Thank you for chiming in (seriously).
It’s helpful, isn’t it, when a demur comes from someone nominally on the same side? It helps undermine the unstated, “Well, you’re a liberal; of COURSE you’d say that.”
In this case, I think there’s not too much debate. If someone wanted to display, say, the 7th Panzer Division insignia in a context that made it clear your admiration was for Rommel, I think a case can be made. But the swastika has no such saving grace, and objecting to it is not PC. It is, I would argue, simply C.
I’m curious…
Let’s say my neighbor decides to fly the Confederate flag. If it “PC” for me to take offense without asking him about his intentions first? Or is it acceptable fo me to assume that he’s flying it to honor an offensive cause (whether it be slavery or Jim Crow), simply beause that’s what the symbol has come to represent in modern times.
If your answer is that my reaction is indeed “PC run amok”, I would argue that isn’t fair. A person can fly the swastika for innocuous reasons–honoring their Buddhist faith being one of them. If it is “C” to be bothered by a swastika, it should be “C” to be bothered by a Confederate flag too.
You misunderstood me; or I didn’t explain it well enough. In the context of this discussion (i.e., how the term “racist” affects someone’s career) it doesn’t so much matter whether GA knew the term was racist or not. The result of him saying it was that he got labeled a racist, and he got the boot.
At the risk of corrupting this thread into something nauseatingly polite and harmonious, I agree with Bricker on this and thank you HurricaneDitka 
Tea is ready, gentlemen. If you will don your crumpet gloves, we will meet in the imbroglio.
I simply don’t think you’re going to change anyone’s hearts or minds by calling them or their behavior “assholish”.
Perhaps if we emphasized all the positives of such behavior?
So it’s just the word? Then how about rude, or obnoxious, or discourteous?
In the 1970’s we, as a society, allowed the Nazis to march in Skokie. Now, you’re suggesting that one shouldn’t fly a flag where anyone who could be offended might even see it. As if the entire country should be a safe space.
I wonder how we got to this point.
What are you talking about? In the 70s we allowed Nazis to march. In the present we allow Nazis to fly Nazi flags on their property. I support allowing both, per the 1st amendment. In the 70s, we also allowed people to criticize the Nazi marchers. And in the present, we allow people to criticize Nazi flag-flyers. I’m saying that flying such a flag deserves criticism.
What does that have to do with “safe spaces”? Do Nazis need safe spaces so they can fly their flags without criticism?
I have no idea what your point has to do with what I’m saying.
Because you said that people shouldn’t fly an offensive flag “where anyone could see it.”
Seems like you’re arguing for safe spaces, to me. If I’m wrong, I’m sure you’ll correct me. Sigh.
The thing is, you have the advantage (one might say “privilege”) of being able to give people in these situations the benefit of the doubt. After all, if you’re wrong, and they really are racist… well, it’s not really going to hurt you directly, is it? That guy who seemed a little weird about blacks, but was probably okay - well, one day you find out that he beat the shit out of a black guy for looking at a white woman “wrong.” You say, “Well, fuck that guy, I’m not hanging out with him any more,” and that’s the extent of it. Because you’re not the one who got the beat down.
Or, to give you an example from someone I know in real life. I have an ex-boyfriend who’s a transguy. He was born female, but now identifies as a man. He works for a major California tech company, one that prides itself on its progressive culture and diverse campus. When we started dating, he was out socially as trans, but still passed as a butch lesbian at work. He had a boss who was kind of shitty, but they got along okay. Until he decided to transition at work. As soon as he told his manager he was trans, her attitude towards him changed. There were little remarks he shrugged off, a hostile shift in her attitude towards him. She’d been cool with him being a lesbian, and this was Major California Tech Company with A Gay CEO. One of the reasons he chose to work there was specifically because their health plan covered stuff like breast reduction surgeries and hystorectomies - things he’d need to do as part of his transition process. Surely, he was overreacting, right? This wouldn’t be happening at this company, of all companies, right? He figured he was fucking up at work somehow. Then his performance reviews plummeted, but were filled with obscure and sometimes contradictory criticisms. He stated getting assigned more work, with less resources to complete it, and the uncompleted tasks would be used to drive down his performance reviews further. He got put on report, which is the first step towards firing. The last straw was when he was told, point blank, “You have to figure out what is more important to you. Your job, or transitioning.” Which statement, incidentally, is a direct violation of both corporate policy and California law.
That’s when he went to HR, but he hadn’t documented anything, because none of it had been a “smoking gun” up until that last bit, which he couldn’t prove. If he hadn’t given her the benefit of the doubt - if he hadn’t been worried about “getting her fired” over a mistaken allegation, he’d have gone to HR sooner. Instead, he gave his manager the benefit of the doubt, just like you would, and it almost ruined his career. He ended up writing a letter directly to the CEO, and in a week, he was transferred to a different department and his old manager demoted. (Six months later she was re-promoted back to her old position. :mad: So much for accusations of bigotry ruining your life forever.) Anyway, it worked out okay for him in the end, but only because he’s otherwise in extraordinary circumstances there. (He knows several other trans people at the company, and they’ve universally had positive experiences there.)
