Doesn’t Matter Who Wins the K Race; We’re All the Same

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I got all that.

The lady in Maryland, what she said in the bar is such that it is absurd for her to even be in denial- even given the Fragility thing. But I also think if a white guy like your bar guy had done that publicly it is natural to deny anything. The internet and the camera do not care. There is no growth there. If I were caught saying the word (and I have in my youth) and were interviewed about it I would go full Donald Trump. I might even try to hire Sarah Sanders to convince people I didn't say it. But I would still hope on my own I looked inward and tried to grow from the realization that I had some shit to learn. I think that is the true goal?

Should it be a goal for someone who says racist shit to learn that it is unacceptable and grow? Uh...yes?

I don't understand the rest of your paragraph. I'm not sure why you're talking about denials. Neither person in either example denied the use of the word. They denied they are racist. This delusion is really the only theme I'm trying to draw attention to.

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

But what I was asking was 2 things- the guy's slur to you, could he have recovered in your eyes? Shown some remorse? Okay if no possibility for you, but I was curious.

No. He can suck all the dicks. He can show as much remorse as he wants, he's cooked as far as I'm concerned.

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

And I judge my anti-semite based upon who they are. I was asking if you do the same as to racists? Someone my dad's generation carried a whole bigger bag of racist shit than I do; Is more likely to use the phrase you mention. Doesn't mean he ain't a racist for using it, but the % of people who are racist hopefully drops each generation, so maybe an older guy gets a bit more understanding?

No. I've said this on this board before. If it was natural to be racist in the 50s and 60s, it is not acceptable now. And you watched the change occur. If you're still holding on to those feelings, I should cut you some slack? I should understand? No chance.

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Is that a factor at all. Again, okay if you say nope.

It's a factor in that it is clear that you are a full-on racist and apparently beyond redemption.

That said, do I think all racists are to be thrown out? No. But it's not my responsibility or desire to give them relief when they let their racism slip. And that's really what this guy wanted. He didn't like that I thought of him as racist. He doesn't believe he is. And he's upset that I do. He's not taking a personal growth moment from what happened. He wants absolution from a black guy. Not here for it.

But let me add that I have talked to everyone on this board a number of times about a book that I think is very helpful in understanding these issues and the responses white people give when they are put in the uncomfortable situation of discussing their own racism. I would be shocked if anyone here has even bought the book, let alone read it.

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I hear you and agree with what you say here. Before, you were talking about the efforts you make to understand those people. I guess I was just saying that there is no point in making that investment when it's a news story about a public figure, like the one you posted, because people will just say whatever in that context -- it's a variety of public shaming ritual where people play their assigned parts. When I say your bar story is interesting, I mean that you're more likely to get some insight into what makes people tick out of it.

Fair enough. But are you saying there is no value in trying to understand the completely disconnected response that these people throw out as a way to absolve themselves of their racism? Why do they choose this response? Who is it aimed at convincing? Is the fact that they say, "I'm not a racist; it's just not who I am or how I act," something that resonates with other white people? If it does, is it because so many white people think and say racist shit but don't consider themselves to be racist? Because that's what I'm trying to understand. Maybe they think that black people will be convinced? Maybe they don't care and are only looking to the white people who may judge them?

In my mind, the responses in both scenarios are the same. I find it fascinating. If you think she's just reading from a script (and "The word, 'nigger' isn't even in my vocabulary even though I drop it in casual conversation,' is surely a new addition to that script, no?), have you thought about why the script is crafted that way?

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Adder

I think people use racists phrases without realizing how racist they are (e.g., jewed him down, gypped me, etc.), but I don't know how that could happen with a phrase that includes the n word.

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The interchange between Tlaib and Meadows was ludicrous. Cummings deserves accolades for killing it before it became a "did so/did not" self-righteous chest beating marathon.

This is an excellent example of the theme I've been pounding on for weeks.

Meadows brings a black woman who worked for Trump in as evidence that Trump is not racist. Tlaib points out that it is racist and offensive to use her as a prop. Meadows' musters all of his white fragility and manages to flip the whole thing back so that everyone involved has to reassure him that he is not racist. He fucking trades on his friendship with Cummings as well as using his family members of color* to defend himself and assuage his feelings. He manages to get Tlaib to retract and insist that she wasn't calling him a racist. This is what it is like to confront almost every white person with their racism. Every single program on race I have ever been involved in is crafted to take this into account. Because once it happens, we can no longer talk about the underlying racist action. We spend every single moment comforting the person who made the statement.

