# Bricker: Got A Second? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [November 23, 2004, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-got-a-second/276343 "2004-11-23T20:15:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 23
**Author:** ![Desmostylus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c57346/32.png) [@Desmostylus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desmostylus)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2004, 9:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-got-a-second/276343/441 "2004-12-14T09:14:30Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > A comment about racism: That ain’t it when examining an attitude that “enemy” civilian deaths can be shrugged off as part of the cost of war. The attitude that their lives are insignificant isn’t due to the fact that they’re brownskinned or heathen or anything else other than “the enemy”. What we’re seeing is the same dehumanization that occurs whenever a populace (or substantial segment of it) is convinced that a war is necessary and justified. It helps break down the military personnel’s inhibitions against killing them, and the populace’s inhibitions against supporting those efforts. That attitude is arguably even necessary to a degree when the war’s purpose is one of conquest. I agree with this, but would continue a bit. It’s not purely something that happens in war time. The “dehumanization” also helps to justify slavery, the murders of the staff of abortion clinics, terrorist attacks like 9/11 and Oklahoma City, and genocide. I guess that tribalism is at the root of it, where those outside “the tribe” are not accorded the status of the “full humans” inside the tribe. It’s no defense, though, to note that tribalism isn’t the same thing as racism. It’s a basic justification for the ostracism, and even the killing, of anyone who happens to be outside the “tribe”. The GOP is becoming quite good at exploiting tribalism. All of you America hating libruhls should watch out. You could be next. [as an aside, **Scylla** ’s tribe seems to consist of loud-mouthed, white, faux-christian, male, assholes] ---
**Author:** ![Sevastopol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Sevastopol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sevastopol)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2004, 11:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-got-a-second/276343/442 "2004-12-14T11:02:49Z")
But of course, support of the war \* is\* racism. It is, at a minimum, to support or countenance a pillar of the invasion: \*“Afghans, Sauds, Iraqis, Sept 11 terrorists, they’re all the same; Arabs.” \* And haven’t people bought the idea of a rational connection in there? Or a least a narrative stream? Without that narrative, without racism, you have no war. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2004, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-got-a-second/276343/443 "2004-12-14T14:32:07Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > I find myself defended by **elucidator** **Diogenes** and unless I’m mistaken, even **Elvislives!** You’re mistaken. The charge against you was simply mislabeled, not wrong. You are not a racist, at least not overtly, but you are an enthusiastic tribalist and dehumanizer. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2004, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-got-a-second/276343/444 "2004-12-14T15:50:50Z")
So many of you are clamoring for my opinion on all of this, I’ve decided to relent. Well, perhaps “clamoring” isn’t quite the word, “beseech”, “implore”, something along those lines. I could have proven this, but the e-mails were erased and the hard copy fell victim to a tragic microfilming accident. First off, I wouldn’t make too much of my defense on a charge of racism. I would defend just about anyone, because I take the word in its more authentic context, the one I am most personally familiar with: racism as a virulent, inhumane hatred and contempt for a classification of humanity that does not truly exist. Ain’t no such critter as “race”. Period. Full stop. When Chris Rock rants about the variety of Afro-Ams he disdains and holds in contempt, he’s not being racist because such persons do exist, and their condition of anality is not inherent in their race, but in their species. Our species. Racism, for me, is not subtle. You can’t mistake it for something else, its is the full face clobbering with the frozen fish. I grew up amongst people who were not only racist, but proud of their racism, affirmative, certain. For me to accept a charge of racism, it has to measure up to those standards: Texas, 1955. By those standards, there almost are none, and I say, not a decade too soon. > [@Svinster](#): > > …(And let us not forget, you and elucidator aren’t exactly best friends.)… Well, that depends. Which **Scylla** do you mean? There’s “Miss Manners” **Scylla** , lately amongst us, who styles himself the very soul of proper discourse and propriety, wouldn’t say “shit” if he had a mouthful of it. This one surfaces every once in a while, while his Evil Twin is chained up in the attic on his diet of fish heads and bile. Sooner or later, he gnaws through the leather straps and gets loose. Usually starts by bewailing his persecution, the ceaseless “misrepresentation and mischaracterization” by his heartless hounders, sung in operatic tones like a soprano’s aria about her tuberculosis. The former is mildly amusing, like Shrodinger’s Time Bomb, waiting, waiting, for the moment of meltdown, Katie Ka-Boom. And I do so love irony, like watching Vlad the Impaler setting the salad fork _just so_. Yes, of course, its bullshit, but its _refined_ bullshit, an essence that evaporates at room temperature in about three seconds flat. I retain a distinct, if abstract, affection for **Scylla Lite**. So, OK, not “the best of friends”. But I have no enemies, they all grew old and died, offering me one more temptation to dance like a white boy. