Yeah, that doesn’t sound like 14 worder talk at all. :rolleyes:
Yeah. It doesn’t. It genuinely doesn’t. There’s nothing more abject and cringeworthy than seeing some snivelling, guilt-ridden white woman hating on white people for woke points on the internet. It’s literally the most pathetic thing a person can do. Pointing this out doesn’t make one a racist.
:dubious: That reaction seems oddly… oversensitive and defensive. I can think of plenty of FAR more abject and cringeworthy and pathetic things a person can do than merely criticizing white people, as a white person, on the internet.
That type of over-the-top condemnation is invective I more usually see in association with terms like “race traitor”, from people who are very very VERY opposed to hearing any kind of negative opinions about the history of white racism and supremacism. Just sayin’.
In any case, the people that margin was “hating on” in the context of centuries of racist oppression were not white people in general, but specifically “assholes”. Her comment about white men was not condemnatory, and moreover perfectly reasonable:
Sorry dude, but that’s just plain true, and not “pathetic” or “cringeworthy” in the least. Historical context makes a difference in the perception and impact of insults, which is why it’s literally impossible to “insult everybody equally” irrespective of race/gender/etc. background.
For example, a white man condescendingly addressing another white man as “boy” is a very different level of insult from a white man condescendingly addressing a black man as “boy”. Even if the white man delivering the insult intends it in exactly the same way in both cases.
…disagrees very strongly with…
…what do believe, your denials or your own immediate subsequent words?
I’d say racist frothing at the mouth about it is way more pathetic.
Yes, it very much does. Just because you didn’t actually use the literal words “race traitor” doesn’t mean we don’t see you, you know.
No, your argument is clear. It just isn’t a very good one. The argument that it might not be a racist insult is predicated on it not being a synonym for “monkey” or other simian terms. But it in fact is a synonym.
You say that humans are primates, which is true. But humans are also apes, and ape is a term that is listed in margin’s Wikipedia link of common insults against people of African decent. It’s just that, when someone uses “ape” as an insult, it implies “non-human ape.” If they just were calling someone “human,” that wouldn’t work very well as an insult. The point of simian insults is to imply the person is not as evolved as the speaker.
All simian references are commonly used against black people. When used as an insult for black people, they all allude to the original “monkey” insult. They all imply that black people are less evolved than white people.
I think that margin finds it hard to believe the above isn’t obvious to you. I, on the other hand, will explain what I think is obvious at least once, before assuming anything. What seems obvious to me just so often isn’t to other people.
It does, however, often get me labeled as condescending, so I apologize if it comes off this way. I am genuinely trying to help clear up (what I hope is) a misunderstanding.
Referring to your “monkey brain” in that context is generally an understood phrase. Assuming you didn’t use it in an insulting way, and included yourself in the description, it is quite likely that it was not intended as an insult towards a black person, even if the person you replied to was a black person.
That said, it still could possibly be misunderstood. Some racists are deliberately crafty, and get a kick out of throwing in subtle insults. If you want to be perfectly safe from being misunderstood, another accepted term for the same idea is “lizard brain.”
While, in a specific kind of technical but still colloquial conversation, some people distinguish between our “monkey brain” and our “lizard brain,” they are otherwise effectively synonymous.
“Animal brain” also works, though is less common and more evocative. I’m sure you can come up with other ideas, too.
So, in another, unrelated thread I talked about all of us having “monkey brains” and being “shaved apes” and I don’t have any idea of the audience ethnicity, what do you make of that? It was very clearly in relation to our cognitive abilities, limitations and our humble evolutionary background.
I sort of assume that the audience is smart enough to discern intent and just words on their context and individual merit. Seeing as I didn’t get reported or warned it seems like that reasonable usage is not an issue and that we can generally be grown up about things. Which is a good thing and I clearly agree because my question about the original warning on this thread was all about reasonableness and justifying action that may well be warranted. Certainly not an attempt to excuse simian insults in any and all circumstances.
I’m not blind to linguistic history, I’m not unsympathetic to the scourge of racism but nor do I think it productive to take an absolutist stand on a word. Something that…remember…never has meaning, only use.
If we are *not *going down that road and we *can *have grown up discussions about it. i.e. less of Margin’s diatribes (and…mea culpa…my own very snarky response) then great.
ETA - BigT, I see you responded to my point whilst I was typing this out and I think we are on the same page. We may be grown-ups after all.
