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.
And the proportions of Jasmine's face don't really match the "Hollywood ideal"--that's quite a schnozz she's got.
Indeed, I like how the whole discussion doesn't mention Jasmine at all. Even though she was overtly nonwhite. Even though "Aladdin" was the second of the "golden era" movies.
"I think this is one of the biggest roadblocks to constructive discussion of race in America..."
The biggest roadblock is people who are so desperate to Fight Evil For A Just Cause that they'll invent evil just so they can have some to fight.
You're right that most people don't think about why they associate the color black with evil and fear. It doesn't follow that they must be racist. If we associate the color yellow with warmth it doesn't mean that we believe Asians have higher body temperature!
That sounds great, but the local grocery store gave up on memorizing codes; register-bangers now just look at pictures to figure out the code for the item you handed them.
My only real interaction with checkers, in the past five years, has been when I try to buy beer in the self-checkout line and one has to check my ID.
This discussion rises again, in a way; the "Thor" movie now has a member of the Asgard pantheon who is black. In context, this would be like a movie about 1776 where Alexander Hamilton was black.
People think of funboys in bondage gear singing Streisand tunes because that's the only image of homosexuality they have. There simply aren't any other examples. It's like that old Onion article about "gay pride parade sets acceptance of gays back by 20 years".
Now, you can argue about who's to blame for this--the media for presenting the loopy side of the issue, or these people for not seeking out other perspectives--but it's not like it's hard to understand where the fear comes from, and why something as simple as seeing you can change everything.
I think that you're reading way too much into other people's attempts at chatty banter. "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus" is a pretty standard observational-humor fallback in conversations with people who don't know and whose name you've already forgotten.
I'm sorry to learn that you're a moron like Sarah Palin who uses the term "snow machine".
I mean, everyone says she's a moron because she said "snow machine", so I guess it stands to reason that you're a moron too, right? Because there's no way that everyone could be wrong.
I also think that "health insurance::car insurance" is an improper analogy, but not for the "you HAVE to buy health insurance" reason.
Instead, it's because if car insurance were health insurance, it would be the kind of "high-deductible catastrophic-illness" insurance that we're all supposed to hate.
My car insurance basically covers nothing but collision damage. (There's some stuff in there about covering medical bills of persons injured in an accident, but that's not a benefit that I'd receive so it isn't really relevant.) Windshield repairs are free; collision damage has a deductible that I pay out-of-pocket and then it's covered 100%. (of course, I have to go to the body shop the insurer likes.)
If this were health insurance, then it's probable that any emergency treatment or long-term serious illness (i.e. cancer) would be covered 100% after a deductible (as long as I used the insurer's preferred vendor, and the vendor gets to pick the treatment regime.) Everything else--including regular preventive checkups and treatment of non-emergent injury or illness--would be paid by me, out-of-pocket, in full.
And, actually, I'd kind of be okay with that. I'd be happy with the notion of Healthcare Spending Accounts (HSA) being made a national thing, with money in the account rolling over instead of vanishing at the end of the year, and patients being expected to just pay cash for medical services. But this would have to be paired with significant changes in the pricing structure for those services--in particular, the default assumption that insurance is paying for everything would have to go away.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Be the Change You Want to See”
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.
"
And the proportions of Jasmine's face don't really match the "Hollywood ideal"--that's quite a schnozz she's got.
Indeed, I like how the whole discussion doesn't mention Jasmine at all. Even though she was overtly nonwhite. Even though "Aladdin" was the second of the "golden era" movies.
"
"I think this is one of the biggest roadblocks to constructive discussion of race in America..."
The biggest roadblock is people who are so desperate to Fight Evil For A Just Cause that they'll invent evil just so they can have some to fight.
You're right that most people don't think about why they associate the color black with evil and fear. It doesn't follow that they must be racist. If we associate the color yellow with warmth it doesn't mean that we believe Asians have higher body temperature!
On “American Manufacturing and Employment”
That sounds great, but the local grocery store gave up on memorizing codes; register-bangers now just look at pictures to figure out the code for the item you handed them.
My only real interaction with checkers, in the past five years, has been when I try to buy beer in the self-checkout line and one has to check my ID.
On “Euripides, Iphigenia at Aulis, Agamemnon’s Guide to Childrearing”
Here's some discussion of how actual Classical cultures treated women: http://www.tor.com/blogs/2010/06/the-classical-approach
On “Antitrust/Media Consolidation: A Liberaltarian’s Manifesto”
A professional writer should NOT have trouble with "its/it's".
On “On Hobbits, Race, and Self-Contained Worlds”
This discussion rises again, in a way; the "Thor" movie now has a member of the Asgard pantheon who is black. In context, this would be like a movie about 1776 where Alexander Hamilton was black.
On “Do Gay Rights Hurt Democrats?”
People think of funboys in bondage gear singing Streisand tunes because that's the only image of homosexuality they have. There simply aren't any other examples. It's like that old Onion article about "gay pride parade sets acceptance of gays back by 20 years".
Now, you can argue about who's to blame for this--the media for presenting the loopy side of the issue, or these people for not seeking out other perspectives--but it's not like it's hard to understand where the fear comes from, and why something as simple as seeing you can change everything.
On “Marriage as Another Country”
I think that you're reading way too much into other people's attempts at chatty banter. "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus" is a pretty standard observational-humor fallback in conversations with people who don't know and whose name you've already forgotten.
"
I'm sorry to learn that you're a moron like Sarah Palin who uses the term "snow machine".
I mean, everyone says she's a moron because she said "snow machine", so I guess it stands to reason that you're a moron too, right? Because there's no way that everyone could be wrong.
On “Economic Commands are Different from Political Commands or Taxes”
I also think that "health insurance::car insurance" is an improper analogy, but not for the "you HAVE to buy health insurance" reason.
Instead, it's because if car insurance were health insurance, it would be the kind of "high-deductible catastrophic-illness" insurance that we're all supposed to hate.
My car insurance basically covers nothing but collision damage. (There's some stuff in there about covering medical bills of persons injured in an accident, but that's not a benefit that I'd receive so it isn't really relevant.) Windshield repairs are free; collision damage has a deductible that I pay out-of-pocket and then it's covered 100%. (of course, I have to go to the body shop the insurer likes.)
If this were health insurance, then it's probable that any emergency treatment or long-term serious illness (i.e. cancer) would be covered 100% after a deductible (as long as I used the insurer's preferred vendor, and the vendor gets to pick the treatment regime.) Everything else--including regular preventive checkups and treatment of non-emergent injury or illness--would be paid by me, out-of-pocket, in full.
And, actually, I'd kind of be okay with that. I'd be happy with the notion of Healthcare Spending Accounts (HSA) being made a national thing, with money in the account rolling over instead of vanishing at the end of the year, and patients being expected to just pay cash for medical services. But this would have to be paired with significant changes in the pricing structure for those services--in particular, the default assumption that insurance is paying for everything would have to go away.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.