Eh, “intent” itself is a construct that has more to do with how you feel as a person and less to do with how a person cares that others understand you.
That’s not the ideal concern, is it? A person may see a statement as personally harmless, but if they aren’t concerned about the other party in the communication they aren’t working in full good faith.
Intent among someone who perceives themselves as good and right (in the just sense) should be balanced by sincere concern and empathy.
I don’t really get this. Not everyone is articulate by a long shot. Not every public figure is articulate. This may be a case of differing ideas of the strength of words, but if I called anyone articulate or educated, it would mean that they are particularly persuasive and well informed, not in the sense that almost everyone has some level of education and can form a basic argument.
This is the first I’ve heard of that usage, and I’m strongly leaning to the idea that it’s not the origin, but rather some connotation that it picked up along the way. The word itself comes from a Latin word that included the meaning of “utter distinctly, articulate”, and the roots of it being insulting go back to… 2007? It looks like it got really offensive with Biden’s description of Obama:
“the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy”
I guess some people don’t use it much, but I’ve heard a number of similar terms to “articulate” used about him – Obama is a good orator/public speaker, he’s very articulate compared to the last guy and it’s a good thing to see someone who can use rhetoric etc. Not the kind of “wow, a black guy who can form an argument”, which seems to be the connotation here.
Do not single me out as if you speak for “everyone here”. Why would you assume that you have any right to do that?
If you (or anyone here) thinks I have said something unclear, then simply point that out, or ask for clarification. That’s what honest people do, rather than tell somebody what they are “really” saying. There is not anything wrong with not knowing, or not being interested. But I cannot accept people making things up to frame their misunderstandings of me for others whilst disregarding my input. When people accuse me of something (dishonesty), I think that they are obliged to provide some explanation to me, and that I have a right to address these accusations to the group.
My theme in this topic has mostly been how topical discourse about social issues often gets derailed by people’s interpersonal games, and people yet unironically claim to not understand what I am saying while illustrating this precise problem.
“Progressive people need to be mature enough to have topical discussions of social issues without resorting to divisive personal games.”
“This isn’t all about you, Popo, you liar. So we’re going to take some time out to complain about you.”
“…?”
It could readily be interpreted that way. The inherent ‘dog whistle’ part of such a statement is that one’s very low expectations have been exceeded.
Not necessarily.
Some statements are just plain fucked up, no matter how ‘coated in sugar’ they may be.
The rub here is that Black people are “never” expected to be articulate because the negative stereotype is that we are ALL ‘ignorant and ill spoken’ as a rule.
Well, the irony is pretty thick in here. The thread title itself is wonderful in that regard.
Right? A thread entitled “I’m a victim, too!” that’s about people who aren’t actually victims, but claim they are, taken over by an entity that’s basically repeating that same groundless claim, over and over and over again.
So, who gets to say when somebody is a victim? Is that something there is any consensus about here?
What “claims” do you have issue with, and in what way?
You have the floor.
Even more ironic is that almost all ‘the usual suspects’ are here, in all their self absorbed obtuseness; still totally dismissing the very valid input of people who actually experience such circumstances first hand on a regular basis.
I never said I speak for everyone, I was being a little hyperbolic in using the word “everyone” that is true. But I was just making an observation that you have commented to “more than one” commenter that they have misunderstood you or “didn’t read closely”.
That seems to me to be an equation in search of a common denominator.
Maybe you’ve got a good point about the current state of Israel, but if you replaced “Zionism” with “the movement for the establishment and the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel” then I would know what you are talking about. We could talk about why or why not we might believe such a movement is a good or bad thing based on the actualities of such a movement. Then I’d be able to form an informed opinion about whether or not you have a good point.
Some people think that the creation of Israel was (whatever the intentions at the time) just an example of post-war “powerful men” redrawing a bunch of borders and have a pretty dim view of that entire enterprise (splitting Germany in half and whatnot)
Some people think that the state of Israel engages in terrible human rights abuses against Palestinians and that we ought to boycott Israeli products as a protest in parallel to the economic sanctions against something like Apartheid
Some people think the world is run by a conspiracy of Jews who are nefariously controlling everything according to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion
When someone says they think “Zionism” is bad, I’m left to guess between these and a ton of other options. I’m not sure what the appeal of the word is when people basically don’t know what any given person means when they say it. I’m not being facetious, I am literally in the dark when someone uses that word…
Like I said, I can say that I think North Korea commits terrible human rights abuses without having a special word for people who support the state of North Korea. I can say that I think Russia’s anti-gay laws were a disturbing development that makes me concerned about what is next for Russia without having a special word for Putin supporters.
So, how do you decide what stereotypes you need to take seriously enough to defend yourself against, versus simply blowing off entirely? There seems to be a delicate balance between acknowledging that the stereotype exists, while still not internalizing it. And since you are bi-racial, how do you reconcile the possibility of embodying two different sets of perhaps contradictory stereotypes?
