We are all Slave now.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Rather than quote them, which you couldn't do, you've moved to your own "everyman" and his take on the conversation. It's a nice trick -- since it's inventive and hypothetical, it's irrefutable. I don't think you are characterizing either Harris or Klein fairly, but whatever.

You are not an everyman. Moreover, the idea that an everyone would have a worthwhile take on their conversation is silly. Everyman doesn't give a shit. You listened to the podcast because you care more than Everyman, and because you're a Harris fan, a Klein hater, or both. Or because the subject moves you -- I don't know. If you have something useful to say about their dialogue, it's because you care enough to engage with what they actually said.

The use of “everyman” was an attempt to convey how I think an everyman, as opposed to a lawyer, would hear the conversation.

This was in response to you citing a disconnect between how we might hear the conversation and how a non-lawyer might.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

You have a long history of being defensive about racism, e.g., arguing "that's not really racism" on this board.

maybe that's a bit broad? e.g. he said this Harris guy wasn't racist but when I asked about what the guy said he didn't argue that it was racist, did he? And having a discussion does mean one can say, "I don't think that is racist," doesn't it?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Why does it have to be economic insecurity or racism? Why not both?

Marxism is often understood as a reductive system of simple explanations for complex phenomena, but trying reading Marx -- it's not that simple.

It is both, in near equal amounts, among numerous other causes, all of those in much smaller amounts.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The use of “everyman” was an attempt to convey how I think an everywhitemanlikemeexceptingwhitemenofotherreligionsorclassesordemographicslikesayjewsorpoors, as opposed to a lawyer, would hear the conversation.

This was in response to you citing a disconnect between how we might hear the conversation and how a non-lawyer might.

fixed it.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Adder

You have a long history of being defensive about racism, e.g., arguing "that's not really racism" on this board.

That's not necessarily being defensive about racism. I think it's pretty clear that Sebby has a much narrower view of what racism is than you do (or than I do).

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Sure, it can be both. Moreover, it can be both sometimes, and it can be just racism sometimes. Sometimes, it can even just be because they don't like the woman who is running on the Democratic ticket.

I thought we were supposed to ignore misogyny.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

You have a long history of being defensive about racism, e.g., arguing "that's not really racism" on this board.

If I say something is not what you accuse it of being, it does not mean I am defensive. It means I disagree. It means I have considered both sides of the issue and concluded that you are wrong.

Our justice system has many racist elements.
I do not think saying Islam has a problem with violence is racist.

Racism is a huuuuge, multi-faceted thing. I will agree with you on numerous things being racist, but on others I will not. I will disagree. Each instance in which I disagree does not put me into DeAngelo’s “defensive” bucket any more than each instance in which I agree makes me one who generalizes that everything is caused by racism.

Again, you have to assess these things event by event, issue by issue, etc.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The use of “everyman” was an attempt to convey how I think an everyman, as opposed to a lawyer, would hear the conversation.

Let me repeat: You are not an everyman. Sorry. It's a hard truth, but I"m here to deliver it.

This was in response to you citing a disconnect between how we might hear the conversation and how a non-lawyer might.

The disconnect was between your characterization of the conversation and the actual words in the actual transcript, which said something different. You are trying to turn it into a question of what one "might hear" but there is absolutely no question about what Harris and Klein said -- it's right there in the transcript.

Now, I gather you listened to the podcast and came away with an impression that is not consistent with what Harris and Klein actually said. Not to get all technical on you, but that illustrates why, for example, there is a demand for court reporters. When there is a transcript, you don't need to have to argue about competing memories and subjective impressions of what was said.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

No. But that’s only 1/2 of the right.

Shall we discuss the cuckoo pants views of the far left? I don’t think so because they’re only 1/3-1/2 of Democrats.

Don't do this. The kooks on the left do not believe shit this ridiculous in anywhere near the numbers that people on the right believe it. Fucking 45% of the Republican Party prefers Russia over Democrats. Their news sources cultivate conspiracy theories. They invent them, give voice to them, support them. Hell, the fucking President spends most days making them up and using his platform to spread them. He was voted into office because of the Obama-Muslim-Kenyan bullshit. It's not even close.

Stop with the bullshit equivalence. It's just absolutely ridiculous.

TM

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

fixed it.

You’re pretty much earning a spot in the Wikipedia page defining “tribalist.”

I’ll double down so much as to say not only are you tribalist, you enjoy it. And the only reason you won’t say as much is because TM’s posts have boxed you in in on that front. To say so now would be to admit a defect in your personality that you privately think is a feature.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Some are, some are not.

I think we've gone as far as we can on the other stuff. But this is just flat out wrong.

If you still support Trump, by definition you are okay enough with Trump's racism (statements and policy) that it doesn't affect your support of him. Period. There is absolutely no arguing that.

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I don't think the argument that most whites are reflexively defensive on race matters is persuasive. I think most don't care and don't want to be bothered by people talking about it. That's the better issue on which to focus.

TM

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I think we've gone as far as we can on the other stuff. But this is just flat out wrong.

If you still support Trump, by definition you are okay enough with Trump's racism (statements and policy) that it doesn't affect your support of him. Period. There is absolutely no arguing that.

TM

I don’t think so. I think you can be disgusted by one element of him but conclude other benefits outweigh that.

The huge number of white Trump voters who’ll never admit they voted for him do so a lot out of embarrassment and disgust at his lurid racist ramblings.

I personally have a hard time saying anything positive about the man, even when he does something positive (by accident, usually) because I’m aligning with a hero to racists. I shudder to think what his voters think to themselves.

Among affluent, educated, moderate whites, you just dont speak of the man.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Don't do this. The kooks on the left do not believe shit this ridiculous in anywhere near the numbers that people on the right believe it. Fucking 45% of the Republican Party prefers Russia over Democrats. Their news sources cultivate conspiracy theories. They invent them, give voice to them, support them. Hell, the fucking President spends most days making them up and using his platform to spread them. He was voted into office because of the Obama-Muslim-Kenyan bullshit. It's not even close.

Stop with the bullshit equivalence. It's just absolutely ridiculous.

TM

Good catch. The idea that the far left is 1/3 - 1/2 of Democrats is absolutely nutso.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

That's not necessarily being defensive about racism. I think it's pretty clear that Sebby has a much narrower view of what racism is than you do (or than I do).

I'm curious to understand how sentence two isn't evidence of the defensiveness you reference in sentence one. People don't make those statements in an academic vacuum.

TM