How can you fight that of which you are ignorant? (dismantling racism) (long, sorry)

Great Debates
241

Firstly, there seems to be this trend on the Dope of having a unified consensus opinion surround one dissenting opinion and if that dissenting opinion does not somehow admit or recognize the consensus opinion as the “correct” one, then that means they are just not listening or not willing to listen. I see aspects of that trend in this thread.

I am not seeking to be in charge of any discussion nor would I say I’m exhibiting any deficit in listening to everybody in this thread, I simply honestly continue to find issues with the nature of this discussion that prevent it from being an honest discussion of the actual events.For instance, “If you only wanted to listen, why on earth didn’t you just listen?Instead, apparently, you kept making those “continued attempts”. How is that not insisting on discussing?”

I can’t in good conscious respond to this as if its a coherent comment on what I’ve been talking about. I was wanting to listen to his opinion on the subject discussed in the post he shared on FB, which he decided he didn’t want to share with me at that time. But he expressed this desire not to share his opinion to what really seemed to me to be a straightforward question to a straightforward reading of this post that he had shared with thousands of people without a single word of his own, by not saying much at all.

I listened to that. And came away not understanding in the least bit why his reaction was so cold and silent. What I was there “to listen to” that you are quoting me on, was specifically his personal opinion on what he thought might be ways to combat the white supremacist patriarchy. I was there to listen. I ended up listening to words that I struggled in the mightiest of ways to understand why were being said at that time and place, in response to what I had asked of him. It was if, in those moments, he had heard an entirely different question from the question I was asking. Or at least assumed a great deal that was never said but that he took to be implicit as part of my question that was simply not present.

And I have acknowledged that my original question to him may not have appeared as having the bright line distinctions from any question of advice for personal direction and knowledge to others that they did to me. I have acknowledged this. I have admitted I may have led people to think that I was in fact asking, in essence, "what can I do to help combat the patriarcy. I still am a bit dubious as to how it isn’t at least slightly able to be seen as separate questions by one having the distinct “what can I do” predicate while the other is contructed using the much more general “what can be done” predicate, these to me significantly change the scope of the question. But, as I’m seeing by the avalanche of disagreement, I seem to be alone in that opinion. Fair enough.

I then went to painstakingly detail why I chose the language I did in my attempt to draw distinction between two such questions, and I said in no uncertain terms that "even IF I gave that incorrect impression in mY OP, I have been telling everyone who may have gotten that wrong impression that I did in fact mean it in a way that didn’t involve me or what I could do as an individual at all. It might not have had the proper self-deprecating tone you may have thought I needed to bring, but it was, in essence, my “whoops, I didn’t mean that” acknowledgment. As well as an in depth explanation of why that mistake happened. So why continue to hammer me about allegedly meaning something by my question that I have repeatedly informed everyone that I in no uncertain terms, did not mean in such a way? What’s the end goal?

242

If someone were to ask me this question just because I have some anti-Trump op-eds posted on my Facebook thread, you know what I would tell them? I would tell them Google is their friend. I would say this primarily because I would assume they want an informed opinion, not the opinion of someone who is not a politico and hasn’t been following the impeachment stuff very closely.

If the person insisted on getting my opinion after I pointed them to Google, I would feel like they either want to have a long and drawn-out discussion with me or they want to see what I say so they can decide whether anti-Trumpism is a cause worth caring about. Can’t you understand why someone wouldn’t want to play either of these games? No one wants to be pulled into a discussion against their will and no one wants their opinions to be used to represent an entire cause.

243

Damn, man. The likeliest explanation is that your discussion style there is much like your discussion style here, with the difference being that over there, people weren’t constrained in their responses by the rules.

I’m not particularly seeing much percentage in beating my head against this wall any longer.

244

My goodness. So if I express an interest in hearing his opinions on what he has shared on FB, I must either be “asking out of shits and giggles” basically being a disrespectful clod, 0r I must necessarily be asking out of a duty for self-improvment and desire to help the world be a better place? I can’t believe this. No, I’m sorry, I absolutely reject this false choice being presented here. I asked him for his opinion because I was interested in the subject matter, similar to the interest I have felt in earlier times in my life when being intellectually sparked by something I had read about the human mind, or the inter-connectiveness of life or even philosophical truths first making connections in my brain.

I wanted to hear what an experienced and educated voice who had been steeped in the activist literature and knowledge for a long time had to say about a logical step in the material he had shared with many, many people. I was intellectually curious, I didnt’ ask for any sort of amusement factor (that is fucking insulting) or “shits and giggles”, but nor did I ask as a way to help illuminate my path to becoming an antiracist activist trying to do as much as I could to affect change for the better. There is a giant “excluded middle” between those two arbitrarily determined paths of intent.

245

You’re very determinedly refusing to comprehend that what you want, what you expect and your burning need to have your intellectual curiosity assuaged in a very particular manner by a very particular person are not actually the laws of nature and the universe. Mark didn’t give a crap about what you wanted and expected and told you that but no, that’s not good enough. You just have yourself a great old time telling yourself how you’re right and everyone else is wrong, I’m sure that will work out well for you.