I hope that you feel free to answer if you want to! My curiosity to ask has been mostly discouraged so far, but I am listening if there is anything you want to say about it. Or anything else, really!
This thread touches on a huge issue I am wrestling with about communication. I think people don’t really respond to being scolded and shamed. There is on one side people who are trying to share about their experiences as minorities and communicate to the majority how the words they use are thoughtless. They are suggesting, maybe even demanding, to be seen as fully human.
Then there are the people who are in the majority. There’s an issue right now where they are bullying and joking about how the minority groups want to be treated. Is it because the language we are using to communicate with them is the language of shaming and censorship (which I think is what is being claimed with this label of “politically correct.”)? Or is it that the majority is so resistant to seeing minorities as equal, because it threatens their privilege, that they simple stick their fingers in their ears and say, “La la la!” I don’t want to play your game and I don’t have to because I’m more privileged than you.
I can no longer figure out whether the minority needs to change its tactics or whether the majority needs to start getting over themselves, or how communication can change. I feel like it gets put on the minorities to keep trying and then the majority keeps saying, “You’re not saying it right,” rather than actually listening. But maybe we all need to try listening better.
Personally in all areas of my life I am thinking a lot about my mode of communication. How I see conversations as a battle to be won and how maybe it doesn’t serve me. But I’m not sure what the other options are.
I guess I’ll not point out intelligent black people then… If that is the stereotype, the word itself doesn’t matter:
That is the core of the issue. When whites use the word in reference to blacks, it often carries a subtext of amazement, even bewilderment. It is similar to praising a female executive or politician by calling her “tough” or “a rational decision-maker.”
“When people say it, what they are really saying is that someone is articulate … for a black person,” Ms. Perez said.
Do you think the sentiment will go away if people stop using the word? It was a particularly ignorant statement by Biden, but it’s also an increasingly common word that’s used to compliment people of any colour who are particularly good at expressing an argument – like Obama, and very much unlike his predecessor and successor.
The main objection I have is placing landmines into discussions, where “we know what you really mean”. No, you really don’t. For some people, it’s complementing them on having positive character traits despite being a woman, black or something else. For others, it’s pointing out people with character traits that undermine the stereotype (e.g. complementing girls on their intellectual achievement rather than their looks). For others, they’re not even thinking of the stereotype, and it’s just complementing a person for something that happens to run counter to a common stereotype.
The main objection I have is people not being able to say, “Oh, I didn’t realize that ‘articulate’ had a particular history that made it upsetting for some black people. That was a bad word choice, I guess. Sorry, all I meant to say was that I thought Malcolm X did a great job of communicating difficult ideas in a way that a lot of people could understand.”
Landmines blow your legs off and/or kill you. Someone pointing out that you used a word that can cause hurt to a minority group forces you to swallow your pride for one second. White people love to equate the latter with the former, while black people are expected to swallow their pride and accept racism every day of their lives.
Well thank you, Grandmaster of Ceremonies in the “I’m a victim, too!” Thread.
However, I already regret getting ensnared yet again in another of your narcissistic, attention-grabbing, “Lalala, I can’t hear you!” spiderwebs. I hereby severe my connections to this one.
It’s a metaphor – shutting down conversation, making people who want to treat people equally have to watch their step because someone else may have used that word as a dogwhistle. That’s one of the problems with current discussion: there is no word that is immune from this. Half the point of dogwhistles is that they are commonly used in a positive way. That doesn’t mean that every one of these words is off limits – otherwise we wouldn’t be able to give genuine complements since every one could have an implicit “for a ______” attached to it.
The word itself’s quite old, and it usually doesn’t carry the added baggage, just in that context. I don’t know the whole history, but it’s a very old back-handed compliment going back at least to the 60s.
It’s helpful to be aware of the history since there are plenty of ways of complimenting someone’s wit, intelligence, and eloquence/lucidity that don’t carry the baggage, and if you’re aware you can avoid inadvertent offense/rat-holing over a word choice and communicate/connect more effectively.
(I know, I know, gawd forbid anyone point out that being white has anything at all to do with how white people sometimes think and act. The fainting couch is right over there in the corner…)
I’m happy to try to use words sensitively, but one of the problems is the context where groups have been considered to be unintelligent. If every complement is assumed to be mitigated by the fact that this person is from the wrong group for this quality, it’s impossible to give them this or any similar complement. It’s assumed to be condescending, because people in the past used English words and were condescending. I’m sure they did – people did and do have very regressive views. For this reason, I can continue to call white people articulate or intelligent, but not black people. It really seems backwards to me, since it ignores the fact that there is plenty of meaning and intent beyond the words themselves and it is possible to pick this up.
#autistsplaining
Yes, that certainly assumed that “I meant the best!” crowd is not full of beans, something I do not always take a person at their word for.
