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

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I think what you are missing is that people -- in particular, white people, but really all people -- do an awful lot to perpetuate racism even if they don't personally act out of or harbor what you would call racist views. Societal structures are not made of stucco or brick -- they are people, acting consciously. They may not realize that they are perpetuating racism, but they are.

Someone who is willing broadly to accept that societal structures, broadly, are racist but who disagrees that he or she is personally involved in that is someone who is in denial and who will be part of the problem, not part of a solution.

There's a semantic bridge you're attempting to cross which no one ever will.

Call someone a racist and you have accused him of something personally. Say to someone, "you are part of a racist system" and you are accusing someone of being part of something so big that he may not fully realize how and to what extent he is perpetuating that system. (And really, there is no way to ever know that answer.)

I think certain people want the license to call others "racist" because it gets the point across as brutally as possible. I understand the desire to do that. But a lot of the racist impacts of a racist society are caused by people who have no idea they are supporting racist societal structures. Saying, "you're a racist" to these people confuses them, or offends them. In either case, no constructive dialogue is had.

But if you say, "society is racist and you're part of society, so you're part of this system," people are forced to think. And if you get them thinking, rather than deflecting, you're already engaged in a constructive dialogue. If they think honestly about it, they'll realize the statement is true.

Sometimes, brevity is not the best way to convey a point. I've personally used the "racist system" explanation with diehard old, white Republicans and they'll grudgingly say, "I see that." Call one of them a racist and they'll dig in and fight. Even I will still dig in and fight if you call me racist. Why? Because it's a lazy way to say a more complex thing. And it's often employed by people who like its shock value. Even as a purveyor of hyperbole and an aficionado of provocateurs, I can't abide it. It's too obvious a bait, too transparent an attempt to create a linguistic knockout punch.

And the silly argument that to bristle at it is to prove white fragility insults my intellect. I'm happy to engage insult and hyperbole all day long. I actually enjoy it. But it had better be really well crafted, and not the sort of thing a sophomoric sort could wield as a cudgel.

Many people use the term in good faith. I think the people here do so generally. But among the pundits, and in the internet circles where this stuff is discussed, the term is defaulted to by people who think it's the debate equivalent of a .44 Magnum. They overuse it, and what's overused inevitably loses all bite.

Safire would agree with me.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Dude, he defrauded people. A lot. He's a criminal. If he is being prosecuted a second time for the same crime, the Double Jeopardy Clause should protect him. Cyrus Vance clearly doesn't think that's the case.

He's not a pawn in a political game. He got away with a lot of crimes for a long time. Then he got found out.

This would not happen but for who he is and but for the fact that Trump and NY are in a form of political war. And NY is run by Democrats.

This indictment is a vile and despicable as its target. In a perfect world, Trump would have actual billions, and commit tens of millions to beating the shit out Vance on behalf of Manafort.

In an even better world, this creates precedent allowing for the defense of selective prosecution. And the ethics investigation of Vance's office, and Cuomo's minions who put them up to this.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

This would not happen but for who he is and but for the fact that Trump and NY are in a form of political war. And NY is run by Democrats.

This indictment is a vile and despicable as its target. In a perfect world, Trump would have actual billions, and commit tens of millions to beating the shit out Vance on behalf of Manafort.

In an even better world, this creates precedent allowing for the defense of selective prosecution. And the ethics investigation of Vance's office, and Cuomo's minions who put them up to this.

I don't understand why everyone isn't jumping in to join you in your righteous condemnation of the injustice being foisted upon Manafort. I'm concerned I may have jumped the gun when I placed my initial and sizeable order of "Free Paul" t-shirts (tanks for the ladies!).

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

There's a semantic bridge you're attempting to cross which no one ever will.

Call someone a racist and you have accused him of something personally. Say to someone, "you are part of a racist system" and you are accusing someone of being part of something so big that he may not fully realize how and to what extent he is perpetuating that system. (And really, there is no way to ever know that answer.)

