Re: LOL
 

I have made every attempt to be as clear as possible but you seem to be unable to understand the distinction between a belief and an action.

Just once more: racism is not a crime. It is a belief, a thought, an attitude, condemned by some or most people in contemporary America and Europe. It can neither be proved nor disproved by what a person says, and therefore nothing a person says (such as "some of my best friends are.....) is of the slightest relevance to deciding whether or not he is a racist, whether he is "guilty" or "innocent" of the charge. That is something known only to the person in question.

Rape is a crime, i.e. an action condemned by the law. DSK was arrested on the suspicion of having committed a crime. His guilt or innocence could only be established by a court of law, weighing all the evidence for and against the charge, to determine if he had or had not committed a crime. I defended the presumption of innocence, and disapproved of the American media which presumed DSK guilty before the evidence could be presented in a court of law.

If you cannot see the difference between racism and rape, between a belief and a crime, there is nothing more that I can say. And nothing more I will say.

Re: LOL
 

I couldn't care less how you feel about the libertarian position. That was not the issue, Stephanie.

Sugarkang has nothing to do with this.

You either mis-stated or poorly stated or got your position backwards and then you irrationally got mad at me. That is what happened.

PS. I don't know if you corrected me or what, but I do know your reply to my first post directed to you was this:

...which certainly wouldn't encourage anyone to read your stuff with interest...temper, temper.

Re: LOL
 

Deeeelicious!!! The contempt, the fact twisting. But the schadenfreude has been overshadowed by a high-larious comedic farce! Do continue badhat, wouldn't miss your next post for the world!

Off the subject (sort of), is anyone else under the impression that badhat often emulates a favorite TV character? One of you already nailed the "simple country lawyer" quality.
I have narrowed it to three options:
1. Jessica Fletcher (murder she wrote)
2. Matlock
3. Judge Judy (minus the respect for factual evidence)

I would reiterate my advice to find your own voice, and own your own stuff,
but that would ruin the show if you did.

"Plain language" for badhat:
Own your stuff means admit mistake.
Find your own voice means be yourself.
Ruin the show means you wouldn't be so fun to engage.

Re: LOL
 

Your posts, while informative, seem to be expansions of the original misinterpretation. Not that it's all that important. Your point of view is more interesting than what triggered you posting it.

You are correct, I did miss your overall point regarding singularity as a result, but in my defense I was trying to decipher your take on the original point... no excuse, I freely admit (you paying attention BH?).
But I'm sure both of you will stand by your original mistake. And I gotta say this shit is getting funny!

Re: LOL
 

But you said:
So it's proof when you do it?

Google type phrase correction:
Did you mean:
Adding the [it] changed the meaning quote!!!!!! Priceless!!!!

Re: LOL
 

I guess I now have my answer:
Badhad reads words that are not there to make our posts mean whatever she wants them to mean. It's not dishonesty, it's some sort of affliction.

Hyperlibertextohalucigenia, I'm coining it. And I'm forming a non-profit to combat this dreaded and contagious condition.

Please send your donations to:
Mypaypalaccount@myemailaddress.org

These people, and more importantly, their victims, need your help today!!!

Re: LOL
 

"Plain language" for handle:

Own your stuff - also means taking responsibility for your own sloppy thinking / writing.

There are several members here who's comments I usually have to re-read several times and even then I'm not completely certain what they mean. Stephanie is one of those. I try to give her the benefit of the doubt and assume she just has a writing style that's difficult for me to read. But in the past even when I've asked politely for a clarification - as Badhat did here - she has reacted rather rudely.

This is a good forum in that there is minimal moderation and yet there are often some pretty good discussions. I suggest it would be even better if people would assume that their first post of any comment is probably not as well stated as it should be. We should all expect to go back and do some editing to be more easily understood. I always assume that if I can't write easily understood comments there's a good chance I don't have a clear idea of what I'm trying to say.

Re: LOL
 

To be fair I've explicitly criticized Stephanie's writing style on more than one occasion, so we do have a history. In this case, however, I was really seeking clarification. That didn't work out so well.

Re: LOL
 

You have made every attempt to dodge the issue.

Are you going to plant a French flag in celebration of your new discovery?

What is it that you purport to teach me? Ceci n'est pas anything fucking new.

