"I’m going to be extra cautious to judge only actual hate – or narcissism or cynicism or just blatant ambition without a larger belief – as illegitimate. If the messenger is sincere, I’ll listen to the message. "
Sounds great. Are you going to declare that people like Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh are "axiomatically insincere", though?
"The bad news is that the heated rhetoric does act as a ‘dog whistle’ to crazies."
Oh, and you were doing so well right up until then. I actually liked where you were going with exposing the correlation/causation fallacy as applied to modern American assassinations.
But if violent rhetoric acts as a dog whistle to crazies, then how do you explain someone like Ted Kaczynski? What violent rhetoric got him started?
"...we can’t expect to stop assassins by looking at the places we’d expect them to come from."
So, great, you're not blaming Sarah Palin; you're just calling for mass censorship. That's supposed to be better?
From the article: "Stamper quietly chewed over these thoughts until the early 1990s, when he began to speak out to business and chamber of commerce types. He began arguing that we should legalize all drugs. "The more sinister they are, the greater the justification for regulation instead of prohibition," he says. "A regulatory model would give the government, imperfect as it is, the first opportunity since the beginning of the last century to exercise some control over the drug trade. In recent years, we have reduced tobacco consumption by roughly half without a shot being fired." "
Ah-heh. Cigarette consumption has been reduced because most places are making cigarettes illegal. It's not like people are voluntarily deciding not to smoke--the government has just made it so difficult to legally smoke that they don't try anymore.
On the other hand, how can we justify making substances illegal in a country where (depending on the state) I can buy whiskey and beer at a gas station?
"If I walk down the street and see it spray painted on a wall, I can’t really help but read it, even if I catch only a fleeting glance before I realize what I’m doing."
Sounds like Catcher In The Rye, and Holden talking about writing "FUCK YOU" on things.
I think it has more to do with the uncontrolled nature of speech. If I read a word to myself, then I'm the only one that experiences it, and I can completely control that experience. Nobody is going to simultaneously experience my reading that word (well, unless they're reading over my shoulder or something.)
But if I say the word, then other people might not share the context in which I am experiencing it. That is, someone walking by in the hallway might hear "NIGGER!" followed by a nervous giggle. They wouldn't necessarily interpret it as "this person is reading aloud from Huckleberry Finn and not speaking to me specifically, or to any person."
Your mom *is* right. It doesn't matter who was right; what matters is who wins. And keep in mind that if you get beat up but the other guy is punished, then you won.
I have to say that it's been funny watching people rush to be the first to not use this as a way to score political points (which, they remind us, their opponents are always just about to do!)
I was gonna say, "there's a reason the 45 automatic is the M1911, and it's not because there were one thousand nine hundred and ten previous designs..."
"I also brought up the Discovery Channel guy, who was obviously more closely tied to the left."
Ah-heh. Yes, yes you did, and in fact what you said was "the Discovery Channel hostage taker...was more identifiably ‘left-wing’, but he was so fringe it’s impossible to accurately lump him in with the American left."
So you brought him up just to claim that he wasn't Of The Left. Nice balance!
The problem with your "gently pointing out" approach is that racism--as defined by society at large--is a specific accusation. You can't be "accidentally" or "unknowingly" racist.
See, that's what's happening here. You've invented a new definition of racism, and you're accusing people(*) of being racist by that definition. You think that you're just saying "hey, think about the reasons you made these choices"; but they're seeing you as suggesting that they're two seconds away from putting on a white bedsheet and burning a cross on someone's lawn.
And that's without getting into the way you point out what you don't see. Who are you to tell me what my motives are? Would you be upset if someone started telling you that, e.g., the reason you like dogs is that you've got an unresolved bestiality fetish?
You see yourself as "gently pointing out", but what you are is a smug fuck who gets off by telling people that they're racist and are too dumb to realize it.
Ah-heh. This sounds like "I'm no prude, I've got nothing against gays, but there's some places that you have to draw the line!" Or maybe "It's not racist to say that some people are just intellectually inferior."
You want right-wing pundits to tone it down? Fine; make sure that door swings both ways. I look forward to your angry--er, not angry, reasoned and rational and not-angry-but-terribly-terribly-hurt denuncation of these guys.
Or is it only influential when someone whose name you recognize does it?
I'm not really sure how "you're being UNCONSCIOUSLY RACIST" is supposed to be seen as non-accusatory.
You seem to believe that the "unconscious" qualifier somehow mitigates the accusation. And I'm sure that you do honestly believe this; you believe that you're being gently corrective rather than harshly accusative; you believe that you're just "raising awareness" rather than just giving in to the pleasures of ideological zealotry.
So, in a way, you're being exactly as oblivious as the people you're accusing of unconscious racism. You're not just failing to take others' perceptions into account; you're saying that they are wrong for having had those perceptions at all.
