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

[Icky Thump]

the mentally disabled (I would have said retarted 5 years ago) can get jobs, especially as mass tort lawyers.

I am fully #TeamThanos especially when it comes to law schools. They should just close the bottom half of law schools.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally Posted by Icky Thump

Good. Cause I object to the suggestion on May 5 that tequila is anything other than the devil's poison.

Fortaleza Reposado
Jose Cuervo Reserva de la Familia
Casamigos is a great entry point for tequila.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

Fortaleza Reposado
Jose Cuervo Reserva de la Familia
Casamigos is a great entry point for tequila.

Entry point isn't the problem he is mentioning.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

The point I started with, which I may not have put well, is that even if one is interested in understanding how people think, that doesn't mean that every episode helps you get there.

I see (based on what you wrote below) that you're off on your own thing, but I don't think this is helpful at all.

First, the woman who threw slurs around like they're second nature may be a public figure. But I want to understand why public figures choose a certain approach when they are in damage-control mode. I want to understand why a complete denial in the face of obvious evidence to the contrary is the goal. I want to know why this works. You want to toss out all instances of a public figure explaining how not racist they are as insincere. I'm not saying it's not insincere. I want to know why they choose this insincere strategy as opposed to others.

Second, her reaction is exactly the same as the reactions I see in non-public figures. I find it amazing that people who say racist shit see themselves as not even a little bit racist. Is it denial? Is it pure good-bad binary? Are they let off the hook by other whites?

Third, how do those things relate to each other? Is the approach by the public figure based on what white people do in private--say amazingly racist shit and then act like they're not racist amongst themselves such that they can move on? Are they ever called on it such that they have to do that? Is it just an ostrich approach--hide your head in denial until it blows over?

I understand that you don't want to discuss or think about it, but it would be nice if you stopped telling me that I shouldn't be interested in how public figures react to their racism being exposed.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

What I was thinking, but did not say, is that I feel similarly fascinated with the question of why so many people still support Trump, but I also feel enormously frustrated with so much of what is written on the subject, because I don't feel like it's moving the needle of comprehension. And at some point, one has to just accept that we share the country with a large number of people with terrible beliefs, and we have to figure out how to mobilize so that they don't ruin people's lives. I do want to understand what makes the other side tick, but I also worry about a denialism that assumes that our problems are all about Trump, and not about all the people who elected him and continue to support him. Not to hijack the topic of racism to make it about Trump, but just to say that it feels necessary to understand the fucked-up ways that people think, but also exhausted and sometimes a diversion from what else needs to be done.

A lot in here, but rest assured, I've been saying that 35-40% of this country is irretrievably racist for many years--well before Trump took office. He's captured that group through his racist, sexist, xenophobic, anti-intellectual cult of personality. They love him precisely because of those things.

I'm not sure how to move past that. So, I'll stick to trying to understand the stuff that interests me.

TM

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

You want to toss out all instances of a public figure explaining how not racist they are as insincere. I'm not saying it's not insincere. I want to know why they choose this insincere strategy as opposed to others.


TM

Say I say to you, "I'm a bit nervous to go to the Apollo Theater because it is in Harlem, and I know that's not safe." You then walk me through the root of that belief and I realize that I had believed stuff people had told based upon what the racial make up of Harlem was 20 years ago. I said something racist inadvertently. I can admit that I was wrong and have some growing to do. And maybe a lot of white people would say, "you know I didn't mean something racist," and refuse to look at themselves. I can't say why that is done.

But contrast to you hear me saying "I don't want to go to the Apollo because it is in a N--- neighborhood." There is no course there. Nothing to explain. Other than Tourette's? You might yell at me, or walk away in disgust, but we likely won't talk about my motivation?

But now make it not a private interaction, and I have a microphone in my face. I have to say something. I think that is the point with public exposure and why it goes that way.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Say I say to you, "I'm a bit nervous to go to the Apollo Theater because it is in Harlem, and I know that's not safe." You then walk me through the root of that belief and I realize that I had believed stuff people had told based upon what the racial make up of Harlem was 20 years ago. I said something racist inadvertently. I can admit that I was wrong and have some growing to do. And maybe a lot of white people would say, "you know I didn't mean something racist," and refuse to look at themselves. I can't say why that is done.

