it's a straight denial. If it's not, I often see the person say they were misquoted, or misspoke, or were taken out of context. When the public figure wants the support of PoC, I've also seen them appear with a member of the black community to prove that they've sought some kind of absolution. There is significance (which I am focused on) in these differences. And I think it's sad that they can simply deny it to move past it easily when it comes to white audiences (even if it's just their perception that that's all they need to do). If I were a white person I'd be offended if some asshole thought that shit would fly. Or maybe I wouldn't since I think white people are conditioned to accept these types of bullshit responses when it comes to explaining away racism.
|
If it's a political figure and it's a conservative, they really don't have to worry about anything because most conservatives don't give a shit. So that is a very real difference between left and right on these issues. It takes years of Steve King-like behavior for a Steve King to lose his committee assignments, and IMO that's more a punishment for causing trouble than a principled reaction to the substance of what he has been saying all these years.
Quote:
_____________
That's an excellent question. I've found that the common theme for people who hold this type of resentment is that they think they are being blamed for all of our country's ills. That's where the resentment springs from.
|
I don't get that, because I don't see that blaming.