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2004, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-got-a-second/276343/445 "2004-12-14T16:56:48Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > Hentor: > > You too, seem to be following me around with that thing making accusations of racism. This time I see, you have done me the service of making an argument to back up and justify that accusation. … If you like to see this as me following you around, all I can say is that I hope it helps you meet whatever needs you have. I must say, however, that I have never once referred to this piece of “literature” without justifying my interpretation of it, generally at great length. Finally, if I have ever called you “a racist” because of this story, I overstepped. If I actually ever did, I apologize. However, the story endorses a racist philosophy and belittles efforts to counter racism. (It is also hamfisted, maudlin and juvenile, but that’s another discussion). > [@](#): > > So, in that spirit, here is what I meant: […] > > Kind of like what you are doing here. Rather than flog a mortally wounded horse, I will simply say that I take you at your word. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2004, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-got-a-second/276343/446 "2004-12-15T02:11:53Z")
> [@Hentor the Barbarian](#): > > Finally, if I have ever called you “a racist” because of this story, I overstepped. If I actually ever did, I apologize. Apology accepted. But… > [@](#): > > However, the story endorses a racist philosophy Say what? Isn’t that just calling me a racist again? If I endorse a racist philosophy doesn’t that make me a racist? What the fuck? You apologize for calling me a racist and then do it again a sentence later? Elivis: Tribalist Dehumanizer? Well, you’re a Primamist Dehumidifier, so fuck you, too. Svin: You did defend me. I missed it. Sorry. and belittles efforts to counter racism. (It is also hamfisted, maudlin and juvenile, but that’s another discussion). Rather than flog a mortally wounded horse, I will simply say that I take you at your word. [/QUOTE] ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2004, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-got-a-second/276343/447 "2004-12-15T03:34:27Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > Say what? Isn’t that just calling me a racist again? If I endorse a racist philosophy doesn’t that make me a racist? > > What the fuck? You apologize for calling me a racist and then do it again a sentence later? I apologized if I ever called you a racist, and then a sentence later clarified that I still believe that the story you wrote endorses a racist philosophy. That’s the fuck. You’ve clarified outside of the story that you aren’t a racist, and I take you at your word. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Svinlesha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/22d042/32.png) [@Mr.Svinlesha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Svinlesha)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2004, 11:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-got-a-second/276343/448 "2004-12-15T11:15:14Z")
Err… First off, from my previous post, the following: > [@](#): > > _I challenge you to find a single instance on these boards of four conservatives defending a leftie from an insult issued to him by another leftie._ …should read: > [@](#): > > _I challenge you to find a single instance on these boards of four conservatives defending a leftie from an insult issued to him by another **conservative.** _ Although I’m not sure those numbers are exactly right, now. **Desmo** : > [@](#): > > _These demands from the pubbies that those on the left must defend the pubbies from (in my opinion, quite accurate) charges of racism, lying, bigotry, etc, coming from others on the left, are ridiculous. “We won’t take you seriously until you denounce Michael Moore!”, etc. You know full well that the pubbies won’t take you seriously, that it’s a never ending bait and switch. It ends with “We won’t take you seriously until you agree with everything we say!”_ Are Republicans racist in general? Do they promote a racist agenda? I don’t have an easy answer to those questions. Back home, one of my best friends is Republican. He’s most certainly _not_ a racist, and he’d give ya the shirt off his back. Great guy, hopelessly confused political views. On the other hand, practically every racist I know is one or another shade of conservative. There has to be a reason for that, doesn’t there? Do Republicans lie? Shit, man, they lie like Texas lawmen. ( **Simon X** , God bless him, is the exception that proves the rule.) **Shodan** is the undisputed master of bait and switch. In one debate we had, to support his assertion that Iraq possessed chemical weapons that justified the invasion, he cited as evidence a 16-year-old FAS report. Or consider this statement made by **Scylla** : > [@](#): > > \*Not at all. Iraq and Al Qaeda **are** connected. It really can’t be denied. It doesn’t matter whether or not they were working together or in concert. That’s not the important connection. > > The important connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq is us, The United States. They are both our enemies. They both operate in the Mideast. They are both threats. Our ability and how we deal with one, effects our ability and how we deal with the other.