I note you make no mention of Unreconstructed Man’s remarks that springboarded off yours, though…where do you think *his *drivel sits in this “grown up discussion” you want to have?
I don’t really follow all conversation threads. I try to stick to the point that matters to me if at all possible so I don’t follow all tangents. You’ve been posting but when I’ve skimmed your posts I’ll have just skipped over them if they weren’t relevant to me or direct questions of me (like this one)
If their posts were drivel then I think less of it would be a good thing, same for you, same for all of us. I’ve already admitted the same for me.
I don’t take accusations of racism from you seriously. If another poster, someone I had a modicum of respect for, accused me of racism I might think about what I’d said. But you? No. You throw accusations of racism around like confetti. Being called racist by you means absolutely nothing.
He directly quoted you, though.
That’s like the second time recently you’ve hidden behind your obliviousness as to why you’ve ignored some some reprehensible stuff going past. It’s not a great look.
Especially when you follow it up with some “if their post was drivel” wishy-washy bullshit. The post is right below yours, not hard to find. So not condemning it out of hand? Also not a good look.
Louis CK is still a revolting piece of shit. Still.
Whatever you say, bubba. Taking it seriously enough to keep replying, though, I see.
I take it you don’t care for **Kimstu **either. I’m sure we’ll both cry ourselves to sleep tonight over how little your racist ass cares for us. :rolleyes:
Because some of y’all are some racist motherfuckers, up in here.
I’ve been wrong once or twice. Apologized for it when it happened. The rest of the time? Scum like you and your Mitläufer.
So “absolutely nothing” you just had to post about it, I see.
Well, I’ll accuse you of it too. You may not have intended them as such but your remarks above aren’t so much a racist dogwhistle as a goddamn racist foghorn. Normal non-racist people don’t go on about “self-hating whites” quite so facilely.
LOL… I don’t have any video recording equipment, anyway. I’m so glad they confiscate phones.
Oh I see. no, no. no no. no, you don’t get away with that bullshit. We aren’t in the playground. This is precisely what I was talking about regarding grown-up conversations.
That isn’t how it works. You can’t take an absence of response and use it to imply some sort of tacit approval. Especially when, to the best of my knowledge, no repsonse was sought, no question was asked and no conversation was ongoing, you did note that I wasn’t engaging with them didn’t you? and that there were others in the thread (including you) that I similarly wasn’t engaging with? Time is too short to chase down every rabbit hole just to establish some sort of impossible interrogational purity.
Your logic means that any reprehensible comment in a thread carries with it a duty for everyone in that thread to either condemn it, or by implication, be thought of as condoning it. Are your sheets clean enough to stand up to that scrutiny dibble? Of course not. No-one’s is. It is bollocks on stilts.
Naah, mate. I very much can read into the absence of response after the post is pointed out to you. In fact, I’m noting the *continued *absence of response even now. “Not responding” doesn’t cut it. Not when they’re using your own response to **margin **as their kick-off spot. An uninvolved poster *might *be able to get away with silence, but they already dragged you into it, mate.
Nice try at righteous indignation, though. Very Kavanaugh of you.
No it is a weary shake of the head Dibble and a little chuckle at your ambition but it is transparently idiotic.
And the biggest give-away that this is an egregious attempt at a pointless “gotcha”? You’ve never even bothered to quote what I supposedly was obligated to respond to. The reason you haven’t done that is because you know at that point I would give an honest opinion to a direct question.
See, a cursory glance at any thread will show posters chosing to leave some tangents unresponded to. No-one has infinite time to respond to everything. In some cases the dangling comments will be things people agree with, in other cases they disagree. The thought process is often (for me at least) “Nothing of any interest, it isn’t going to lead anywhere”. Even a Hitchens-esque response of “was there a question in there?” or “I’ll take that as a comment” takes time and may just prolong a diversion you actually have no interest in persuing.
You may find it impossible to leave a comment unresponded to, that is your prerogative and at least I now know your own personal standard. Any statement you fail to condemn is one you support. Handy to know, I’ll look out for that if I remember (I won’t)
Memory like Swiss cheese. But only for the indefensible, it seems. Isn’t that convenient?
And why would I quote it? It’s right up there on this page. In response to (and general agreement with) your own post. Or are you suddenly blind as well as forgetful?
Not that I buy it, mind you - I don’t buy that you just skipped by a reply to your post, and I don’t buy that you don’t recall **monstro **is black. You’re just lying.