But contrast to you hear me saying "I don't want to go to the Apollo because it is in a N--- neighborhood." There is no course there. Nothing to explain. Other than Tourette's? You might yell at me, or walk away in disgust, but we likely won't talk about my motivation?

But now make it not a private interaction, and I have a microphone in my face. I have to say something. I think that is the point with public exposure and why it goes that way.

I think you're on level 1 of this analysis. I'm not saying I'm on some kind of next level. But I am saying that I understand that they want to get rid of any immediate, meaningful discussion of their own racism.

But the next question is: Why does (i) the offender choose an outright denial over an admission and taking a course on racial insensitivity (contrast with a public figure getting caught cheating or abusing drugs and their immediate admission and enrollment in sex addiction or drug treatment) and (ii) when caught red-handed, why does a complete denial work to get rid of the issue? What else does this work with?

Is it because most white people have gone through this and are empathetic enough to say, "Yeah, I've said racist shit and I'm not racist, so this will blow over." Is it something else? Given the fact that I've seen non-public people just outright deny any racism after doing racist shit, is it deeper than that?

TM

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I see (based on what you wrote below) that you're off on your own thing, but I don't think this is helpful at all.

First, the woman who threw slurs around like they're second nature may be a public figure. But I want to understand why public figures choose a certain approach when they are in damage-control mode. I want to understand why a complete denial in the face of obvious evidence to the contrary is the goal. I want to know why this works. You want to toss out all instances of a public figure explaining how not racist they are as insincere. I'm not saying it's not insincere. I want to know why they choose this insincere strategy as opposed to others.

Second, her reaction is exactly the same as the reactions I see in non-public figures. I find it amazing that people who say racist shit see themselves as not even a little bit racist. Is it denial? Is it pure good-bad binary? Are they let off the hook by other whites?

Third, how do those things relate to each other? Is the approach by the public figure based on what white people do in private--say amazingly racist shit and then act like they're not racist amongst themselves such that they can move on? Are they ever called on it such that they have to do that? Is it just an ostrich approach--hide your head in denial until it blows over?

I understand that you don't want to discuss or think about it, but it would be nice if you stopped telling me that I shouldn't be interested in how public figures react to their racism being exposed.

A lot in here, but rest assured, I've been saying that 35-40% of this country is irretrievably racist for many years--well before Trump took office. He's captured that group through his racist, sexist, xenophobic, anti-intellectual cult of personality. They love him precisely because of those things.

I'm not sure how to move past that. So, I'll stick to trying to understand the stuff that interests me.

TM

A public figure is using a mass strategy. The denial often works because if you can flood the space, you can confuse for a bit (variant of Goebbels’ Big Lie) and in aggregate the audience has a very short attention span.

Why does a politician do anything? Ask his or her PR people.

Private figures? Who knows. It’s subjective, situational. Like anything else, cornered people will often tailor whatever explanation they can to quickly escape the charge, or change the subject.

You can’t rely on anything a person seeking to avoid opprobrium is saying in the moment. This person’s primary goal is to make you forget what was said. They’re trying to rewrite the past inauthentically. Any explanation other than apology is bullshit.

And to Hank’s point, if you drop a vile slur, you know that no one will believe you’re not a racist. So then you just tell a Big Lie. Or claim alcoholism.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I see (based on what you wrote below) that you're off on your own thing, but I don't think this is helpful at all.

Thought I was responding to something you said, so sorry not to be helpful.

First, the woman who threw slurs around like they're second nature may be a public figure. But I want to understand why public figures choose a certain approach when they are in damage-control mode. I want to understand why a complete denial in the face of obvious evidence to the contrary is the goal. I want to know why this works. You want to toss out all instances of a public figure explaining how not racist they are as insincere. I'm not saying it's not insincere. I want to know why they choose this insincere strategy as opposed to others.

Second, her reaction is exactly the same as the reactions I see in non-public figures. I find it amazing that people who say racist shit see themselves as not even a little bit racist. Is it denial? Is it pure good-bad binary? Are they let off the hook by other whites?

Third, how do those things relate to each other? Is the approach by the public figure based on what white people do in private--say amazingly racist shit and then act like they're not racist amongst themselves such that they can move on? Are they ever called on it such that they have to do that? Is it just an ostrich approach--hide your head in denial until it blows over?

