On the one hand, I’m down with that, message received.
OTOH, I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen people going on about how now, we have a couple in the White House where the woman is classy and beautiful, and they don’t hate Jesus (TWO CORINTHIANS, Y’ALL). And how Michelle has a big butt and showing off her buff arms is classless and so on. In that context, I’ve pointed out to that same crowd that, hey, you know, Melania was a nude model.
All other things being equal, I’m saying that to people for whom it would be a big fucking deal for the First Lady to be a nude model. Especially the social regressives conservatives. But apparently it would only matter if she was a hardcore Democrat.
But since she’s married to the Republican President-Elect, nbd.
I’m of the mind that it either matters, or it doesn’t, who gives a flying fuck about party affiliation. It shouldn’t matter.
I was (slightly) objecting to the mis-spelling “Morans” as Moran is a not uncommon family name, and they have enough to put up with from stupid people already. Propagating mis-spellings on the Internet is a thing (brakes/breaks, and so on.)
It’s not reasonable to make a strong claim like “all comparisons of black people to apes trace back to obscure 19th century myths about Hyperborea” and then demand evidence from people who are skeptical of that claim. The burden of providing evidence is on you here.
I made a good-faith effort to interpret what you wrote. The actual words you used did not suggest any consideration of subjectivity. Please at least consider that some of the fault here is with poor phrasing or poor explanation on your part.
When you make a statement like “the insult fails” without qualification, it seems like you are making it about you by implying that your judgment about the effectiveness of insults should apply generally. This may not have been your intention, but once again: please consider that your words do not necessarily convey exactly your intentions unless they are very carefully crafted to do so.
And as others have explained to you before, racism is not just a problem for racists, because racists make it a problem for the people they are racist against. In fact, if it wasn’t a problem for people besides racists, we probably wouldn’t even call it “racism” or consider it nearly as unjust as we do. The whole idea that racism is only a “pathology” of racists and not of “us”, society in general, is incoherent. Such a notion is contradicted by the plain English language meaning of the word “racism”.
Really? Based on recent events, we live in a society where you can talk crap all day and become President of the United States by a substantial minority of voters
My historical account was dubious, but nobody offers others?
My statements must be assumed as subjective, yet I must state this subjectivity explicitly?
Racism is the problem of racism because we call it racism?
I don’t know that I disagree, but it sounds rather circular to me. Perhaps we have very different perspectives of this, and/or means of trying to communicate them.
My initial point was only to mention that whole Hyperborea business and how it contradicts anthropology, because I think some might find it relevant and perhaps interesting. Apparently people here do not find that a productive line of enquiry, so I am not interested in unpacking the semantics of it at length. Those who didn’t know about it who find it interesting can read about it on their own.
You are completely missing and misrepresenting my position with regards to this. Of course the problem is not self-contained to those who exhibit racism, but that’s where the cause is. Countering the cause of an action and countering the effects are distinct but related approaches. They are obviously not mutually exclusive approaches, and I find it perplexing and frustrating that so many assert this to be the case. Most people already discuss the effects, the results of racism, there is already a lot of dialog there. I explained that I personally find it more productive to deal with the causes of racism in people’s thinking itself. Perhaps somebody can explain why that is a bad idea, or why I should avoid discussing it. Because from where I am, it seems more like people get confrontational with me simply because I do not frame the situation the way people expect or want. It’s ironic when people seem to want to prescribe to me how I should think about, talk about, and cope with issues of racism.
I feel like it’s being told that trying to cure an illness demonstrates a complete lack of empathy for those suffering from it. It’s just bizarre.
Ah yes, the magical constitution that grants every citizen the right to have opinions.
Oh, what was that, little bird? That’s not at all what it says and how it works? …Oh.
Exactly. They are hyperpartisan and it’s all about their side. They are going to sink this entire country just so LIBTARDS can’t have things that benefit us all. They do not care about us. At all. They do not care.
Unless I missed something, there is no such legal concept in US federal or state law.
How you might have better phrased it. I’ve certainly encountered em in bastions of enlightened thought.
FWIW my grandfather was mayor of his small town in WV. After he passed, a family member told me about how he physically ejected a city counsel member to the sidewalk onto their posterior for making racist comments while counsel was in session.
Racism is a problem because, despite being a social construct, it comes with real, physical power in the world. When an idea has political and violent force behind it, it shapes reality and makes ideas a real, tangible thing. The concept of race was made a tangible thing by laws. That doesn’t mean there isn’t cracks in it, or that it’s REAL in the scientific sense. But it has consequences. And this is one of those consequences.
It’s like what people like Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchett write about in their books, about gods and how gods are made real by belief (in their fictional universes of course). That’s like this.