That’s the thing about bigots. Sure, the guy with a swastika tattooed on his forehead - we can all agree that guy’s a bigot. But outside of a chance meeting with him in a dark alley, there’s very little he can do to hurt me. The bigots who represent an actual threat to my well-being aren’t going to kick in my head with their Dockers. They’re going to sign my termination* letters with their fancy pen while wearing a nice suit, and never once will the word “faggot” pass their lips, because they’re smart enough to know that they can do a lot more damage to people like me if they do it quietly.
That’s why those of us not in the majority tend to be a lot more alert to these little signs, and react much more strongly to them. It’s not about morality policing, or political shaming. It’s simple self protection.
(Well, sometimes it’s the first two.)
As for Sessions being racist, I don’t know. Most of these events appear to have actually happened - both sides agree that things were said - it’s just that they disagree on what the context was. The “KKK and weed” thing was clearly a joke, but a joke about what, exactly? Is the joke the idea that Sessions ever thought the KKK was acceptable? Or is the joke that Sessions is so anti-Pot it even convinced him the KKK were bad guys? It works either way. Did he say that white lawyer defending civil rights activists was a disgrace to his race, or did he say some people were saying it? Did he say it in a way that implied he kind of agreed with “some people?” At the very least, Sessions seems to have a knack for saying things ambiguously enough that lots of people around him consistently take his meaning completely wrong. At most, he’s a genuine racial bigot.
Which is he? I have no idea. I kinda lean toward bigot, but that’s probably my own biases showing. If he were my goofy old uncle Jeff**, and I had to decide to invite him over for Thanksgiving, I’d give him a pass and invite him over. Attorney General of the United States is a headier position. It is, I think, a place where “appearance of impropriety” is important. Maybe Jeff Sessions isn’t a racist. But if he is, it’s going to be really bad for black people. Most black people, I suspect, would prefer to take a pass on Jeff Sessions - just in case. But it’s not in their control. It’s up to a bunch of old white guys. And even if they know - absolutely know beyond a shadow of a doubt - that Sessions is completely not racist in any way… By giving him the office, they’re telling black people, again, that their concerns don’t matter.
This is a big part of why you guys struggle to get minority voters any more. You guys have got dozens of people just as qualified (by your own standards, not mine!) to fill that position, who don’t have any racist baggage at all. Pick one of those guys. What does it cost you? And what does it get you? Don’t think of doing it to placate whiny liberals - think of doing it to placate future black Republicans.
*Er, that’s “termination” as in “firing me,” not “termination” as in “loading me onto a cattle cart.” My outlook on the Trump administration isn’t that bleak. But, uh… ask me again in 2020.
**As it turns out, I do have a goofy uncle Jeff. So far as I know, he’s never said or done anything remotely bigoted. He does, however, have (we estimate) somewhere around a quarter million dollars in loose change stashed around his house.
I said to fly such a flag is highly rude and obnoxious. What does that have to do with safe spaces? And do you really disagree that it’s obnoxious to fly, say, a flag that says “niggers go back to Africa”?
I honestly don’t understand what “that’s highly obnoxious” has to do with safe spaces.
I now think I understand what you meant, but I still disagree.
The Skokie march was about ensuring that the Nazis were permitted to march in just the same way as any other group – that is, that the government actions concerning parade permits was exercised in a content-neutral way.
That, indeed, should be true today.
But in discussing the Skokie march, I am perfectly comfortable in saying that they should not have marched where anyone could see them: not as an expression of governmental restriction, but as an expression of aspirational human behavior.
Miller, if folks still don’t understand the objection to Sessions after reading your wonderful post, I don’t know what would convince them.
I agree, 100 %
“Aspirational human behavior”? This isn’t Oprah, Dr. Phil, Joel Osteen, or one of those so called self-help books at the airport.
Paraphrasing:
“People shouldn’t fly an offensive (who decides what is offensive?) flag where anyone might see it?”
There is no supporting argument, it’s practically a declaration of fact. How is that a debate, let alone a Great one?
In this forum we often debate issues of morality. This particular point of discussion appears to be a debate, since you seem to disagree that it’s reasonable to call someone who flies a Nazi swastika flag obnoxious, rude, discourteous, or other negative terms. I think it’s reasonable because flying such a flag sends a message of hate, that the targets of the hate symbol are thought of as lesser/undesirable, and such a message is very obnoxious at the very least.
You are certainly free to disagree, but I haven’t really figured out what you actually disagree with. Do you disagree with the mere thought that such an action is obnoxious? Do you disagree that it’s reasonable to say so to someone who flies such a flag? Something else?
Part of the problem might be a mild ambiguity in the word “shouldn’t.”
You’re using “shouldn’t” in the same way as we shouldn’t say the F-word in front of grandma, while he may be seeing “shouldn’t” in the same way we shouldn’t cross the street when the “Don’t Walk” sign is showing – i.e., it’s an infraction of the law.
I think it’s quite clear here that you aren’t saying “Flying the Nazi flag should be illegal,” but only saying, “Boy, what a damned crass thing for anyone to do.”
It’s true, of course, that these kinds of statements lend themselves to argument by assertion, and at it’s heart, that’s exactly what I offered.
But there are issues in human interaction that produce good faith defense of both sides: “I learn that my best friend’s wife is cheating on him; do I reveal this?” is the kind of question in which strong opinions may exist in support of either option, and no consensus can be said to exist in polite society to compel one answer over another.
But in my opinion, polite society would be essentially unanimous on the Nazi flag question. I’m not really sure how to cite it except by observing reactions to Nazi regalia in other circumstances and arguing from those inferences.