I don’t understand how someone could honestly mistake a statement of focus “burgers are good,” for one of exclusion, “no food besides burgers are good.” This can only happen through a willful attempt to misrepresent the original message. I cannot imagine someone who actually likes burgers doing this. Such a purposeful misrepresentation must almost assuredly be done by someone who believes the opposite of the focused message.
To clarify, no one who likes burgers would, either accidentally or willfully, represent the message of “burgers are good,” to mean, “no other food is good.” Such a misrepresentation is likely to only come from someone who thinks that burgers are, in fact, not good, or, at the very least, someone who thinks that burgers are so inferior to other foods that it’s an insult to those other foods to focus on burgers. Either way, it shows a disdain for burgers.
What a masterful response by the professor! A tactful, polite takedown without crossing the line into snark or sarcasm. I shall endeavor to take his approach whenever I reply to anyone in a similar situation. Bravo, Prof. Anonymous!
Very solid writing and reasoning. A lot to be learned here, and I applaud the professor for elevating the dialog and teaching some profoundly good points.
One thing I disagreed with was in this passage (italics added by me):
There can be reasonable differences of opinion about what something means. Something can even carry a meaning that has a larger life of its own, regardless of the meaning ascribed to it by a particular person. For example, the flag of the Confederacy carries the meaning of white supremacy. Even if a particular person thinks it only means “tradition.” One person, or even a group of people, cannot take away the flag’s odious meaning just by declaring that it means something else. Similarly, ascribing a negative meaning where none exists does not bring that meaning into being.
Those last two lines seem directly contradictory to me
“[People] can’t take away [something’s] odious meaning just by declaring that it means something else” … followed by
Similarly, ascribing a negative meaning where none exists does not bring that meaning into being.
I agree with (1). I disagree with (2), and I don’t see how someone who subscribes to (1) could assert (2). What (1) is saying is that when somebody believes there is some kind of meaning associated with something, someone else can’t simply declare that meaning null and void (at least not to the audience that believes the thing being declared null and void)… and that is true. But (2) then seems to bring in the premise that there is some kind of objective reality to meaning, and that meaning with a quality called “negative and isn’t there” can’t be created… and that is false; as point (1) said, meaning is that which is ascribed to something, by whomever. We’re not talking here about matters of science, like whether autism can be proven to be caused by vaccinations; we’re talking about symbolism, the author’s example being the confederate flag. And when it comes to symbolic meaning, it is precisely someone associating and believing something which brings that association and meaning into being. Whether a given symbolic association is “justified” is really, in the end, a question of audience. In a forum with sufficiently little backlash, I’m sure that there are people who would claim that it’s negative and uncharitable to NOT associate the confederate flag with the dignity and noble sacrifices of those who fought bravely to preserve white supremacy; but that doesn’t render beliefs to the contrary non-existent, even in a world where the south had won that war.
In the grand assessment of the professor’s message, this objection of mine is mostly inconsequential, and I acknowledge that. IMO it was the one minor flaw in an otherwise masterful tour-de-force of clear thinking and fabulous communication.
This purposeful misrepresentation may have more to do with denial. Being guarded against yet another food debate where they are made to feel more responsible, than they are comfortable with facing. Everyone can agree than there once was a food-bashing problem, but to admit that the problem persists now, even with them and their attitudes towards burgers, is too hard.
It bothers me that a lot of what is said about BLM is flat-out false. The whole business about rioting, looting, burning stores has no basis in fact - but that doesn’t stop seemingly well-meaning people from repeating it word for word.
These false messages are exactly the same ones that are repeated whenever black people unite for any reason. (Except Jesus.) As soon as two or three are gathered, there’s going to be a white supremacist there calling them thugs and rioters.
The only remedy for this is for journalists to do their job. Stop reporting “both sides of the story.” If one “side” is simply false, you don’t have a duty to act as stenographer - you have a duty to point out the falsehoods. I understand this will never fly at Fox News, which is utterly committed to white supremacy. But other news sources still have a responsibility, and they still have an audience.
These law students probably aren’t diabolical crypto-fascists. They’re just repeating what they’ve been told, not only by Fox but by many, many news sources. If all you knew is what CBS, for example, was saying, you might well agree with them.
#Premise: Saying “Black Lives Matter” is an expression of racist hatred of white people.
#Critique:“Black Lives Matter” is not a statement about white people. It does not exclude white people. It does not accuse white people, unless you are a specific white person who perpetrates, endorses, or ignores violence against black people. If you are one of those people, then somebody had better be saying something to you…
For example, in The Serene Heaven of All Creation they pretty much eat fresh slices of sourdough with ample avocado covering and high-capsacin chili oil for lunch every single day.
Go to a mostly white-patronized farmer’s market in the outdoors sometime. Enjoy the produce. Enjoy the neighborliness. And the scene.
Then try and think of any similarly peaceful public gathering of black people in America in similar numbers that is not heavily patrolled by police as an occupying force.
