Well, when you defend/play devil’s advocate for some asshole who got banned for a racist jab, I’m gonna think you’re an asshole. I don’t care about your memory problems.
I have a problem with it when it *conveniently *excuses them for standing up for racists but somehow not condemning them until absolutely *forced *to.
In a society that was founded with racism as one of its basic values, it’s strange how it’s the racists who always deserve the benefit of the doubt and the victims of racism that never do.
Fuck that noise.
I have no idea what that’s supposed to mean.
I didn’t defend them. Read and understand…I didn’t defend them.
I thought it was fairly important to know what level of expectation was being placed on posters remembering the personal details of other posters, especially when I do not myself keep that detail of personal information in my head. That was for my benefit and other posters, not the one getting a warning. Which is why my first question was
And when Colibri explained the detail behind the warning I said
And of course you don’t care about my memory problems, Your posts are one long wail of incredulity that anyone can possible have a different mental capability to you. I bet you are one of those people that tell depressed people to cheer the fuck up.
Which of the three potential posters are you talking about? the one that did the slur against a black poster or the two that did the slur against white posters?
Oh fuck you, you didn’t defend it. I don’t have to play along with your imbecile act.
The banned poster, and Unreconstructed Man.
I don’t agree margin’s post that got you all het up *was *a slur. It was an accurate statement of fact. I prefer the pithier “white privilege”, but hey, I guess you’re going to tell me that doesn’t exist?
What I saw was a hint for why you were arguing so much about what the poster said–you were worried something you had said had come off as racist when that wasn’t your intent. So I thought it might be good to reassure you that what you said was different–you didn’t use the term as an insult, but as a rhetorical device. It was much less likely to have been interpreted as a racist insult.
I think you assumed people were saying that context was irrelevant. It’s not. It’s just that the context in Zeke’s case leans more towards racism than not, for reasons that people have explained. And my point is that it’s up to you to try to avoid being misunderstood as saying something racist, and that, if you do slip up, you’d better apologize as soon as someone takes offense, or else people will assume it was intentional.
All of this said, I don’t think margin’s post was childish. She was trying to explain that history you mentioned, while also expressing understandable anger. And then she got really angry when you interpreted discussing that history as somehow bigoted. To be honest, that reply almost led to me writing you off, too. It was only seeing that other post that led me to believe this could all be a misunderstanding.
Still, one of the worst ways to respond to someone talking about racism is to say that the argument they are making is the real bigotry. It’s a common talking point of racists, so I recommend against it.
I think SteveG1 was agreeing with you.
Neither do I. To review the bidding, here’s what margin actually did say in post #243:
As I noted in post #264, that’s a perfectly fair observation about the realities of historical privilege, and in no way derogatory to white people or men per se.
Note that again, this is not a condemnation of white people or men per se, but rather of “assholes” who used their superior status to oppress others and made it a foundational element of their culture.
Again, this is a perfectly fair though vehement observation about the realities of historical privilege. White men in historically racist and patriarchal societies are accorded the privilege of being the “default human being”. The entrenched cultural perception is that being a white man is normal and neutral, whereas being anything else makes you first and foremost the representative of that group.
Now I think these observations aren’t the last word on the subject, but could prompt some interesting discussions about how different types of privilege intersect and even cancel out, and the extent to which any particular white man is benefiting from this historical privilege. But instead, look how Novelty Bobble and Unreconstructed Man flipped out about them:
Acknowledging the historical realities of racism is not somehow being a despicable traitor to “Team White”. Shrilly denouncing such acknowledgements as “bigotry” or “guilt” comes across as petulantly touchy at best, and at worst… well, you get the idea.
I didn’t defend what? what are you talking about?
So you do think that the colour of someone’s skin changes the worth of what they say? Isn’t there a handy word for that?
As for white privilege, you’ll have to tell me how you are using it for me to give you an accurate opinion in your case. It is certainly something that could be used in a racist manner so be careful. (and rememember I said that words have use, not intrinsic meaning)
In the west it is defintely the case that in general people of various ethnicities have been descriminated against far more than the “white” population. It is still the most common and the most pernicious form of racism out there.
If white privilege is merely a recognition of that fact and that white people in general have not be subject to racial discrimination then absolutely I agree. I also think it would be then a useless term to introduce when parsing any individuals words.
What I don’t agree is that a specific random “white” person is guaranteed to be any more privileged overall than specific random “ethnic” person, just because of the colour of their skin. That approach is the very worst of identity politics, talking to people as if their “group” matters most. I think the individual matters most and what they actually say and mean matters the most.
If someone says something on racism and prejudice and your first response is to point to their ethnicity as a means of filtering, modifying or weighting their words, that’s racism. That was how I interpreted margin’s posts. An appeal to skin colour as a means of discrediting a position. That’s racism and they were free to clarify but they did not.
Margin has a history of using ‘white’ as a pejorative. She does so from thread to thread, which you’d know if you’d bothered to read this one properly. Rather than call her on her racism, you’ve chosen to write another smug, pious, boring post complaining about how I did. It’s not the choice I would’ve made, but whatever. Each to their own.
Yes, it’s called “realism”. Acknowledging that different people have different life experiences because of the colour of their skin. Often unwanted and imposed on them.
But you wouldn’t know any of that, because you don’t see colour. Or some such privileged white nonsense.
Exactly the way margin described it.
Like fuck, it can.
Which is not something anyone has said, so that’s OK, then.
