Kevin's Watch

Morning wrote:...because I would be ashamed if I gave a damn about how I take what people say.

Say it in a way you wouldn't have to be ashamed about?

(Oh, yeah, on topic, I don't have a problem with it used as a descriptor. But then I'm not black. )

--A

Hashi Lebwohl wrote:That works perfectly if everyone were strong-willed with a well-defined sense of self-worth. There are many people, unfortunately, who have low self-esteem issues and it doesn't hurt anyone to think twice before speaking. Words can definitely be used as weapons, if chosen correctly.

I concur, and yet I sustain that the best way to help such people is not by avoiding and suckling their fears, thus providing them with a sort of soul crutch, but rather to jump into the foe-ridden pit hand in hand with them until they begin to fence on their own.

Avatar wrote:

Morning wrote:...because I would be ashamed if I gave a damn about how I take what people say.

Say it in a way you wouldn't have to be ashamed about?

(Oh, yeah, on topic, I don't have a problem with it used as a descriptor. But then I'm not black. )

--A

That horse won't run. Too much damage in the warehouse...

Hashi, in case you're wondering , yes, maybe I have read too much SRD. I often write like that

aliantha wrote: It might be unfair that people hear things in their words that you didn't mean to say. But it happens all the time, and there's not a lot you can do about it.

Yea, not a lot. But SOME. Oddly, and sadly, people seem much better at saying mean things that they mean to say, making people hear in their words things they don't necessarily believe.

For instance, I don't like the typing/generalizations about homosexuals.
A lot of dumb shit. But, if I were very angry at someone, and wanted to hurt him/her badly, and s/he was homosexual...there is, in my memory, a whole bunch of vile stuff I could use to inflict harm. Even though I don't believe it.

Context always matters, of course, and sometimes one can't [or doesn't see the need to] control it. Similar to incidents others have mentioned, I got called out while telling a kinda funny story once cuz I kept talking about "black Jim." But the person didn't know that we had "Jim-Jim,", "Black Jim," and " 'Stache Jim."

Some words are trickier than others, but some aren't at all tricky...can you use "fat" as a descriptor of a person and NOT have fat be considered derogatory [even if factual...I think WF was speaking on that]?

OTOH, I think "othering" is getting a bad rap it doesn't entirely deserve.
Because a major source of human progress is that while folk clearly define 'others,' they don't always...and in my opinion even mostly...exclude/dislike/hate the other. Very often people are attracted to, curious about, fascinated by that which is other. Sometimes this is just typing/classing from the other side, so not necessarily all good. But it isn't, by any means, always or only that.

As far as " it's the listeners problem "[as some have indicated].
If I said "Well, I just slap people. I don't have any filters, it's just who I am. My arms wave, my hands make contact. Peeps can suck it up if they don't like getting slapped. Their problem."
Can we all get behind that?
Yet, it appears more and more to be the case that social/emotional pain [and words do much of the work for that, the primary weapon] are nearly identical to physical pain as far as the brain is concerned.
Calling a woman the "B" or "C" word is practically identical to punching them.
Same for the "N" word and black people.
[apparently the same for the word "racist" itself. It wounds many white people to be called that...especially the ones who ARE]
The main difference between the two seems to be that social pain can be worse than physical pain over the long run.

Accidents in speech can happen much more easily than accidental slaps or punches. Talking is impossibly complicated...mistakes, miscommunications, misinterpretations, misunderstandings are unavoidable. And undirected/unintended ameliorates, and explanation/communication can heal.
But if you're running around spewing words that you KNOW have almost zero non-derogatory content or context...you are nearly certain to hit somebody, and "not my fault," "their problem" "too sensitive" just ain't so.
[[I don't exclude myself from the problematic here]].
and if the bio/neuro research holds up, that's not much of an exaggeration.
The old rhyme might have to be changed to:
Sticks and Stones
May break my bones
But words can fucking kill me.

Morning wrote:

Hashi Lebwohl wrote:That works perfectly if everyone were strong-willed with a well-defined sense of self-worth. There are many people, unfortunately, who have low self-esteem issues and it doesn't hurt anyone to think twice before speaking. Words can definitely be used as weapons, if chosen correctly.

I concur, and yet I sustain that the best way to help such people is not by avoiding and suckling their fears, thus providing them with a sort of soul crutch, but rather to jump into the foe-ridden pit hand in hand with them until they begin to fence on their own.

well thank goodness that you know what is best for everyone.

I guess being arrogant is much easier than being polite?

sgt.null wrote:

Morning wrote:

Hashi Lebwohl wrote:That works perfectly if everyone were strong-willed with a well-defined sense of self-worth. There are many people, unfortunately, who have low self-esteem issues and it doesn't hurt anyone to think twice before speaking. Words can definitely be used as weapons, if chosen correctly.

I concur, and yet I sustain that the best way to help such people is not by avoiding and suckling their fears, thus providing them with a sort of soul crutch, but rather to jump into the foe-ridden pit hand in hand with them until they begin to fence on their own.

well thank goodness that you know what is best for everyone.

I guess being arrogant is much easier than being polite?

Being polite is sometimes a form of arrogance, with the added malus of dissimulation. In context.

Morning wrote:

sgt.null wrote:

Morning wrote: I concur, and yet I sustain that the best way to help such people is not by avoiding and suckling their fears, thus providing them with a sort of soul crutch, but rather to jump into the foe-ridden pit hand in hand with them until they begin to fence on their own.

well thank goodness that you know what is best for everyone.