The public-figure response works both because it mirrors what a lot of people would say in a private conversation and because it ends the public story. Any other response -- denial, silence, extensive shared introspection -- invites follow-up. The "I'm not a racist" response enables the public figure to move on to other topics instead of digging deeper.

Is it denial? Yes. Is it put good-bad binary? Pretty much -- racists are bad, and most people see themselves as good, or want to, so therefor they can't be racists. Are they let off the hook by other whites? Usually. But it depends on whose opinion they care about.

I understand that you don't want to discuss or think about it, but it would be nice if you stopped telling me that I shouldn't be interested in how public figures react to their racism being exposed.

If you are interested in it, it's not my place at all to tell you to stop. If you want to get at the psychology involved, IMO it's not helpful to parse what are basically press releases. But if you're interested in why the press releases use those particular talking points, then, hey, that's the place to look.

A lot in here, but rest assured, I've been saying that 35-40% of this country is irretrievably racist for many years--well before Trump took office. He's captured that group through his racist, sexist, xenophobic, anti-intellectual cult of personality. They love him precisely because of those things.

I agree. I think it's possible that some of those people were not so irretrievably racist but that their identification with their cohort has made them less interested in what other people outside their cohort think or care about. As I've said before, conservative is fundamentally about triggering libs, and racism triggers libs, so conservatives more and more see an attraction to racism.

I'm not sure how to move past that. So, I'll stick to trying to understand the stuff that interests me.

There is so much argument in bad faith coming from conservatives that it's very hard to figure out how to really tell what they care about. Maybe that is the fundamental problem (with trying to understand them better).

eta: I was just looking at the Facebook page of a former partner at my former firm, a very smart woman who is temperamentally conservative and no longer as interested in masking it. Her posts on current events (which is most of them) are, again and again, reacting resentfully to the dominant narrative -- Jussie Smollett, global warming and climate change, etc. It's not stream of consciousness, it's stream of resentment. How does someone who has a shit-ton of money and had a great career get so resentful? I recognize that I've moved off race, but thing is, if you had a conversation with her about this stuff and asked about her views, she wouldn't get at the resentment and grievance that ties it all together. So if you are interested in how someone like her thinks, what do you do to drill down?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

But the next question is: Why does (i) the offender choose an outright denial over an admission and taking a course on racial insensitivity (contrast with a public figure getting caught cheating or abusing drugs and their immediate admission and enrollment in sex addiction or drug treatment) and (ii) when caught red-handed, why does a complete denial work to get rid of the issue? What else does this work with?

That's an interesting comparison. The advantage for the shamee of enrolling in sex-addiction or drug treatment is that they can pretend they didn't have agency. Sure they made bad choices, but that was the disease talking.

People don't accept that racism is a disease and everyone is a carrier.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

That's an interesting comparison. The advantage for the shamee of enrolling in sex-addiction or drug treatment is that they can pretend they didn't have agency. Sure they made bad choices, but that was the disease talking.

People don't accept that racism is a disease and everyone is a carrier.

Blaming substance abuse and accepting it as the cause are two components of a facile pretext constructed to allow people to return from social exile.

If you don’t allow that fiction, there is no speedy reconciliation.

In the old days, one could use the defense they’d been raised in a regressive society (Robert Byrd). Can’t do that anymore, so now it’s removal of agency.

I think your racism as a disease approach will be used in the near future, in as often a counterproductive as productive manner. That paradigm could let a lot of people off the hook.

As a person who enjoys getting out of his head, I don’t buy it. In 30 plus years of indulgence, no substance has caused me to use slurs. I’ve seen it. But I think it only occurs among those who already have such thoughts on the tip of their tongue.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Thought I was responding to something you said, so sorry not to be helpful.

The public-figure response works both because it mirrors what a lot of people would say in a private conversation and because it ends the public story. Any other response -- denial, silence, extensive shared introspection -- invites follow-up. The "I'm not a racist" response enables the public figure to move on to other topics instead of digging deeper.

Is it denial? Yes. Is it put good-bad binary? Pretty much -- racists are bad, and most people see themselves as good, or want to, so therefor they can't be racists. Are they let off the hook by other whites? Usually. But it depends on whose opinion they care about.

