Wow, that’s pretty wild. Maybe it isn’t, but I suppose it depends on what you mean by “extenuating circumstances” and what you mean by “comes to racism.” I’m not sure how to square this with your previous statements about listening to experts on the topic.
I mean, if anti-racism is an expertise (and I certainly think it is), then why do ad hominem facts (like the speaker’s race) count for so much? Most areas of expertise don’t work this way. I know you know this, but if the dumbest man alive told me that smoking is bad for me, I wouldn’t ask whether he personally smokes or what his race is before assessing the statement. If my gran (great lady) reads me the Governor General’s report on smoking telling me it’s bad for my lungs, I’ll believe her. If the dumbest man alive read me the same report, I wouldn’t doubt it just because he’s an idiot. That’s how expert knowledge normally works; it’s agent-neutral.
So, honest question, what is different in the case of anti-racism? Is anti-racism an expertise?
You just made a huge post about lived reality. Things can be racist based on lived reality. We are not talking physics here. If racialized people experience something as racist it is ipso facto racist. It is irrelevant if other members of the group don’t experience it as racist.
One POC can experience something as racist while another doesn’t.
If we are set on finding “objective racism” that requires detailed scientific study and psychology. It’s also not really possible on a case by case basis. (Note we are talking unconscious bias, not overt racism).
As white men we need to be very cautious using “objectivity” as a cudgel to reject the lived experience of POC. Our default should be to accept lived experience unless obvious bad faith or mal-intent is evident.
I happened to see the post before the edit, and my point was that it’s pretty clear there’s no interest in my unique perspectives from my unique lived experiences…
(and thinking about it more, that kinda applies to everybody here to some degree considering the 22 ancestry and the counterculture nature of getting that serious about poker and gambling; my default is to not think I’m hearing a Generic Hot Take from a Generic White Man even if, gasp, that person happens to be white and the take sounds generic {imo that makes it even more interesting} and it’s less than ideal that this seems to be the default; it’s like, what’s the point of this forum if we’re going to behave like it’s youtube comments)
…but that’s OK, trust me, I’m not big mad. In fact I prefer it if my posting is like making a diary entry.
Also, that wasn’t meant to be laser-focus directed towards you; hopefully the ‘you all’ wasn’t overlooked.
I honestly think that this is a problem where the blame resides with the people saying racist things, not the people pointing it out. I agree with you that stridently aggressive argumentation is not often the optimal approach. But I am not ready to coddle the feelings of people with racist views anymore, especially privileged people. Privileged people have all the opportunity they need nowadays to fully understand and correct their racism, if they so choose. Even my large corporate employer is telling us all to read How To Be Anti-racist. I think that people with reactive “how dare you call me a racist” attitudes these days are just too lazy to bother correcting their racism so I am not sympathetic to that view. We need to have this stuff in the public discourse even if it makes some white people very uncomfortable.
Cool. That all sounds very reasonable to me. I’m just being difficult because when people say things like “it’s just subjective” or “there is no fact of the matter” this rubs me the wrong way when we’re talking about racism and other forms of oppression.
I mean sure, racism is socially constructed, but so is money, and there seem to be some pretty important objective facts about that stuff.
I am speaking more generally of the racism we encounter in the broader world, sorry for the confusion.
I actually think in a self selecting group like our forum its even better to call out racism because in this environment people are less likely to have a knee jerk reaction.
Both but I did live out in The Country (rural Indiana) for a spell, and have lived all over Chicago, so I guess it might be hard to keep track of even if one desired. I lived in Little Pakistan and some Chicagoans don’t even know a Little Pakistan even exists.
They’re like “What, where?” and I’m like “You’ve never seen on the northwest side that half a square mile where all the street signs change languages and there are green and white flags on every streetlight, and then it just as abruptly changes back, really? Or you did and didn’t think anything of it?”
I really don’t want this to be about just me, because I do feel it applies to everybody here to some degree. Maybe I’m just putting too much weight on a forum of former serious and/or professional advantage gamblers who alsosomehow were, or became, some manner of progressive to hard leftist anti-capitalist, and kept up a subforum going so long based on the politics part… I dunno, maybe it’s just me, but any and every time I hear an “off” view I think about how this isn’t some doofus loading up facebook; there are some very unique circumstances that would lead somebody to posting here and now.
I just typed a whole long thing but saved and deleted it as it’d get things even further from the important topic of Joe Rogan.
Basically, yes, Bronzeville is a “bad neighborhood”, yes, you were totally safe. Unless you were planning on killing some people and taking over gang and drug territory (note that with this first part you already contributed to the crime “bad neighborhood” stats), in which case you were gonna have a bad time and it might not be as safe.
Well, specifically “ghetto” also took on a separate, related meaning, the best analog being the self-deprecating but prideful “you might be a redneck” Foxworthy thing. And looked at from an angle both meanings could superficially seem very similar in their disdainfulness. I mean, the etymology of slang can be really tricky to pin down, for example, this,
is imo not at all what that phrase means. There are two competing definitions I’m thinking of and neither one is that. But this is a tangent.
Essentially, the “did he/she/they put some stank on it when they said it?” rules should not ever be fully dismissed.
Also, grunching a little because I can’t help myself…
…Does everybody realize that something can be/not be racist and still be fucked up and horrible, and that people arguing that something isn’t racist aren’t always arguing that if the Lords Of Racism deem it Not Racist then they’re gonna totally do/say that horrible and fucked up shit all the time?
Sometimes it’s just fucking nerds arguing over pedantic definitions. I was reminded of this with that last post thinking about how for word nerds, finding the origins of slang are like white whales because slang terms are so etymologically slippery.
Greg’s thing is essentially “be kind” and there isn’t an anti-be-kind agenda being pushed itt. I’ve said it already but to reiterate it’s like there’s this idea that if we (I’ll put myself in the we, whatev) prove that the Rogan joke (lol i’m not really dying on this hill, my thing is tangential, fuck that joke, it’s racist, whatev) was definitively, objectively, just a muddled mess and Not Racist then… that means it’s open season to mock immigrants and foreigners and minorities with the Broken English trope, just go fucking wild with Me Chinese Me Play Joke and other unseemly shit?
Clovis posted all those links in post number fuck 439 I think (lol, vbulletin rules discourse drools) about linguistic racism and it’s still kinda blowing my mind that he or anyone would think people weren’t familiar with that and (this is the part I’m actually fixated on {well not really, I kinda sorta figured it out}) that maybe people were saying it wasn’t racist because they were familiar with it and had a frame of reference.