\* That has to be one of the most excruciatingly pathetic, monumentally stupid rationalizations I’ve ever read. I don’t have to explain in detail why, do I? Is it not obvious to anyone with at least one functioning lobe? If I arbitrarily decide that the Falun Gong are ”connected” with the Aryan Nation, does that make it so? If members of the Aryan Nation plan and execute a major terrorist act, am I thereby entitled to arrest members of the Falun Gong, just because I’ve decided they’re ”connected”? It’s a prime example of what I meant earlier: not only are the pro-war arguments pretty weak-ass to begin with, but those who support the war don’t hesitate to _make shit up_ to support their weak-ass arguments. And since I assume **Scylla** is too intelligent to offer this steaming pile seriously, I can only assume he is playing at bait and switch. They’re much, much better at it than I am. However, let us give the devil his due. This: > [@](#): > > \*For instance, did it not occur to you that **Scylla’s** thesis: > > > [@](#): > > > > In response to my thesis that many liberals like to attack conservatives personally rather than address their ideas, and that this is indicative that their ideas can’t compete…" > > has no legitimacy, by virtue of **Scylla** having preceded his thesis by calling those who disagree with him cowardly and stupid?\* …is a misrepresentation of his argument. **Scylla** has never called me cowardly or stupid despite our many disagreements. He makes clear that it is not _difference of opinion_ that he finds stupid or cowardly; rather, it’s the _tendency to stoop to personal attacks_ on those whose opinion differs from yours. He also seems to be saying that he is himself behaving in a stupid and cowardly manner when he acts in this way, which happens on occasion. Now, to my jaundiced eye, his arguments don’t hold much water, and were I more cynical than I am I would point out that they rather appear to be thinly-veiled justifications for calling certain debating opponents stupid and/or cowardly. Luckily, I’m not that cynical yet. Still, I think **Scylla’s** pretty quick when it comes to pointing the finger. But on the other hand, none of us are perfect. **Scylla** : My take on your story: I wouldn’t say that it explicitly endorses a racist philosophy, but it sure doesn’t explicitly repudiate such a philosophy, either. Nor does there appear to be a resolution in which you are able to see your grandfather as both good and bad. Rather, at the beginning of the story, you idealize him; during the middle, you despise him; and, at the end, you idealize him again – and despise those who fail to see his greatness: > [@](#): > > \*They think poorly of him at the nursing home. There’s no doubt that he’s a mean old bigoted nasty man. > > What I learned that day in the surf was that this was not true. That I had been wrong. There was nothing in this man to look down upon. Nothing…. > > The contempt of those who stand and watch means nothing, because they are nothing.\* You _do_ say he was worthy of hate, but not, for example, ”contempt.” To my mind, contempt is merely a sub-species of hate, and scorn one of many expressions of hate; you’re imposing a lot of fine gradations here, gradations that I’m not sure are justifiable or relevant. And your denouement is extremely ambiguous, since you do rehabilitate your grandfather at the end and raise him to the status of ”titan.” I think you may have sensed the ambiguity yourself, since you apparently felt it necessary to disavow any racism on your part in the next post, before anyone had even commented on the story. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2004, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-got-a-second/276343/449 "2004-12-15T22:37:36Z")
> [@Hentor the Barbarian](#): > > I apologized if I ever called you a racist, and then a sentence later clarified that I still believe that the story you wrote endorses a racist philosophy. That’s the fuck. > > You’ve clarified outside of the story that you aren’t a racist, and I take you at your word. Nor am I one in the story. It does not endorse a racist philosophy. Ok? ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2004, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-got-a-second/276343/450 "2004-12-15T23:01:56Z")
> [@Mr. Svinlesha](#): > > ? > > Or consider this statement made by **Scylla** :That has to be one of the most excruciatingly pathetic, monumentally stupid rationalizations I’ve ever read. I don’t have to explain in detail why, do I? Is it not obvious to anyone with at least one functioning lobe? If I arbitrarily decide that the Falun Gong are ”connected” with the Aryan Nation, does that make it so? If members of the Aryan Nation plan and execute a major terrorist act, am I thereby entitled to arrest members of the Falun Gong, just because I’ve decided they’re ”connected”? It’s a prime example of what I meant earlier: not only are the pro-war arguments pretty weak-ass to begin with, but those who support the war don’t hesitate to _make shit up_ to support their weak-ass arguments. And since I assume **Scylla** is too intelligent to offer this steaming pile seriously, I can only assume he is playing at bait and switch. Not at all. I mean it very seriously. If you’re fighting two people at the same time in a street, it hardly makes a difference whether they are connected together or working in concert, if they are both trying to stomp you. In fact, by focussing attention on one opponent to the exclusion of another in such a situation you are not inviting, but assuring disaster. If you are fighting two opponents, they **are** connected, through you. How you focus on one will necessarily dictate the opportunities and actions of other. This may be the stupidest thing you ever heard and absolutely moronic… or maybe you just don’t understand the concept. Pick simultaneous barfights with two unconnected people and you… and they will rapidly see the connection and then you will understand. Whether or not they are buddies, or fighting you for the same reason is moot. They are both fighting you and demanding the attention of your resources and reacting on how you deploy them. That’s a real connection. Since you’ve called this argument of mine both stupid and moronic, do please explain to me how it is so. **Scylla** : My take on your story: I wouldn’t say that it explicitly endorses a racist philosophy, but it sure doesn’t explicitly repudiate such a philosophy, either. [/quote] The story isn’t really about racism. It would have worked with another