If you are interested in it, it's not my place at all to tell you to stop. If you want to get at the psychology involved, IMO it's not helpful to parse what are basically press releases. But if you're interested in why the press releases use those particular talking points, then, hey, that's the place to look.

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.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

That's an interesting comparison. The advantage for the shamee of enrolling in sex-addiction or drug treatment is that they can pretend they didn't have agency. Sure they made bad choices, but that was the disease talking.

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?

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?

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.

_____________

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

eta: I was just looking at the Facebook page of a former partner at my former firm, a very smart woman who is temperamentally conservative and no longer as interested in masking it. Her posts on current events (which is most of them) are, again and again, reacting resentfully to the dominant narrative -- Jussie Smollett, global warming and climate change, etc. It's not stream of consciousness, it's stream of resentment. How does someone who has a shit-ton of money and had a great career get so resentful? I recognize that I've moved off race, but thing is, if you had a conversation with her about this stuff and asked about her views, she wouldn't get at the resentment and grievance that ties it all together. So if you are interested in how someone like her thinks, what do you do to drill down?

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.

TM

[Tyrone Slothrop]

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.

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.

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.

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.

_____________
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.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

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.

Uncle. Anyone who reaches for "But so is your characterization of how white people act" doesn't really want to have a conversation. I'm not going to put in the qualifiers when it's so blatantly obvious that they exist. Whatever.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

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.

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.

Right. Because I haven't gone further by asking why the different approaches when it comes to choosing which response works for which audience and why. Whatever.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

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.

Enough. Your ability to boil something down from what I'm addressing to what you would rather talk about is impressive. And yet, I'm not interested. So, whatever.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I don't get that, because I don't see that blaming.

Me either, and yet all these Trump supporters felt like they were being attacked and/or neglected before they were Trump supporters.

TM

[Adder]

So in other news, I'm not sure a congressperson saying she shouldn't be asked to pledge allegiance to a foreign country is the same as asserting that Jewish people in general have such an allegiance. And while I'm trying to listen to people who feel it is another example of hewing to close to a bigoted trope, I do not think any other elected official would attract significant attention for that particular comment.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Why does (i) the offender choose an outright denial over an admission and taking a course on racial insensitivity (contrast with a public figure getting caught cheating or abusing drugs and their immediate admission and enrollment in sex addiction or drug treatment)

It took a minute to think this one through. It once was more common that people "caught" would take some "training." Not so much a course, but you had to meet with Al Sharpton or someone. Don Imus met with Al and the Rutgers team and learned? It was likely not educational but the box was checked.

and (ii) when caught red-handed, why does a complete denial work to get rid of the issue? What else does this work with?

I don't know that it does work. Do you think it does usually? If you are an entertainer you may be toast (other than Mel Gibson). Same with a lot of politicians (I suppose we'll see with the Va. mess).

More recently (and with the lady here) Trump has taught us that "fuck you. that's my excuse," works, so maybe the game will change.

Is it because most white people have gone through this and are empathetic enough to say, "Yeah, I've said racist shit and I'm not racist, so this will blow over." Is it something else? Given the fact that I've seen non-public people just outright deny any racism after doing racist shit, is it deeper than that?

TM

I am getting the Fragility book* but have yet to read it- I take it a main point is that progressives are big violators. So you might break down white people into some that don't care so much about addressing racism. And maybe this group has that thought. But all those progressives? They strike me as more likely to be less empathetic**, until it's them? Fry the racist, no gray.

And when it is them? Maybe it is devastating to hear that they aren't so squeaky perfect? "Partner X, do you realize you give black associates what amounts to clerk work and your good projects always go to white associates?"

It is easy to post here that my first thought would be introspection about if that is true. But the fact is, we are all so egotistic that my first thought might be more about the harm to my rep than the harm I've done to the black associates. "Okay, sure let's talk about fixing the problem, but first you gotta know I'm not a racist. I mean you know that right?"

I take it a lot of the stuff that bugs you is partners who can't do what needs to be done? You understand WANTING to sit in a NYC partner office requires ego that would choke a normal person?

*I do not read non-fiction, but will this time.
** how did your bar owner friend react to the old drunk guy? I suppose he has a financial interest?