It was totally going to be a winner.
Not being Black, I have no insight into this phenom.
Not sure it helps, but being Jewish, I often will grant non-Jews some extra legitimacy when they argue against anti-Semitism: in the back of my mind, I do consider that Jews like myself may have a bit of an axe to grind on the subject, and a non-Jewish perspective acts as a reality check.
OTOH, I do not believe I otherwise grant non-Jews any “privilege” over me and Jews like me - if anything, I have to control a regrettable tendancy towards ‘group pride’ - that is, the tendancy that exists within the Jewish community (and which, to an extent, I share if I do not deliberately control it) to believe that Jews are simply better than non-Jews as a group - smarter, better educated, more successful. In fact, even the anti-Semitic tropes reinforce this group pride to an extent.
As I said, this may not be helpful, because the experiences of anti-Semitism and anti-Black racism are fundamentally different.
However, it does show that in other contexts, granting those not adversely affected by a prejudice a certain boost to legitimacy concerning its existence and extent makes some sense … the notion is that, as they are not themselves affected (except as possible perpetrators), so the idea goes, they are less likely to have an axe to grind.
It’s very helpful, as it’s directly relevant to what I’m talking about. I have not been programmed to see blacks as better than whites, at least not with respect to value-laden attributes like intelligence and drive. (I do think blacks are better at recognizing racial discrimination, but ain’t nobody pounding their chests over this achievement.) The society at large isn’t programmed to see blacks as morally or intellectually superior to whites either; it’s programmed to see them as the opposite.
What if whites made a point of talking about this phenomenon in conversations about white privilege? Could that help? It would center the magnifying glass smack dab on the audience, rather than focus it on “safe” targets like faceless institutions and the media. I’m starting not to think it’s enough to just talk about bias without personalizing it and forcing some introspection.
Jon Stewart calling out how Hillary Clinton is treated is great; by lending his voice to the antisexist choir, he is highlighting an example of how gender bias is harmful and using his power for good. And it was great that Shakes pointed out what Stewart illustrated on his show. That said…it is interesting to ponder whether Rachel Maddow illustrating the same thing, using the same evidence Jon did, would have snagged Shake’s attention the same way. Would he have added her commentary to our discussion, or would be putting a plug in for her have been seen as less value-added, less eye-opening, less interesting?
It would be powerful if Jon Stewart could highlight this form of discrimination, and then, in classic Jon Stewart meta-like fashion, point out how his white guy status enables him to point these things out without anyone getting mad. It would be difficult to pull this off, but he’s smart enough to do it.
Weird thing is that I suggested two examples in the very post you quoted, and you responded by clipping them out of the quote and starting your post with “come up with a toned down version …” Odd.
IMO this is illogical and most people would not share your attitude (as a general rule).
But I intended only a thought experiment. If that’s your story and you’re sticking to it, then I have nothing further to add WRT this.
FWIW I don’t think such an attitude amounts to bias, but if it did, I don’t think being “self aware enough to admit it” gets you far.
Why do you think it’s illogical? Why do you think most people would not share this attitude?
I think he’s wrong. As I said upthread, if someone goes against their interest, it’s just as likely to lead to a “Damn, this person is stupid/crazy” as it is a “Oh, such wisdom and it must be true because it’s against their interest!”
See: Coulter, Ann; Schafly, Phyllis
See: West, Allen; Thomas, Clarence
Sure, there are things that you don’t automatically accept just because they’re incongruous with a person’s expected self-interest. It’s just a question of whether there’s any more reason to accept it than otherwise.
And, on the other hand, that phrase “against self-interest” comes from a real rule of evidence. Courts will admit a hearsay statement as reliable if it’s against a person’s self interest where they wouldn’t admit it if it were self-serving.
Sure, but I think Malthus is right that this “more reason” is probably whether I’m inclined to believe them in the first place.
I don’t think white “anti-racists” get any undue respect that isn’t given to black anti-racists. Liberals agree with other liberals and hate conservatives, regardless of race. Conservatives agree with other conservatives and hate liberals, regardless of race.
There is NO white person anywhere who’d mock a pro-affirmative action argument from Al Sharpton but embrace that same argument if it came from Mario Cuomo or Jon Stewart.
There is NO white person anywhere who’d slam Jesse Jackson but embrace Andrew Hacker. NO white person dismisses arguments from Ta-Nehisi Coates that he’d willingly accept from Paul Krugman.
They wouldn’t call Krugman a poverty pimp or a race hustler. Does that count for anything?
Not IMO.
Krugman is not a guy whose career and reputation are built primarily on poverty pimping or race hustling. Like him or not, the guy is a genuinely accomplished man.
It’s not about skin color, at least in that example.
I believe you just knee-jerk reacted to a hypothetical reaction to a hypothetical knee-jerk reaction.
I think white “race hustlers” are usually just called racists. Marley, can you point to some Krugman comment (or your favorite white pundit) that would get him called a poverty pimp if he was black?
In other words, you believe those terms are real things and legitimate criticisms. Thank you for demonstrating my point.
In other words, you agree that only black people get called pimps and hustlers? How interesting. I think that’s the end of that argument…
I’m not sure why I need to look when the term is used against pretty much any black writer who writers about race. Still, I bet this one would do the trick. Or this one.
Really? Every black guy who’s talked about race has been called a poverty pimp? Sounds like bullshit, but I am not doing your work for you.
Seemed like your point earlier was about whether a white person like Krugman would be called thoser terms for making arguments similar to some black guy. That has not been demonstrated.
I’m not sure what point you think has been demonstrated. And I’m inclined to think you didn’t really have a point, beyond what you thought was a pithy one-liner.
My point was that black people who discuss these arguments get called racially loaded names and white people don’t. CarnalK seems to have acknowledged that point, whereas you’ve confirmed you believe these are real things and legitimate terms.
I said pretty much, not every. But go ahead and name a black writer who comments on these issues and I bet I’ll find some borderline racist accusations related to dishonesty, racism, or otherwise cheating the system. Ready?
What the heck are those links supposed to prove Marley?
eta: Poverty pimp means a specific thing, so I guess you are admitting that’s not what you meant. Some sort of racist jibe is all you meant. OK. Sure. Every black commentator probably has, somewhere on the internet been called racist things.