246

Did that. Very much worth doing. Bookmarked.

So now you’re saying we’re all being dishonest?

Good grief.

Seconded; to all parts of that.

247

Before getting into the interview, a quick response to that top sentence there. I also have agreed with the sentiment expressed by multiple posters that I may have been too subtle in my expression of distinction between those two types of questions. I explained why that may be, why I at the time of composure saw the distinction as fully adequate, and henceforth explained that while there may have been that bit of murky confusion in my OP, what I absolutely and unequivocably meant was to ask a general question that did not pertain in any way to my personal potential as a antiracist. I stressed this repeatedly yet I stll seemed to be accused of meaning the more specific, self-serving verson that I would have written with a “what can I do” predicate if I had intended the question to revolve around me.

This is an excellent, illuminating interview, one which shares many similarities with my experience with Mark. But I really don’t like having to say this, it’s not an apples-to-apples comparison by any means.

The above quote is a very substantial quote of that interview. I have bolded particularly stand-out segments of the quote. I see very little similarity to my experience with Mark in the interview and most notably in this quote. I did not in any way communicate in any part of our discussion my belief, adamant or otherwise, that I’m “on the right side of everything” or that “I’m one of the good guys” or even that “I’m not racist”. Nowhere. And I don’t believe for one second that I was “hurting” Mark or causing him to relive traumatic experiences simply by asking him for his personal opinion in re to the (damn near traumatic for me!) graphic description and discussion of the white supremacist patriarchy that he had chosen to put up for myriad to read (and likely want to discuss, remember. I was the very first to happen upon the post so there were no remarks before mine). And either way, he didn’t communicate any such pain as any reason for his remaining silent on the issue.

However, similar to something in that interview, he did characterize my question as an attempt to get him to “do my homework for me”. It was remarks like this that led me to believe he was hearing a different question (which I may have clumisly produced unknowingly) that the one I was asking him. One which had a lot of unspoken implications just beneath the surface. One which I was truly not intending to ask. But, at the time I never was able to know if he was indeed hearing a question I never intended to ask. This interview just strengthens my suspicions that he was. And I was to blame for that.

Another thing I failed to consider at that time was that perhaps it wasn’t the clear cut obviously just a intellectually motivated interest in his thoughts type question to Mark as it was to me. We came at such a question in very different ways, from very different paths. The fact that I was able to have a strictly intellectual interest in the subject matter involving the life and death of real people who had no choice but to live their lives under the threat of such evil was a reflection of my white privilege. I was not cognizant of that in the moment. I was not aware of what I didn’t have to struggle with. I also need to acknowledge that the fuzziness or lack of clear distinction between the question I asked Mark and a more obvious “what can I do” version, may certainly have played a big role in shaping the nature of his response to me. I must thank the posters here for bringing me to that realization.

But what I still see as a big caveat here, is the fact that Mark chose to broadcast the words and experiences and descriptions of this unchosen life in the most public of fashions, wanting people who may have not experienced or otherwise been able to be aware of such realities, to actually gain some awareness.

And if so, how could he expect such interest to develop in any other way than for the genesis to be intellectual interest? Or maybe “intellectual” interest is the wrong phrase to use as a general term here. “Passive but engaged” interest maybe? I don’t want to get bogged down in semantices here. An intellectual interest that lead to an intellectual understanding that hopefully expanded to a moral and personal understanding of their individual interconnectedness to the problem and ultimately a moral and social imperative to be better human beings and do their part to make them world more equitable for all it’s people. That’s the route I’ve been on at least.

I am interested in discussing this experience in reality-based terms. And I am willing to acknowledge and admit parts I’ve played that help answer questions that confused me during the discussion on FB. I am not above examining my own weaknesses and blind spots, not by any means. I am just unwilling to cede to false or fantasy-based criticisms of my actions that I believe I’ve been able to clearly and with no grey areas, defend against and show are simply not representations of actual events.

248

You didn’t ask him for his opinion on the articles he’d posted. You asked him for his opinion on how to fight the white supremacy patriarchy.

It is reasonable for someone to assume that you were asking this question because you were looking for suggestions on how you can be an ally. It is also reasonable for someone to assume you were looking to start a discussion/debate/dialogue. I would say these assumptions are more reasonable than the assumption that someone asking your question just wants to listen silently and non-judgmentally. Most people don’t listen silently and non-judgmentally to honest, raw opinions about anything, let alone racism. And Mark knows his. The problem seems to be that you don’t seem to know this. Or maybe you do and you just don’t understand why it matters.

249

I categorically reject this garbage. Now your likening the worthless drive by comments of people who had not interest in taking any part in the discussion at all, save for making random mean and intentionally derisive insults to me with an unconstrained version of the Dope posters here? Ha. Well, it’s probably not for the reasons you intended, but I’m tempted to say I agree with you! :smiley: But I wont, that is just worthless snark.