Exactly. And why do you think that it's okay to presume that someone is racist because he says, "Some of my best friends are black"?

If you cannot see inconsistencies in your own logic, then I suggest reading again. It shouldn't be too hard, you know, for someone of your education.

Re: LOL
 

Re: LOL
 

I have answered this so many times that I can only assume you are incapable of reading. When did I say it is "OK" to presume that someone is a racist when he says: "Some of my best friends are.....?" I have repeatedly said that it impossible to infer anything from such a statement, just as it is impossible to infer anything from the statement: "I deny that I am a racist." That doesn't prevent people from making false inferences--- because there are no facts, no objective, externally verifiable facts, to prove whether someone is or is not a racist. I could say, I suppose, I disapprove of people who make false inferences about what other people believe, but since it is impossible to know what is true and what is false in what people say about themselves, I might as well say, I disapprove of life.

In the case of a someone accused of a crime, however, it is not "OK" to make false inferences, as the American media did when DSK was arrested. It is wrong to believe that someone is guilty of a crime for which he has not been tried and found guilty (or innocent), on the basis of objectively established facts.

You have not pointed out a single inconsistency in my logic. I said I would not reply, but as long as you persist in misstating what I said, I will persist in calling you out. If everything I said was so obvious to you, why do you persist in misunderstanding and misrepresenting it?

Re: LOL
 

It looks like the two of you are trying to compare cases that are both similar and different. In general terms, these are situations where someone is being blamed/accused for having a certain attitude or belief or prejudice/having committed a crime.

Sugarkang is focusing on the similarities: a case of a false accusation, accusation without enough evidence, blaming someone for something that may not be true.

You are focusing in the differences:

1. in one case we are talking about blaming someone for a belief or prejudice (which is not a crime) and in the other for an action ( in this case a crime). This is a difference in magnitude of the wrong and the quality (censurable belief vs criminal action).

2. In the case of the belief or prejudice, the "evidence" to support the blaming may or may not be present, since we're relying on the person's statements and we don't have direct access to what he/she really believes (inside his/her mind). And in any case, not having any standards to evaluate other people's possible prejudice, the "accusers" go by their own personal standards about what constitutes the prejudice. In the case of a crime, there are standards, defined by the justice system, as to what constitutes appropriate level of evidence (proof), without which it would be incorrect to blame the accused.

Anyhow, you can continue to discuss until the end of times, I just wanted to throw in the view of your discussion from a distance.

Re: LOL
 

No, you started saying it was "impossible to infer" when I started pressing you on the issue. This is a walk back from what you previously said. Let's see what you said (highlighted for your pleasure):

To sum up, in more or less your words, a cliche that is almost universally understood to imply that the speaker may in fact harbor racist feelings means, in your words, that it is impossible to infer that he is racist?

Why, you would have to be tone-deaf to language usage to say this with a straight face.

I just did, though I don't expect you to see it. Perhaps, you'll see this:

http://img688.imageshack.us/img688/3334/74cleavage.jpg

And if you were scared, maybe you should ask yourself if you are racist.

Re: LOL
 

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE! Tell me what's in the circle. I need to know.

Re: LOL
 

The fact that a cliché is almost universally understood to imply racism does not mean that it is right to infer that someone who uses it is racist. And I never said it was right , or in your words, that it is OK, to make the inference. I said it is impossible to infer anything, one way or another. So go stuff it, pitiful nitwit.

Re: LOL
 

I don't recall this at all. Mostly I remember talking with you about topics that are sufficiently complicated that I wouldn't consider a request for clarification at all strange.

But then the idea that I reacted with anger to badhat's misinterpretation of my comment (which I did not perceive as a request for clarification at all) is strange to me.

Re: LOL
 

Strange but true: No, I am not saying that and can't see how you got that. This must be some more of the fake ignorance you glory in.

Re: LOL
 

I think you are right.

However, the silliness here is that "some of my best friends are..." is necessary as a defense, given the points miceelf has made.

It's going to be taken as a dodge.

On the other hand, presumably there is some background to the racism accusation -- in Paul's case, the newsletters -- and rather than dodging that with "I have black friends" or "I'm against the drug war" it would seem to make more sense to address the basis of the accusation head on.

You may or may not convince the accusing person, but it seems obvious that the defense -- if one wishes to make one -- should relate to the actual reasons for the accusation.

