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

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

He's not thoughtful. He's just pointing at everything he sees and crying "racism" or "misogyny." Diangelo might as well have not even written her book if one adopts Adder's positions. Why think about the issues in depth when you can just throw an accusation at every single chance you get?

Just because you disagree with his conclusions doesn't mean he isn't thoughtful. And you should know that he's right about race way more than you are.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Why bother writing a book that actually had the capacity to change some of my views, and I think would change a whole lot of white people's views (I have already recommended it to conservative friends most in need of its message)? If you don't need to make the case and you can, as Adder does, just accuse racism in regard to everything anybody says on the grounds its omnipresent, why bother to read DIangelo's careful and persuasive text?

Did you take a look at the Times weekend section relating to race this past weekend? I haven't read it all yet, but they are taking a look at how slavery and racism has impacted every single aspect of American life. Are you saying they aren't "making a case" because they won't approach the topic in a way that speaks to white people in a way that makes them comfortable?

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...a-slavery.html

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Adder's a naif. He may be an ally, but not one I'd want.

Must be nice. I value all of our allies.

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Ty@50

It was creepy when ggg made a sexy post, but for you/me to try to glom on? I would like to take this chance to apologize to all whose tuitmal.

In what year does this sock finally realize it's only been funny like, once?

TM

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

In what year does this sock finally realize it's only been funny like, once?

TM

I never thought it funny even once.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

For everyone here, but especially TM since we were arguing about Dems turning out the base vs. persuading marginal voters:

https://www.salon.com/2019/08/17/thi...2020-forecast/

Maybe she's wrong, but she reinforces my priors so clearly she must be right. Here's a bit of it:

"I don't know why Nancy Pelosi, the DCCC or many of these moderate members are convinced that moderate Republicans crossed over and voted for them. I have the data for some of these districts and the data tells a very different, very clear story: If Republicans voted in huge numbers, they voted for Republicans."

I'm sorry, but this is almost completely non-responsive to my point.

I do not think the big victory will be in winning over moderate Republicans, although I think there are clear gains that shouldn't be overlooked in the places I mentioned (OH, PA, MI). I think the gains to be made are with moderates of all stripes, independents, and off-again, on-again voters. The fact that both Obama and Trump won the 3 states I mentioned is significant and it doesn't speak to just turnout.

If you think Hillary lost those states because the core Democrats didn't show up in the necessary numbers, you're crazy. White people voted for Trump. Let me repeat that. White people voted for Trump.

Those white people, whoever the fuck they are and whichever party they voted for in 2016, need to be made to feel comfortable. They may be uncomfortable enough to stay home this time--and if that's the case, then yes. Turnout is crucial. But I don't want those assholes sitting at home because they just can't pull the lever for a black person, a woman, a gay man, or a Jew.

I also don't want them staying home because we need white people in states in which the Dem Presidential nominee may have no chance, but which might flip in Senate race. If you think McConnell loses in Kentucky with Harris on the Dem ticket, you're smoking crack. How about Collins in Maine? This shit matters.

Again--and this can't be repeated enough--if your progressive candidate loses and you don't vote against Trump in 2020, you are not fucking progressive. You're a piece of shit.

TM

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Just because you disagree with his conclusions doesn't mean he isn't thoughtful. And you should know that he's right about race way more than you are.

I don't disagree with all of his conclusions. But he's run Diangelo's argument to an absurd conclusion. Are there times that a comment about Chinese products is based in racism? Yes. Are all comments about Chinese products based in racism? No. Are they all based in racism because racism is omnipresent? No. A thing can be omnipresent, but not a factor in certain circumstances. He's arguing he has the right to assert that all criticisms have a racial component. Diangelo did not say that. She said racism can be a component of any expression because it's everywhere. That's entirely true.

Adder could have asserted that a percentage of the complaints I cited about Chinese products were borne of racism. That'd be a statement with which I'd agree. But he didn't say that. He said they were all racist and then mangled Diangelo's argument in service of that assertion. He's too blunt and too general, which I take as the opposite of "thoughtful."

Did you take a look at the Times weekend section relating to race this past weekend? I haven't read it all yet, but they are taking a look at how slavery and racism has impacted every single aspect of American life. Are you saying they aren't "making a case" because they won't approach the topic in a way that speaks to white people in a way that makes them comfortable?

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...a-slavery.html

Huh? I don't even know how to respond to this.

I did see the 1619 Project. I was talking about it this weekend with two friends. We actually wound up talking about White Fragility as a result of one of them raising the project. I recommended the book. The person who raised the 1619 Project, a foreign policy and fiscal conservative/social liberal, recommended reading 1619 as it's rolled out.

Must be nice. I value all of our allies.

I'll put it bluntly. You discussing this stuff? People will listen. Not because of your background. Because of delivery and analyses applied. I think you're interested in understanding the subject in depth and trying to fix what of it can be fixed. Adder? He's too Javert, too blunt and generalizing. Too "purist." People will write him off as some lightweight throwing around extreme and naive arguments, as someone else here has done.

TM[/QUOTE]

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I try to be an ally.

