I mentioned earlier my observation that people talk about all kinds of different things all sort of intermixed with the others when it comes to whether something is “racist” or not.
Outrageous, intolerable, indecent… are you saying that you think sending a KKK-themed image in order to tell a legislator who in fact IS a black woman (a curious distinction, I think) that you don’t like her behavior is: totally fine? Bad but only a little? Really quite bad, but just not outrageously bad in the constructed legal tort sense?
Like I said before, it seems to me like there’s not really much to argue about if you think it’s bad, but bad in a slightly different and less way than others. We all think it’s bad, and that’s good. And then it seems we’re taking a very roundabout way to get there if what you think is that there isn’t even anything disagreeable about it. Either way, it doesn’t seem like it would matter what anyone else thinks about what if somebody sent a John Oliver tape, etc.
If I read your post #36 correctly, had this email been sent without the image, you would assume they did so in good faith. But because they included the image, you are sure they are acting in bad faith - the political message is demoted to a mere “guise”.
Whereas I see the inclusion of an image as matching the message… it fits. The author could have used written imagery (described the Klansman with words) and I don’t understand how it would have been any less offensive, unless the recipient had some sort of PTSD trigger when she thinks about the KKK, which might have been avoided if she didn’t read the email. While that is possible I think it’s not something I would expect a reasonable person to be aware of, and not something I see myself faulting the author for, seeing as comparisons to racists and terrorists is a protected form of political criticism, the recipient is a politician, and people have the right to criticize their politicians directly.
‘Sending a KKK themed image to tell a Black legislator you don’t like her abortion stance’ is not nuanced enough for me to say it’s okay or not okay.
Emailing a KKK themed image with captions to tell a Black legislator you think her abortion stance is like the KKK’s abortion stance (hence the KKK themed image), seems insensitive and adversarial, and in this case probably untrue, but I don’t think it is outrageous, indecent, a threat of violence, or otherwise sufficient for damages and a restraining order.
Given the length of the thread up to this point, I think the point you’re sort of eliding here is maybe not one we can take for granted. “Nobody” would want to get it, OK. One person in the whole world did. It is so obvious that you aren’t bothering to state which specific things about the message were insensitive to her. Right? I mean it’s not exactly a “everyone hates Mondays” kind of situation.
What you, a non-Black woman, think is “indecent” or “outrageous” doesn’t really signify. She says she perceived it as a threat, that she is literally shaken and in fear for her life.
Well, I’ve explained pretty clearly the aspects of this action that I find objectionable. I’m not sure my repeating all my previously-made points would tell you anything more.
Not necessarily: it would depend on the wording, on the context and the messaging. What I argued in post #36 was simply that it would be possible to sincerely criticize a Black legislator’s position on the grounds that it was unintentionally supporting a KKK agenda, without necessarily conveying a racist, threatening or intimidating message.
It likely wouldn’t. What you seem to be consistently missing in your obsessing over these nuances is the fundamental point that in any such message it is completely unnecessary and gratuitous to include any allusion whatsoever, graphical or verbal or in any other form, to the deliberately terroristic physical appearance/gestures/symbolism of Klansmen/Nazis.
You are tying yourself up in knots trying to come up with some superficial modification of the message that will somehow make such an unnecessary and gratuitous act of aggressive offensiveness excusable. You’re not succeeding.
Okay, that helps to clarify your position in my eyes.
That’s not the point I’m missing. I’ll admit in an instant that the allusion to KKK/Nazi symbolism is unnecessary and gratuitous. It’s the other premise I’m missing, and would object to,
This email contains unnecessary and gratuitous allusion to racist symbolism
???
Therefore, the email is outrageously, intolerably indecent / the email is certain or substantially certain to cause emotional harm / the email is what the law calls willful intimidation by threat of violence due to race / the email warrants a restraining order / the author should be liable for damages
Fine. I can spell it out for you, though I don’t know what good it will do.
There are thus two possibilities. The person did so unknowingly, or the person was trying to send a racist message using deliberately violent imagery.
The former can be ruled out because it is very unlikely and, in the rare case it was true, they would have apologized once they saw all the hubbub. Non racist people don’t want to be perceived as racist.
Thus we can conclude that the gratuitous violent racist imagery was intentional.
Someone wouldn’t include violent racist imagery if the goal wasn’t to imply a threat. There’s plenty of nonviolent racist imagery out there.
So what is your counter argument? Why did they unnecessarily reference and include KKK imagery? What do you think the meaning was? Why would someone do something that the majority of people would consider racist and threatening other than to be racist and threatening?
And, on a more personal note, why do you seem to think you know so much about racism, more than people who have actually experienced it or studied it? Why do you seem unwilling on this topic to defer to the knowledge of experts?
Unnecessary and gratuitous allusion to the symbolism of racist terrorist groups, directed particularly and specifically to a member of a group historically (and currently) targeted by such groups, is outrageously, intolerably indecent and is by its very nature harmful.
Not being a lawyer, I can’t accurately predict what the courts may or should decide about associated legal culpability, but as a layperson it doesn’t seem at all unreasonable to me for the recipient to take the sender to court for it.
I really am not getting why you seem to find this argument so difficult to grasp, or why you can’t seem to remember more than an isolated piece of it at a time.
I think the point is that you can address it in that thread. (If you want to; if you think more comments there would be redundant, I understand that. You’ve certainly already made your thoughts clear there!)