evil quality. The evil of racism is basically a given. The story is about maturing POVs, the nature of evil and judgementalism from a spectator standpoint. > [@](#): > > Nor does there appear to be a resolution in which you are able to see your grandfather as both good and bad. > [@](#): > > To my mind, contempt is merely a sub-species of hate, and scorn one of many expressions of hate; you’re imposing a lot of fine gradations here, gradations that I’m not sure are justifiable or relevant. and like is a gradation of love, but they have different meanings. > [@](#): > > And your denouement is extremely ambiguous, since you do rehabilitate your grandfather at the end and raise him to the status of ”titan.” I think you may have sensed the ambiguity yourself, since you apparently felt it necessary to disavow any racism on your part in the next post, before anyone had even commented on the story. More like I was aware of the Sparticus’, Demos’, and other offerendati with personal grudges and limited maturity who would seek to use such a thing as a weapon against me. One of the reasons that I left for a while was because I really enjoyed sharing different stories, but it no longer seemed smart to share anything personal because of such. I don’t think an intelligent person can conclude that the story endorses racism. I considered another tact besides his racism, and it would have worked just as well, though it would not have been as easy to illustrate. He had more than one flaw… …and more than one virtue. I suppose for some it is necessary to write a story in which everybody who is evil is totally evil and receives no sympathy and everybody who is good is totally good, or else to insert a lengthy part denouncing racism in general into the story… but I don’t think it’s really necessary. Most people understand that racism is bad. You don’t have to say it for them to know. The **only** people you have to say it for are those people who are looking to make accusations against you. And… as the story and the disclaimer afterwards show, putting it in there isn’t going to stop them either. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Svinlesha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/22d042/32.png) [@Mr.Svinlesha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Svinlesha)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2004, 6:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-got-a-second/276343/451 "2004-12-16T06:46:35Z")
**Scylla** : You know, for someone who rejects Lakoff’s theories out of hand, you sure do seem to spend a lot of time reducing international relations to analogies of interpersonal interactions. And misleading analogies at that. Very briefly: > [@](#): > > - If you’re fighting two people at the same time in a street, it hardly makes a difference whether they are connected together or working in concert, if they are both trying to stomp you.\* …has about nothing to do with Iraq and al-Qaeda. Rather, in this intance, the connection between Iraq and al-Qaeda was used – as you know so well – to _justify_ the invasion of Iraq. Using your street fighting analogy, this would be the equivalent of 1) being attacked by person A, and then 2)turning around and beating the shit out of person B, on the basis that 3) B was helping A – even though you had no real evidence for that help, and after your attack, no evidence of such a connection could be found. You wrote: > [@](#): > > - Not at all. Iraq and Al Qaeda **are** connected. It really can’t be denied. It doesn’t matter whether or not they were working together or in concert. That’s not the important connection.\* Right. Well, now maybe you say that. But before the war, the important connection was, precisely, that they were working in concert: that is to say, that there existed, in the empirical sense, a significant operational cooperation between them (or, at the very least, a synergetic potential for such an operation). It was argued that this relationship existed externally, and independently of the fact that the US considered both enemies. This is one of the many things Bush lied about, and that you previously admitted. The rest is just word games. Play them if you like. > [@](#): > > - I don’t think an intelligent person can conclude that the story endorses racism. I considered another tact besides his racism, and it would have worked just as well, though it would not have been as easy to illustrate. He had more than one flaw… …and more than one virtue.\* Oh, so you think **Hentor** is stupid, in other words. We’re trying to tell you that there appears to be a kind of endorsement of racism that runs through your story, one that you appear to be unaware of. Yet to my knowledge you’ve never displayed an iota of racism on these boards, and it is also possible to read your story in terms of an attempt to resolve a difficult, ambivalent relationship with a man with both terrible strengths and terrible flaws. This latter is also my particular reading of the story. > [@](#): > > - Most people understand that racism is bad. You don’t have to say it for them to know.\* Sure, but come on, **Scylla** : **Hentor** feels racism is bad, but he is trying to figure out how the _author of the story_ feels about racism. One can only do that by inferring from the story to the author’s state of mind. **Hentor** presented his interpretation in the linked thread. There was nothing inherently unreasonable about that interpretation. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2004, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-got-a-second/276343/452 "2004-12-16T15:18:31Z")
In which we veer perilously close to the sins of _deconstructionism_: not what the author says, not what he _thinks_ he said, but what he actually said whether he meant to or not. An intellectual excercise in futility for which the French can clearly, unequivocally, be blamed. That, and mimes. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-got-a-second/276343.md?page=22)