"...that the wicked mother in Tangled has non-Caucasian features is not an accident, and the reasons behind it are not wholesome, even if those reasons aren’t shared by the creators of Tangled."
At this point I'm not even sure what you're arguing anymore. You sound like you're trying to say that the characters in Tangled are racist even though nobody meant to make them that way. You're trying to have your cake and eat it too--shine the blinding light of truth on the bugs of racism while not actually directly accusing anyone of doing anything wrong.
"The South pushing state sovereignty every hundred years for all the wrong reasons has poisoned the well pretty badly."
That's what ticks me off so bad about Arizona, or Christine O'Donnell. You've got these strong highly-visible states-rights arguments for stupid shit. Like, "we think that states should be free to determine educational cirriculae free from Federal influence!" and I'm all "right on!" And then it's "and we think that those cirriculae should present Young Earth Creationism as a plausible origin of the planet!" and I'm all "...ffffffuuuuuuuuuuck"
This sounds like less of a thing than you describe it. The lawyers, on seeing the difficulty of jury selection, worked out a plea where the guy basically pled to time served, a cash fine, and "no conviction on record". I'm pretty sure that if the lawyers had wanted to go the distance, then a bunch of those potential jurors would have been slapped with Contempt charges and they'd have got a new batch.
"I think the point is that “classic good and evil symbolism” is conditioned by racial stereotypes, having been conceived in a racist environment."
Actually, I'll go further than my earlier comment, and suggest that such a huge claim--that is, the entirety of European fictional archetypes are based on racist ideation--really ought to require some backup. Maybe even just a cite or two.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Some thoughts on Obama’s memorial service remarks”
...and, like the lady said, not just waiting for it to be your turn to speak.
"
I'm not sure what you mean by "diffused the situation". Could you please explain?
"
"I’m going to be extra cautious to judge only actual hate – or narcissism or cynicism or just blatant ambition without a larger belief – as illegitimate. If the messenger is sincere, I’ll listen to the message. "
Sounds great. Are you going to declare that people like Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh are "axiomatically insincere", though?
On “Space Oddity”
...so you're telling me that "censorship" is an overly-strong word and I shouldn't be allowed to say it?
"
"The bad news is that the heated rhetoric does act as a ‘dog whistle’ to crazies."
Oh, and you were doing so well right up until then. I actually liked where you were going with exposing the correlation/causation fallacy as applied to modern American assassinations.
But if violent rhetoric acts as a dog whistle to crazies, then how do you explain someone like Ted Kaczynski? What violent rhetoric got him started?
"...we can’t expect to stop assassins by looking at the places we’d expect them to come from."
So, great, you're not blaming Sarah Palin; you're just calling for mass censorship. That's supposed to be better?
On “It’s Not Accuracy They Want…”
And in point of fact we have "human-hunting dogs"--scent trackers.
On “Prohibition’s Friends and Enemies”
From the article: "Stamper quietly chewed over these thoughts until the early 1990s, when he began to speak out to business and chamber of commerce types. He began arguing that we should legalize all drugs. "The more sinister they are, the greater the justification for regulation instead of prohibition," he says. "A regulatory model would give the government, imperfect as it is, the first opportunity since the beginning of the last century to exercise some control over the drug trade. In recent years, we have reduced tobacco consumption by roughly half without a shot being fired." "
Ah-heh. Cigarette consumption has been reduced because most places are making cigarettes illegal. It's not like people are voluntarily deciding not to smoke--the government has just made it so difficult to legally smoke that they don't try anymore.
On the other hand, how can we justify making substances illegal in a country where (depending on the state) I can buy whiskey and beer at a gas station?
On “Chabon-Inspired Stray Thoughts on Huck Finn”
"If I walk down the street and see it spray painted on a wall, I can’t really help but read it, even if I catch only a fleeting glance before I realize what I’m doing."
Sounds like Catcher In The Rye, and Holden talking about writing "FUCK YOU" on things.
"
I think it has more to do with the uncontrolled nature of speech. If I read a word to myself, then I'm the only one that experiences it, and I can completely control that experience. Nobody is going to simultaneously experience my reading that word (well, unless they're reading over my shoulder or something.)
But if I say the word, then other people might not share the context in which I am experiencing it. That is, someone walking by in the hallway might hear "NIGGER!" followed by a nervous giggle. They wouldn't necessarily interpret it as "this person is reading aloud from Huckleberry Finn and not speaking to me specifically, or to any person."
On “Be the Change You Want to See”
I'm reading your post and I'm just thinking "he's been trolled, he's been trolled, he's been trolled..."
"
Your mom *is* right. It doesn't matter who was right; what matters is who wins. And keep in mind that if you get beat up but the other guy is punished, then you won.