And the discussion there bore about as much resemblance to the discussion here as a fungus resembles a rat. Or, not at all. It was Mark and I that were involved in the discussion. The “peripherals” or what ever I had coined them as, didn’t add anything of substance to the conversation there but sure seem to be quite active in the discussion here. Remember, Mark did not echo nor agree with a single derogatory comment made and even took it upon himself to defend me against an accusation of trolling. So sure, Mark may have been unconstrained in his ability to say what he wanted, but he didn’t need any such radical freedom. He said nothing that would be moderated under any circumstances anywhere, at anywhere I could conceive of.

Over the course of this 5+ page thread, I have had a few meaningful epiphanies about myself and my role in this thing. As well as having made quite a few acknowledgements and admissions of aspects of my behavior that werent illuminated to me until it was hashed out in this thread. One such key insight is the blinding role that my comfy position to white privilege has most certainly had in causing me to be blind to my own actions and words in my exchange with Mark.

250

They weren’t really articles, they were short paragraph rants. He linked them bottom of first page.
I would agree mostly though. If that came across my personal feed, I would not have thought “so what do you suggest?” is the question anyone wants to hear.

251

I have come to the realization that (just about!) everything you say here is undoubtedly completely correct. I previously acknowledged your insight earlier but it may have gotten lost in the shuffle. I can see now how my question could have been seen not as a open question on ways society or people in general can fight the patriarchy but as a more personally-oriented question about what can I do to be effective in this fight.

I also acknowledged the high likelihood that Mark’s familiarity with me from all our other exchanges and discussions actually worked against me here by him knowing me to be such a “debater” and seeker of knowledge that he didn’t trust my question to be one of simply desiring to hear and listen. I didn’t have these realizations during any of the exchange with him, unfortunately. But it was in the course of all the conversation here, with insight from posters like you, that I did eventually realize the truth of these things.

The one minor issue I take with this post is your assertion at the top that I did not ask him about the shared post, but rather about fighting white supremacist patriarchy. Well, for one, the post itself was all about white supremacist patriarchy. And the post was drawn to an end by discussing how and why this evil empire would never cease to be unless and until it was destroyed. Then the post ended. It was almost as if one couldn’t not continue on in their thoughts immediately to “how can it be destroyed?” So to say I wasn’t asking him about his shared post is not really true. Yes, I was not asking him about the actual printed words that appeared on the text of the shared post. This I will agree with. But the substance of my question was undeniably and obviously that which was a product of reading and thinking about the words themselves.

252

Well I will read and interpret this post charitably and just assume you have forgotten what the actual events being discussed in the OP actually are. One, I asked for an opinion to something which was not actually written or discussed in the text of the shared post. So there is not way his opinion of my question could have possibly been “he agrees with it”, and not just because that is a nonsensical answer to my question but because it was a question to which there was no opinion to that question that could have been formed from the contents of the post alone. It was a logical followup question to everything that the post had lead up to yet had ended without actually addressing.

It ended by discussing the hows and whys the white supremacist patriarchy survived (graphic) and why it would continue to survive indefinitely unless and until it was destroyed. So one reading and thinking about this would almost automatically follow that line of thought to the question of “how can it be destroyed?” That is where my brain automatically went anyway. So I thought it as a straightforward question to a straightforward reading of his shared post when I asked what his opinions might be for any ways of fighting this patriarchy.

Yes, I understood him to be in agreement with the sentiments expressed in the post he shared. That didn’t escape me. And also, I didn’t continue to insist he give me his opinion. When he said what he said, I didn’t continue to press for his opinion. The reason any discussion continued is because I was flabbergasted as to why he was giving me nothing when I had asked, what I understood at the time to be a straightforward question to an honest reading of a post which was of a subject matter he clearly felt was at least important enough to share with his 5000 other fb friends. I wasn’t insisting on ANYTHING. I was more pleading for understanding.

253

Wow, that is so exactly spot-on . Thanks for that link.

254

If you asked them after I’d posted a FB rant about Trump? Yes, I would.

And don’t be shocked. Be Humble.

255

Im both. I remain shocked that the particular context that two questions may appear in can somehow render them absolutely identical questions despite those questions being constructed with quantifiably different predicates that rather significantly changes the scope and nature of those questions.

I’ve already acknowledged that the questions were not as distinct as i initially believed them to be and very likely my question to Mark was perceived as much more self-interested than i realized which definitely fed into his reaction and my subsequent failure to understand it. So I also am humbled. And shocked at your seeming inability to see any nuance of difference in the those two questions.

256

Duly noted. Thank you.

257

Naah, mate. If you were Humble, you’d have just done what you were asked. 6 pages on, I see absolutely zero humility on your part.

And nuance isn’t a thing on Facebook. Or anywhere on the internet, for that matter.

258

And what was i asked?

259

You were told to go to Google. Instead of doing that, you came here to play self-defense attorney for umpity-ump pages.

260

To use Google. I believe your specific phrasing was “Google is your friend”.

The SDMB is not Google. I doubt very much a Google search for “how can white supremacist patriarchy be overcome?” would even have the SMDB on the first page (or wouldn’t have before the robots hit my post).

Google would have pointed you at Coates and hooks, and not just given you the white liberal echo chamber you were clearly seeking by posting here.