Re: LOL
 

Not anger. Just stating it as I saw it.

Re: LOL
 

yeah, you're the best judge of your own emotional state.

Re: LOL
 

In comparison to you (and everyone else), whose only perception of that is mediated by a text-only interface?

Re: LOL
 

I would be right with you neighbor Ray, except this was just one more instance in a string of misreadings, misinterpretations, and declarations of confusion by the subject. She, has developed a reputation for this type of behavior. Hence the lack of patience by others in dealing with it.
After this exchange, which may seem frivolous to most reading it, I believe I now understand she is not faking.
I was in the process of figuring this out while posting that which you responded to here.
Reading my subsequent posts down the page (if you are in threaded mode..VB rocks!) might clarify my conclusions on this.

Re: LOL
 

No, this is wrong. The laws in question are racially neutral. (We are talking about anti-discrimination laws, not Affirmative Action.) The argument against them is that we don't generally legislate why people can be fired or not hired. Generally, employers can be totally arbitrary, so in singling out a few reasons that people cannot be fired/not hired we are moving away from this general principle. Plus, it gives a basis to sue.

Technically, a flat tax wouldn't treat everyone equally. People who make more would still pay more. But I don't have much problem defending the idea that that's fair and that it's similarly fair to tax income above various amounts at higher rates.

I don't think you need to make it so complicated. Ron Paul seems pretty comfortable asserting that he doesn't think freedom of contract should be interfered with. It seems a classically libertarian position. (Which, obviously, does not mean that every libertarian shares it.) It's not especially different in principle from the "liberalism" expressed by the activist SC in the early part of the 20th c which led to laws about working conditions (minimum wage, maximum hours, age) getting struck down.

IMO, Paul's problem isn't that he was against the Civil Rights Act, although I disagree with him and his rationale. I disagree with libertarians who take that position, but it seems to me not a racist position, just an unrealistic one that demonstrates different priorities than I like in a candidate. (I think this is what Glenn Loury was saying in saying the position deserved to be taken seriously, even when he went on to disagree with it.) It's that he tried to use that position and his agreement about the federal gov't, states rights, so on, to attract support from awful people and hasn't stood up and acknowledged it or said it was wrong.

Too bad, since it's hard not to like the guy somewhat.

Re: LOL
 

yep

Re: LOL
 

One more time for good measure.

Re: LOL
 

One more measure of your incredible obtuseness.

If you cannot understand the difference between saying that a cliché is almost universally understood to imply something (i.e. that many people infer something from it) and saying that the inference is in fact invalid because it is impossible* to infer what someone believes from what he says, there is nothing I can do to help you.

People make false inferences about what others think or believe all the time. You are guilty of it in this exchange, for example. You infer from the fact that I said that many people make the above invalid inference that I must believe it to be a valid inference.


*Or at least very difficult when you know little about a person, and the belief concerns something like race.

Re: LOL
 

It's not sarcasm if you mean it.

Sorry, that was wrong of me to chastise the afflicted.

Keep those donations coming in folks!

Re: LOL
 

This is a great discussion IMO. I've been trying to get a grasp on it in terms of my own views and this part of your comment gave me a kick - if you don't mind me using it as a jump off point. I'm actually commenting on both threads I think.

I see "racism" as a fear or animosity toward some racially (or often ethnically) different group. (Although it can also be an emotional affection for one's own group at the expense of others.) In that regard it is firstly (and essentially) an emotional reaction - and therefore can cause behavior. By observing someone's behavior you can get clues as to their underlying emotions - be they racist or not.

But it's not so clear cut. Every situation in our life causes several emotions to appear and some of those will compete. Behavior always follow the predominant emotional signals at any moment. That means . .

Someone could have some racist emotions toward certain groups but they could have a stronger emotional fear of being seen as a racist. And so any noticeably "racist" behavior or statements would be suppressed in most cases. Likewise if they had a strong emotional commitment simply to treating others charitable unless they show themselves to have animosity toward you.

Racist "views" are not the same as racist emotions (that cause behavior). When someone says they are not racist they are stating a view. That (stating that view) is itself a behavior. In our culture such behavior is typically driven by the emotional desire to be seen as a "good person" - regardless of any underlying racist emotions. i.e. It may or may not be an accurate reflection of that person's underlying emotion reactions to various racial groups - which is a separate thing.