Not automatically, no. Like I said, it’s just realistic to consider the words of people who’ve actually suffered oppression to have more weight than those who haven’t. Experience gives weight.
White cishet male opinions on racism and misogyny and gender prejudices just don’t count as much as others’. And the more they argue that they do, or should, the less they count.
Or to put it another way - Bitch, sit down. Be humble.
And a great way to understand those experiences would be to ask the individual. A terrible way would be to assume what they must have experienced because you know what ethnicity they are.
To the extent that any human can…yes. Even if it is imperfect is the only honest way I can live. On these boards I make no assumptions. If I knew your ethnicity it would make no difference to my responses to what you’ve written so far. At the point where I think it would, I’ll ask you.
Yes, a racist usage. A diatribe that seeks to smear any white person as somehow culpable for the crimes of the past and incapable of valuable insight now. Sure, it appeals to historicity and I’m sure Margin can say they were only stating a fact but seeing as we have the ability to look beyond the words themselves to usage and intent I feel confident in saying that it was meant in a racist way. Margin had every chance to clarify and chose not to.
A term that is *explicitly *ethnicity based *cannot *be used in a racist manner? Wow. Chuck a skin colour into any compound pejorative and I’m sure anything can be used as a racial slur.
What is the difference between “white privilege” and “self-hating white” that makes the former immune to the charge but the latter a clear racial slur against a white person?
No, you yourself haven’t clearly said that but It certainly seems to be your working assumption. When you throw “white privilege” around that appears to be the way you are using it.
On a case-by-case basis, not on the basis of skin colour.
Do you accept that a random white person might have more valuable insights on oppression than a random black person?
This is rather a crucial point of difference between us I think.
And there we are, You barely even realise you are doing it because it is so comfortable. Your are a seething bundle of prejudiced tension Dibble. You judge people first on what group you choose to put them in, not the qualities of their words or actions.
where “bitch” means “white” I suspect, or whatever group you think currently has no right to access the conch.
I don’t think that Margin’s post was a sober acknowledgement of historical wrongs. I don’t think anyone in this thread needs a history lesson. I think it was a very clear attempt to discredit or diminish the worth of input on the basis of skin colour or ethnicity.
Insert the evil deeds of any other ethnicity into their posts and change “white” to said ethnicity and see if you still think your point stands.
I personally don’t hold any any ethnic or national “group” responsible for anything that they didn’t directly carry out or endorse. Including my own. I don’t hold their opinions or insights in any less esteem now for what their forbears did or thought.
I know, I know, what a crazy wild idea!
That is the best way, yes, but not the only way.
I disagree that it’s “terrible”. It’s a little lazy. I can live with that.
And like I said, that’s your privilege to be able to do. Because you’re the default.
There was nothing there about culpability.
Where did she say anything about incapable?
I feel confident that it wasn’t. So where does that leave us?
Gosh, I wonder what that must be like. :rolleyes:
I wasn’t disagreeing, I was emphasising. Anything can be used in a racist manner. Pointing this out is hardly a stunning insight.
No, I’m not using it to refer to that. I’m using it to refer to what margin indicated: “Religion, culture, law enforcement, justice, all make white men the human against which all others are judged.”
No. I’m not in the business of denying systemic racism exists, thanks.
I accept it’s theoretically possible, but consider the probability to be faint enough that I no more consider it than the possibility of imminent death by meteor strike. So it doesn’t enter into my posting considerations.
No.
Prejudice is bias that is not based on reason or actual experience. I have plenty of experience to base my reasoned judgement on.
No, I judge them on their words and actions and their position of privilege on the topic at hand.
Because I’m not moronic enough to think the greater context doesn’t matter, and only react to each statement I encounter as some perfect isolated microcosm.
It just so happens that the “words and action” of the privileged group, by their very existence, are discountable. It’s the same for men talking about sexism, or straights talking about gay rights. The act of them speaking is what renders them worth less.
No, it very specifically means you, Novelty Bobble. *You’re *the bitch in that statement.
I think you are interpreting the words in a very charitable way. Margin had it in their head that I was defending the original slur. I wasn’t. My original posts show this wasn’t the case, look back at page 4, Margin was spoiling for a fight long before they turned their attention to me. All that was needed to be tried and convicted of racism in their eyes was for me to not agree fully with them.
So, I don’t think the reason for the history lesson was to try and teach me anything or remind of anything. I think it was a rather obvious attempt to say “white people did bad things in the past, those bad things are still happening today, you are white therefore you must be bad and your view can be ignored or maligned”. I’m struggling to see in the context of that discussion what the purpose was if not that. I may well be wrong but Margin had ample opportunity (and still does now) to say that it wasn’t what they meant or intended and to clarify.
I don’t think it is wise or helpful to let the racists’ position dictate what should or should not be challenged, I don’t think it leads us anywhere good. You are absolutely right that calling it when you see it has risks but I believe it is far worse to leave it unchallenged.
I find yourself in this sort of Monty Python paradox. Someone who is vehemently against racism (Margin) says something that is pretty obviously prejudicial and racist themselves (but against whites) and anyone who calls them on it (me) is now, by definition, a racist themselves. Even though I alsoagree with the original vehement position on racism against non-whites.
So when I said
and you replied
you were agreeing with me? That seems a perverse usage.
Then there is no common ground here. What you say here was not unexpected but it is depressing nonetheless. I’m fundamentally opposed to your position and seeing as, by your own admission, you’ll discount my opinion on any topic for which I don’t fit your defined demographic there is literallyliterally nothing left for me to say to you.