"
I have to say that it's been funny watching people rush to be the first to not use this as a way to score political points (which, they remind us, their opponents are always just about to do!)
On “Crazy people doing crazy things”
I was gonna say, "there's a reason the 45 automatic is the M1911, and it's not because there were one thousand nine hundred and ten previous designs..."
"
"I also brought up the Discovery Channel guy, who was obviously more closely tied to the left."
Ah-heh. Yes, yes you did, and in fact what you said was "the Discovery Channel hostage taker...was more identifiably ‘left-wing’, but he was so fringe it’s impossible to accurately lump him in with the American left."
So you brought him up just to claim that he wasn't Of The Left. Nice balance!
On “Blonde on the Tracks*”
The problem with your "gently pointing out" approach is that racism--as defined by society at large--is a specific accusation. You can't be "accidentally" or "unknowingly" racist.
See, that's what's happening here. You've invented a new definition of racism, and you're accusing people(*) of being racist by that definition. You think that you're just saying "hey, think about the reasons you made these choices"; but they're seeing you as suggesting that they're two seconds away from putting on a white bedsheet and burning a cross on someone's lawn.
And that's without getting into the way you point out what you don't see. Who are you to tell me what my motives are? Would you be upset if someone started telling you that, e.g., the reason you like dogs is that you've got an unresolved bestiality fetish?
You see yourself as "gently pointing out", but what you are is a smug fuck who gets off by telling people that they're racist and are too dumb to realize it.
On “Crazy people doing crazy things”
"While I would never advocate censorship..."
Ah-heh. This sounds like "I'm no prude, I've got nothing against gays, but there's some places that you have to draw the line!" Or maybe "It's not racist to say that some people are just intellectually inferior."
You want right-wing pundits to tone it down? Fine; make sure that door swings both ways. I look forward to your angry--er, not angry, reasoned and rational and not-angry-but-terribly-terribly-hurt denuncation of these guys.
Or is it only influential when someone whose name you recognize does it?
"
See above re: tit-for-tat.
On “Madalyn Murray O’Hair”
I like how her son described her: "The Hulk Hogan of atheism".
On “Blonde on the Tracks*”
Don't forget Mulan. And Esmerelda from "Hunchback of Notre Dame".
On “Death of a City and a Region”
But, again, maybe there is no "adapt". Maybe "everyone moved somewhere else" is how the region "adapts".
On “Blonde on the Tracks*”
I'm not really sure how "you're being UNCONSCIOUSLY RACIST" is supposed to be seen as non-accusatory.
You seem to believe that the "unconscious" qualifier somehow mitigates the accusation. And I'm sure that you do honestly believe this; you believe that you're being gently corrective rather than harshly accusative; you believe that you're just "raising awareness" rather than just giving in to the pleasures of ideological zealotry.
So, in a way, you're being exactly as oblivious as the people you're accusing of unconscious racism. You're not just failing to take others' perceptions into account; you're saying that they are wrong for having had those perceptions at all.
"...that the wicked mother in Tangled has non-Caucasian features is not an accident, and the reasons behind it are not wholesome, even if those reasons aren’t shared by the creators of Tangled."
At this point I'm not even sure what you're arguing anymore. You sound like you're trying to say that the characters in Tangled are racist even though nobody meant to make them that way. You're trying to have your cake and eat it too--shine the blinding light of truth on the bugs of racism while not actually directly accusing anyone of doing anything wrong.
On “A Modest Proposal”
"The South pushing state sovereignty every hundred years for all the wrong reasons has poisoned the well pretty badly."
That's what ticks me off so bad about Arizona, or Christine O'Donnell. You've got these strong highly-visible states-rights arguments for stupid shit. Like, "we think that states should be free to determine educational cirriculae free from Federal influence!" and I'm all "right on!" And then it's "and we think that those cirriculae should present Young Earth Creationism as a plausible origin of the planet!" and I'm all "...ffffffuuuuuuuuuuck"
On “American Manufacturing and Employment”
Sounds like the "slines" from Anathem.
On “Be the Change You Want to See in the World, Jury Duty Editon”
This sounds like less of a thing than you describe it. The lawyers, on seeing the difficulty of jury selection, worked out a plea where the guy basically pled to time served, a cash fine, and "no conviction on record". I'm pretty sure that if the lawyers had wanted to go the distance, then a bunch of those potential jurors would have been slapped with Contempt charges and they'd have got a new batch.
On “Blonde on the Tracks*”
"I think the point is that “classic good and evil symbolism” is conditioned by racial stereotypes, having been conceived in a racist environment."
Actually, I'll go further than my earlier comment, and suggest that such a huge claim--that is, the entirety of European fictional archetypes are based on racist ideation--really ought to require some backup. Maybe even just a cite or two.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.