Re: I bet She's Colorblind
 

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?

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.

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?

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

And just to head off any misunderstanding, I'm not saying anyone in this thread is a good person who means well. Everyone on this thread (including me) is at least somewhat racist and should try to fix that shit.

Re: I bet She's Colorblind
 

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.

Re: I bet She's Colorblind
 

Perhaps use another threshold measurement: Is this person worth my time?

If you use those terms, what enlightened conversation are we likely to be having? I can listen to you as an amateur anthropologist and assess why you think as you do, ponder just how dumb or fucked up you are, but that's what? Five minutes of discussion? That "trip to the zoo" loses entertainment value quickly, even if you've a really dark sense of humor. See Homo Bigotus to the right, using anti-Semitic terms to ask the bartender to extend the drink special.

Life's too short to be bored in such a manner. Even if you get that cringe worthy "Larry David couldn't write something this uncomfortable" moment where you are amazed by the backwardness of the person speaking.

I say you needn't reach the issue of whether the person's racism may be somehow mitigated. The person's a dullard unworthy of your time. I've talked to enough dull people in the legal profession to last three lifetimes. Enduring one socially is pissing away precious minutes.

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

A rare wise decision by him. I listened to the highlights during a long trip yesterday and want that time, and those lost IQ points, back.

Cummings did an admirable job of keeping a dumpster fire at least superficially dignified. AOC did a good job of asking smart questions, coherently.

The remainder of the spectacle reminded me why I often think we should bring back a royalist system. The grandstanding, the bleating, and the pathetic subject of it all, our national imbecile of the moment... I imagine the Brits, fumbling through the shitshow of Brexit debates, feel a bit better about themselves today.

It was like watching the village drunkards interrogate the village idiot. Speeches, bromides, rambling asides, a criminal referral of a guy already going to jail by a Trump supporter... To what audience do these people think they're playing? The dimmest voter could spot the overheated drama that these people were trying to convey.

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.

Winners: AOC and Cummings. Losers: Anyone who doubted Congress is 90% shmucks you wouldn't trust to watch your pets.

Re: I bet She's Colorblind
 

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.

Re: I bet She's Colorblind
 

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

Re: I bet She's Colorblind
 

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

Re: I bet She's Colorblind
 

https://media1.tenor.com/images/c2e3...itemid=9103021

TM

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

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

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

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?

Re: I bet She's Colorblind
 

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

Re: I bet She's Colorblind
 

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?

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

Re: I bet She's Colorblind
 

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

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

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

Re: I bet She's Colorblind
 

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

Re: I bet She's Colorblind
 

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

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

Yup.

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

I've always been a big fan of the Jay Smooth method of calling out racist acts/actions without necessarily calling the person a racist. That way they're more likely to get them to think about it rather than react to a label*. I think that's ultimately what Tlaib did, with the lovely parting shot of allowing people to draw their own conclusions:

Also, I own the book, but I have not finished it yet.


*'course, I can think whatever the hell I want to about someone, but in engagement and usually in discussion, I am going to hold off calling someone a racist piece of shit unless it's a pretty big thing or a pretty clear pattern of smaller things.

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

I really wish everyone else had been as good at this as AOC (she credits her ability to ask good questions to being a bartender). Direct questions that gave good background and resulted in actionable information.

Re: I bet She's Colorblind
 

Never heard that phrase but it seems completely fabricated. The fact that he said it around you makes me think he wanted to alpha you.

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

They can't help themselves. The terminal narcissism that leads one to politics compels them to make speeches.

As I listened to the highlight reel on MSNBC in the car, it was, "hot air, hot air, emote, hot air, emote, emote, emote, throw out political bromides for voters, blah, blah, blah, self righteous indignation, hot air, emote... and then suddenly AOC gets the mic and surgically elicits three tight admissions of bank fraud and insurance fraud*... and then it went back to emote, hot air, emote, argue amongst selves."

But I have to correct something. I blamed Tlaib for asking Cohen a silly opinion question about his view of what constitutes racism. I couldn't see who was doing what as I only heard the highlights on satellite radio. The person who asked that hypothetical of Cohen was someone names Pressley.

Tlaib, OTOH, was justified in addressing Meadows' idiotic use of a black Trump employee to disprove racism.

But again, asking Cohen's view of anything is an asinine exercise. The guy's only valid usefulness is as a fact witness. He's utterly unqualified to give an informed opinion on any complex subject.

____
* It's not fraud to misrepresent r/e value to get lower assessments. If you can find an appraiser who'll give you a lowball value, and the municipality doesn't succeed in proving it's wrong, and the assessment board grants it, you're just doing what every developer does. If you can lower an assessment, it's business malpractice not to do so.

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

This video is a tremendous oversimplification. But it still prioritizes the feelings of the person at fault over all else. I get that it is a pragmatic approach to a difficult topic. But this shit does not work in all contexts. And it's a perfect example of how people of color have to completely contort their reactions to protect other people's feelings.

Telling a woman who casually drops "nigger" in conversation without flinching or stuttering that what she said is racist lets her off the hook for being a racist. You may think it to be a practical approach to get her thinking about why she shouldn't be using that word, but the simple fact is, she's a fucking racist. And she should be told she's a racist. People should treat her like she's a fucking racist.