I guess being arrogant is much easier than being polite?

Being polite is sometimes a form of arrogance, with the added malus of dissimulation. In context.

I can agree with that. There is such thing as condescension in appeasement. But, that said, it is not always the go to mode.

Ananda wrote:I can agree with that. There is such thing as condescension in appeasement. But, that said, it is not always the go to mode.

Evidently, there must be balance. And balance is not having all the good things, nor having all the bad things, but rather introducing elements of order when there is too much chaos, and some chaos when stuff just seems too calm.

People seem to strive in search of some chimeric reality where everything every day has no flip side, but that is both unfeasible and undesirable. You need contrast, and what better way to find it than being your own radar.

Now this applies to the current topic. What I am getting at is, use "politeness" and "brutality" at your own discretion. Dogma doesn't serve any good purpose where interpersonal relationships are concerned.

or keep it to yourself. you missed that option.

There is no question that "the dumb black guy" will be taken badly by blacks. IMO, rightly so. I don't see the need for the word in that sentence. Unless there's a white/Asian/Hispanic guy who's known to be dumb who might confuse the issue, it sounds like denigrating blacks to me. Putting the word into that sentence will cause hard feelings. You'll lose friends. Anybody can shout that it's the person's fault for taking it the wrong way. It's usually white people shouting that. But if you know you're going to cause hard feelings, possibly lose a friend, and the word is not in any way relevant to the story, why not leave it out?

Fist, it would just be smarter to leave out the word "dumb". THAT is something people should think and rethink about keeping to themselves, the way sgt. was suggesting. I think there are clear lines between three different kinds of context:

- that dumb (or smart) black guy

- the black guy who came (or didn't) with them

- I noticed that one of their friends, the black guy, was really rude (or polite)

Can you really see a reason to leave out "black" in any of the six examples above, other than the worst (dumb)? Does the presence of the word "black" add insult to injury in that one case?

Sgt., personally, I keep most of my thoughts to myself. What seems to be at stake here is whether, when keeping to ourselves is not an option, we should distinguish racial descriptors from other adjectives. I think not, and the "dumb black" example is optimal; in such a derogatory accusative phrase, both "dumb" or "black" fulfill similar roles and should be, if possible, avoided.

People have disagreements and arguments. It happens. Maybe someone deserved to be referred to as "that dumb guy." Maybe referring to him that way was unwarranted. Either way, we're humans, and it happens.

But that's just an issue between two people. Throwing racism into it is an entirely different issue. Ananda, your story shows how complicated racism can be. While flirting with a (half) black guy, you said a racist thing against blacks. A degree of racism was such a matter-of-fact part of you that it didn't occur to you that it was wrong. My boss was telling us about her dirty neighbors. Furniture and garbage on their lawn. "And they're white!" It never occurred to her that everybody else doesn't think the same way. There was even a black woman at the table with us. You were very young, and have hopefully learned some important things since.

I'm sure you're right about at least a little racism in everyone. We aren't as bad as prey animals, bolting whenever something not exactly like us comes into view. At least not all of us are. Still, it's automatic to notice what's different, and be a little wary. But we aren't prey, and we have higher intelligence. We should know better. Some of us don't.

I'm a white male. I never owned a slave; my father never owned a slave; my grandfathers never owned slaves. It's very easy to tell blacks in America to let it go. But my demographic has ruled the world, often brutally, for a long time. We have no idea what it feels like to be powerless. Some really rich black guy, maybe Chris Rock, asked how many white people would be black if they could have his money. I'll bet not many. I'm just saying we should watch what we say, and not let casual racism slip out. People who were raised by people who were raised by people who were slaves, people whose parents were beaten and arrested when they tried to use a bathroom that only whites could use, people who have been pulled over for driving expensive cars or stopped for walking through a nice neighborhood, have every right to want things to change, and are very much tuned into the most casual racism. (Not to say some of them aren't also racists, and play that card as often as possible.) We should remove that casual racism from ourselves.

Fist,

while I find your arguments becoming of an endearing, proactive person, I say they must not prevail over the wider spectra of reasoning, by danger of quelling objectivism over anecdotal sensitivities which having History for a defense witness, always favor the barbarians.

It's looking really irreconcilable. Which is part of Nature.

Best.

If I understand your stance, I would counter that humans are not mathematical equations. The cause of the current state of affairs was not logic. It was arrogance and barbarism. Nor will a logical explanation for why it should be ok for a white male to say _____ end it. The white males need to stop saying it. Humanity doesn't often forgive, and let bygones be bygones.

Yep, you underscored my point way better than I ever could.

Except you don't think the whites should stop saying it? Not being a wise guy. I'm not sure what your position is.

Fist and Faith wrote:Except you don't think the whites should stop saying it? Not being a wise guy. I'm not sure what your position is.

It was just a smartass pun with the row of underscore characters you employed in the previous answer. Such tender considerate care all gone to waste on causes whose defenders are never satisfied.

I think everyone, black, white and especially the grey, should get over stuff along the lines of "de minimis non cura praetor".

Or a 4AM hike-run. Uber-paleo-abstraction from too much deimos with a loose grasp on the responsibility of kratos.

I'm entirely willing to get over it. I think the blacks should too. But they aren't going to, nor should they be expected to, if racism is thrown at them all the time.

And there you go full cyclic redundancy. It is as much racism to denote a black guy as black as it is to denote a white cat as a white cat, but meta-political correctness will go as far as saying that this post of mine is comparing blacks to cats, totally departing into a parallel universe.