Towards A Virtual Williamsburg!

[Not Bob]

Originally Posted by Gattigap

I hear what you're saying, but contemplating (say) whether Lee Atwater didn't really harbor ill will towards blacks personally doesn't change my impression that he was a race-baiting piece of shit.

Agreed. In fact, it could plausibly be argued that the cynical bastard who isn't, but who is willing to play the racist card in the way that Lee did, is even worse for the country.

But South Carolina is a much better place now. The Head Ball Coach is leading the Cocks to victory and there's a brown girl in the governor's mansion doing something other than the dishes.

[Not Bob]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

You did make that opinion clear. Gattigap is of a breed that is not so prone to be negative about a Dem.

Poor Joe. Why is it that he was the first of his family ever to go to a university?

I'll end by reiterating that the "clean" bothered me much less than the "articulate" did. But whatever.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Sure sucks to be a black woman.



TM

[Gattigap]

Originally Posted by Not Bob

But South Carolina is a much better place now. The Head Ball Coach is leading the Cocks to victory and there's a brown girl in the governor's mansion doing something other than the dishes.

Number one, re: the HBC, piss off. I was raised in Clemson country and attended Bulldog country, and cannot abide Spurrier happiness.

Number two, was about to make a Strom joke but then remembered he was never actually in that particular mansion. Next time, perhaps.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Not Bob

Poor Joe. Why is it that he was the first of his family ever to go to a university?

I'll end by reiterating that the "clean" bothered me much less than the "articulate" did. But whatever.

ain't no one calling you out- but what is the "first to college" thing about? and you can be bothered by both, or all of it or whatever, but tying "clean" to Chicago politics seems an attempt to excuse Biden since he is a Dem. You are above that, Space fuck is not competent but you are.

[Not Bob]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

ain't no one calling you out- but what is the "first to college" thing about? and you can be bothered by both, or all of it or whatever, but tying "clean" to Chicago politics seems an attempt to excuse Biden since he is a Dem. You are above that, Space fuck is not competent but you are.

That was a reference to one of Joe's plagiarism scandals -- the "first in his family to go to a university" is a line Joe used in the 1988 campaign that he stole from a Neil Kinnock (former UK Labor Party leader) speech.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Today in moose/shark news:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfou...34102?cmp=fbtl

That is all.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Not Bob

To this Average White Guy, "benefiting from" is not as bad as "fanning the flames of."

Maybe. But if the average white people in my family could fight it in the 60s, we can fight it now.

Originally Posted by Not Bob

And in 2008, McCain to his credit did more than semi-stop it (though I could be Not Right).

Untrue. He made a statement one time. And it was after Palin fanned the flames on his behalf and long after he knew he was benefiting from it.

Originally Posted by Not Bob

And I don't think Romney did any flame-fanning in 2012, did he?

Thin line.

Originally Posted by Not Bob

Confession -- I have occasionally stood by all quiet-like when fucked up shit is going on. I am Not Proud of myself for that. Most recently it happened after a deposition when counsel for a co-defendant engaged in series of sexist comments about the appearance of a woman lawyer working on the case with his client -- and my client. I have spoken up about that kind of stuff on other occasions, but I didn't this time. I tell myself that it was because I was so surprised by it, but still.

No one is perfect and I wasn't trying to say I am. I sure as hell am guilty of the same thing and it ain't always easy (especially in a work setting). But if you're benefiting from that shit and staying quiet, I think you're an ass.

TM

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

If you are benefiting from said racism (like Hillary or McCain* in '08), it's just as racist to me. One of the biggest problems I have with people is when they stand by all quiet-like when fucked up shit is going on. And if you're standing by because it's benefiting you, you are a special breed of asshole.

TM

*Until he semi-stopped it

I have my McCain issues, but he did not stand al quiet-like here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...&v=Xi6rIaVBacQ

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Not Bob

I'm Not Thurgreed (though I play him on TV), but maybe he was thinking of you when he read this part:



But I could be wrong.

I get that. Blow's just a dull writer, and that obvious point kind of proves it. Yep, there are loads of racism deniers. I am alleged to be one. The more interesting point is, do some of the people challenging the view that racism is the cause of all negative impacts felt by minorities have a point? Are some of them validated by facts or data or logical argument in noting what is knee-jerkedly always seen as racism might in fact, in many instances, be other factors at work?

General, broad pronouncements satisfy people. They reinforce our narratives. They allow us to adopt views and feel safe that those views are beyond challenge. Picking apart those views, destabilizing people's beliefs, is where interesting analysis starts. Blow is offering a safe point. He could offer something less safe, and lot more interesting.

If you see a strongly held belief, conviction, or assumption and don't feel the need to at least attempt to undermine it by asking people to view it from another perspective, or consider contrary arguments/facts/data, you're complicit in "intellectual herding."

And really - everything's ultimately subjective. The true answer to "Is it racism, or classism, or [something else]?" is, "Depends on the case." Stating "It's always/mostly/nearly-every-time this or that" in regard to anything is indefensible. It's like asking a doctor "To a strong degree of certainty, what - exactly - caused my cancer?" If he answers, get another doctor.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I get that. Blow's just a dull writer, and that obvious point kind of proves it. Yep, there are loads of racism deniers. I am alleged to be one. The more interesting point is, do some of the people challenging the view that racism is the cause of all negative impacts felt by minorities have a point? Are some of them validated by facts or data or logical argument in noting what is knee-jerkedly always seen as racism might in fact, in many instances, be other factors at work?

I'd suggest that you stop viewing racism narrowly and as only a motivation or cause. Racism is, more importantly, a set of effects. It matters not one wit to the young black associate's equality of opportunity whether the partner excluding him is doing so out of animus or "laziness."

The true answer to "Is it racism, or classism, or [something else]?" is, "Depends on the case."

No, the true answer, to the sense in which you mean the question, is "it doesn't matter." We're not seeking to judge men's souls.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

No, the true answer, to the sense in which you mean the question, is "it doesn't matter." We're not seeking to judge men's souls.

Cause and effect, one and the same.

"Dr. Adder, what gave me cancer?"

"Cancer."

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Cause and effect, one in the same.

"Dr. Adder, what gave me cancer?"

"Cancer."

Yup. I don't care at all about the cause of racist outcomes. Hate whoever you want. What matters are the effects.

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

You give Biden too much credit. I thought it was his ignorance leaking out.

TM

I agree. "He's not like the rest of them" is just as racist.

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I think those techies are more new age libertarians than traditional TPers. TPers as I understand it are hypocritical self-proclaimed Constitutional Originalists who like the positive rights they've accrued, but will rant about how the founding fathers intended only negative rights when somebody suggests expanding those positive rights to groups the TP doesn't like.

The techies are more the Peter Thiel sorts. They're like me (socially super-liberal, fiscally conservative, and against almost all govt expansion) or perhaps Less, but a bit too extreme.

The Kochs are first order classists, royalists to the bone, pretending to be libertarians.

Bullshit. The techies are the same "I got mine, fuck you" assholes as the Kochs. Rich, selfish assholes who don't give a fuck about anyone but themselves.