And Meadows, on a number of occasions, pushed the Obama birther bullshit and stated publicly that we should send him back to Kenya. He's a fucking racist. And the fact that he doesn't think he's a racist is exactly what I'm talking about.

TM

*See: White Fragility, Dr. Robin DiAngelo

[ferrets_bueller]

Whenever you use a loaded phrase, you're dealing with the possibility of receiving what the British used to call "the cut direct."



The offended person simply refuses to recognize the physical existence of the offender. If the offender speaks, he is not heard. One looks through him. It is exceptionally effective.



Now then: Is it acceptable to use an obvious play on words to demonstrate that you are offended by what you have heard? For example, I am not Jewish but my granddaughters are. I am personally disturbed when I hear the phrase "Jew them down" in connection with a negotiation. I have on at least one occasion, responded to hearing this by saying that I would "Christian them down" instead. Acceptable as a dig on the first speaker?

[Not Bob]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Should it be a goal for someone who says racist shit to learn that it is unacceptable and grow? Uh...yes?

I don't understand the rest of your paragraph. I'm not sure why you're talking about denials. Neither person in either example denied the use of the word. They denied they are racist. This delusion is really the only theme I'm trying to draw attention to.

No. He can suck all the dicks. He can show as much remorse as he wants, he's cooked as far as I'm concerned.

No. I've said this on this board before. If it was natural to be racist in the 50s and 60s, it is not acceptable now. And you watched the change occur. If you're still holding on to those feelings, I should cut you some slack? I should understand? No chance.

It's a factor in that it is clear that you are a full-on racist and apparently beyond redemption.

That said, do I think all racists are to be thrown out? No. But it's not my responsibility or desire to give them relief when they let their racism slip. And that's really what this guy wanted. He didn't like that I thought of him as racist. He doesn't believe he is. And he's upset that I do. He's not taking a personal growth moment from what happened. He wants absolution from a black guy. Not here for it.

But let me add that I have talked to everyone on this board a number of times about a book that I think is very helpful in understanding these issues and the responses white people give when they are put in the uncomfortable situation of discussing their own racism. I would be shocked if anyone here has even bought the book, let alone read it.

TM

Ahem. After months of “hmm, I should read that” every time you mentioned it, this comment shamed me into finally ordering it seconds ago.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Fair enough. But are you saying there is no value in trying to understand the completely disconnected response that these people throw out as a way to absolve themselves of their racism? Why do they choose this response? Who is it aimed at convincing? Is the fact that they say, "I'm not a racist; it's just not who I am or how I act," something that resonates with other white people? If it does, is it because so many white people think and say racist shit but don't consider themselves to be racist? Because that's what I'm trying to understand. Maybe they think that black people will be convinced? Maybe they don't care and are only looking to the white people who may judge them?

In my mind, the responses in both scenarios are the same. I find it fascinating. If you think she's just reading from a script (and "The word, 'nigger' isn't even in my vocabulary even though I drop it in casual conversation,' is surely a new addition to that script, no?), have you thought about why the script is crafted that way?

When a politician is shamed and makes a public statement like that, I don't think it's aimed at absolution or persuasion. It's more a form of circling the wagons and saving face. Other possible responses are real introspection and doubling down on racism. If you say what she said, it's a path well trodden, and the attention goes elsewhere because what else is there to say?

That's not say that it's disingenuous. As you're saying, it's very common for people to do racist shit and then to profess that that's not really what they think. As a PR strategy, it works because so many people have heard it and think it. I just don't think you come any closer to understanding why people think that in this context.

When a human being in a bar says the same sort of thing, it seems less rote and calculated, so possibly more interesting if one is really trying to understand the way people actually think, although possibly the same thing is going on -- someone caught in a shameful act has the urge to defend his basic goodness (because most people want to be seen as good, and think they are good) by saying what a good person would say in that situation -- racist is bad, and they are good, so therefore they are not racist.