I think certain people want the license to call others "racist" because it gets the point across as brutally as possible. I understand the desire to do that. But a lot of the racist impacts of a racist society are caused by people who have no idea they are supporting racist societal structures. Saying, "you're a racist" to these people confuses them, or offends them. In either case, no constructive dialogue is had.

But if you say, "society is racist and you're part of society, so you're part of this system," people are forced to think. And if you get them thinking, rather than deflecting, you're already engaged in a constructive dialogue. If they think honestly about it, they'll realize the statement is true.

Sometimes, brevity is not the best way to convey a point. I've personally used the "racist system" explanation with diehard old, white Republicans and they'll grudgingly say, "I see that." Call one of them a racist and they'll dig in and fight. Even I will still dig in and fight if you call me racist. Why? Because it's a lazy way to say a more complex thing. And it's often employed by people who like its shock value. Even as a purveyor of hyperbole and an aficionado of provocateurs, I can't abide it. It's too obvious a bait, too transparent an attempt to create a linguistic knockout punch.

And the silly argument that to bristle at it is to prove white fragility insults my intellect. I'm happy to engage insult and hyperbole all day long. I actually enjoy it. But it had better be really well crafted, and not the sort of thing a sophomoric sort could wield as a cudgel.

Many people use the term in good faith. I think the people here do so generally. But among the pundits, and in the internet circles where this stuff is discussed, the term is defaulted to by people who think it's the debate equivalent of a .44 Magnum. They overuse it, and what's overused inevitably loses all bite.

Safire would agree with me.

Thank you for proving my points, but it really didn't need that many words. White people like you don't want to hear that they do racist stuff, and resist it by saying that racism is something that other people are, but that they are not. They may not realize that they are perpetuating racism, but they are. Someone who is willing broadly to accept that societal structures, broadly, are racist but who disagrees that he or she is personally involved in that is someone who is in denial and who will be part of the problem, not part of a solution.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

This would not happen but for who he is and but for the fact that Trump and NY are in a form of political war. And NY is run by Democrats.

That's crap. When you take a prominent role in national politics, you sign up for more scrutiny than you would otherwise get. That goes with the turf. No one forced Manafort to take the job of being Trump's campaign manager, but it is hardly a surprise that his business dealings then got a lot more attention. He committed a bunch of crimes to which he had no defense.

This indictment is a vile and despicable as its target. In a perfect world, Trump would have actual billions, and commit tens of millions to beating the shit out Vance on behalf of Manafort.

In an even better world, this creates precedent allowing for the defense of selective prosecution. And the ethics investigation of Vance's office, and Cuomo's minions who put them up to this.

That's just nonsense. If you think that a sleaze like Manafort should be able to defraud people and get away with it, you should say so. Because that's what you're suggesting.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Thank you for proving my points, but it really didn't need that many words. White people like you don't want to hear that they do racist stuff, and resist it by saying that racism is something that other people are, but that they are not. They may not realize that they are perpetuating racism, but they are. Someone who is willing broadly to accept that societal structures, broadly, are racist but who disagrees that he or she is personally involved in that is someone who is in denial and who will be part of the problem, not part of a solution.

And by "a solution," I do not mean trying to convince the rest of society that the word "racist" should only be used to describe someone who is conscious of his or her bigotry.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

That's crap. When you take a prominent role in national politics, you sign up for more scrutiny than you would otherwise get. That goes with the turf. No one forced Manafort to take the job of being Trump's campaign manager, but it is hardly a surprise that his business dealings then got a lot more attention. He committed a bunch of crimes to which he had no defense.



That's just nonsense. If you think that a sleaze like Manafort should be able to defraud people and get away with it, you should say so. Because that's what you're suggesting.

Um, so I'm putting you down as a "No" on the shirt.