We are aligned. I have taken the step of following the "No Bra Club" on social media. One must do all he can for the movement.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I think different parts are more important to different people. But now that I see what you're actually saying, it makes perfect sense to me. I support this message.

TM

Here's what I think WF does most effectively. Prior to reading it, I was sympathetic, from experience in criminal justice system and work on project development in that area, to the general argument that black people are treated as second class citizens and preyed upon in many regards in many of our systems.

But I'd not considered the more subtle ways in which racism cancers our society. I'd not considered all of the overlooked transactions and interactions in which race has an impact.

And I'd certainly not considered the argument about white narcissism in the white women's tears chapter.

It's not a book about a monolithic thing. It demonstrates that racism winds its way into our lives in endless little ways. This is important because it undoes the broad defenses of white people ("we're post-racial," etc.). That informs a lot of my annoyance with people who make blunt arguments about the subject. It's not math. You can't argue, "X years have passed since Jim Crow, so racism is over." Nor can you argue, "Race is everywhere, so all things said about a certain group are necessarily racist." They might not be. You have to assess things granularly, as does Diangelo.

The complexity of this enormously complex issue has to be admitted to tackle it. Getting into an "is too" vs. "is not" argument about it impedes understanding. What people ought to be talking about when they talk about racism is the myriad little ways it impacts victims of it every day.

I can say this with great confidence: Most white people have no clue about the white narcissism discussed in that book. Not even close to a clue. It's completely normal for them to discuss race without even thinking maybe they should include a black voice in the conversation. I don't know why it hasn't been written recently, but a very short book, or even just an article, from a black person starting with, "Here's a week in my life. I'm going to just go through the week and sketch out the instances in which racism has impacted me. Let's start with 'Chapter 1: Monday'" would be hugely eye opening. Diangelo comes close to that, but can't really get there because she's writing from second hand perspective and basing a lot of her points on group discussions.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

Hey just popping in to say hello.

For the record, I have at this point abandoned the label "conservative" and given up the fight that Trumpism isn't conservatism and conservatism isn't racist. I am basically a socially conservative libertarian at this point. I am hoping that Justin Amash runs as an independent becauase as nauseated as I am with the GOP, the Democrats appear to be insane. I might have voted for Hickenlooper, or Delaney maybe, but none of the front runners.

Basically I have come to the conclusion that a significant plurality (not a majority, but maybe 40%) of the GOP basically is really racist, and they put up with the build a wall farce because it's really all about being able to shout "Send them back!" at rallies.

I left the GOP in 2016, but the Democrats offer me nothing, so basically I am part of the lonliest minority in the country.

Hello. Glad you're not among the total bat-shit looney ones. May you find what you are looking for - perhaps in another country though, because "socially conservative libertarianism" sounds like a bunch of people wanting to be free to oppress other folks.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Hello. Glad you're not among the total bat-shit looney ones. May you find what you are looking for - perhaps in another country though, because "socially conservative libertarianism" sounds like a bunch of people wanting to be free to oppress other folks.

It sounds like an oxymoron.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Are all comments about Chinese products based in racism? No. Are they all based in racism because racism is omnipresent? No.

Please cite where I said either of those things.

Let's do a quick run through. I said that generalizations about Chinese products are likely racist.

You responded with a lengthy, defensive rant and said I was "passing judgment."

I responded by trying to explain, again, that we all do, think and say things that are racist, because it is everywhere, and it's not a "judgment" to acknowledge it when we do.

And then you rambled some more and I stopped reading closely.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

If you think Hillary lost those states because the core Democrats didn't show up in the necessary numbers, you're crazy. White people voted for Trump. Let me repeat that. White people voted for Trump. ... Those white people, whoever the fuck they are and whichever party they voted for in 2016, need to be made to feel comfortable. They may be uncomfortable enough to stay home this time--and if that's the case, then yes. Turnout is crucial. But I don't want those assholes sitting at home because they just can't pull the lever for a black person, a woman, a gay man, or a Jew.

The white people who voted, voted for Trump. Her point is that Democrats won in 2020 by increasing turnout, not by persuading marginal voters.

Maybe what you're saying is, the fact that Clinton was a woman made people uncomfortable ()and we can't risk that again)?

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I don't disagree with all of his conclusions. But he's run Diangelo's argument to an absurd conclusion. Are there times that a comment about Chinese products is based in racism? Yes. Are all comments about Chinese products based in racism? No. Are they all based in racism because racism is omnipresent? No. A thing can be omnipresent, but not a factor in certain circumstances. He's arguing he has the right to assert that all criticisms have a racial component. Diangelo did not say that. She said racism can be a component of any expression because it's everywhere. That's entirely true.

Adder could have asserted that a percentage of the complaints I cited about Chinese products were borne of racism. That'd be a statement with which I'd agree. But he didn't say that. He said they were all racist and then mangled Diangelo's argument in service of that assertion. He's too blunt and too general, which I take as the opposite of "thoughtful."

While it's fun to talk about Adder like he's not here, I'm going to make this the last post about it from me.