Who are they trying to convince? Maybe foremost themselves?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

This is an excellent example of the theme I've been pounding on for weeks.

Meadows brings a black woman who worked for Trump in as evidence that Trump is not racist. Tlaib points out that it is racist and offensive to use her as a prop. Meadows' musters all of his white fragility and manages to flip the whole thing back so that everyone involved has to reassure him that he is not racist. He fucking trades on his friendship with Cummings as well as using his family members of color* to defend himself and assuage his feelings. He manages to get Tlaib to retract and insist that she wasn't calling him a racist. This is what it is like to confront almost every white person with their racism. Every single program on race I have ever been involved in is crafted to take this into account. Because once it happens, we can no longer talk about the underlying racist action. We spend every single moment comforting the person who made the statement.

And Meadows, on a number of occasions, pushed the Obama birther bullshit and stated publicly that we should send him back to Kenya. He's a fucking racist. And the fact that he doesn't think he's a racist is exactly what I'm talking about.

TM

*See: White Fragility, Dr. Robin DiAngelo

You are right about all of this, but I wish Tlaib and other Democrats had used the hearing to ask questions of Cohen that would elicit useful information, rather than trying to sympathize with him, make their own points about various issues, or otherwise grandstand. (I put Tlaib in the second category.) AOC did it well. Too many other Democrats were more interested in saying something than asking Cohen questions. Or, what Ken White said.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

This is an excellent example of the theme I've been pounding on for weeks.

Meadows brings a black woman who worked for Trump in as evidence that Trump is not racist. Tlaib points out that it is racist and offensive to use her as a prop. Meadows' musters all of his white fragility and manages to flip the whole thing back so that everyone involved has to reassure him that he is not racist. He fucking trades on his friendship with Cummings as well as using his family members of color* to defend himself and assuage his feelings. He manages to get Tlaib to retract and insist that she wasn't calling him a racist. This is what it is like to confront almost every white person with their racism. Every single program on race I have ever been involved in is crafted to take this into account. Because once it happens, we can no longer talk about the underlying racist action. We spend every single moment comforting the person who made the statement.

And Meadows, on a number of occasions, pushed the Obama birther bullshit and stated publicly that we should send him back to Kenya. He's a fucking racist. And the fact that he doesn't think he's a racist is exactly what I'm talking about.

TM

*See: White Fragility, Dr. Robin DiAngelo

I've a British phrase for this: Bollocks.

The exchange between Tlaib and Meadows was silly because the entire discussion of racism in the context of a hearing over the buffoonish behavior of a fool like Michael Cohen is so utterly misplaced -- so obviously shoehorned into the hearing for political points -- that it degraded everyone in the room.

Tlaib asked Cohen an absurd hypothetical about what he viewed as racism. Michael Cohen is an idiot. Asking him about his views of what does and doesn't constitute racism is like asking him what he thinks of quantum mechanics. It was silly grandstanding for Tlaib or anyone else to ask his opinion on that. And it was silly grandstanding, and downright stupid, for Meadows to bring out a black person as proof Trump is not racist.

This was a hearing about whether Trump is a crooked con man. AOC asked perfect questions aimed at furthering inquiry in that regard. The speeches given by congresspeople regarding Trump's character undercut the search for facts. The man has no character. Beating that horse publicly made the Ds who did it look foolish. And the Rs who fought it look foolish for taking the bait. There is no winning a political show hearing, and when this hearing went beyond factual inquiries into hypothetical views on what Cohen thinks (about anything), that's what it was: A pandering show hearing.

That Cohen teed it up by offering to answer hypotheticals doesn't make it any better.

"Michael Cohen, you would agree with me that [insert hypothetical]..." is a sentence that need never be spoken. Why not ask a street corner wino for his answer to such hypotheticals.

This isn't white fragility. This is me calling something stupid. Asking an imbecile a hypothetical on a complex issue is just plain stupid. Even politically, where stupid is often smart.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

...I wish Tlaib and other Democrats had used the hearing to ask questions of Cohen that would elicit useful information, rather than trying to sympathize with him, make their own points about various issues, or otherwise grandstand. (I put Tlaib in the second category.) AOC did it well. Too many other Democrats were more interested in saying something than asking Cohen questions. Or, what Ken White said.