[Replaced_Texan]

Is this the type of thing that one gets disbarred for or are there so many lawyers doing this sort of thing it'd deplete the profession?

https://abovethelaw.com/2019/03/will...sions-scandal/

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Thank you for proving my points, but it really didn't need that many words. White people like you don't want to hear that they do racist stuff, and resist it by saying that racism is something that other people are, but that they are not. They may not realize that they are perpetuating racism, but they are. Someone who is willing broadly to accept that societal structures, broadly, are racist but who disagrees that he or she is personally involved in that is someone who is in denial and who will be part of the problem, not part of a solution.

What racist stuff do I do? Or, what racist stuff do you do?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

Is this the type of thing that one gets disbarred for or are there so many lawyers doing this sort of thing it'd deplete the profession?

https://abovethelaw.com/2019/03/will...sions-scandal/

Yes and probably.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

That's crap. When you take a prominent role in national politics, you sign up for more scrutiny than you would otherwise get. That goes with the turf. No one forced Manafort to take the job of being Trump's campaign manager, but it is hardly a surprise that his business dealings then got a lot more attention. He committed a bunch of crimes to which he had no defense.



That's just nonsense. If you think that a sleaze like Manafort should be able to defraud people and get away with it, you should say so. Because that's what you're suggesting.

I’m fine with writing Manafort off on a caveat emptor basis. Man has terrible risk avoidance instinct. Foolish.

But that’s an analysis based on a notion that right and wrong are concepts for plebes, and the real rule of life is one must be shrewd with his cost/benefit analyses. You suggested earlier that Manafort did something bad and so deserved what gets. These aren’t mutually exclusive standards, but if he is where he is because he wasn’t shrewd enough to stay out of the spotlight, you’re kind of proving my point that we don’t have a “justice” system so much as a nihilistic property protection system, and Manafort walked afoul of some very powerful political forces who’d have never looked* at him but for his throwing himself into the spotlight and being aligned with a President who pissed off these powerful people. You’re acknowledging the prosecution of him is political.

I believe all politically motivated prosecutions are invalid. And the public agrees. People who go down get second chances because if “it was a political thing,” it’s considered tainted. Clinton proved this. His perjury was a technical crime only, excused as a product of a vile political prosecution.

ETA: * Looked at him further. Recall, an earlier investigation of him was closed in 2011. It was only revived because he became a target for Mueller.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

Is this the type of thing that one gets disbarred for or are there so many lawyers doing this sort of thing it'd deplete the profession?

https://abovethelaw.com/2019/03/will...sions-scandal/

So when he called it was already a setup? What is the Fed entrapment test?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

What racist stuff do I do? Or, what racist stuff do you do?

I'm not playing this game where we pretend to talk about this issue but each of us use the same words to mean different things so that we can talk past each other.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I’m fine with writing Manafort off on a caveat emptor basis. Man has terrible risk avoidance instinct. Foolish.

But that’s an analysis based on a notion that right and wrong are concepts for plebes, and the real rule of life is one must be shrewd with his cost/benefit analyses. You suggested earlier that Manafort did something bad and so deserved what gets. These aren’t mutually exclusive standards, but if he is where he is because he wasn’t shrewd enough to stay out of the spotlight, you’re kind of proving my point that we don’t have a “justice” system so much as a nihilistic property protection system, and Manafort walked afoul of some very powerful political forces who’d have never looked* at him but for his throwing himself into the spotlight and being aligned with a President who pissed off these powerful people. You’re acknowledging the prosecution of him is political.

No, that's shite. I do not believe that Mueller is political. I believe that Mueller is trying to run a non-partisan, non-political investigation into what he sees as genuine crimes and national security threats. I believe this in part because Mueller is a Republican, and also because he has never been much of a partisan. I believe that the targets of his investigation committed real crimes and know this, and are trying to escape justice by complaining that the investigation and prosecutions are political, partly because Trump supporters will believe it. What's a shame is that you believe it too.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I'm not playing this game where we pretend to talk about this issue but each of us use the same words to mean different things so that we can talk past each other.

Smh