In a forum like this we can only state our "views" about our own or others' supposed racism. For that reason such discussions are really about what we want others to see and believe about our views - and what they want us to believe about their views on the topic. This has almost nothing to do with any actual racism (or lack of racism) on the part of those discussing it - which are emotional reactions that they may or may not suppress in any real-life instance - or in their forum comments.

***********************

Long story short - there is a belief being expressed in most of these comments that a persons' supposed "racism" is something that can be known by what they say about it to others. The only thing that can be known by such statements is what the person wishes others to believe about them in that regard - which can be a very different thing.

************************

Finally, we are all racists. Our brains are designed to notice any patterns in our environment that could affect our survival. For a few million years now other humans have been one of the greatest threats to human lives generally. And so we are especially sensitive to recognizing other humans (in identifiable groups of any kind) as either possible allies or enemies. Whenever we notice any human in an identifiable category our brain automatically tries to put them in the friend or enemy group. Knowing if they are a potential friend or an enemy makes us feel more secure than if we don't.

For example, if we have noticed - even say on TV shows - that black guys in gangs are often depicted in situations as dangerous to white guys in their hood - then if you were a white guy and found yourself by accident walking alone along a street in a black hood - you would experience a "racist" emotional reaction. You would experience some level of fear and your body would prepare to make a fight or flight decision. And no amount of thinking or "views" that you held about racism would be able to overcome those emotions.

But that's just how our brains are designed. Even if we believe ourselves to be absolutely not-racist - "racist" emotions , such as noticing differences in racial groups and trying to categorize them, can appear in any of us under the right conditions. That doesn't mean we are "racists" as most are using the term here. It just means we're human.

I reserve racist to mean someone who acts in a way to hurt others in a different racial group - simply because of their race and with no reasonable (defensive) justification.

Re: LOL
 

What isn't sarcasm if you mean it? It would seem to me that sarcasm is always meant as sarcasm. It's a purely volitional form of communication.

And just in case I misread your comment, which is always possible because I often don't quite get your meaning...my answer to Jeff was not sarcastic.

Re: LOL
 

So the discussions go on full tilt in the hidden forum. I need to go to a play rehearsal but this looks like an interesting post that I'll surely delve into when I return. Cheers!

Re: LOL
 

What part are you playing?

Re: LOL
 

I was giving you a hard time because SK says nobody gets your "sarcasm".

What I meant is, it isn't sarcasm if you literally meant exactly what you typed.

You claim to be a better judge of Stephanie's emotional condition than she is through a text only interface, as Jeff pointed out, so the joke is one would assume your affirmation to be sarcastic (ala SK) due to it's absurd nature, but it's pretty obvious you weren't.

Re: LOL
 

Julia

Re: LOL
 

Great! you were giving me a hard time because of something SK said. Do you attempt to make any sense at all, ever?

I don't claim to be a better judge of Stephanie's emotional condition than she is. I said she seemed angry and gave her an example of why I thought this was so. She said she wasn't angry and that she was merely expressing the facts as she saw them. I responded she would be the best judge of her emotional state (everyone is, you know) and left it at that. I wasn't being sarcastic.

You, on the other hand, habitually claim to know exactly what I'm thinking and feeling. And you are habitually wrong but that never stops you.

Leave me alone. You're a crazy man.

Or much better, I'll take control and just stop reading your posts. I kept giving them another try, thinking there might be something to them. But I'll be stopping now.

Cheers!

Re: LOL
 

So there's a lot here...OK

My dad slapped me in the face one time when I was on the fronts step with friends chosing 'it' for tag by using eeeny meeeny miney moe. I didn't even know what a ****** was. But later when I was an adult, he told me he didn't particularly like the colored.

I wonder if part of it may be wanting to see oneself in one way or another or convince oneself that one is some way or another.

Except that in days past when it was honorable to be racist certainly what one said about being racist was probably true. So maybe there's a different dynamic when some behavior or view isn't socially acceptable. But how would it have been for some guy in the south who had friendly feelings towards blacks but had to pretend that he did not?

Have you ever heard of HADD? hyperactive agency detection device? Not exactly what you describe above but maybe part of the phenomenon?