Contrast that with someone who is ignorant of certain racial issues. I met a college friend's dad once out on his farm in the middle of fucking nowhere. Nice guy. He asked me if black people's bodies mature faster than white people's. He's not a racist. He's just ignorant. His only exposure to black people was the few times he went to see his son play against urban teams. I would say that actions that have a racist effect fall into this category as well. If a partner gives all his work to people he identifies with, that will have a racist effect. There's obviously no point in calling him racist. Serves no purpose and will be counter-productive.

In short, I am no longer interested in suppressing or muting criticism when it comes to actual, intentional racism in order to protect the feelings of a racist. Tlaib very carefully walked the line between calling Meadows a racist and describing his act as a racist one--presumably to stay on the right side of the rules of decorum. (As an aside, how can truth not be a defense to the rules of decorum? "Racist" can be purely descriptive depending on what the target has said and done.)

You absolutely have to hold off calling even a clear racist a racist because white people have set it up such that calling someone a racist is more offensive than actual racism. That's the point we are discussing and the point of the book.

TM

Re: I bet She's Colorblind
 

Nah. Not this dude. If there were ever anyone who desperately wanted to be my friend,* it's this guy. And he ain't no alpha. He was practically weeping to my buddy about it.

TM

*I know, right?

This article?
 

Gets it right.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/28/o...imes&smtyp=cur

TM

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

I wonder if Cohen and Lanny Davis would have been better off leaving the racism out of his testimony, as it gives half of the country an easy exit point to dismiss what Cohen is saying and, unfortunately, isn't likely to be relevant to his fitness to serve.

Which has me sort of recalling a congressman introducing articles of impeachment that started with "he's a racist." Like, true and all, but that is not going anywhere.

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

More college ridiculousness - https://www.sfgate.com/news/educatio...d-13654926.php

Re: This article?
 

Meadows was there to make a mess of the hearing. To slow things down, cause parliamentary procedure disputes, etc. And if lucky, maybe defend Trump substantively, if such an occasion arose.

That article gives Meadows the benefit of assuming he's genuinely aggrieved. I didn't see his face, but when I heard him engage Tlaib on that point, my first thought was, "smart way to eat up the clock."

The author of the article notes that Meadows only flipped out about race issues, and not fraud allegations. Uh, yeah? Because no Trump defender in his right mind wants to extend testimony on that stuff. OTOH, there's little to almost nor risk in starting a lengthy battle about whether someone just called you a racist.

This is why I liked AOC's questioning so much. She didn't give any opening to Trump defenders. She covered more ground in 2 minutes than anybody else the whole day. And she got off stage quickly after drawing blood.

If I'm a GOP strategist at this moment, I might consider telling candidates to actively seek to get into debates about racism and inequality. The GOP has no policy points (nor do the Democrats really, but that's another issue), but if it can engage Progressives in arguments about #metoo, inequality, or racism, it can avoid having someone like AOC ask really tight questions that expose its lack of useful policies the way she exposed bank and insurance fraud while Meadows, Tlaib, Pressley, and Cohen pondered what exactly constitutes racism.

Doing what AOC did can win elections. It can get Trump not only impeached but indicted. Doing what the rest of that panel did, and what a lot of Democrats did in or around the Kavanaugh hearings, can grab defeat from the jaws of victory for the party in 2020.

Re: I bet She's Colorblind
 

For starters, I think what you are describing is a universal condition. But people who aren't white appreciate it in a different way. Whites can think that other people have an ethnic identity but that they don't, that racism is something incidental to their lives.

Also, there are the people who are racist and proud of it -- not many of them, but they exist. If you ask someone to think of a racist, most will think of someone who is unabashed about it. So the word fits a little uncomfortably (I mean that two ways) for other people who carry levels of it.

There is some guilt, there is denial, but delusion doesn't sound right. Because a delusion that many other people share and perpetuate is more like another word for culture.

That's all about how people actually think. 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. 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.

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

They can't help themselves. The Democrats overthink and seem insecure about their hand.

If they asked dozens more questions regarding specifics of Trump's business frauds, this hearing would have been catastrophic for Trump. But they didn't, partly because I don't think a lot of them understood how those crimes work. (Congresspeople are not the most sophisticated lot.) But also because they were more interested in eliciting a soundbite on an issue they think will reach the broadest coalition of their voters. So they gave speeches, we heard a grand debate on racism, they lauded Cohen, and the American people came away with this:

Donald Trump has horrible personal character and a lot of Democrats think he's a racist and a bunch of Congresspeople argued about whether one of them was a racist.

In other news, the sun rose this morning.

And in 48 hours, its all erased in the media cycle, AOC's questions meriting a thimble's worth of ink in the press, while the Meadows debacle gets an oil tanker's worth.

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

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

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

Read this about a note of grace.

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

As I noted at the start of my comments on this hearing, Cummings carried almost all of the dignity in that room.

I think he gave Meadows too much credit. Meadows was despicable. But Cummings did the right thing, and the smart thing, to blunt Meadows’ faux indignation.

Agreed. We need more Cummingses in govt. Sadly, I think he’s a soon extinct decent human in a House of idiot opportunists.

It's good to know
 

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.

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

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

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

Entry point isn't the problem he is mentioning.

Re: I bet She's Colorblind
 

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

Re: I bet She's Colorblind
 

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.