2. AOC rocked it. Tlaib and Meadows looked like typical dipshit politicians.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

When a politician is shamed and makes a public statement like that, I don't think it's aimed at absolution or persuasion. It's more a form of circling the wagons and saving face. Other possible responses are real introspection and doubling down on racism. If you say what she said, it's a path well trodden, and the attention goes elsewhere because what else is there to say?

That's not say that it's disingenuous. As you're saying, it's very common for people to do racist shit and then to profess that that's not really what they think. As a PR strategy, it works because so many people have heard it and think it. I just don't think you come any closer to understanding why people think that in this context.

When a human being in a bar says the same sort of thing, it seems less rote and calculated, so possibly more interesting if one is really trying to understand the way people actually think, although possibly the same thing is going on -- someone caught in a shameful act has the urge to defend his basic goodness (because most people want to be seen as good, and think they are good) by saying what a good person would say in that situation -- racist is bad, and they are good, so therefore they are not racist.

Who are they trying to convince? Maybe foremost themselves?

Let me take a different tack, because I think you're hearing me, but not hearing me.

Why is it that the attention goes elsewhere with her response (i.e., complete denial of any racism at all) and when someone gets caught cheating or doing drugs or whatever, the response is admission, requests for forgiveness, and rehab? There is significance in that distinction.

The difference between why there are two different approaches is what is interesting to me. The fact that a plain denial in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary is enough to smooth this over is what is amazing to me. And since I find the same behavior when the person isn't a public figure, I'm trying to understand why that is. I think you're discounting public figures for some reason when they use the exact same mechanism to get out from under evidence of racism as non-public figures. I think a reasonable answer is the good-bad binary alternate reality that white people inhabit when it comes to race.

But the real question is, why is it that white people cannot accept the fact that (i) there are levels/degrees of racism and (ii) they actually carry it. I don't get it. I understand that people don't want to be seen as a bad person, so they use every trick in the book to explain how they are good. Is it guilt? Is it pure denial? Is it delusion? What is it about racism that makes it so that white people cannot face it in themselves even a little bit?

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I've a British phrase for this: Bollocks.

The exchange between Tlaib and Meadows was silly because the entire discussion of racism in the context of a hearing over the buffoonish behavior of a fool like Michael Cohen is so utterly misplaced -- so obviously shoehorned into the hearing for political points -- that it degraded everyone in the room.

Tlaib asked Cohen an absurd hypothetical about what he viewed as racism. Michael Cohen is an idiot. Asking him about his views of what does and doesn't constitute racism is like asking him what he thinks of quantum mechanics. It was silly grandstanding for Tlaib or anyone else to ask his opinion on that. And it was silly grandstanding, and downright stupid, for Meadows to bring out a black person as proof Trump is not racist.

This was a hearing about whether Trump is a crooked con man. AOC asked perfect questions aimed at furthering inquiry in that regard. The speeches given by congresspeople regarding Trump's character undercut the search for facts. The man has no character. Beating that horse publicly made the Ds who did it look foolish. And the Rs who fought it look foolish for taking the bait. There is no winning a political show hearing, and when this hearing went beyond factual inquiries into hypothetical views on what Cohen thinks (about anything), that's what it was: A pandering show hearing.

That Cohen teed it up by offering to answer hypotheticals doesn't make it any better.

"Michael Cohen, you would agree with me that [insert hypothetical]..." is a sentence that need never be spoken. Why not ask a street corner wino for his answer to such hypotheticals.

This isn't white fragility. This is me calling something stupid. Asking an imbecile a hypothetical on a complex issue is just plain stupid. Even politically, where stupid is often smart.

I'm sure that you can guess at this point, I'm not going to engage with you on this topic. I used your post as a point to jump off into a topic that interests me.

TM

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Should it be a goal for someone who says racist shit to learn that it is unacceptable and grow? Uh...yes?

Here is one way - https://www.reddit.com/r/Whatcouldgo...is_physically/

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

Here is one way - https://www.reddit.com/r/Whatcouldgo...is_physically/

Can't get it to play. But is it the one where that idiot gets slapped 3 times? Hard? Because I've definitely enjoyed that one before.

TM

[LessinSF]

Yup.