I have an actual experience. I was at a bar with some friends on the South side of Chicago. It came time to go and I realized I was going to have to take the bus home. No problem. I got on the bus and we were passing through some of the black neighborhoods that were so prevalent (and probably still are) back then. I had been drinking beer and really needed to debark...which I did, at a gas station. The bathroom was locked. I went to the office and the man there looked very surprised to see me walk in out of nowhere asking for the key. He said "no", but deep down I knew he was just kidding me. So I put on my very best frantic female face (with a touch of irony so he knew I knew where he was coming from) and he gave me the key and minutes later I was back on the bus.

I can remember feeling quite proud that I had pulled that off. And I also remember that I was never really afraid. But then I suppose it would be different if I had been a guy. And I was very aware that the guy was black and that I was white as I'm sure he was.

This sounds like a good practice.

Re: LOL
 

Great way to wake up this morning. Checked BHTV first thing and there's your idea-rich comment. While thinking about it I made the coffee and fed the cat - and so now I can get into it.http://brainwaveweb.com/forum/images/icons/icon14.gif

My wife's father was also inclined to slap her around - especially for "sassing" as she explains it. He was also quite openly racist especially re: "negroes". She is a member of a Seattle play-writing / producing group. I wonder if there's some connection http://brainwaveweb.com/forum/images/icons/icon5.gif lol

You bet. As you know, in my amateur-psychologist way I've been trying to understand behavior as the result of what I call emotional forces or urges that spontaneously arise in the brain to situations we encounter. Two major categories of these forces are what I call social-identity (a desire to have others see us as the kind of person our society respects and admires) and personal-identity (a desire to see ourselves as the kind of person we respect and admire in ourselves). The former is about what others perceive in us (an honor / shame dimension); the latter is about what we see in ourselves (a dimension of integrity). I suspect these are distributed within and across cultures like other psychological bell-curve variables. These are what we recognize as both individual personality and the personality of particular cultures.

I think both of those are huge determinants of behavior (sources of the forces that shape our behavior). But since we can choose to ignore transgressions that only we know about - but can't easily escape how others see and judge us - the social identity emotions probably have more power to shape our behavior in most situations. And so we have evolved to be inherently tribal creatures.

Added: I am currently reading a book that shows these tribal forces at work in a very vivid way: "Murder in the Name of Honor" by Rana Husseini, a Jordanian writer/journalist.

Re: LOL
 

I grew up in the South from age seven through fifteen. I lived where it was "honorable" to be racist - yet coming from the north I had little or no previous exposure to those social behavior-shaping forces. You learn to smile at the racist jokes told by other kids or adults - just enough to maintain your cover. Wanting to be accepted by the other kids can be a huge force when you're young. Even so that didn't always work out as some kids called me "yankee" or "damned yankee" anyway - and not always in just a joking around way - although it would always get a laugh from the gang.

Re: LOL
 

Yeah I think it is. Fascinating website.


"But then I suppose it would be different if I had been a guy." You would have just peed on the dumpster. http://brainwaveweb.com/forum/images/icons/icon6.gif

Re: LOL
 

Poor badhat, the snark only runs one way. And when you turn off the sarcasm everyone is crazy for not knowing. Couldn't tell from here, anyway, crazy man that I am. So SK is full of shit about the "sarcasm" eh? That was more the point, sorry you got in the middle. Wouldn't want to lump you in with the other born again libertarians, I know what it's like to be lumped in with assumed like minded posters (Beavis and Butthead? really?). I was leaning a little more to the right after my hiatus from politics, but you set me straight! Who ever snarks at you is of the other team.

Great sell on the victimhood though. I'm a big mean stalker man and I'm ashamed to be alive now. SARCASM ALERT!

If you don't manage to "take control", cheers to you too!


Oh, and don't forget your other fall back position:

Re: LOL
 

I think I may have given the wrong impression. My dad rarely punished me, although there were many times I deserved it. That's why this was such a shock. To his credit, I think he wanted to be sure I never used such a vile word. Neither do I think that he was a racist...certainly not in an extraordinary way. But I could be being defensive.

I've known very few white racists in my life. In fact, one of the few racial incidents I've ever witnessed, complete with racial invective, was between some Mexican kids and a couple of black guys walking with a white girl.

The reason for this, of course, is that I have no racist tendencies so nothing racially unseemly ever happens in my sphere. :)