I think Adder is in a place where many people of color have found themselves. When you constantly see people of color being treated differently, it's hard not to see. If I were Adder, I would have pointed out that you may not be seeing what others can from their perspective. I'm not sure I think that stating that the Chinese make crap is based on race and not the fact that government oversight and regulation for businesses isn't what ours is. And I'm not sure the focus on the negatives (hell, lead-laced baby formula is what sticks out for me) means you're racist. But here's the difference:

When Adder said that you tend to focus on the worst stuff when it comes to Chinese goods when they make amazing things as well, I didn't automatically throw up my hands, walk away from the conversation and call him a naïf. I thought about the way I was thinking about it and tried to reconcile my thought process with the possibility that I was overgeneralizing. You should do that to. Being forced to go through that thought process shouldn't elicit immediate disdain and dismissal.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Huh? I don't even know how to respond to this.

The NYT has devoted a large amount of resources this past week to showing how race permeates everything. Adder talks about how it permeates everything and actually applies that thought process to our conversations. The point I'm making is that as we all learn more about the extent of the impact of race in everything we have done and continue to do, Adder isn't as out there as you make him to be.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I did see the 1619 Project. I was talking about it this weekend with two friends. We actually wound up talking about White Fragility as a result of one of them raising the project. I recommended the book. The person who raised the 1619 Project, a foreign policy and fiscal conservative/social liberal, recommended reading 1619 as it's rolled out.

Cool enough. But there's no such thing as a fiscal conservative/social liberal. The support required to implement social policies requires resources. So anyone who calls themselves that is surely full of shit.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I'll put it bluntly. You discussing this stuff? People will listen. Not because of your background. Because of delivery and analyses applied. I think you're interested in understanding the subject in depth and trying to fix what of it can be fixed. Adder? He's too Javert, too blunt and generalizing. Too "purist." People will write him off as some lightweight throwing around extreme and naive arguments, as someone else here has done.

I think you would actually do better to discuss this stuff instead of throwing up your hands and talking about how people like him who focus on this stuff and talk about it a lot are the reason why we have a racist moron in office. Because that's absolutely fucking ridiculous.

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I can say this with great confidence: Most white people have no clue about the white narcissism discussed in that book. Not even close to a clue. It's completely normal for them to discuss race without even thinking maybe they should include a black voice in the conversation. I don't know why it hasn't been written recently, but a very short book, or even just an article, from a black person starting with, "Here's a week in my life. I'm going to just go through the week and sketch out the instances in which racism has impacted me. Let's start with 'Chapter 1: Monday'" would be hugely eye opening. Diangelo comes close to that, but can't really get there because she's writing from second hand perspective and basing a lot of her points on group discussions.

Dude, this happens all the time. That's the point of the book. Whenever we talk about an experience, white people find a way to say that the person probably isn't racist.

A senior associate walked into my office today and told me that when he was in the Boston office, he was holding the door for a secretary. They had a friendly exchange and the secretary asked him if he was there to fix the printers. Now, in my mind, there is no way around the racism behind that question. But I guarantee if I tell that story to 80% of the people at this firm, they will find a way to not make it racist. We stop telling you this shit because you don't fucking hear us. We are too fragile. You seize on the term "micro" in "micro-aggressions," and dismiss it. You label it PC. You say, "Why is everything always about race with you?" Etc. That shit is exhausting. This is what the book is talking about. You don't need a handy fucking diary in the life of a black person. You need to listen and be open to understanding what we're saying.

And I'll tell you this: Adder is.

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

The white people who voted, voted for Trump. Her point is that Democrats won in 2020 by increasing turnout, not by persuading marginal voters.

Maybe what you're saying is, the fact that Clinton was a woman made people uncomfortable ()and we can't risk that again)?

Uncle.

TM

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

Please cite where I said either of those things.

Let's do a quick run through. I said that generalizations about Chinese products are likely racist.

You responded with a lengthy, defensive rant and said I was "passing judgment."

I responded by trying to explain, again, that we all do, think and say things that are racist, because it is everywhere, and it's not a "judgment" to acknowledge it when we do.

And then you rambled some more and I stopped reading closely.

My comments about Chinese products are not racist. Many of those I've owned are built badly and break quickly.

I cannot speak to whether other complaints about Chinese products are born of racism. Nor can you. Neither of us know.

Do you nevertheless contend my comments are racist?

Do you contend the comments I cited about Chinese products are all racist?

Do you contend that every comment critiquing a foreign product is in some part racist toward the people of the country in which it was made?

Do you think the fallowing can be said without involving any racism: "Chinese appliances suck. They break easily and aren't well built."

Is it possible that, even if that last comment is wrong, it is born not of racism but of generalization?

I'm not doing this because I'm fragile. I'm doing this because your thinking is fragile. And it should be adjusted. Because your thinking is what makes white people write off smart thinkers on racism, like Diangelo, as cranks. You coming off as naive and extreme allows people who'd listen to a thoughtful argument to say, "Oh, these lefties are all fucking nuts. Can't deal with them."

You need to stop seeing racism in every corner and shouting it. You need to instead argue racism is omnipresent and can be an element of anything. But isn't always, necessarily, an element of everything. Sometimes, a guy just dislikes Chinese appliances.